• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How Do We Stop The Recruitment Of Terrorists?

Geoist said:
This is the question I propose. So much focus is always on how we destroy the terrorists/organizations that already exist. So little focus is on how we prevent future recruitment.
Click to expand...

The way to stop terrorism is difficult, it can be done but requires a non stop effort, rather than a one time defeating them, as another group always rises where the others ashes stand.

Look back in americas history with the kkk, they terrorized people. Today they are not a terrorist group, 50 years ago though they were the textbook definition of it. We ended up knocking them down to irrelevant nobodies by refusing to harbor them and turning public opinion against them.

With islamic terrorism it is much the same, as long as the muslim population harbors them or even ignores their crimes, they will have a safe haven. Ignoring the problem does not solve it, infact pointing out the problem like with the previous example the kkk caused peoples opinions to shift against that group.

The other way to stop recruitment which must go hand in hand with the first way is an effective coin strategy. Often times collateral damage is propogandized as a means to recruit. To someone in the middle east, if an apartment complex is hit with a drone killing 30 people to get 2 terrorists, the others tend to seek revenge. Infact the use of drones and collateral damage is a lazy workaround to proper roe.

In war civilian casualties are a fact, but the velocity at which they occur is controllable. If an occupying force limits casualties of civilians to acceptable losses, and convinces the local people that those forces are the dominent force to protect them, then terrorist recruitment will drop significantly.
 
phattonez said:
So why aren't any of them carrying out attacks on their home soil? Why is it always Arabs?
Click to expand...

Other than the multitude of times when it hasn't been Arabs? Puerto Rican nationalists conducted attacks throughout the 1950s. Before them it was Germans and mobsters. Before them anarchists. Afterwards you had communist groups and fascist ones.

Pretending that terrorism is unique to Arabs in this country is pathetically laughable.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Other than the multitude of times when it hasn't been Arabs? Puerto Rican nationalists conducted attacks throughout the 1950s. Before them it was Germans and mobsters. Before them anarchists. Afterwards you had communist groups and fascist ones.

Pretending that terrorism is unique to Arabs in this country is pathetically laughable.
Click to expand...

In the past decades it's absolutely true.
 
Geoist said:
This is the question I propose. So much focus is always on how we destroy the terrorists/organizations that already exist. So little focus is on how we prevent future recruitment.
Click to expand...

You kill the recruiters.
 
KevinKohler said:
I have read that for many...it's simply the best gig around a. It's basically join or die, due to various factors, finances being one of them.


In my opinion, the surest way to reduce recruitment, is to have these people have something better to live for. Uplift these countries. Drag them into the modern era.

Think about it...how many wealthy business men from Dubai become terrorists? They're every bit as Muslim. But they're educated, and wealthy, and happy.

How many successful, happy Americans become terrorists? None. Doesn't fit the profile. Most Americans are content, or at least actively believe, and engage in, securing a better lot in life for themselves.

Are those same opportunities available to your typical Iraqi, Saudi, afghan, Iranian, etc? My bet is no.
Click to expand...


OBL wasnt poor
 
volsrock said:
Cut off all I mean ALL.... machinery, iron, steel, transport vehicles, electrical machinery, tools and appliances. Motor Vehicle Parts

Cell Phones Medicines Air Conditioners and parts

No higher education offered in any Western Country! No Med School

Take Irans satellite out shut it down

And YES BAN Muslim VISA's
Click to expand...


you are radicalized by the right wing
 
phattonez said:
1. Close the borders.
2. Kick out any Muslims who can be kicked out.
3. No more Muslim terrorism on your home soil!
Click to expand...

What do you mean "kick out any Muslims who can be kicked out?" The vast majority of Muslims in the US are citizens/here legally. Do you have solutions that do not require the US becoming a totalitarian nation that discards our Constitution?
 
phattonez said:
How many non-Arabs do you know that are converting to Islam and carrying out terrorist attacks?
Click to expand...

It is certainly interesting how the region we occupy is the one producing terrorists. :thinking:
 
volsrock said:
WE?

We dont stop it!!! The so called good Muslims must stop it. they must push out the hate preaching Muslim Clerics etc

They need to purge it from with in!
Click to expand...

So if WE don't stop it then I assume you agree we must stop occupying the Middle East?
 
volsrock said:
No higher education offered in any Western Country! No Med School
Click to expand...

So you take away opportunities to get an education and establish a career, leaving young people exposed to radicalization? Seems like that would exacerbate the problem.
 
Geoist said:
This is the question I propose. So much focus is always on how we destroy the terrorists/organizations that already exist. So little focus is on how we prevent future recruitment.
Click to expand...

Kill more terrorists. Make enlistment a suicide pact.
 
Geoist said:
This is the question I propose. So much focus is always on how we destroy the terrorists/organizations that already exist. So little focus is on how we prevent future recruitment.
Click to expand...

From a reports I have been following recently, ISIS recruitment is down and deaths are up. Jihadists generally follow a winner. Well, they aren't winning anymore. They are being pounded by the USA, Russia, and even Iran, and others I have left out. The inflow of new recruits has slowed to a trickle. (as I recall ~ 450 a month down to ~ 50)

As far as terrorist attacks, you have to stop letting Muslims into your country until you know what that person is about. They have to be vetted as we vetted (ex) Nazi's after WW2. They have to be willing to pass a "litmus test" to determine if the applicant will place the constitution of the resident country over the rules of Islam when they conflict. If they won't, then they are going to be nothing but a law enforcement headache because they won't integrate and join the culture. And that is even before someone tries to strap a bomb on them.

It will be interesting to see how the Trump visit plays out. Getting the House of Saud (Sunni) to agree to partner with other moderate Islamic nations to curb radicalism is a good start. They all share the common fear of Iran, (Shia). ISIS is Sunni. Trump is trying to convince the Sunni countries to clean up their own house rather than sit back and let the European (infidels) do it. The sum total of the problem and the solution lies in the interpretation of parts of the Quran, and those that teach it. The Sunni governments have the power if they have the will to change how Islam is taught to future generations. If you look at the map you can see how a "Arab NATO - like" coalition can be formed. Syria is the only unstable Sunni nation of consequence right now, and Iran is the only existential threat right now. The moderate nations have an incentive to work together for their own survival.

Confused yet? ISIS is Sunni, BTW.
Saudi - Sunni
Egypt - Sunni
Turkey - Sunni
Syria - Sunni
Iran - Shia
Iraq - Shia
Lebannon - Shia

A helpful map:

middle-east-divide-map.jpg
 
Geoist said:
This is the question I propose. So much focus is always on how we destroy the terrorists/organizations that already exist. So little focus is on how we prevent future recruitment.
Click to expand...

Take out the leadership, then replace it with people who understand that terrorism is bad for Islam. This means being willing to tell ANY notion that supports terrorism than we will "show up on their front step" with a gun in hand to remove those who are terrorist leaders. But we also have to be VERY specific in who we target. No shotgun style attacks where the non-combatant deaths out number the terrorists. We need to get liberals to stop defending terrorists and making excuses for them (see 4th generation warfare).
 
Geoist said:
I think we've been doing that. Kill one and another two pop up.
Click to expand...

We haven't been doing that. We have not yet attacked them directly. We need to make war them. Serious war. We need to be mounting surveillance of mosques to determine which ones are fostering terrorism and shut them down.
 
apdst said:
Kill more terrorists. Make enlistment a suicide pact.
Click to expand...

And in the process we kill more civilians leading to more people willing to join terrorist organizations.
 
fmw said:
We haven't been doing that. We have not yet attacked them directly. We need to make war them. Serious war.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that called the War on Terror? Didn't see much of a drop in terrorism from that. Actually, it skyrocketed.

G.jpg
U.S. ?War On Terror? Has INCREASED Terrorism | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization


We need to be mounting surveillance of mosques to determine which ones are fostering terrorism and shut them down.
Click to expand...


Violation of the 4th Amendment. Why do you hate the Constitution?
 
Geoist said:
And in the process we kill more civilians leading to more people willing to join terrorist organizations.
Click to expand...

That's unfortunate, yes. But, ask yourself this: how many of our casualties are you willing to absorb?

Were those kids in Manchester an affordable price for looking like nice guys? I don't think it is. In fact, it's way too ****ing high.
 
Geoist said:
It is certainly interesting how the region we occupy is the one producing terrorists. :thinking:
Click to expand...

It is interesting. I'm very much against getting involved in the Middle East.
 
DamnYankee said:
ROTFLMAO

You leftists are hilarious. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

Tell ya what. You don't lump me in with Taxman and I won't lump you in with that nazi that just got banned here.
 
Thread: How Do We Stop The Recruitment Of Terrorists?
Click to expand...
keep the prospective recruits content
otherwise they become prospective adversaries of those they believe prevent their contentment

it should be recognized that asymmetrical warfare is nothing new
Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War in the fifth century before Christ

one member posted a belief that terrorists do not win. to that i ask the reader to contemplate the viet cong. they certainly did not lose

terrorism is both a strategy and a tactic. to get rid of terrorism - and recruits to engage in terror - is as possible as getting rid of poverty and oppression

the Founding Fathers most of us here are very fond of - yep, they were terrorists. or at least that is how they would be known if the Revolution failed. instead - due to victory - we refer to them as freedom fighters
 
Geoist said:
What do you mean "kick out any Muslims who can be kicked out?" The vast majority of Muslims in the US are citizens/here legally. Do you have solutions that do not require the US becoming a totalitarian nation that discards our Constitution?
Click to expand...

Kick out the refugees, residents, etc. We're not going to be kicking out citizens, but it's become totally clear that Islam cannot coexist with the West.
 
apdst said:
That's unfortunate, yes. But, ask yourself this: how many of our casualties are you willing to absorb?

Were those kids in Manchester an affordable price for looking like nice guys? I don't think it is. In fact, it's way too ****ing high.
Click to expand...

If "being tough" results in more casualties... why am I supporting this again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom