Richard S. Westmoreland wrote:
> "Lothar Scholz" <dummy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:a988p0h8fvi8lqo0h13kqrqekc7efaeg8q@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Yes, we say NO to war !
>
> But YES to the terrorists?
Europe has dealt with terrorists for the last 200 years. Usually, they
were
our own terrorists. We know how to breed them, we know how to feed them,
and we also know how to get rid of them, though we don't like to admit
that, because it's ugly:
1. breed them by creating injustice. Real or perceived injustice raises
people who are willing to fight. On the long run, you have to do something
about the injustice. The real one; and accept that it takes time for the
perceived injustice to wane.
2. feed them by fighting back hard (that's the stage you are in now).
3. get rid of them by letting them exile into another country.
Most of the time, this works pretty well. The exile country should take
care
of them, and know who they are, so they can keep control. Germany (west)
got finally rid of the Rote Armee Fraktion (or most of them) by having
East
Germany "sup****ting" the RAF, and then taking them out. After reuniting
Germany, they were caught, and imprisoned, but the RAF had almost died
before, anyway. Italy got rid of the Brigate Rosse by having them exile to
France (about 200 of them went there). The origin of the troubles in both
cases was the '68 movement.
Sometimes, this approach fails, though. The ETA terrorists use France as
"save harbor" to plan new attacks. The real injustice (Franco suppressing
Basques) is gone long time ago; the perceived injustice remains.
We know that every country goes through all three phases, until it can get
rid of the terrorists. No matter who's president of the US, in order to
win
the terror, he must
a) remove the real injustice (that is the occupation of Palestine through
Israel; as long as the USA are the big sup****ter of Israel, people will
feel that the USA can do something about it).
b) stop fighting back hard. You can continue soft fighting, i.e. revealing
plans and preventing new attacks, but open and hard fighting back (as it
was done in North Ireland or in Spain against the ETA), with "collateral
damages" and new injustice is a really bad idea. Attacking the Iraq, which
had no connections to Al Qaida was an extremely bad idea.
c) finally, you have to get rid of the terrorists in some country that
keeps
them save both for themselves and for the rest of the world. A peace
treaty
can have a similar effect. Terrorists usually are not madmen (though they
act like one), you can make deals with them.
The conclusion is that war on terror is like oil on fire.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
|
