Where chaos stops and more chaos ensues. Where Filia plays the electric keyboard.
Where anything goes.
-//o_O\\7 *Home of the Awful, Mediocre and Pathetic* -//u_u\\7
|
|
Where chaos stops and more chaos ensues. Where Filia plays the electric keyboard. Where anything goes. -//o_O\\7 *Home of the Awful, Mediocre and Pathetic* -//u_u\\7 |
|
|
Saturday, September 11, 2004 A rather unhumorous riddle to start off my little commentary. Q. What is the difference between Charlotte and a terrorist? A. A terrorist will usually be willing to negotiate with you. Oh, right. As you may have guessed from the date and the lousy joke, not to mention from the circumstances of recent events, the topic of my little commentary today is terrorism. This past week, a gang of bloodthirsty fighters held an entire school in Ossetia in Russia to hostage and killed many of them regardless of age or gender. And just yesterday a car bomb rocked the Australian embassy in Indonesia. What's going on. Or, to sound a little more emphatic, just what the bloody hell is going on? Terrorism. Those who advocate negotiation (or, at least, some form of peaceful discussion) with suspected and blatantly obvious terrorist groups tend to claim that the privileged West needs to actually understand the situation facing the people who turn to, or actively support terrorism, and address the root causes rather than attack the symptoms. But what can be done when, in places such as Russia (Chechnya), Philippines (the MILF), Indonesia (Aceh) and Britain (the IRA), people just want to break away from your country without giving a damn about the effect of their actions on the majority? What about when the causes of the problems are issues of non-negotiation between the oppressors and the oppressed, like in Israel with the Palestinians or the various breakaway movements in Iraq and Afghanistan under American occupation? Or about people who do things for no reason other than simply out of hatred and prejudice? Could negotiation have feasibly prevented the September 11 attacks? Some things simply cannot be resolved by any amount of talking. Or have those pacifists already forgotten the lesson of Hitler at the Munich conferences? So the hawks argue. But does unleashing the full firepower of the better trained and equipped First World against the aggrieved and discontented, and consequently viciously munitinious Third World constitute the best method of dealing with terrorism. Note how the countries who have taken the most hardline stance against terrorist activities conducted against them, the United States, Russia and Israel, have suffered the most violent retribution from the seemingly ever-increasing hordes of murderous terrorists. By simply applying firepower while disregarding other factors and causes concerning the rise of terrorism in the Third World, it is arguable that such nations, far from winning a war against terrorism, have actually invited an even greater wave of terrorism to swell out, ready to break themselves against the trembling bastions of the west. So just what is the best way to deal with terrorism? Obviously, no one has really got the answer as of now, otherwise we'd all be living in peace and safety. Well, yes, one could always polish off an entire ideology of terrorists with a single, extremely large and consequently extremely deadly explosive, but that wouldn't make much sense when the West claims to be respecting the value of human rights. And consider the effects on the environment, too. Imagine what terrible things might ensue, now that the United States has already set a precedent for such action with their allegations of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And then one could just give the terrorists what they want and let them leave in peace, but to Neville Chamberlain's great embarrassment the truth is that appeasement always encourages greed, and it doesn't make sense to subjugate the will of the majority to that of the minority. Plus, it wouldn't make much sense at all ... giving someone something simply because they asked for it? Hardly economical. I can't solve this problem for the developed world, but I do have some suggestions to offer. For those who wish to dwell (for as long as possible) in the heat of action, my suggestions first and foremost for dealing with terrorism effectively are to conduct an utter disregard for that hideous travesty known as human rights. And it might also help to dispense with things like diplomacy, chivalry, rules of engagement and whatever, in short, since present methods have shown to be ineffective in dealing with terrorism, it's time to be the terrorists ourselves. Nations have already started this practice in the form of disregarding death threats launched against their nationals who have been taken hostage. All kudos to nations like South Korea and Italy for not succumbing to the terrorist threat even when a life was as stake. For what value is a single hostage compared to the untold vengeance an organised army can wreak against an ill-equipped rabble? Sure, it isn't popular with the masses, but are you really going to wait till a bombshell goes off in your city before steeling yourself to take action. Maybe it's because places like South Korea and Italy are already used to bombshells... Next, try turning the terrorist tactics on themselves. Shoot the vermin on sight or execute them summarily. Use NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons and smoke the hell out of them. Take their leaders hostage, hold them at gunpoint and then cruelly murder them in cold blood ... preferably after you manage to squeeze a deal out of the terrorists. Incite the populace to rebel and revolt, turn them into a frenzied mob ready to tear the terrorists limb from limb. Send your diplomat on negotiations armed with a bomb strapped around their waists, shoot the terrorist leader in his face and let loose death from within. No better than the terrorists themselves, you say? Well, think of the battle against terrorism not so much as a war between good and evil, as George W. Bush tends to put it, but a war between the majority and the minority. And we are the majority, and we intend the world to stay in our favour no matter what the costs, and the minority can suffer and die for all we care if they're not willing to put up with us. A little too harsh and cold-blooded for you? Really have that urge to negotiate? Well, as I'm no fan of compromise, I've nothing to say to you ... oh heck! Of course I don't want to be the one charging into the field to battle those guerillas and send them back to the forests. Of course I don't think people should die unnecessarily if the situation can be resolved peacefully to the benefit of both parties (though that would be pretty good as far as the problem of overpopulation on earth is concerned). Now, let's see ... terrorists commit terrorist acts because they want something that the privileged countries have got and don't want to give to them (in Osama's case it's the Americans' lives ... but most terrorists are more realistic than that), so a rather pretty solution would be to negotiate with terrorists by giving them a little of what they want, in exchange for something the terrorists have that the privileged countries don't ... a covert network, and a complete lack of ethics. Try conscripting them and using them as mercenaries. For even more exciting results, try 'officially' favouring one against another formerly cooperating with them, and set one against the other, although doing so might give you the equivalent of Italy's Mafia families. Alternately, one can try employing them against other countries, a handy trick when every major terrorist action tends to get blamed in Al-Qaeda or Jemaiyah Islamiyah or whatever. Libya and Syria have been accused of 'sponsoring' terrorist attacks ... perhaps this is an example of the above in action? Although there's always a danger of the terrorists turning on you due to them being devoid of loyalty, and letting terrorists into the inner workings of your nation's system as part of a deal is never a good idea. Maybe one could demand the location of their headquarters, or have them wear remote-activated bomb belts or something as part of the deal, though that sounds too far-fetched for any intelligent terrorist to agree to. Maybe we should just kill them, since that's all that they seem to want to do to us. They have an unreasonable demand for us, that we yield to them, and we have an unreasonable demand for them, that they yield to us. Unfortunately for them, we are in the majority, and they in the minority. Clearly, there is no more point in debating when a substantial group is so diametrically opposed to your group such that they see no desire in contesting the issue on your grounds, and the only resort is violence. It seems that inevitably, such conflicts will have to erupt in violence for as long as both groups are substantial, and one has a significant edge over the other. Now, fighting terrorism effectively is only a matter of understanding the costs involved in ensuring that the menace is put a stop to, if nothing else, for every moment. And what of the war in Iraq? Was George W. Bush justified in fighting for the deposition of Saddam Hussein? It's a question for another time, perhaps. And I may not like children much, but the terrorists who designed and carried out the attack in Beslan should be given a prize for having so decisively and effectively outwitted the Russian forces ... and then tortured and mutilated as brutally as possible as atonement for their crimes as separatist revolutionaries. posted by Charlotte | 4:58 pm
Comments:
Post a Comment
Disclaimer : The Slayers and Filia Ul Copt and all images thereof are the property of Hajime Kanzaka and Rui Araizumi. I don't own any of them, although if I had a choice I would want Filia ... ~//n_n\\7 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
 |
|||||
|
||||||
