Whenever I hear tough talk on defeating terrorism, a lot of people seem to believe that defeating terrorism equates to defeating terrorists and getting tough on terrorists and those suspected of being terrorists. Its sounds like a trivial tautology but the two are not the same at all. With rare exceptions, terrorism is almost never defeated by defeating or eliminating present-day terrorists themselves. Unless the population where the terrorist springs from is totally genocided or imprisoned and can be so overwhelmed, defeating terrorists itself does little to defeat terrorism and often times can even be counter-productive and lead to even greater terrorism. Certain circumstances and conditions create breeding grounds for terrorists. The battle against terrorism can only be "won" by eliminating or minimizing those circumstances and conditions that breed terrorists and its supporters and sympathisers. It can almost never be "won" by fighting against the terrorists themselves. IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland was not reduced because the IRA was militarily defeated and all its members eliminated by the British but because much of the hate and resentment in the Catholic republican community caused by Protestant oppression and wholesale discrimination against the nationalist/ Roman Catholic minority have largely subsided. It should be noted that it is obviously impossible to eliminate the creation of terrorists entirely. A small bunch of kooks can perform horrific terrorists acts with little provocation such as Tim McVeigh. But there is no govt policy or circumstance that would lead to breeding of more Tim McVeighs so this type of terrorism is not a major threat. But let's suppose "Tim McVeigh" was a Black Panther who did this horrific act in the 1960s, say, in some State Courthouse in Mississippi due to Jim Crow oppression in the South. And instead of changing the conditions in the US South, Americans decided to "get tough" on the terrorists and go after the black terrorists using heavy handed methods and torture and humilation. Would such a policy have destroyed this hypothetical Black Panther terrorist movement or created the circumstances and conditions which would breed even more terrorists? The above is a far-fetched example but I used it so that perhaps Americans could somewhat relate.
It's kind of a catch 22. If you go after the terrorists (or do nothing), you will keep getting terrorists from the same source. If you submit to the demands of the terrorists, that source may dry up, but then you have just proven the effectiveness of terrorism and you get it from new sources. Since you are going to have terrorism either way, I think it is much more satisfying to go after the terrorists.
I think that we have to realize we are really fighting against Islamofacism versus just general "terrorism." I think there will be Islamic terrorism until there are reforms made in the Arab countries where the Emirs and such no longer rule and become wealthy while there people live in poverty for the most part. For many, terrorism is the only way they feel they can fight a much more sophisticated and numerous enemy.
