• uniquely-ironic said on Mar 18, 2008....

  Misinformation has always been used to fight the enemy.  Subterfuge is also another option.   Martyrdom has been used.  There are many other options other than force.  I suppose it takes a wise man/woman to know which option to use.

• diabolicdame said on Mar 18, 2008....

  Hi Ed.. I completely agree with you that torture of any kind is not the way to go. I think that oppression only serves to validate the terrorist's ideologies in the mind of the people they are trying to lure into their camps. The technique suggested in the article might be a better way to tackle it. By itself or as a part of a larger strategy.
      But eventually I think at some point change will have to come from within the islamic community. The people will tire of the violence that a section of the community creates but for which all of them are blamed. In any case there needs to be some lasting solution to terrorism. We simply cannot live in a world where so many people are dying of this menace and even more are living in fear.

• curmudgeon said on Mar 18, 2008....

  silver - as a staunch Bush supporter I'm not assuming the utility of waterboarding. I'm for it if it's effective, willing to discard it if it isn't, and perfectly willing to discuss options. What I'm NOT willing to do is keep a tool out of an investigator's array of options on the principle that it's morally "wrong".
   
  That said, sowing discord is just one tactic we can use to confuse the enemy. If this is our only avenue of approach, our opponents will simply devise a more secure means of getting their message out.
   
  Another tactic is to gather information accurate enough to foil plots, capture leaders and kill operators before they get a chance to act. These very likely require getting those we have in custody to talk.
   
  It ought to be obvious that all of these tactics need to be used simultaneously,  which is exactly what the Bush Administration is doing.

• kelly said on Mar 21, 2008....

  Always interesting to see someone openly admit his sociopathy.  On the other hand, curm, you're probably 'morally' opposed to abortion, aren't you?

• kelly said on Mar 22, 2008....

  Back on topic, it's great to finally see some brainwork going into the problem rather than the idiotic approach Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld et. al. got us into.  What the article does not address, however, is why do people want to attack us?  I don't mean that in some kind of whining gee-America-is-so-great-why-would-anyone-want-to-hurt-us sort of way but rather as a real inquisitiveness into why these people want to attack.  I'm sure it's for more reasons than we'll ever know, but knowing the real (honest) reasons would go much further toward providing a real solution.
  
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 24, 2008....

  u-i: i agree, it takes wisdom to discern the correct path.
  
  diabolicdame: i'm right with you about that, as you might've guessed. :>
  
  curm: it's far from obvious that morally indefensible things should in fact be matters of policy to me.
  
  kelly: why do they want to attack us? you mean, apart from our long and inglorious history in meddling everywhere, our mere presence being perceived as some kind of affront to allah, our ongoing support for israel and general "godlessness"? i'm fairly certain the article doesn't want to open that can of worms, man.
  
  ed

Comment on "a different way to fight terrorism"

Currently tagged	national security politics terrorism terrorists (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment