How to stop homegrown terrorists?

[003]

I don't think that there's a clear answer to it, because the terrorists have different believe, but more than that, they don't trust anyone other than themselves. But I think the best thing that we can do to stop them is to make them feel secure and that both parties must come to agreement of terms, which as of now, we really can't predict yet. Another important thing is that both have to compromise, not just one side but both.

 

[cyberpinoy]

You have to catch them early. If someone exhibits terrorist like behavior and acts like a recluse when they are young, chances are they will grow up to be a terrorist or a criminal.

Agreed, one thing even a perfect government can not do is please all the people all the time. There will always be someone who doesn't get what they consider a fair shake in a deal or a law. For a real government who does have its people first at mind this would be the hardest task they have to face, but right now with no government looking out for the people who pay their paychecks, terrorism is running rampid, no one is happy with their government, they please nobody at anytime, instead of even some of the people some of the time. because the people they are trying to please are all greedy ignorant people who idolize money and not people. You can never please those kinds of people. they live outside of their financial means and what works for them today becomes a mistake they made tomorrow and things have to change once again. And in all their bickering amongst each other its the people of the country who suffer and even end up bailing them out of their crisis. This is what is at the root of a lot of domestic terrorism. some of them are not terrorists they are patriots seeking what their countries constitution promised them. And then some of them are just everyday home grown terrorists with a secondary agenda on their mind too

 

[krazyman]

You have to catch them early. If someone exhibits terrorist like behavior and acts like a recluse when they are young, chances are they will grow up to be a terrorist or a criminal.

Well said...the whole argument of nature vs. nurture - young people are not born hating western culture it is something that is taught and indoctrinated into them over a period of time. They believe they are serving a higher power when committing act of terrorism (I think) and upon their own death they reach Nirvanna.

That's difficult to fight because you aren't fighting a nation-state you are fighting an idea that is bred in areas all over the world.

 

[Aree Wongwanlee]

There is a solution and the solution is in education. When people migrate to a new country, their new host country must take steps to ensure that they integrate into their new society. They cannot be left to work things out on their own. From what I have read, many immigrants keep to themselves. They start their own schools. They do not get into the mainstream of life in their new countries.

 

[xTinx]

It's a nice question with no definite answer to it. I mean, I'm glad you asked but when you think hard on it, the emergence of terrorists is like spontaneous combustion. It's hard to see the signs unless the government is really that attentive. So here's what I think will work: governments shouldn't wait for people to tell them about this and that, they should be proactive enough to investigate situations or elements that will breed terrorists in the future. Let me name a few situations or elements the government should be on the lookout for:

• Differences in religious beliefs
• The existence of several indigenous/ethnic groups
• Rapid rural-urban migration
• Right wing groups
• Pressure groups in general
• Gangs and bandits
• Organized crime syndicates

 

[Aree Wongwanlee]

There is also one other thing which produces homegrown terrorists. It's the mentality of us vs them. When a person, or a group of persons, feel alienated, when they no longer feel that they belong to the society that they live in, then everyone who is not like them becomes the enemy.

 

[cyberpinoy]

It's a nice question with no definite answer to it. I mean, I'm glad you asked but when you think hard on it, the emergence of terrorists is like spontaneous combustion. It's hard to see the signs unless the government is really that attentive. So here's what I think will work: governments shouldn't wait for people to tell them about this and that, they should be proactive enough to investigate situations or elements that will breed terrorists in the future. Let me name a few situations or elements the government should be on the lookout for:

• Differences in religious beliefs
• The existence of several indigenous/ethnic groups
• Rapid rural-urban migration
• Right wing groups
• Pressure groups in general
• Gangs and bandits
• Organized crime syndicates

your post is very correct, however America hasat least 6 out of the 7 you listed, and they dont have the stuff I see here in the Philipines. And not just the Philippines but a lot of other countries not as bad as the Philippines but they have bad terrorists. But I do believe in some situations those 7 points can be a trigger for a terrorists group to evolve. I think something else is a good leader. Hitler may not have been a good person, but he was an outstanding Leader. He did things for his people no other German leader could do. he also brought a massive amount of awareness to Germans, and the Nazi Symbols he lead still exist today. It takes a good leader to keep a terrorists group together, one who could sell white gloves to a woman who works in a ketchup factory, getting people to believe anything he/she says even if they are wrong. Without a person leading the group they will fall apart.

 

[Aree Wongwanlee]

From what I have read so far, people who lead terrorists are not normal people. They are people with a colossal chip on their shoulders, so to say. They feel strongly about being put at a great disadvantage by someone or some situation. They lead because they can talk. That's true. They can lead because they talk about things which resonate with their listeners. However, I wouldn't call them good leaders. Simple reason being that a good leader would lead his people to a better life. So far, all such terrorist leaders are leading their people to death. Leading their people to doom cannot be considered to be a sign of a good leader.

 

[skipper]

Very complex question with some great responses so far! The answer in simplistic form truly is "integration." Homegrown terrorists don't become terrorists if they feel a kinship or sense of belonging in a place. They have some grievance, real or imagined, that they feel makes it worth starting a fight over.

It's difficult to fight that because, as some have already pointed out, you can offer all the integration tools in the world - language lessons, financial assistance, housing assistance, etc. - but it means nothing if the individual doesn't take it. This, of course, doesn't apply just to immigrants. Natives become homegrown terrorists as well - Timothy McVeigh, anyone? - and they, too, essentially resort to violence after separating somehow from kinship with their country.

If you can find the foolproof way to stop homegrown terrorists naturally - that is, by changing their feelings before they even turn on their land - then you've figured out human psychology, as far as I'm concerned. People are complex creatures and their motivations aren't necessarily logical. Seems to me all you can really do is contain or minimize homegrown terrorism, at best.

 

[Sklauda1]

This is one reason why I am for border patrol despite believing that everyone should have their shot in the USA. Some people are criminals and if they have no records then we do not know anything about them.

My question is, what happened to community? You would think if someone living in your neighborhood was planning a terrorist attack that you would get some sort of hint. Maybe one has to break it down to the basics of WHY they would do such a thing? Is it completely religious? A hate for the nation?

 

[galmal]

How do you avoid home grown terrorists, very simple solution. A homegrown terrorist is made because something or someone in his own country did something that made him/her angry. Dont anger your citizens. Places like UK and USA have a horrible reputation of keeping things form their citizens, infringing on their rights on a federal level with no repercussions to their actions.

It's interesting that you say this, while not living in either the UK or the US. Maybe you can't understand the concept of freedom. In the US, at least, we have the freedom to live as we please - to practice whatever religion we want, to speak our mind, to engage in any legal activity, to live where and how we want. THAT is what angers people - the idea that I pray to a different god, or that I wear clothes that offend you or have beliefs that are different from yours, that my skin is a different color or I marry someone you think inappropriate. It's INTOLERANCE that creates terrorists. I'm not saying that our government is perfect or that our laws are completely just. But the US probably gives it's citizens the most rights of any other country and to blame our government is just wrong.

 

[kd3pc]

In the US, we do have freedoms, many of them. What I find telling in terrorists - homegrown or not, is that they feel their rights extend to the point where they feel justified in terminating life. That life is not as important as their rights. Much of this is taught, some could be genetic as terror and hate between tribes/clans/etc has spanned centuries and cultures.

In the US we often discuss rights and how far one's rights are extended before they trample the rights of some one else. And I wonder at what point do we "DO Something" about that action. Is it when the person "has" the thought? Or do we wait for him/her to "act" on that thought? If we wait for the act, how can we then blame the law enforcement for too much force, not enough force, not quick enough or too quick in his actions to subdue the "act'?

I would posit that my rights, as likely you feel the same, are just or righteous - right up to the point of me striking out at someone. I can speak, even loudly, at will and should be protected by the bill of rights of the USA. But the moment I strike out.....I need to learn control. Whether I make contact or not, I have exceeded my rights and I am no longer just. Similarly, when someone strikes me, I have the right to defend myself until such time that the conflict could be adjudicated. Death of either conflicted party, accidental or otherwise should be dealt with severely (topic for a whole new day).

For the US system to work EVERYONE, citizens and immigrants, must respect that these rights are universal and available to all, with the full force of the USA behind them to protect everyone under the law. It is incumbent on newcomers as well as citizens to learn the laws, certainly these most basic premises the nation was created under. Should you choose to not participate, that is your right - but you may not be protected, nor can you plead your rights are superior to any one elses.

Your thoughts?

 

[Gabriel]

In the US we often discuss rights and how far one's rights are extended before they trample the rights of some one else. And I wonder at what point do we "DO Something" about that action. Is it when the person "has" the thought? Or do we wait for him/her to "act" on that thought? If we wait for the act, how can we then blame the law enforcement for too much force, not enough force, not quick enough or too quick in his actions to subdue the "act'?

I would posit that my rights, as likely you feel the same, are just or righteous - right up to the point of me striking out at someone. I can speak, even loudly, at will and should be protected by the bill of rights of the USA. But the moment I strike out.....I need to learn control. Whether I make contact or not, I have exceeded my rights and I am no longer just. Similarly, when someone strikes me, I have the right to defend myself until such time that the conflict could be adjudicated. Death of either conflicted party, accidental or otherwise should be dealt with severely (topic for a whole new day).

For the US system to work EVERYONE, citizens and immigrants, must respect that these rights are universal and available to all, with the full force of the USA behind them to protect everyone under the law. It is incumbent on newcomers as well as citizens to learn the laws, certainly these most basic premises the nation was created under. Should you choose to not participate, that is your right - but you may not be protected, nor can you plead your rights are superior to any one elses.

Your thoughts?

This is a huge issue with rights, not equality but rights as citizens of a country. People interpret them differently, even judges on the Supreme Court do, so whatever rights one has, one should also consider the rights of the other party. I've seen that the homegrown terrorists take for granted the freedoms they have in Western countries and have abused them. Some were not born with those rights and they were given when they became refugees, so it seems abhorrent that they abuse the freedoms they never would have had to create such destruction.

I also find the Human Rights Act a document that fails to protect people, but instead allows crimes to exist and criminal to escape justice to creates loopholes so that cannot be apprehended. Instead it protects these people under the guise of laws that were to prevent human atrocities, instead it allows others to attack and to escape prosecution.

Not everyone respects others rights, it is human nature and only the law can enforce these rights which is why governments being politically correct are sending out a message that they are failing in protecting citizens rights. Hence the protests are not at the Muslims, but a message that peoples rights to live life without fear are being violated and the authorities can do something about this.

 

[vegito12]

I believe some, may want their own rules and ideals to follow, and when moving to a different country they get culture shock as they find it hard to understand the culture and language on a daily basis. The wrong people are being targeted just because they are asian or muslim and being hated by everyone. The ones in the home country are hard to find or know, as they may believe what they are doing is good for the country not knowing it is wrong.

 

[skipper]

It's interesting that you say this, while not living in either the UK or the US. Maybe you can't understand the concept of freedom. In the US, at least, we have the freedom to live as we please - to practice whatever religion we want, to speak our mind, to engage in any legal activity, to live where and how we want. THAT is what angers people - the idea that I pray to a different god, or that I wear clothes that offend you or have beliefs that are different from yours, that my skin is a different color or I marry someone you think inappropriate. It's INTOLERANCE that creates terrorists. I'm not saying that our government is perfect or that our laws are completely just. But the US probably gives it's citizens the most rights of any other country and to blame our government is just wrong.

Respectfully, I think this borders on jingoism, and this is type of attitude does poison our foreign policy if we let it.

I can think of many aspects in which our way of life falls short of the ideal that our citizens have the freedom to live as we please. Marijuana, gay marriage, prostitution...these things are legal in some places, in limited respects, and hardly are open to our citizens to partake in however they choose.

I would very much like to see a citation for the US giving its citizens more rights than any other country. I think, generally, that will be untrue, or at best, a good lesson in freedom being in the eye of the beholder.

One last thought - Osama bin Laden once addressed the issue of "hating the US for its freedom." He asked, "Why didn't we attack Sweden, for example?" Terrorism is a very complex issue with very complex motives, and I think simply saying people commit acts of terror because they hate freedom is simplistic.