What are the specific ways we can use non-violent resistance to combat terrorism?

Question

Could non-violence resistance even work? Why or why not? If you think it would work, how?

It would be nice to have a conference of the world's civil, social, and religious leaders on the topic. But, since I do not have the means for such a conference, I will ask the people here.

By the way:
I'm sorry to all who answered before when I posted this question. The question was removed by accident and could not be retrieved. Some people had very good answers and I had planned on awarding the 10 points. Of note, many people felt that the usual techniques of non-violent protest (as practiced by Gandhi) would not be effective against terrorist,since their moral beliefs encourage them to kill you. One person, gave specific examples of failure, such as the Christians in Sudan, and the Jews in Nazi Germany.
On the other hand, someone stated that building more public schools would combat terrorism. They would provide education and an alternative to the terrorist's brain washing "schools".

Answer 1

First, we need to understand that terrorism goes far beyond al-quaeda, and even the middle east. Basques in Spain still want their own country. Children are still being kidnapped to fight in 'low-intensity' conflicts in Africa.

Some answers already offered have some good ideas in them. Nonviolent campaigns against weapons manufacturers is one.

It isn't true that nonviolence only works with civilized people who respect you. That wasn't even true in India against the British - they slaughtered over 1500 unarmed people; surrounded and defenseless in a village square. These people were butchered.

The Mothers on the Plaza del Mayo marched in the central square downtown with pictures of their disappeared children. This started the wide spread resistance to, and fall of, Pinochet. Another civilized butcher.

The root of terrorism is the feeling (and often, the reality) of powerlessness. Educating people who are unsure about the aspects of oppression, and to respect others' truths, is one facet of a comprehensive nonviolent effort.

Offering resistance and disruption to the social processes or conditions that spark feelings of powerlessness and disrespect is another.

Teaching people that weapons - tanks on a battlefield or handguns at home - are no guarantee of safety is another facet.

Neither weapons nor nonviolence work every time. Both of them promote more of the same. Which do we want to promote?

My comments so far are very vague, broadly based and very, very long term. Specifics are always the hardest.

There are already unarmed Peace Teams in Iraq. There Nonviolent Peace Teams in Sri Lanka. In the eighties, there were Peace Brigades in Central America. They rarely get noticed in the mainstream, corporate press. Rachel Corrie got some coverage when an Isreali bulldozer backed over while she sat in front of a Palestinian house they were going to tear down.

Gandhi said that generals aren't the only ones who can make strategic plans.

The effort needed to approximate accomplishing your goal would require the combined efforts of many NGOs (e.g., Oxfam, International Red Cross, International Red Crescent, Mennonite missionaries, Quakers, Catholic Worker groups, ...). The prospect is daunting - but not impossible.

Finally, we would need to address the aspects of wealth, resources (oil), greed and bullying that dominate US foreign policy (and British, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Brazilian, Venezulan, Kenyan, Indonesian, ...)

I hope this answer doesn't bum you out.

Answer 2

Non-violence only works when your opponent respects non-violence. Gandhi succeeded in India because the British were unwilling to use violence against nonviolent protesters.

The most successful Palestinian tactic occurred about 15 years ago when they used nonviolent protests against the Israelis. The Israelis were unwilling to use force against nonviolent protesters and as a result an actual peace process had begun. The reason this failed is because the Arab nations do not want a peaceful solution to the Palestinian/Israeli problems. As a result Arab funding was diverted to the violent factions who then took over Palestinian policy.

In fact the best chance we have at dealing with the roots of terrorism is what we are doing in Iraq. The root causes of Islamic terrorism are: Poor Education; Lack of economic opportunity; propaganda; lack of political freedoms; and a large unemployed population between 18-35.

The Arab people have been told for decades that 1) Democracy cannot work in the Middle East (by people who want to remain in power) and 2) that all of their problems are somebody else's fault.

Our goal in Iraq is to create a stable and prosperous democracy in the Middle East. This will result in reforms spreading out into other Middle East nations - which will then remove the social problems that produce terrorism.

Needless to say there are scores of vested interests that want to see this fail. All the other Arab governments see what we are doing in Iraq as a direct threat to the people who hold power in their nations and are either actively or passively working to see that we fail.

Even Europe is against a democratic Iraq. These nations have long 'invested' in the few people holding power in Arab nations for their mutual financial benefit. The Europeans do not want to lose these profitable financial deals (like they did when Saddam was removed from power).

Answer 3

Non-violence works only when all concerned value life. Terrorist on the other hand have been brain-washed, they are ready to give their own life for their cause as such they are not going to value the lives of others. Non-violent resistance will be futile.

Answer 4

When the Arab world stops supporting the genocide of Jews and elimination of Israel and the attacks on Israel stop that is when peace will happen. Until then, the Gazans and Palistinians in the West Bank are better pawns for propaganda for them. This question and these horrible lies and answers here are evidence they're effective. If you really want the Palestinians to have a state then you should have been supporting that rather than their attacks on Israel all these years. Shame on all of you who are promoting bloodshed by the lies that Israel is acting to support terrorism.

Answer 5

As long as hundreds of thousands, or even millions are brainwashed to become murderers in the Islamic fascist madrassas no nonviolent resistence will be effective. There are those who say other factors such as education and poverty are possible answers, but college educated and affluent murderers have often been among the attackers. If mainstream Muslims would actively oppose this madness and clean up their act, that would help tremendously, but this is unlikely for a number of reasons. More than any other major religion, even non violent Muslims believe that non Muslims are lower than dirt. There are only three acceptable non violent responses; submit (convert), pay (as determined by them), or lay your head on the block.
Intolerance always has a bad end. We will have to choose between a bad end and oblivion.

Answer 6

Non-violence approaches to terrorism are doomed to failure. All you do when you adopt a non-violent approach to people who are intent on killing you is make it easier for them to accomplish their goal.

Violence only understands one thing - more violence. And the violence used to combat violence must be more intense than that being used against you. As unpleasant as that sounds, that's the simple truth.

Look at it this way: If a man with a handgun attacks you, if you sit down and do nothing he will succeed in killing you. If, however, you produce a shotgun and start shooting, I can guarantee you that the attack will stop. He'll either be dead, or running away.

And since our enemies practice a religion which teaches that to die while killing your enemy is a sure way to get to heaven, I'd say he won't stop until he's dead.

Non-violent approaches will not work. Period. A nice thought, but no.

Answer 7

Yes by non violence we can definitely remove terrorism. If we can be independent from others by non violence than we can also remove terrorism by non violence. If we attack the terrorist than they will attck more which will harm us but if we persuade them not to do this they might agree. Like Gandhi Ji did to Britishers. It might be possible that terrorist might stop spreadind terroras they no nothing will happen to them at it is a good World.

Answer 8

To fight terrorism, one has to keep a loaded gun and a lot of ammo to defend oneself.

But at the same time, a wise man would look at the root causes of terrorism. Injustice and unfair expolitation are some of the root causes of terrorism.

There must be dialouge with all parties involved. Not talking to anyone won't solve anything.

War will never bring peace. Only justice can. Its not like Palestinian kids start throwing stones at Israeli tanks for no reason, and those tanks fire in return (WTF).

No doubt yupchagee would disagree. But AK1971 said it very well.

Answer 9

I doubt that any type of passive resistance, like the brand used by those participating in the civil rights movement (lay down, curl into a ball, cover your head, etc) would be effective, in fact I doubt terrorists would even give those people a chance to lay down. They would either open fire on them, or grab a few to either torture or hold for ransom (or both) before finally cutting their heads off in front of a television camera.

I think the only things that have even the slightest chance of working are increased education, and support of new technology, as many the countries which spawn terrorists are stuck in the dark ages.

While I wish non-violent resistance would have any effect, I doubt that it would. I think if anyone were to put a daisy in some terrorist's AK-47, they would simply turn it on the person that put it in there.

Answer 10

I doubt that nonviolent resistance would stop an actual terrorist attack.

Neverthess, nonviolence is the only way to eliminate terrorism. As society becomes more equal, there will be fewer reasons for people to become terrorists. Therefore, whatever we can do to lessen tensions will, in the long run, be useful in the struggle against terrorism. On the other hand, the more we rely on military strength, the more we fuel terrorist hate.