Found this interesting tidbit while surfing

[kandrathe]

No, actually I agree with you. I found the article shocking because I never heard of it before... and I never even thought (and never would have thought) of something like that. Nonetheless, its effectiveness on extremists "back in the day" leads to much speculation as to how to reach terrorists because, as you so eloquently put it, there are no short-cuts to [peace]. How do you bring peace to a place where only an Iron-Fist-type tyrant (i.e. Saddam Hussein) gets through to the people? Definitely not with Democracy!

First, the world needs to be very clear on what the rules are, and no one can fudge on them when it suits them. There can be no mixed messages, such as, its o.k. to use chemical weapons on Iran to stop the human waves, but don't use it on the Kurds as a iron booted terror tactic. Second, you need to be very clear on what the escalating punishments are for violating the rules, then be willing to enforce them. Third, there needs to be an incentive for following the rules. In general, people (even tyrants) avoid pain, and do what they are incented to do. They have to know that the chances of beating the system are nil, but if they go along they will be better off.

Justice however is another matter in my mind. Jack had his own style of justice and it worked for him, and while his style of justice might not work in today’s world with today’s standards, there is a lot to be said [regarding Iraq] about cause and effect. Did the terrorists of today really get what they deserved? Was justice served? If our invasion of Iraq has subsequently spawned "many" more anti-American groups in the process of stopping terrorism, then the entire invasion was done incorrectly obviously. I think there is more to be gleamed from the history of good 'o Jack than merely focusing on the negative aspects of his actions by today’s standards. What that is, I don’t know, but I feel there is more there.

Justice was served to Saddam and his Bathe party dictatorship, not terrorists.

The terrorism and insurgency was probably an unavoidable consequence of our incursion into Iraq. Our founding fathers gave us an example of how to deal with the current terrorist threat. John Adams was some what loathe to get into a conflict on the Barbary Coast saying something to the effect that once you attack them you will be fighting them forever. The winner in this contest will be the one who has the adroitness to avoid direct violence and the resolve not allow the other to change their lifestyle, that is, until both sides resolve to pursue peace (Live and let live). But, I fear that the only peace Jihadi's will accept is that of a cold, damp grave. The US of A and Islamic Jihadists are diametrically opposed philosophies. Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death" is at direct odds to the islamic fundamentalist notion of Dhimitude. So, 911 was when the modern USA said "No more!" and finally understood that OBL and his ilk were trying to declare war. We just didn't take them seriously for all those prior attacks. We felt the nip of a flea, but the jihadists were announcing "Look! I'm biting a dog and getting away with it! Am I not powerful?"

Terrorism and the New American Republic

In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunis, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships.

History records them as the Barbary Pirates. In fact, they were blackmailing terrorists, hiding behind a self-serving interpretation of their Islamic faith by embracing select tracts and ignoring others. Borrowing from the Christian Crusades of centuries past, they used history as a mandate for doing the western world one better. The quisling European powers had been buying them off for years.

On March 28, 1786 Jefferson and Adams detailed what they saw as the main issue:

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Thomas Jefferson wanted a military solution, but decades of blackmailing the American Republic and enslaving its citizens would continue until the new American nation realized that the only answer to terrorism was force.

"There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel," says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the bastard," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws, whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million.

"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror." http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm