1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

How do we stop Terrorism?

Discussion in 'Law, Order and Defence' started by Jezza, Nov 20, 2017.

  1. Jezza

    Jezza Regular Member

    Any wrongdoer who is taken suddenly dead tends not to reoffend any time soon.
    It seems to me eminently sensible that if someone wants to kill you, and takes steps towards that end; then killing them first is a jolly good idea.
    However, there may well be Health and Safety, ethical or even legal implications in so doing.
    Still seems like a good call to me though.
    Baron Vlad Harkonenn likes this.
  2. Sonic Budgie

    Sonic Budgie Active Member

    Why not share your thoughts?
  3. Sonic Budgie

    Sonic Budgie Active Member

    Is the threat of death a deterrent to a suicide bomber?
    Uncle Mort likes this.
  4. Big Andy

    Big Andy Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Im not sure its meant to be a deterrent but a certain way of preventing an individual committing a terrorist act.
    Jezza likes this.
  5. Bromptonaut

    Bromptonaut Rohan Man

    Even if you get the right man it might be be all too easy for his 'people' to portray him as an innocent. Then you get the wrong man.....

    Martyrs, real or imagined, are the bad guys' best recruiters - See Northern Ireland
  6. Sonic Budgie

    Sonic Budgie Active Member

    At what point do we kill them?
  7. Big Andy

    Big Andy Well-Known Member Staff Member

    I don't know. My post was just pointing out that killing them was probably not suggested as a deterrent method but a method to ensure they cannot commit a terrorist act.
  8. IIP

    IIP Guest

    you can't stop terrorism, the acts of terrorism are usually the response to other acts of terror enacted aganist the so called terrorists, its a perpetual circle, although each side normally doesn't recognise themselves as the terrorist.
  9. Sonic Budgie

    Sonic Budgie Active Member

    That's a fair comment. I do think it's a rather glib statement to say that to stop terrorism we kill the terrorist, we have to identify them first.
  10. Big Andy

    Big Andy Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Indeed. In fact killing them will only stop some terrist acts it wont stop terrorism as some will always get through.
  11. IIP

    IIP Guest

    terrorism is an ideology, it has nothing to do with killing a few terrorists.
  12. classic33

    classic33 Active Member

    Try re-running Operation Pre-empt again. If it'll be allowed these days.

    You come to the attention of the authorities, for whatever reason, your name/details get placed on a list that is freely circulated within security circles. Make better use of the ANPR system and the facial recogition software being used by many local authorities(when it's their property) Both the above were introduced to combat it, but the targets seem to have moved.

    Share the information with other departments/forces. At present any information seems to be held "as it's ours, you can't have it". Then the blame game begins when someone known to one force/country does something elsewhere. The systems are there, just too many are too willing not to share the information until after an event.
    Jezza likes this.
  13. Sonic Budgie

    Sonic Budgie Active Member

    What reasons are you thinking of specifically, or do you really mean for whatever reason.
    It's not feasible to watch everybody who's name is on a list, unless it's an extraordinarily short list. There is neither the man power nor the funds available. Even if it were possible, statisically not everybody on a list can be a terrorist, so you're dedicating vast amounts of manpower and resources to spying on people who are entirely innocent.
  14. jhawk

    jhawk Member

    I wrote this post on my Facebook page in response to this very question, shortly after the London Bridge attacks. Bear that context in mind when reading.

    The short answer is that you can't. That doesn't mean to say that there is not more that can be done, but there are no simple answers.

    Firstly, the individuals who engage in attacks like we've seen in Manchester and London recently, and indeed throughout the world in the last several years, have been citizens of the countries which they go on to attack. So, with that knowledge, extreme immigration policies such as the excluding of Muslims will likely have little to no effect on the frequency of attacks, because ISIS and other jihadist groups recognize that it is far easier to export an ideology into people's heads than it is to export an individual across international borders.

    So, that rules out some of the strictest proposed immigration reforms. That's not to say that there is not a rational, reasonable conversation to be had regarding the matter, but extreme proposals will likely prove ineffective purely from a policy standpoint, never mind the ethics and morals of such action.

    Secondly, if we are to recognize that an ideological exportation is taking place, and we are aware that the Internet plays a role in the propagation of these ideas -- ISIS is pumping out propaganda on the internet at 40 new pieces per-day -- that's a rather astonishing rate of propagandizing, then one solution would be to increase spying of what citizen's access online. But that very quickly becomes unfeasible and ultimately would result in something very much resembling Orwell's 1984. Besides, it's not like national security services around the world don't already do this, and evidently, the breadth and scope of a task like that -- is far too large to stop everything.

    Another point on the matter -- Security Services shine a light and capture a few people before they commit any atrocity, that's great. But, everyone that they've been communicating with and everyone that those people are connected with, will simply go dark. It's not like jihadist-terrorist cells are unsophisticated. This isn't Bin Laden in a cave in Tora Bora. Our security services shine a light, they go dark and reappear again several weeks or months later, meanwhile, any progress gained will have been lost.

    Thirdly, as I've mentioned in previous posts, there comes the issue of what to do about people on terrorism watch lists. Well, there are limits as to what Governments can do to people on these lists -- they can monitor them, their communications, their contact with individuals or organizations, etc. But as far as prosecuting them on terrorism offences goes, they're very limited in their capacity to take any legal action against said individuals. We can't start locking people up based on suspicion of a crime -- because that is a very dystopian view of a 'justice' system.

    Security services and prosecutors would have to be able to prove guilt of a crime, and thinking horrible thoughts isn't a crime.

    Britain specifically is one of the largest surveillance states in the world. CCTV captures almost everything and anything, in any major city and even on public roads and motorways. GCHQ has, thanks to the Snooper's Charter and it's successor, the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016, some of the largest legal surveillance capabilities and powers of any European nation, and probably any nation of the world. And yet, here we are, and there have been three attacks on British soil in the last three months. Evidently then, more surveillance and monitoring isn't the answer, maybe it's a part of the answer, but you have to be very careful.

    Fourthly, a military solution to the problem posed by ISIS and Al-Qaeda can be one part of a counter-terrorism strategy, but it mustn't be the only thing you do. And I don't mean to characterize our response as being solely a military one, I know that the British Government does have other solutions and has implemented those solutions, but this point addresses arguments made for furthering military activity.

    Lastly, you have to address the underlying ideological challenge posed by these groups. And understand that these ideas do not appear in a vacuum, and in fact existed long before ISIS even began it's genesis in 1999. Jihadist-terrorist groups predate ISIS, and the ideas that they subscribe to can be traced back to Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi ideology, although Al-Qaeda and other groups adhere more closely to Salafi-jihadism -- which is a minority-view within Salafism, a traditionalist, literal interpretation of Sunni Islam. There's much dispute among scholars of Islam as to the relationship between Salafism or Wahhabism and religious violence. I'm not a scholar, and will leave that debate to them. Nonetheless, it's apparent that the ideological underpinnings exist, and no matter how tenuous the link between ideology and action, it is a link that is causing great harm.

    So, how do you stop terrorism? It seems to me as though giving Government greater authority than already exists (particularly in the UK as pertinent to surveillance), is a bad idea. Due to the extent of surveillance capabilities already, you'd be entering Orwellian territory. You have to look at each individual case and take apart their lives and find out what motivated them -- was it some combination of ideological narratives, a sense of grievance (whether real or perceived), identity crises, social and communal ostracism? Other factors?

    I don't mean to victim-blame at all. There is zero justification for the murder of innocent people, regardless of what factors may or may not have played into the individual carrying out their atrocity. But there has to be a whole-of-society approach to this problem, a problem for which there are no easy answers, but a problem for which the answer is most definitely not sacrificing our values and freedom for a perception of greater security.
  15. OP

    Jezza Regular Member

    Practically, 'we' ( us on here) can do sod all to 'stop terrorism' beyond talking about it and talk's cheap.
    Preemption does work and governments everywhere do employ preemption specialists.
    Best left to the SAS and SBS is preemption. Those lads are trained. We aren't.
    jhawk likes this.