Of Course Terrorism Can Be Stopped

[dblack]

Tom,

Please have a look at some history... Your solution will only make the problem worse... It is clueless...

Your methods have been tried before and failed miserably... The Brits couldn't defeat the IRA and they where close, spoke the same language... At one point they had 8,000 troops stationed in South Armagh among 24,000 population and they still couldn't take down the local IRA Brigade.

At the moment Islamic Terrorists kill far more Muslims than Christians. You want to commit war crimes (killing innocent Muslims) and then look for Moderate Muslim support... You will not get it...You will increase their support network went actually you should be trying to reduce it...

Show me where your methods have ever worked?

"my methods" are very selective and have worked many times throughout history. You can cherry-pick examples of when they didn't until the cows come home but it doesn't change anything. The Brits never capped IRA parents. The French never did that in Angola either. What's the difference between a muslim father murdering his daughter for showing her legs or refusing to be sold in marriage to the highest bidder, and putting a bullet in his head for raising a terrorist? Hang the mother of the Manchester baby-bomber in Trafalgar Square and the muslim world will get the picture loud and clear.....we've had more than enough of this shit.

Just to point out... You are asking for a war crime to be committed by US Soldiers...

You hang that mother and you would increase membership in ISIS by 100s of thousands... You are obviously clueless on how terrorism works...
They rely on Support Networks (and his mother was not in his support network)... You are completely clueless on what is going on within the Islamic community... You saw Trump selling $100bn in arms to a country which openly practice Wahhabi... That is not a smart move.. That was really stupid...

Terrorism can be defeated but not by eroding peoples rights or isolating a large group like Tom Horn is suggesting here... It is done by reducing there support network by showing that moderate Christianity and Moderate Muslims have far more in common than extremists... Moderate Muslims hate extremists more than anyone, they despise them, they take there faith and make it about hate...

You will find the same attitude by a vast vast majority of Irish People towards the IRA... They kill kids and said it was done for Ireland... Ireland were horrified and spent more per captia going after the IRA than the UK did..

Nah. We should just stomp around killing people at random until the terrorists give up.

 

[Richard-H]

The most practical solution for stopping terrorism is to create laws that allow the police to act against suspected terrorist cells before terrorist acts are committed.

Most of the terrorists were already being watched in some way by police. If the police had the capability to act preemptively the murders would have never occurred.

Think about what you're saying. You want to empower police to 'act against' suspects? Due process is there for a reason.

Any law would have to be carefully worded, but terrorism isn't a normal criminal act.

Terrorist groups are more like military organizations and should be treated as such.

In the past, pirates were treated very differently than other criminals. There was guilt by association. Being a member of a pirate crew was enough to be found guilty.

The popular delusion is that we can simply skip due process for terrorists, but it doesn't work that way. Due process isn't there to protect terrorists, or any other kind criminal. It's there to protect potentially innocent suspects. Omitting due process puts all of us at risk.

I understand the reason for due process, but terrorism shouldn't be considered under the criminal code. They should be treated as war criminals.

That was Bush's angle. But it misses the point. We don't know, in advance, who the terrorists are.

Most of the terrorists have been under police surveillance prior to their attacks.

In a war it's different than criminal issues. We know that we cannot be perfect in figuring out who is and who is not a terrorist. In a war there are innocent casualties. That is a fact of war and it's accepted that the number of innocent casualties incurred in prosecuting the war will be much less than the number of innocent casualties incurred by not prosecuting the war. The same is true about terrorism. If we prosecute suspected terrorists there will be some innocents, but there will be less innocent casualties than if we do not prosecute suspected terrorists.

It's also true that the penalties suffered by innocents prosecuted as terrorists are way less severe than the penalties suffered by innocents that are victims of terrorism. In one case they get deported and their visa's taken away, in the other case they are murdered.

 

[Brain357]

It's simply a matter of will. And the cure must be cast in stone so the kind-hearted and cowardly can't avoid it politically. So how do you do it? With abject, selective brutality. The Nazis would round up village leaders in occupied France and start shooting them until they exposed who'd attacked the German ranks. Did it work? Not entirely but pretty much. The Israelis bulldoze the family home of a Pali murderer. Does it work? Not entirely but pretty much. So, while I admit no tactic is perfect, we can surely put those who are responsible for the life of a terrorist in the cross-hairs....the parents.

For those prone to pearl-clutching or out-right fainting....stop reading now.

Send assassins after the murdering coward's parents. This reworks the entire family dynamic in the ME. If they are going to bring children into the world, they stand responsible for them for the child's entire life. Make sure that child is raised to be a good person like your life depends on it....because it will. Make sure that child is properly educated and socialized. Make sure to keep in close touch with him to see any warning signs he's gone jihadist. And if he does, it's your parental duty to kill him before he starts killing us. Otherwise.....

So be nazis. Sad.

 

[dblack]

Think about what you're saying. You want to empower police to 'act against' suspects? Due process is there for a reason.

Any law would have to be carefully worded, but terrorism isn't a normal criminal act.

Terrorist groups are more like military organizations and should be treated as such.

In the past, pirates were treated very differently than other criminals. There was guilt by association. Being a member of a pirate crew was enough to be found guilty.

The popular delusion is that we can simply skip due process for terrorists, but it doesn't work that way. Due process isn't there to protect terrorists, or any other kind criminal. It's there to protect potentially innocent suspects. Omitting due process puts all of us at risk.

I understand the reason for due process, but terrorism shouldn't be considered under the criminal code. They should be treated as war criminals.

That was Bush's angle. But it misses the point. We don't know, in advance, who the terrorists are.

Most of the terrorists have been under police surveillance prior to their attacks.

In a war it's different than criminal issues. We know that we cannot be perfect in figuring out who is and who is not a terrorist. In a war there are innocent casualties. That is a fact of war and it's accepted that the number of innocent casualties incurred in prosecuting the war will be much less than the number of innocent casualties incurred by not prosecuting the war. The same is true about terrorism. If we prosecute suspected terrorists there will be some innocents, but there will be less innocent casualties than if we do not prosecute suspected terrorists.

It's also true that the penalties suffered by innocents prosecuted as terrorists are way less severe than the penalties suffered by innocents that are victims of terrorism. In one case they get deported and their visa's taken away, in the other case they are murdered.

Terrorism isn't war.

 

[Richard-H]

Any law would have to be carefully worded, but terrorism isn't a normal criminal act.

Terrorist groups are more like military organizations and should be treated as such.

In the past, pirates were treated very differently than other criminals. There was guilt by association. Being a member of a pirate crew was enough to be found guilty.

The popular delusion is that we can simply skip due process for terrorists, but it doesn't work that way. Due process isn't there to protect terrorists, or any other kind criminal. It's there to protect potentially innocent suspects. Omitting due process puts all of us at risk.

I understand the reason for due process, but terrorism shouldn't be considered under the criminal code. They should be treated as war criminals.

That was Bush's angle. But it misses the point. We don't know, in advance, who the terrorists are.

Most of the terrorists have been under police surveillance prior to their attacks.

In a war it's different than criminal issues. We know that we cannot be perfect in figuring out who is and who is not a terrorist. In a war there are innocent casualties. That is a fact of war and it's accepted that the number of innocent casualties incurred in prosecuting the war will be much less than the number of innocent casualties incurred by not prosecuting the war. The same is true about terrorism. If we prosecute suspected terrorists there will be some innocents, but there will be less innocent casualties than if we do not prosecute suspected terrorists.

It's also true that the penalties suffered by innocents prosecuted as terrorists are way less severe than the penalties suffered by innocents that are victims of terrorism. In one case they get deported and their visa's taken away, in the other case they are murdered.

Terrorism isn't war.

Try telling that to the people of Manchester.

 

[ptbw forever]

The popular delusion is that we can simply skip due process for terrorists, but it doesn't work that way. Due process isn't there to protect terrorists, or any other kind criminal. It's there to protect potentially innocent suspects. Omitting due process puts all of us at risk.

I understand the reason for due process, but terrorism shouldn't be considered under the criminal code. They should be treated as war criminals.

That was Bush's angle. But it misses the point. We don't know, in advance, who the terrorists are.

Most of the terrorists have been under police surveillance prior to their attacks.

In a war it's different than criminal issues. We know that we cannot be perfect in figuring out who is and who is not a terrorist. In a war there are innocent casualties. That is a fact of war and it's accepted that the number of innocent casualties incurred in prosecuting the war will be much less than the number of innocent casualties incurred by not prosecuting the war. The same is true about terrorism. If we prosecute suspected terrorists there will be some innocents, but there will be less innocent casualties than if we do not prosecute suspected terrorists.

It's also true that the penalties suffered by innocents prosecuted as terrorists are way less severe than the penalties suffered by innocents that are victims of terrorism. In one case they get deported and their visa's taken away, in the other case they are murdered.

Terrorism isn't war.

Try telling that to the people of Manchester.

They think a ceremony will fix everything.

Britain won't do shit.

 

[dblack]

The popular delusion is that we can simply skip due process for terrorists, but it doesn't work that way. Due process isn't there to protect terrorists, or any other kind criminal. It's there to protect potentially innocent suspects. Omitting due process puts all of us at risk.

I understand the reason for due process, but terrorism shouldn't be considered under the criminal code. They should be treated as war criminals.

That was Bush's angle. But it misses the point. We don't know, in advance, who the terrorists are.

Most of the terrorists have been under police surveillance prior to their attacks.

In a war it's different than criminal issues. We know that we cannot be perfect in figuring out who is and who is not a terrorist. In a war there are innocent casualties. That is a fact of war and it's accepted that the number of innocent casualties incurred in prosecuting the war will be much less than the number of innocent casualties incurred by not prosecuting the war. The same is true about terrorism. If we prosecute suspected terrorists there will be some innocents, but there will be less innocent casualties than if we do not prosecute suspected terrorists.

It's also true that the penalties suffered by innocents prosecuted as terrorists are way less severe than the penalties suffered by innocents that are victims of terrorism. In one case they get deported and their visa's taken away, in the other case they are murdered.

Terrorism isn't war.

Try telling that to the people of Manchester.

Why? War doesn't mean "really bad".

 

[dblack]

Seriously, treating terrorism like warfare is a mistake. Terrorism is a completely different kind or problem and will require different solutions than fighting a war.

I can understand why so many of us wish it was a war - we're pretty good at those. But it's not. From our perspective, it's worse.

 

[Tom Horn]

Just to point out... You are asking for a war crime to be committed by US Soldiers...

You hang that mother and you would increase membership in ISIS by 100s of thousands... You are obviously clueless on how terrorism works...

I am a former US soldier so remind me what the UCMJ defines as a "war crime" and why we would be subject to prosecution if the Brits hanged a terrorist's mother. Since I'm also a Viet Vet who spent 285 days in the field in '67-'68, maybe you can remind me how terrorism works. I assume you've been to more villes where terrorists have stolen provisions, murdered village leaders, and shanghaied young men as conscripts than I have, correct? So instead of the baloney I've seen from you so far, get specific as to your experience dealing with terrorists and why I should defer to you on the subject. I'll wait for your reply.....and if you run, I'll find you the next time you log in here.

 

[Tom Horn]

Seriously, treating terrorism like warfare is a mistake. Terrorism is a completely different kind or problem and will require different solutions than fighting a war.

I can understand why so many of us wish it was a war - we're pretty good at those. But it's not. From our perspective, it's worse.

Okay, so what? You're another expert on the subject here so what exactly are your qualifications and experience in dealing with terrorists I might want to listen to? Since you sound pretty confident on the subject this should be easy for you and a learning experience for me. FYI, if you've never been a member of law enforcement or the US military, or interviewed terrorists about their command and control, tactics. and operational methods, just what is that you think you know?

 

[dblack]

Seriously, treating terrorism like warfare is a mistake. Terrorism is a completely different kind or problem and will require different solutions than fighting a war.

I can understand why so many of us wish it was a war - we're pretty good at those. But it's not. From our perspective, it's worse.

Okay, so what? You're another expert on the subject here so what exactly are your qualifications and experience in dealing with terrorists I might want to listen to? Since you sound pretty confident on the subject this should be easy for you and a learning experience for me. FYI, if you've never been a member of law enforcement or the US military, or interviewed terrorists about their control and command, tactics. and operation methods, just what is that you think you know?

Do you disagree with my post?

 

[Tom Horn]

Seriously, treating terrorism like warfare is a mistake. Terrorism is a completely different kind or problem and will require different solutions than fighting a war.

I can understand why so many of us wish it was a war - we're pretty good at those. But it's not. From our perspective, it's worse.

Okay, so what? You're another expert on the subject here so what exactly are your qualifications and experience in dealing with terrorists I might want to listen to? Since you sound pretty confident on the subject this should be easy for you and a learning experience for me. FYI, if you've never been a member of law enforcement or the US military, or interviewed terrorists about their control and command, tactics. and operation methods, just what is that you think you know?

Do you disagree with my post?

How about answering as to your qualifications.

 

[Never3ndr]

It's simply a matter of will. And the cure must be cast in stone so the kind-hearted and cowardly can't avoid it politically. So how do you do it? With abject, selective brutality. The Nazis would round up village leaders in occupied France and start shooting them until they exposed who'd attacked the German ranks. Did it work? Not entirely but pretty much. The Israelis bulldoze the family home of a Pali murderer. Does it work? Not entirely but pretty much. So, while I admit no tactic is perfect, we can surely put those who are responsible for the life of a terrorist in the cross-hairs....the parents.

For those prone to pearl-clutching or out-right fainting....stop reading now.

Send assassins after the murdering coward's parents. This reworks the entire family dynamic in the ME. If they are going to bring children into the world, they stand responsible for them for the child's entire life. Make sure that child is raised to be a good person like your life depends on it....because it will. Make sure that child is properly educated and socialized. Make sure to keep in close touch with him to see any warning signs he's gone jihadist. And if he does, it's your parental duty to kill him before he starts killing us. Otherwise.....

The fact that this guy is advocating for a militaristic dictatorship akin to that of North Korea and people in an American message board upvoted this is actually more concerning than the fact that the troll himself exists.

 

[dblack]

Seriously, treating terrorism like warfare is a mistake. Terrorism is a completely different kind or problem and will require different solutions than fighting a war.

I can understand why so many of us wish it was a war - we're pretty good at those. But it's not. From our perspective, it's worse.

Okay, so what? You're another expert on the subject here so what exactly are your qualifications and experience in dealing with terrorists I might want to listen to? Since you sound pretty confident on the subject this should be easy for you and a learning experience for me. FYI, if you've never been a member of law enforcement or the US military, or interviewed terrorists about their control and command, tactics. and operation methods, just what is that you think you know?

Do you disagree with my post?

How about answering as to your qualifications.

I'm here to discuss ideas, not compare the size of my 'qualifications'.

 

[Tom Horn]

The fact that this guy is advocating for a militaristic dictatorship akin to that of North Korea and people in an American message board upvoted this is actually more concerning than the fact that the troll himself exists.

So you either don't have the stomach to stop these animals or you're a supporter....which is it?

 

[rightwinger]

It is not easy to stop terrorism

It used to be you could stop them by calling them " Radical Islamic Terrorits"

But now, it seems, you need to call them "evil losers" to drive them into the shadows

 

[Tom Horn]

I'm here to discuss ideas, not compare the size of my 'qualifications'.

If that were true you'd be asking questions instead of making statements....I accept your surrender. In the future, read more, talk less until you've mastered the subject matter.

DISmissed.

 

[Never3ndr]

The fact that this guy is advocating for a militaristic dictatorship akin to that of North Korea and people in an American message board upvoted this is actually more concerning than the fact that the troll himself exists.

So you either don't have the stomach to stop these animals or you're a supporter....which is it?

The fact that you just gave an either or situation when we live in the real world where there are a variety of stances on any grade of the variant from the extremist militaristic dictatorship you are advocating for to an anarchistic society that let's anything goes speaks to the fact that you are either a troll or just an exceptionally deluded individual. Either way, it is humorous. Again, the sad part is not the fact that you exist it is the fact that people support those ideals.

 

[Tom Horn]

It is not easy to stop terrorism

It used to be you could stop them by calling them " Radical Islamic Terrorits"

But now, it seems, you need to call them "evil losers" to drive them into the shadows

If you're afraid to go into the shadows after them, you'll be forever cleaning up the carnage and wondering why they weren't picked up before they acted. Your way hasn't worked since the first WTC bombing in '93. Of course for 16 of those years you had traitorous dirtbags for presidents and GWB who figured we were still pissed enough to go after Saddam. It destroyed al-Qaida but left the door wide open for ISIS when Barry waddled away chewing on his fingernails.

 

[Tom Horn]

The fact that you just gave an either or situation when we live in the real world where there are a variety of stances on any grade of the variant from the extremist militaristic dictatorship you are advocating for to an anarchistic society that let's anything goes speaks to the fact that you are either a troll or just an exceptionally deluded individual. Either way, it is humorous. Again, the sad part is not the fact that you exist it is the fact that people support those ideals.

It's a black and white world...only you leftist sissies search until you find grey areas to avoid decisions. There's no "anarchy" in dealing certain death to killers and their supporters. And there's nothing "humorous" from a zero like you pretending to judge those who know what they're talking about. You impress me as being a retail clerk in a suburban Office Depot instead of anybody who's seen an actual muslim, face to face.