Originally Posted by Kesse81

The best way to combat terrorism is to ensure that people in general don´t evolves into terrorists. It´s a police and intelligence task. To find them before they strike. But you will never be able to eradicate all terrorists. There will always be some idiot who has a twisted idea he pursues.

One thing is terrorists, another insurgent.

The Taliban, for example, are not terrorists. They may be called partisans or whatever you want. Those you fight most effectively with hearts and minds. The strongest and most legitimate warrior is the one with popular support. Remove this support and you remove the foundation and deliberate killing of civilians is not a good way to make friends.

Situations will occur where my survival depends on killing civilians, but then I´ll have my back against the wall with no other options.

Oh, don´t call me Sir. I´m an NCO - I work for a living.

But how?
Through extreme brainwashing?
Indoctrination?
As long as people have "freedom" these extremist will pop up.
Freedom, in my humble opinion, is one of the absolute evils: it leads to different thoughts, which leads to conflict.
Another is emotion.
As long as we are prone to either one, or both, war be around.

We are incapable to prevent people to go extreme, unless we get a totalitary domination, where each individual is brainwashed in such waty that he has the exact same thought as his neighbor, that he has the exact same house, car, monetary value.
Thus effectively depriving the individual of jealousy, and freedom of thought.
Basically, we'd be living in Equilibrium.

But that is not a valid option, we do not have the technology or medical knowledge to do this en masse.
Which leaves us, that we have to deal with the situation, or am I incorrect?

And in that case, I suggest the extreme.
Prevent (or try to) by fear...
Harsch, yes, but I think, effective as well...

Originally Posted by Kesse81

In insurgency warfare, this tactic will backfire big time.
I see my job as the protector of the innocent even if they belong to the enemy. It´s a problem, but it should never be solved by "Kill them all"

But the question is how innocent are the innocent?

Scenario 1:
Gunmen take over a hotel or a theatre holding hostages as human shields.

Scenario 2:
Head of terrorist organisation lives in a large compound with family and friends.

Scenario 3:
Head of a terrorist oganisation is known to be in an apartment but the apartment complex dwellers do not know he is there.

Surely Scenario 1 and 3 require some finesse when bringing about a resolution because you have a situation where civilians are unaware of or unable to do something about the danger they are in but scenario 2 is much more clear cut as they know the danger they have put themselves in and have chosen to be there.

Therefore civilian casualties in scenario 2 are in my opinion almost irrelevant.

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

But how?
Through extreme brainwashing?
Indoctrination?
As long as people have "freedom" these extremist will pop up.
Freedom, in my humble opinion, is one of the absolute evils: it leads to different thoughts, which leads to conflict.
Another is emotion.
As long as we are prone to either one, or both, war be around.

We are incapable to prevent people to go extreme, unless we get a totalitary domination, where each individual is brainwashed in such waty that he has the exact same thought as his neighbor, that he has the exact same house, car, monetary value.
Thus effectively depriving the individual of jealousy, and freedom of thought.
Basically, we'd be living in Equilibrium.

But that is not a valid option, we do not have the technology or medical knowledge to do this en masse.
Which leaves us, that we have to deal with the situation, or am I incorrect?

And in that case, I suggest the extreme.
Prevent (or try to) by fear...
Harsch, yes, but I think, effective as well...

I think we need to get our heads around the idea that there will always be extremists for example the killing of abortion doctors and the bombing of their offices etc. in the USA were carried out by extremists but nobody felt it was necessary to call out the army to deal with it.

The best thing that could be done to fight terrorism is to combat the conditions that drive people to become terrorists.

Originally Posted by MontyB

But the question is how innocent are the innocent?

Scenario 1:
Gunmen take over a hotel or a theatre holding hostages as human shields.

Scenario 2:
Head of terrorist organisation lives in a large compound with family and friends.

Scenario 3:
Head of a terrorist oganisation is known to be in an apartment but the apartment complex dwellers do not know he is there.

Surely Scenario 1 and 3 require some finesse when bringing about a resolution because you have a situation where civilians are unaware of or unable to do something about the danger they are in but scenario 2 is much more clear cut as they know the danger they have put themselves in and have chosen to be there.

Therefore civilian casualties in scenario 2 are in my opinion almost irrelevant.



I think we need to get our heads around the idea that there will always be extremists for example the killing of abortion doctors and the bombing of their offices etc. in the USA were carried out by extremists but nobody felt it was necessary to call out the army to deal with it.

The best thing that could be done to fight terrorism is to combat the conditions that drive people to become terrorists.

I don't think we can compare a few attacks by extremist in the US with the mass murdering committed by say ISIS. If this were the case we could write a book on so called terrorist attacks. These very limited actions like the French independence movement in Canada, the attacks on Abortion clinics, the attacks by the occasional extremist groups to the right or left are usually dealt with sufficiently by the local police. Where as ISIS is responsible for thousands of murders, perhaps 10's of thousands. They are a large organization numbering in the 10's of thousands and have heavy conventional weapons. They require a strong military solution. To truly knock them out might cost the lives of a few civilian deaths since as it's been stated they hide amongst the civilians. But if one is going to fight to win this will save lives in the end. A stepped up US air presence stationed in nearby Turkey would help rather than a handful of jets flying in from all the way in the Gulf. Some kind of ground force to supplement the bombing and actually take terraferma is also needed. The Kurds can't do it alone as they battle for Kobani for the 2nd straight month, they don't have the heavy equipment.

Originally Posted by JOC

I don't think we can compare a few attacks by extremist in the US with the mass murdering committed by say ISIS.

I cannot but completely disagree here.
An attack is an attack, no matter who's behind it.
Let's take as example a coup from within the white house: that is an attack, and the attacker should be, IMHO, be delt with in the hardest possible manner.
Whether the attacker is a nobleman or a terrorist: it was an attack.

Abortion clinics: Now from a personal point of view I understand actions vs such clinics.
To me they are nothing more than abattoirs.
I do not know how severe the attacks are, but if the attacks are more vandalism than personal attacks, I can live with it.
Once a person however is harmed in any way, I cannot but disagree.
Again: this is from a personal state of mind.
That is me.
An opinion.
Nothing more.

Originally Posted by 1st Lt. Kirzillian

I cannot but completely disagree here.
An attack is an attack, no matter who's behind it.
Let's take as example a coup from within the white house: that is an attack, and the attacker should be, IMHO, be delt with in the hardest possible manner.
Whether the attacker is a nobleman or a terrorist: it was an attack.

Abortion clinics: Now from a personal point of view I understand actions vs such clinics.
To me they are nothing more than abattoirs.
I do not know how severe the attacks are, but if the attacks are more vandalism than personal attacks, I can live with it.
Once a person however is harmed in any way, I cannot but disagree.
Again: this is from a personal state of mind.
That is me.
An opinion.
Nothing more.

I don't condone killing in either case. I don't disagree that if someone is killed in the attack he must be charged and prosecuted according to the law. Murder is murder. I just can't put the killing of an abortion doctor in the same category as ISIS.

I said, than I can agree with vandalism, not with attacking a doctor.
If someone does this, then yes, he should be taken in, the hard way.
I fully agree there.

EDIT: Question: do you condone abortion?
To me, that is just as criminal as any other murder, one kills a life form.
I CAN agree when it is for medical reason (terminal disease, extreme health problems, for either the mother or the baby), or in specific cases of rape.
But any other reason is totally unacceptable, in my book.
An abortion doctor is no more than a Charles Manson!
Sadly, this sociopath is protected by law.

I have an ad hoc opinion about abortions. There are socio-economic factors involved in the decision to get children. In the end, I think it is up to the people involved to make the decision about it.

This thread is changing a bit, hehe

@ Kirzillian

Have you served in a combat zone?
Coming face to face with the enemy gave me a whole new outlook on life.

And as a USMC Gunny once said to me; War is like a poker game - Sometimes you hold all the aces, but you've got to know when to bluff and know when to fold and walk away.
It seems like you view the world as black and white.
It´s not always violence is the solution.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

I have an ad hoc opinion about abortions. There are socio-economic factors involved in the decision to get children. In the end, I think it is up to the people involved to make the decision about it.

This thread is changing a bit, hehe

In my world there is only one that determines whether an abortion should be carried out and it is the woman herself - it's her future life is all about. We men can simply walk away.

There's something like condoms and the likes, Kesse.
IMHO: if you're mature enough to have sex, then certainly you are old enough to face any consequence.
As for financial reasons: adoption could be a solution.
Men walking away?
Nuter them with a hammer, no anesthesia.
A tad extreme, granted, but right now 13 year olds get pregnant, do an abortion, and go screw the next guy.
What do we teach them?
Food for thought....

Combat situation:
Yes, I have been in combat situations, in Africa.
I've been threatened by a kid running up to us, a grenade in his hand.
I stopped him, the fast way.
Am I proud of that?
Hell no.
Does it bother me?
Hell yes, up to this day in age.
Each night I wake up seeing these movies play off in my head.
Would I do that again?
Hell yes I would.
We were tasked to eradicate warlords in Africa, destroy weapon caches, drug caches,...
I've been shot at, thrown grenades at, I've been through quite a bit.
Lost 3 good friends there.
Somehow, I got bloody lucky.
Until I went abseiling...

So I think I can say, that I've seen a bit of battle, yes.