Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Terrorist attacks harm pretty much no-one, beyond the terror part

9.11 attack: 2977 killed
Madrid bombing: 191 killed
7.7 bombings: 52 killed
Charlie Hebdo killings: 12 killed
Bataclan killings: 130 killed
Nice truck attack: 86 killed
Tunisia attack: 38 killed
Brussels bombings: 32 killed
Boston bombings: 5 killed
Manchester bombing: 22 killed
Westminster bridge attack: 5 killed
+ Lee Rigby's murder.

3551 people murdered. Countless more crippled, maimed and traumatised. And these are only the ones I can remember of the top of my head. 3551 people is NOT "pretty much no one".

Don't forget Orlando, the attacks in China, and San Bernadino.

Or the attacks in the Middle East whose numbers dwarf the rest put together.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Or the attacks in the Middle East whose numbers dwarf the rest put together.

If i remember correctly the terrorists attacks in the Middle East, Africa, and other war zones make up about 95%, what he get over here (developed first world countries) is under 5%, and most of the terrorist attacks in war zones are in the Middle East.

Those numbers don't include civilian deaths (collateral deaths of war) in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are also huge but are not technically counted as terrorist attacks in that context (but are still civilians being killed).

 Blackie wrote:


Nonsense. There's no need to increase funds or resources to this matter or to turn a modern society into an Orwellian nightmare, we just need to be harsher towards those subjects that are known to the intelligence. Deport every foreign that breaks the law after they've done their time, a lot of terrorists are common criminals turned into radicals in prison.

So, I just want to get this straight. You want to put people in to prison, where you claim they are radicalized. Then send them back to their home countries to.... join the radicals?

 Blackie wrote:

I would go further, lock/deport people that show signs of true radicalization, even if they've not broken the law (yet).

Just want to point out, countries have been curb stomped for less. Remember that thing called history?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
What are you trying to say exactly? Just forget all about it because it's "pretty much no one"?

They are trying to say "allocate resources to save lives, if saving lives is the goal." Developing some mechanism to stop terrorism would save fewer lives than developing some mechanism to prevent heavy furniture from falling on people (per that Washington Post article).

If you want to save lives, spend money on saving lives. Right now, the money spent on preventing terrorism in the US could better be spent nationalizing healthcare and therefore saving far more lives than the terrorists have ever taken.

Good summation of an unpopular truth.

"...but we need to do something"

 Dreadwinter wrote:


So, I just want to get this straight. You want to put people in to prison, where you claim they are radicalized. Then send them back to their home countries to.... join the radicals?

Yes, because in their country they can do whatever they want. We're not americans who are obsessed to export democracy everywhere, if a nation wants to live as radicals it's their right to live that way. A foreing intervention can be justified only if that nation becomes a threat.

Radicalized people in prison are not a problem, the issue is having them walking free in our countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:


It's tragic, but no more tragic than road accidents.

That's a completely different matter but with something in common. The majority of those death caused by road accident could be avoided but that means less money for cars industries: it seems acceptable to me to revoked forever your driving license if you drive drunk, but that would mean less number of cars sold. We could do a lot to minimize the deadly accidents but some lobbies wouldn't get their profits then.

 Blackie wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:


So, I just want to get this straight. You want to put people in to prison, where you claim they are radicalized. Then send them back to their home countries to.... join the radicals?

Yes, because in their country they can do whatever they want. We're not americans who are obsessed to export democracy everywhere, if a nation wants to live as radicals it's their right to live that way. A foreing intervention can be justified only if that nation becomes a threat.

Radicalized people in prison are not a problem, the issue is having them walking free in our countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:


It's tragic, but no more tragic than road accidents.

That's a completely different matter but with something in common. The majority of those death caused by road accident could be avoided but that means less money for cars industries: it seems acceptable to me to revoked forever your driving license if you drive drunk, but that would mean less number of cars sold. We could do a lot to minimize the deadly accidents but some lobbies wouldn't get their profits then.

So, you want to send new radicalized people to their country, which has a large number of radicalized people, who regularly try to infiltrate other countries using these newly radicalized people to carry out high casualty attacks?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

 Ouze wrote:

Good summation of an unpopular truth.

"...but we need to do something"

I think the unpopular truth is that liberalism (as in the political ideology, not the Democratic Party) dont have an answer to this problem. Even though the death count from terrorism is low compared to other things it still a fear people have to live with and gonna want a solution to. People are going to demand politicians to do something and there is nothing they can do that wont infringe on a liberal cornerstone.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So, you want to send new radicalized people to their country, which has a large number of radicalized people, who regularly try to infiltrate other countries using these newly radicalized people to carry out high casualty attacks?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

So you'd prefer to keep these radicalized people here in Europe/America?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


So, you want to send new radicalized people to their country, which has a large number of radicalized people, who regularly try to infiltrate other countries using these newly radicalized people to carry out high casualty attacks?

Did you think this through? Like, really think it through all the way to the end?

Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

 ulgurstasta wrote:

I think the unpopular truth is that liberalism (as in the political ideology, not the Democratic Party) dont have an answer to this problem. Even though the death count from terrorism is low compared to other things it still a fear people have to live with and gonna want a solution to. People are going to demand politicians to do something and there is nothing they can do that wont infringe on a liberal cornerstone.

There is a solution to terrorism; ignore it. Treat it like any other crime.

But that doesn't win votes or sell papers. It doesn't allow governments to offer to "Protect us".

Herzlos wrote:
There is a solution to terrorism; ignore it. Treat it like any other crime.

This is my thought as well (well, the latter mostly). I have to imagine the effectiveness of terrorism would be substantially diminished if the country didn't lose it's gak every time there was an incident. We need to stop elevating these crimes. They're not holy martyrs, they're not warriors of god, they're just murderers and thugs.

I honestly cannot believe what I'm reading here. Seriously, do nothing? That's insane.

 Ouze wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
There is a solution to terrorism; ignore it. Treat it like any other crime.

This is my thought as well (well, the latter mostly). I have to imagine the effectiveness of terrorism would be substantially diminished if the country didn't lose it's gak every time there was an incident. We need to stop elevating these crimes. They're not holy martyrs, they're not warriors of god, they're just murderers and thugs.

Won't argue with that.

But the idea that we should just ignore it and do nothing is fething insane. Tell that to the victims and their families.

"Treat it like any other crime" is not doing nothing. The victims and their families will still get an investigation and a criminal cas efor the police looking for the perpetrators. Herzlos and Ouze have a point, terrorists feed off the publicity they get.

Investigate it, find the people responsible, but don't give the terrorists what they want - which is terror in the population through 24/7 media coverage, concerned faces and trodden-out platitudes from politicians. The approach makes sense to me on a certain level, even though it will of course look like "the government is lying to us" "media is ignoring this why" if tried as a new approach...

To be clear, I did emphasize "mostly the latter" - i.e. don't do anything abnormal. A more rational, measured response appropriate to what is most decidedly a non-existential threat, don't tilt your entire security and defense apparatus to problem that kills a miniscule, tiny fraction of people killed by heart disease or beestings or the flu. What is "appropriate" would vary by country, of course.

A few years ago, we attempt to have a trial for KSM in Manhattan, and it was politically nonviable. I think this was a mistake. We can't keep acting like these guys are any better than common criminals - they're not martyrs so dangerous to the US that we need a special, extra legal gulag for them. Store them with the murders, thieves, and rapists in prison.

I think some of the things we've done in the US in the name of combatting terrorism have done substantially more lasting damage to our freedom than zealots with boxcutters did. I'm not familiar enough with what the UK has or has not done to say if it's a global phenomenon.

"Other murders" can't be prevented in many cases, usually there are personal issue among some citizens that end up with a murder.

Here we have a political and religious issue, it's completely different. A society CAN prevent these crimes, not all of them of course but I think we can reduce them drastically. In fact any form of terrorism was specifically fought in the past and several terrorist groups were defeated with specific politics, certainly not dealing with them as common crimes.

Asking for being tougher towards those subjects that manifest radicalization signs, demanding youtube and other web giants to shut down the terrorist propaganda, etc...they are all specific actions that aim to counter islamic radicalization in western countries, is it asking too much?

 Blackie wrote:
Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

Aside from the absurdity of saying they're just "savages" who can't infiltrate anyone, in blatant contradiction to the fact that terrorist groups have infiltrated people into their target countries, if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

 Peregrine wrote:
if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

Scotland, obviously. Have you never seen Doomsday?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Don't forget Orlando, the attacks in China, and San Bernadino.

My apologies. There's another 114 deaths plus injuries on top of the 3551 I already mentioned.

Still, that's hardly anybody so we should just do nothing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

Aside from the absurdity of saying they're just "savages" who can't infiltrate anyone, in blatant contradiction to the fact that terrorist groups have infiltrated people into their target countries, if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

British Antarctic territory?
Declare a mini state island sorounded by water cold as Margaret's thatchers soul..

They can build there own mini nation out hundreds of miles away from the nearest country where we drop off from the od and build a Base for them to inhabit.

They can do artic research or something usful...

Gets rid of the problem and technically we are deporting them to a country because they would be honoured with citizenship of thatcher island.

Job done.
They can count the penguin population or such and help the world know how many penguins live on that island.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

Aside from the absurdity of saying they're just "savages" who can't infiltrate anyone, in blatant contradiction to the fact that terrorist groups have infiltrated people into their target countries, if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

There are no infiltrated, but common citizens that at a certain point of their life decide to become jihadists. How many people arrived in europe and already were terrorists? Probably none.

I suggested that we should strip their european nationality and deport them. With the term deport I can think about different solutions, once could be to send them to those african countries that are allied to europe and get a lot of money from us, like northern africa nations. All of these terrorist are of foreign origins, and tipycally their country of origin is allied to europe, we could just give them that nationality. For example an english born terrorist with saudi origins can become a saudi citizen. We give billions to those nations, they can keep some hundreds or a few thousands people (per nation) if we decide to act this way.

Or maybe just gather them into a facility that has the only purpose to keep those people there.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Don't forget Orlando, the attacks in China, and San Bernadino.

My apologies. There's another 114 deaths plus injuries on top of the 3551 I already mentioned.

Still, that's hardly anybody so we should just do nothing.

Noone said do nothing; I said we should treat it as any other crime (it's all already illegal). Drop the "terrorist" label, and treat it like you would if a white guy did it.

You've still got a police force and and intelligence force, but without all the rabid outrage.

Also, you're talking about 3665 deaths over 16 years, with a world population of 7,000,000,000. That's 0.0005% percent of the current population. Statistically, it's absolutely insignificant.

As I said, nearly 5 times as many people died in the UK in car accidents every year, than to terrorist attacks over the last 16.

Even taking 9/11 as somehow representative, that's 2977 deaths in a population of 311.7 million. That means 0.0009% of the US population.


I have never said we should do nothing, but if you want to save lives, fighting terrorism is a total waste of time.

Plus, what do terrorists want? Outrage and fear. Starve them of that and we defeat their purpose and show them that we are better than them. They'll still be arrested and convicted, but they won't be feared or martyred. You get that, surely?

 jhe90 wrote:
British Antarctic territory?
Declare a mini state island sorounded by water cold as Margaret's thatchers soul..

They can build there own mini nation out hundreds of miles away from the nearest country where we drop off from the od and build a Base for them to inhabit.

They can do artic research or something usful...

Gets rid of the problem and technically we are deporting them to a country because they would be honoured with citizenship of thatcher island.

Job done.
They can count the penguin population or such and help the world know how many penguins live on that island.

You're missing the point entirely. The "deport them all" argument is based on the premise that the people in question are temporary residents of "our" countries, and we can send them back to their Islamic theocracies to do all their awful things. But now you're saying that the potential terrorists are born in Europe, not invaders from outside. What exactly do you accomplish by deporting someone from the UK to France? I suppose maybe you're giving your terrorism problem to your neighbor, but it's hardly preventing terrorist attacks in general.

And no, "deport them to Antarctica" is not a reasonable or intelligent thing to say. Deporting someone means sending them back to their country of origin. Unless these supposed terrorists are born in Antarctica sending them there would not be deporting them. It would be imprisoning them. And JFC, I thought the fact that "exile people forever in a remote prison colony" is a terrible idea was something we figured out a long time ago.

Ignoring the attacks is as good as doing nothing. You won't stop them by sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that there's nothing going on.

I'm pretty sure foreign nations would not be happy to take known terrorists, deported for being terrorists, as new citizens in their country, especially if their birthplace was indeed Britain. Paying countries to keep them might work with poorer African nations in dire need of funds, but honestly, if you send known terrorists over there they are either 1. going to be set free depending on who is pulling the strings in that local region or 2. the government will imprison them because they have very little reason to let known terrorists run free.

Option 1 sounds not very helpful, Option 2 sounds just like outsourcing a prison system with less humanitarian rights oversight.


On the topic of prison colonies: If you're going to have security and wardens there, holy moly, huge logistical operation and a position no one will be keen to have. If your idea is honestly just dropping everybody there and airlifting in some supplies from time to time, the whole place will just become a survival-of-the-fittest, tribal hellhole that will make Somalia look tame in comparison.

 Blackie wrote:
There are no infiltrated, but common citizens that at a certain point of their life decide to become jihadists. How many people arrived in europe and already were terrorists? Probably none.

...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

I suggested that we should strip their european nationality and deport them. With the term deport I can think about different solutions, once could be to send them to those african countries that are allied to europe and get a lot of money from us, like northern africa nations. All of these terrorist are of foreign origins, and tipycally their country of origin is allied to europe, we could just give them that nationality. For example an english born terrorist with saudi origins can become a saudi citizen. We give billions to those nations, they can keep some hundreds or a few thousands people (per nation) if we decide to act this way.

This has got to be a parody...

 jhe90 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Nonsense. No one is trying to infiltrate people. All of these terrorists are born in europe or they are immigrant that became terrorist in a second moment. Islamic terrorist groups are not the CIA, they don't infiltrate agents, they're just savages.

Aside from the absurdity of saying they're just "savages" who can't infiltrate anyone, in blatant contradiction to the fact that terrorist groups have infiltrated people into their target countries, if these terrorists are born in Europe then where are you going to deport them to?

British Antarctic territory?
Declare a mini state island sorounded by water cold as Margaret's thatchers soul..

They can build there own mini nation out hundreds of miles away from the nearest country where we drop off from the od and build a Base for them to inhabit.

They can do artic research or something usful...

Gets rid of the problem and technically we are deporting them to a country because they would be honoured with citizenship of thatcher island.

Job done.
They can count the penguin population or such and help the world know how many penguins live on that island.

You mean like the Soviets did with people they didn't like? How do you get to decide who is undesirable or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Ignoring the attacks is as good as doing nothing. You won't stop them by sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that there's nothing going on.

Ignoring the terrorism aspect of them. Deal with the attacks as you deal with any other crime. "Terrorist attack on tube" becomes "man sets off bomb on tube". Perpetrator is just as guilty, just as jailed/dead, but without all of the hysteria.

Like when a white person does it, they are a mentally unstable lone wolf. We already do it, we just need to do it for everyone.

TIL that unless one makes a big deal about the ethnicity and religion of a criminal, they are "doing nothing". Huh.

 feeder wrote:
TIL that unless one makes a big deal about the ethnicity and religion of a criminal, they are "doing nothing". Huh.

Don't forget that one has to get really mad when one gets called out on posting racist drivel as well and loudly proclaim that "racist" is just used as a bludgeon to silence dissent. It's important, because it lets you score an extra 5 credits in the "woe is me I'm a victim of the establishment" lottery.