Is This A Way To Avoid Terror Attack?

This is a repost from another thread, but is more appropriate here. The short answer is that terrorist acts can be countered, and the anti-terrorist strategy followed will have a direct correlation to the number and severity of terrorist operations conducted against the targeted entity.

When a group decides to explode bombs in public places their intent is to cause fear and achieve by terror what they can not gain by negotiations or direct military action. The decision to adopt terrorist tactics lies within the terrorist organization, not the entity that is being attacked. Russia, Israel, and the United States did not connive with terrorists to explode bombs killing their citizens.

What alternative responses are there to terrorist attack?

One might surrender and grant the terrorists whatever they want in the hopes that attacks will cease. Appeasement and paying blackmail have never been a very good strategy. Appeasement encourages greater aggressions. The blackmailer always wants more. When the terrorist organization's goal is your total and utter destruction, how can you "knuckle under" and still survive? To give in to terrorist demands is an admission that they are stronger than you are. Are these sniveling cowards braver and more dedicated to their values than we are?

One might ask the world community to protect them from the depredations of those who conduct terrorist attacks. What can the world community do that can not be done by the sovereign nation being attacked? In fact, the varied interests of the nations making up the world community almost guarantees that nothing effective will be done. There will always be those who side with the terrorist goals, and those whose interests will be advanced by delay and obstruction. In some instances a nation will be so outrageous in its aggression, or support of terrorism that the world community will make a formal condemnation and demands for change. To get that is not easy, but it is easier than getting agreement to actually pay the cost of enforcing the demands. Al Queda and other terrorist organizations are generally careful to avoid too close identification with national governments who can be pressured by the world community, or the victims of their attacks. Al Queda and the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan could be targeted. Saddam's Iraq is clearly associated with Palestinian terror organizations, and less clearly with Al Queda. If the terrorist group can not be identified with a nation state, then of what use is the world community?

One might vigorously fight the terrorist organization where ever and when ever it can. Without an effective intelligence service it is almost impossible to root-out terrorist organizations who are by definition secret. Identifying terrorists is not easy because they take care to blend in with the innocent. Knowledge of terrorist organizational structure is made difficult by the nature of operational cells. If the terrorist cell is operating from within your national boundries, then the NCA has several options. It might arrest and publically try the terrorists, but that might reduce the effectiveness of other intelligence operations. The cell might be placed under additional surveillance in hopes that it would lead to other cells, or reveal terrorist plans that might be disrupted. The cell might be taken quietly into custody and dealt with secretly. This is really not an option when the terrorists are citizens of countries like the United States, or Britain. The old Soviet Union and some others have utilized the Star Chamber approach with some success in dealing with cells.

In some cases, the terror organizations operating openly in Palistenian territories for instance, direct action is possible. If operational planning for terrorist attacks are coming from a particular house outside your direct control becomes known, why wouldn't anyone decide to take it out.

Whatever the approach taken, it is important that terrorist organizations should never believe that their tactics are effectively advancing their cause. If the murder of children is believed necessary to defeat the United States, Israel, or Russia, then terrorist organizations will murder children. On the other hand, if terrorists can not instill fear and a weakening of their enemy's resolve using one tactic, they will pursue another. Terrorist activities can be disrupted and rendered less effective by keeping the pressure up on them. Deny the terrorist safe-haven anywhere and cut off their logistical sources. Kill, or neutralize their leadership by any means possible and disrupt their chain-of-command. Isolate the cells and make individual terrorists constantly afraid of being identified and targeted. Make the costs of terrorism so high that it must be abandoned as a strategy. The depiction of terrorists as heros and holy martyrs is an indication of how successful those organizations have been in winning the hearts and minds of some.

In that other thread, Olddog pointed out the impossiblity of completely eliminating terrrorist attack. I had thought that self-evident from my remarks above, but posted the following addendum anyway.

It is not possible to prevent all terrorist attacks. So long as terrorists believe that they can advance their goals by bombs, assassinations, the spread of chemical/biological/radiological poisons, or sabotage, they will find a way. The number of potential targets is almost infinite, and a small secret cabal can strike anywhere at anytime. Operational planning tends to focus of producing the greatest effect at the lowest cost/risk. This should permit us to focus our security resources to protect what appear to be the highest priority targets. High density urban areas where an attack could generate large numbers of casualties, international notoriety, and disruption to our infrastructure are top priority targets. Operations targeting infrastructure nodes may not directly kill as many, nor become sensational headlines, but can be even more devastating to a country's ability to function. Symbolic targets generate headlines and promote fear and anxiety beyond the practical damage that can be inflicted. assassination of public figures has always been a favorite of terrorist organizations. It is always easer to plan and execute terrorist operations than it is to prevent them.

What can be done, and is being done, is to disrupt terrorist organizational structures. Disruption of networks to make planning and coordination of operations difficult by isolating cells, compromising communications, and instilling fear and anxiety within the ranks, is advisable. Eliminating places of sanctuary and cutting logistical support systems makes terrorist operations more difficult. Above all, demonstrated resolve that terrorists shall never accomplish their goals by murder and wanton destruction is necessary.

Completely agree. But what may be the purpose in attacking Germany that does not support the U.S./Israeli policies in the Middle East? To modify her leaderships' stance? But it is by all means favorable toward the Arab/Muslim world...
It seems to me, that the Mideastern conflict is just an excuse abused by the terrorists; their real goal is global domination. And they use terror attacks to intimidate everyone, even those that do not actively oppose them.

Perhaps the terrorist goal is not directed exclusively toward the United States, or any specific policy of the United States, but rather the destruction of Western Civilization. Western values are seductive those who live in poverty, and are subversive to the traditional values of Islam, at least according to radical and reactionary elements within many Islamic communities. Third World countries resent subordination to those they believe are infidels, and representative of evil. The United States is specifically targeted because it is the de facto leader of the Free World, and the chief exponent of Western values. Secularism, materialism and string bikinis are an abomination wherever they exist, but if the United States can be cowed then it's allies will be more vulnerable. By defeating the United States in a propaganda war, Islamic communities will be heartened and the traditional reactionary movement will become stronger.

The terrorist agenda began long before the Gulf War, and has virtually nothing to do with who sits in the White House. Their war is against all our institutions and values at all times. Prior to the end of the Cold War, the USSR was a sponsor and supplier of anti-western movements. Now those movements no longer have the fly-wheel of soviet policy to restrain them and their attacks upon the West have increased. Those who were Western clients in the area were abandoned, and have either fallen or become vulnerable to the chauvinistic radicalism preached by extremist Islamic religious leaders. These elements capitolize on keeping the Israeli-Palistinian pot a boil. They play upon fear and intimidation. "Western countries! Stay out of our affairs, though your dollars are welcome tribute. A new Age of Islamic dominence is our goal, bow your infidel heads to Allah."

That is exactly what I think on the issue. But how does it happen that European leaders do not understand this and continue trying to appease the Islamic devil? Does this mean that they did not learn anythning of the Munich-38 lessons?

Forgive me if this is just restating what Asherman has already shared, but the notion that any country can eliminate the threat of terrorist action by altering its foreign policy is predicated on the notion that all people want the same thing and would unanimously consider policy X as good and right and legitimate.

I would argue that it is unlikely that all people everywhere will ever agree on any policy, and that this means that no matter what position a country takes, someone, somewhere will be unhappy with it.

Doesn't this make the question of what causes terrorism--in the sense of some accountability on the part of the party attacked--misguided?

The pursuit of terrorist action as a means towards getting what one wants is a choice that--like most choices--follows a fairly predictable model we can borrow from economics. We need to think of terrorism as a choice people make because they perceive the opportunity cost of terrorism to be lower than the opportunity cost of other methods of working to achieve their goals. That means that the only way (or at least one obvious way) to reduce or eliminate terrorism is to raise the opportunity cost of terrorism, or to reduce the opportunity cost of other methods these groups might use to work toward achieving their goals.

In other words, we must make choosing terrorism very costly, and perhaps find ways to help these people find more value in other avenues of redress for their problems.

Exactly

Ditto.

Can anyone of you dare to explain
the terror attack in other countries.
How about starting In Srilanka?
Or India?
How many Muslim terrorists killed the innocent jews?

How many buddists killed the poor persons in Asia?
How many Hindus killed their own Pariaahs?
Why ? for what cause?

Ramma Damma Ding Dong.....

No one cares about you or your silly song!

Ramma Damma Ding Dong

In an ideal world, these statements would be sincere and accurate.

Yet, the US seems to have a problem convincing the "people" in these depressed nations. You have corrupt Govt who get in the way of our efforts to offer an alternative.

Re: Is This A Way To Avoid Terror Attack?


No maybe about it.
That is the issue we all face.

Now you're catching on.

World domination IS the goal.

ANY excuse to attack will be used.

Let's reiterate that the domination strategy is NOT one shared by the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide. And as a result, even Muslims become the victims of terrorists for 'aiding the Great Satan'.

Splinter groups like the Wahhabi Muslims are where some terrorism has its source.

Other 'Muslim' terrorist groups really aren't that religious at all, but are adept at using it for a cover.

steissd posted that 5 years ago

whatever he caught on to, he did it a while ago

learn American English.
Here is a quote

"Ramma Damma Ding Dong.....

No one cares about you or your silly song!

Ramma Damma Ding Dong

I agree with you completely! So why did we attack Iraq instead of the terriosts in Packastian or Saudi Arabia?

rabel
if your above reponse is addressed to me
I beg to submit this.
USA is showing( I mean getting old)
Soup is scarce and borrowed money and brain is draining.
land in moon and try not to fulfill the AMERICAN DREAM