How to prevent terror attacks ?

[dialamah]

On 21/08/2017 at 11:53 AM, Hydraboss said:

Large caliber weapons at close range.  It may not stop the first "wave" of attacks, but it'll sure as hell make the second wave think twice.

Not serious are you?  Cause that doesn't even stop normal soldiers who don't want to die, let alone fanatics who are willing to blow themselves up.

[betsy]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Police should have the monopoly on violence in civil society.  When masses of everyday citizens walk around armed you end up with high gun murder rates like in the USA.

That's why there should be MANDATORY training.....and anyone who abuses the privilege, would lose their privilege.  

 

We've got a lot of stabbings going on all over the world, and the use of vehicles for mass murder -  why do we let people use knives and vehicles? 

We can't eliminate the use of guns, or knives, or vehicles for all.....just because some crackpots had used them for committing crimes!  Why should the majority be lumped together with the bad apples?

Edited August 23, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

11 hours ago, dialamah said:

Not serious are you?  Cause that doesn't even stop normal soldiers who don't want to die, let alone fanatics who are willing to blow themselves up.

The kind of terrorists that are a current problem all over the world, are those that come from certain culture and religion.  That's why you don't let them inside your country without an ACTUAL THOROUGH, RIGOROUS screening and vetting!     You don't rely on the UN for that! 

 

The USA is doing a practical thing by the travel ban from places where information is hard to come by! 

How can you screen properly without any reliable information?  Without any verification?

 

  It's easier to control and fight them at the gate.  If terrorists are mixed with the general population, it's harder to root them out.

Edited August 23, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

43 minutes ago, betsy said:

We've got a lot of stabbings going on all over the world, and the use of vehicles for mass murder -  why do we let people use knives and vehicles? 

Because they're used for other things besides harming people.

43 minutes ago, betsy said:

1. We can't eliminate the use of guns, or knives, or vehicles for all.....2. just because some crackpots had used them for committing crimes!  Why should the majority be lumped together with the bad apples?

1. We can't ?  Yes we can.

2. Why don't we legalize grenades using your argument ?

[Altai]

As I said banning weapons is not a exact solution but ofcourse it will have a great affect when it comes "ease of access" weapons. If weapons would be easy to access, someone who gets mad at something can easily find a weapon and commit a crime. But if he/she cant reach a weapon easily, he/she may get calm in time and can behave much more logical. 

On the other hand, if someones sets their mind on committing a crime, they can do that even with a pencil. I remember one of my friend told me that once some guys in his class figth each other and they jabbed their pencils in each other's heads. Or someone can make himself a bow and arrows by just watching some videos on Youtube. But as I said he/she will have a time to think twice about it while shaving woods properly to make arrows go straight to the target 

[Hydraboss]

16 hours ago, dialamah said:

Not serious are you?  Cause that doesn't even stop normal soldiers who don't want to die, let alone fanatics who are willing to blow themselves up.

I'm serious that any person attempting to commit an act of terrorism should be given a .223 migraine headache without hesitation.  Unlike some, I don't want to see these people arrested/detained.  I want to see them "removed from the course of employment" permanently.  Someone who is willing to "blow themselves up" likely won't have much of an issue being used for target practice.

And, no, I don't much care about their "human rights".

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, Hydraboss said:

And, no, I don't much care about their "human rights".

Me either.  When you make the choice (and it totally is a "choice") to throw your own HUMAN rights and the HUMAN rights of every other person out the window, you don't get to then come back and claim your HUMAN rights.

Humans who choose to act like animals, choose to give up their own HUMAN rights.

[betsy]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Because they're used for other things besides harming people.

1. We can't ?  Yes we can.

 

Criminals will always get their hands on guns!  You can try but you can't eliminate them - that's a fact! 

 

 

Quote

2. Why don't we legalize grenades using your argument ?

How many had used grenades?   Do you follow, Michael? 

[dre]

19 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well you;re right, seems a lot of these people have been known by police prior.  So it seems we need far stricter/closer surveillance of these people by authorities.

A surveillance state is not WORTH protecting from terrorism. According to the FBI, your chances of dying from a terrorist attack are 1 in 20 million. That's 4 times less likely than being killed by a lightening strike. Now obviously the government and their security apparatus, see this as an opportunity to get stuff that they have wanted forever... less privacy rights for people, more powers for police, less judicial oversight, warrantless surveillance, email mining, phone records etc. People that are dumb with fear and emotion are really easy to exploit.

The biggest threat associated with terrorism, is what our own governments might do in reaction to it. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" so they say.

Look at what has happened so far... The "War on terror", is one of the largest misallocations of funds and resources ever in history. Trillions of dollars have been spent, and the threat of terrorism  has increased. Trillions of dollars have been taken from the pockets of fear-dumb westerners, and placed in the pockets of large, wealthy, government lobbying industries. Its probably the biggest fraud and scam of all time.

They don't want us to think rationally about it. In all the media and government communication on terrorism you will see that rarely is there any empirical numbers mentioned. When intelligence assessments conclude the GWOT has put us at greater risk, its never talked about.  Half the people out there dont even know that groups like ISIS are a direct result of the botched war on terrorism.

Edited August 23, 2017 by dre

[dre]

2 hours ago, Hydraboss said:

I'm serious that any person attempting to commit an act of terrorism should be given a .223 migraine headache without hesitation. 

There are actually places in the world that do things this way... Where the government can just execute people they suspect of things.

Before you become a cheer leader for that approach, I suggest you move to one of these places, and spend some time there. If you survive, then report back.

[CITIZEN_2015]

On 8/22/2017 at 6:52 AM, betsy said:

Make it mandatory for all citizens to have gun-safety training - and to pass that training -  when they reach a certain age.  Instill utmost responsibility that goes with the privilege of carrying.

Arm the population!  Didn't they have some kind of militia for cities and towns in the old days?  They're comprised of folks who don't go to war, but are trained to defend their streets, towns and cities.  I think they have a special name for it.

People who abuse the privilege of having a weapon, loses that privilege.

That's the most practical solution - people has to be able to defend themselves when they're being attacked!  Knowing that your victim has the capacity to defend himself, or fight back and defend others,  is a very effective deterrent for would-be terrorist attacks.  

Like in the US right? Even there not all citizens are armed and we see the level of gun violence compare to Europe and Canada. They shoot at each other even in traffic disputes or bar fights. You also encourage vigilante killings. Those terrorists who believe in death as the way to heaven will not be deterred by a fight back.

It will be hard to prevent terrorism in a democracy where people presumed innocent until proven guilty. Like dictatorship if you suspect someone may be a suspect/terrorist then put him in jail until he rots instead of surveillance like in dictatorships and they have done a much better job of preventing terrorism. I don't recommend this though as democracy is too dear to lose not to mention all those innocent people rotting in jail because they may look like a terrorist or may come from a certain region.

Edited August 23, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[Moonlight Graham]

10 hours ago, betsy said:

That's why there should be MANDATORY training.....and anyone who abuses the privilege, would lose their privilege. 

We've got a lot of stabbings going on all over the world, and the use of vehicles for mass murder -  why do we let people use knives and vehicles? 

We can't eliminate the use of guns, or knives, or vehicles for all.....just because some crackpots had used them for committing crimes!  Why should the majority be lumped together with the bad apples?

Knives, cars, airplanes etc have primary uses other than being used a weapon, but they can be used as such.  The vast majority of guns are specifically designed to kill human beings as quickly & efficient as possible.  All the training and education in the universe won't prevent gun violence, because there's a lot of stupid, angry, and/or mentally unstable people out there.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, dre said:

A surveillance state is not WORTH protecting from terrorism. According to the FBI, your chances of dying from a terrorist attack are 1 in 20 million. That's 4 times less likely than being killed by a lightening strike. Now obviously the government and their security apparatus, see this as an opportunity to get stuff that they have wanted forever... less privacy rights for people, more powers for police, less judicial oversight, warrantless surveillance, email mining, phone records etc. People that are dumb with fear and emotion are really easy to exploit.

The biggest threat associated with terrorism, is what our own governments might do in reaction to it. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" so they say.

I agree with most of what you're saying, I don't want innocent people spied on.  However, what I was talking about was suspicious people who already have been flagged by police as a terror threat.  These people (not you or I) should be under greater surveillance, because terror attacks in the West in recent years have often been done by those already known or under surveillance to the police.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, dre said:

A surveillance state is not WORTH protecting from terrorism. According to the FBI, your chances of dying from a terrorist attack are 1 in 20 million. That's 4 times less likely than being killed by a lightening strike. Now obviously the government and their security apparatus, see this as an opportunity to get stuff that they have wanted forever... less privacy rights for people, more powers for police, less judicial oversight, warrantless surveillance, email mining, phone records etc. People that are dumb with fear and emotion are really easy to exploit.

The biggest threat associated with terrorism, is what our own governments might do in reaction to it. "Never let a good crisis go to waste" so they say.

Look at what has happened so far... The "War on terror", is one of the largest misallocations of funds and resources ever in history. Trillions of dollars have been spent, and the threat of terrorism  has increased. Trillions of dollars have been taken from the pockets of fear-dumb westerners, and placed in the pockets of large, wealthy, government lobbying industries. Its probably the biggest fraud and scam of all time.

They don't want us to think rationally about it. In all the media and government communication on terrorism you will see that rarely is there any empirical numbers mentioned. When intelligence assessments conclude the GWOT has put us at greater risk, its never talked about.  Half the people out there dont even know that groups like ISIS are a direct result of the botched war on terrorism.

It makes one wonder why they cancelled that concert in Rotterdam today.  Do you think there have been fewer than normal people killed by lightning in Holland this year?

Edited August 24, 2017 by bcsapper
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they can compare it to something silly - Not Blaise Pascal

[taxme]

On 8/22/2017 at 4:15 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

Police should have the monopoly on violence in civil society.  When masses of everyday citizens walk around armed you end up with high gun murder rates like in the USA.

Chicago is a place for a very high murder rate. Dozens are killed every week in that city. Chicago has become a lawless town with no sheriff wearing a badge to keep the peace. But maybe that is a good thing. As a result Chicago appears to be getting rid of all of it's useless bunch of gang dealers anyway who serve no purpose in or to society. The world appears to becoming a better place every day after all for those who just want to live in peace. 

[betsy]

20 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Like in the US right? Even there not all citizens are armed and we see the level of gun violence compare to Europe and Canada. They shoot at each other even in traffic disputes or bar fights. You also encourage vigilante killings. Those terrorists who believe in death as the way to heaven will not be deterred by a fight back.

It will be hard to prevent terrorism in a democracy where people presumed innocent until proven guilty. Like dictatorship if you suspect someone may be a suspect/terrorist then put him in jail until he rots instead of surveillance like in dictatorships and they have done a much better job of preventing terrorism. I don't recommend this though as democracy is too dear to lose not to mention all those innocent people rotting in jail because they may look like a terrorist or may come from a certain region.

I'm not talking about vigilantes.  I'm talking about being able to defend.  I gave examples - like the beheading of the soldier on the street of London, or the nightclub massacre in Florida. 

It's so weird that the soldier was killed in broad daylight, on a busy street - and the killers stood there for how long after the killing, without anyone engaging them!  How could anyone engage them when even the cops aren't armed in England!

 

But yes, I see your point, too.  There will be the trigger-happy, and the loonies.

 

 

Edited August 24, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

Of course, don't expect any guarantee that there wouldn't be any attempt or any attacks....there's no guarantee to anything!

The best way to prevent terrorist attacks would be to contain the borders.  Either banning certain people from certain cultures, or really doing a very thorough screening and vetting.  Don't give that responsibility to the UN!  We have to have full control of who are let in to this country.  That's the most practical solution!

Once the borders are secure, then you deal with the terrorists within! 

Edited August 24, 2017 by betsy

[Altai]

We can stop cars to dive into the crowd with some physical and electronic interventions. First of all, cars have to be limited 30 miles/hour maximum speed in city centers, secondly there should be barriers divides the driveway and sidewalks. Its already exist but should be everywhere. Another measure may be to stop their engines electronically when they cross a line between driveway and sidewalks.

[hot enough]

On 8/23/2017 at 10:19 AM, Goddess said:

Me either.  When you make the choice (and it totally is a "choice") to throw your own HUMAN rights and the HUMAN rights of every other person out the window, you don't get to then come back and claim your HUMAN rights.

Humans who choose to act like animals, choose to give up their own HUMAN rights.

Why are you and Hydraboss such deeply anti-democratic folks?

[hot enough]

Not a single mention of the sole cause of the world's terrorist problems. That is so weird. 

[Rue]

Betsy just a few comments, A knife is a weapon of violence by both criminals and terrorists because it can be used quicker than a gun.  You have time when someone points a gun more likely than you can react to a knife. Guns require you actually breath and point a knife does not. They are also easier to conceal or attack with.

Michael  H is right that in some cases knives  are easier to get, i.e., kitchen knives, skinning knives but not necessarily switch blades or specialty knives. Most knives used in crimes are shanks or stillettos. The ones used say in Jerusalem are actually any sharp knife from the kitchen or butcher knives and most terrorist knive attacks are done stabbing you in the back never to your face. Even terrorists find it hard to look in your eyes to kill you. A lot of them need to drink or smoke hash or get high or wind themselves up in a trance. 

Terrorism is cowardice. Its what a coward does. They have no code of honour. Killing children, the disabled, the elderly, civilians, using ambulances, doctor's and nurse's uniforms, strapping bombs to pregnant women and people with down's syndrome, its all done.

The bottom line is you can never fully prevent terrorism only make it more difficult to happen by giving up certain freedom of movement components..

The solutions for  terrorism will not be spoken,-they will be carried out and  people should be grateful the people who take care of such things  won't discuss it.

The solutions are already there. They are being carried out.

All I say is when you see a soldier, thank them. Leave it at that. Its the same way you should thank a firefighter or police officer with a nod or a bow or just a smile and leave it at that and not pretend to think you understand what has to be done.

They have boots. They put them on.

[dialamah]

On 23/08/2017 at 9:19 AM, Goddess said:

Me either.  When you make the choice (and it totally is a "choice") to throw your own HUMAN rights and the HUMAN rights of every other person out the window, you don't get to then come back and claim your HUMAN rights.

Humans who choose to act like animals, choose to give up their own HUMAN rights.

I always thought being principled meant doing the right thing, even if the other person didn't.  If "they" ignore human rights and we think that gives us the right to ignore human rights too, then we are no different than "them".  

[Goddess]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I always thought being principled meant doing the right thing, even if the other person didn't.  If "they" ignore human rights and we think that gives us the right to ignore human rights too, then we are no different than 

Sometimes the rights of actual human beings come BEFORE the rights of those who don't give a shit. 

Being principled doesn't mean we have to let terrorists and extremists shit on us.

 

17 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 

 

[hot enough]

39 minutes ago, Goddess said:

Sometimes the rights of actual human beings come BEFORE the rights of those who don't give a shit. 

Being principled doesn't mean we have to let terrorists and extremists shit on us.

That's not the least bit principled, Goddess, and the sad thing, you know it.

1) Why do you so consummately avoid the fact that these so called terrorists are reacting to decades of US/UK/Canada terrorism against them?

2) Why do you avoid the fact that your concerns only arose in response to you being brainwashed? 

 

[Ash74]

4 hours ago, Goddess said:

Sometimes the rights of actual human beings come BEFORE the rights of those who don't give a shit. 

Being principled doesn't mean we have to let terrorists and extremists shit on us.

 

 

I loathe the fact you are right. The CIA and others were breaking rules to get the job done. Your average terrorist does not follow any rules except to kill as many people as possible.  We as a society avoid innocent people as much as possible in our war on terror.

It sucks I admit but we will never know how many lives waterboarding saved