A scared population reacts emotionally. Political leaders, who wish to stay alive, will respond to 5,000, 10,000, 20,000 dead (becoming technically feasible for small, well funded groups) , as the people demand. That has always, and will always be true. Wishing for a rational response is silly.

This will end, for this generation, as it has always ended.

It remains to be seen if they can pull off killing that many people.

And its our political leaders job to lead, not to follow. It is their job to convince people that acting on emotions will not help and only cause more problems later down the road.

Bull Crap! If the Us had not intervened in Irag, ISIS would have taken over huge chunks of Iraq. If we had not invaded Iraq in the first place Saddam Hussien would have wiped out ISIS the first time they had set foot in Iraq.
Would you like to make a bet that ISIS never gets to Iran or even close to it.
Id like to know who bankrolled ISIS. Theres an organiztion who will bite the hand that fed them.

Yes, they invaded Iraq. Which has a third rate army that is more likely to run away or surrender than fight. Is it really a surprise they had no problems waltzing in like they did?
And again, that doesn't mean they stand a chance if they tried to pull that off in Europe or the United States or any other major military power.

+1

What is done then?

Hell would have frozen over before the ostriches get around to answering that coherently.

What is done then?

Celebrate the reduction in CO2 emission?!

---

What is done then?

You can catch and bring to justice those terrorists without glassing the general area where they are thought to hide.

And with Muslim terrorism, violence as a response only creates more violence down the line. It would be feeding their cultural victim complex which underpins so many of their extremist organizations.

What is done then?

You can catch and bring to justice those terrorists without glassing the general area where they are thought to hide.

And with Muslim terrorism, violence as a response only creates more violence down the line. It would be feeding their cultural victim complex which underpins so many of their extremist organizations.

Well how about a UN sanctioned hit squad? terrorist bomb a place. A UN contract is put in place to assasinate all particpants and the one who issued the order.

Oh wait that wont work. Nobody in the EU likes the Massad doing that.

---

[/quote]

Old James

What is done then?

You can catch and bring to justice those terrorists without glassing the general area where they are thought to hide.

And with Muslim terrorism, violence as a response only creates more violence down the line. It would be feeding their cultural victim complex which underpins so many of their extremist organizations.

How does one identify ALL these people?

How does one CATCH these people?

Think about this: How does one catch ALL the common criminals, in your Country, before they commit crimes?

The ability to do this, you believe exists, doesn't, and will not exist in the future.

Sorry.

Clyde you are talking past James. No where did he say anything about trying to catch them before they act, only after.

Clyde are you actually arguing for thought police? Arrest and punishment before the crime is committed? Found guilty because of the people you know? That sure sounds a lot like the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. Have you become your enemy?

---

Well how about a UN sanctioned hit squad? terrorist bomb a place. A UN contract is put in place to assasinate all particpants and the one who issued the order.

Oh wait that wont work. Nobody in the EU likes the Massad doing that.

Responding to violence with more violence does not work. Even your own example, the Mossad, has beyond any doubt demonstrated this. They have been hunting down Palestinian terrorists for years and the conflict there is still raging. I find the common attitude that we can somehow bomb or shoot terrorism away to be insane. History has demonstrated over and over again that it does not work. Yet you keep suggesting the same response and somehow hope that 'this time will be different'.

Terrorist movements consists of radicalized members of a certain group of people, and they represent the extremist political goals of that group of people. Shooting terrorists will not make those political goals disappear, nor will it break up the group of people they represent. You can keep shooting them, or bombing them, but all that does is convince the group of people that you are attacking them, so more members of that group close ranks, radicalize and join the terrorist movement while the more moderate members of that group lose their voice and won't be listened to anymore. In other words, the source of the terrorist movement remains and for every terrorist you kill, others will replace him.

If you want to prevent terrorism, you use as little force as possible. Instead, you have to look at the group they represent, and the political aims of that group. You have to locate the moderates and empower them, give them their voice, make the moderates the more attractive option for the people within that group and work towards a compromise, help them achieve some of their political goals, take away the reason why terrorists fight in the first place. Sure, the radicals won't be happy, but you will have turned them into a fringe element that isn't even welcome within the group they supposedly represent. And then you can send the police in and arrest them without further escalating the situation.

How does one identify ALL these people?

How does one CATCH these people?

Thats why we have intelligence and security agencies, to look for, identify and locate terrorists. How? Well by good old fashioned detective work of course.

Think about this: How does one catch ALL the common criminals, in your Country, before they commit crimes?

You don't. You are innocent until you break the law.

The ability to do this, you believe exists, doesn't, and will not exist in the future.

It shouldn't even exist and its not what I'm arguing for. A terrorist first has to break the law before you can catch him, not before.

Arrest and punishment before the crime is committed?

Now I get nervous. Dont US have laws for this?

Swedish law:

Preparation for crime is a Swedish legal term.

Preparing to crimes defined under Chapter 23 § 2 The Criminal Code so that "Whoever, with intent to commit or promote crime
1. Gives or receives money or other things such as paying for a crime or to cover the costs of execution of a crime, or
2. Acquires, manufactures, leaves, receiving, storing, transporting, compiles or takes another similar post with something that is particularly likely to be used as aids in a crime, in the cases specified sentenced for preparation of an offense."

By the term referred specifically stated that the crimes for which they could be sentenced to up must be disclosed separately in the capital of the Criminal Code where the crime defined.

The crimes of theft, robbery, aggravated robbery particular described in Chapter 8, § 12 of the Penal Code. Try these crimes is therefore punishable. Attempted theft of a vehicle, unlawful force unlawful diversion or dissipation of heat energy is also punishable as crimes trials if they are not to judge as a petty offense.

Manipulated (false programmed) cell phone has been regarded as such instrumentalities referred to in Chapter 23. § 2 of the Penal Code.

One person at a department store tried to seize a jacket, worth 598 kr, and thereby in a test chamber with scissors trying to remove the alarm device. Seizure attempt has with regard to the approach judged attempted theft. Normally, should the offense with respect to that value was relatively low, have been assessed as shoplifting where attempts had not been punished.

In an action for preparation, and conspiracy to commit murder, the question of danger to the crime consummation been only modest answered in the negative. The indictment has consequently been upheld by the Svea Court of Appeal judgment in 1998-06-18, Case No. B 795-98.

Well lets be realistic here. Sure, ISIS would love to conquer the entire world. But that goal is just patently unrealistic. For one, they remain a fringe group. They are so extreme not even Al Qaida really likes them. That means they have limited their supporter base significantly because they are simply to extreme for the vast majority of people.

Also, yeah these guys have had some success against third rate armies. But they will need a lot more and a lot better equipment if they really want to take on the US, Russia, China or Europe. Converted pick up trucks only get you so far. Even if they manage to form an actual state they need massive investments to build up an army, and it remains to be seen how willing the world is to trade with them. And the majority of the world would probably boycott the hell out of them. And like I said, if they do become a state, they will be forced to play by certain rules that would weaken them.

The worst they can do is set of a wave of terrorist attacks all over Europe. But that would only serve to strengthen their enemies.

It has already been shown on this thread that you neither have any logistics or military experience, yet you continue to claim that Europe can defend itself with NATO...

ARE YOU SURE OF THAT?

That man's word states more than what you will ever be able to, or are you going to argue against him?

It has already been shown on this thread that you neither have any logistics or military experience, yet you continue to claim that Europe can defend itself with NATO...

ARE YOU SURE OF THAT?

That man's word states more than what you will ever be able to, or are you going to argue against him?

Well for one, there is still article 5 that would go in effect if Russia attacks a NATO member. In other words, the US would have to get involved in such a scenario. But okay, lets assume a hypothetical scenario where the US does not get involved and the Russians want to push as far West as possible. Would they be capable of such a feat? No, clearly not. You say I don't understand military logistics and in the same breath argue that the Russians would be capable of marching towards Berlin or Paris? Yeah, think of the logistics involved with that, combined with the weak economic power that is Russia and the countries that all hate the Russians guts those supply lines would have to go through.

Now lets look of what the Russian army consists of. For the most part, it consists of conscripts. Little boys with little to non combat experience and training that is nothing impressive. And who runs the army? Drunks, rapists, thieves, brutes and overall incompetent officers. They barely manage to keep the army together in times of peace, but how well do you think that will last when they have to fight an actual war against professional, well trained soldiers from the German, French and British army? And thats not even mentioning the smaller, but equally capable soldiers from the Netherlands, Scandinavia, Austria and other European countries?

I'm not saying it would be easy and that we would win this with little to no casualties on our side. And should the European states spend more money on their military capabilities. Yeah definitely, it was stupid of us to think that armies have become completely irrelevant. But again, that doesn't mean we are completely defenseless.

There is NO Intelligence Agency, Nor Police Force, who can identify, ALL those who will commit a crime, before it happens. ANYONE making that assertion is living in a Fantasy World.

You want to identify ALL those who will commit a crime which is of course impossible.
How about many? Or a few?

What should we do now in an attempt to stop this? If they do commit Mass Murder, 10,000, 20,000, or more dead, what would we do then?

I think most civilized countries are trying to stop this before its happens.
But all countries in the World are not civilized.
Think Middle East, Russia, North Corea...

Our problem, in this Brave New World, is that in 5, 10, 20 years: It is very possible that a Psychotic, Mass Murdering, Suicidal group, may be able to obtain, and use Weapons of Mass Destruction (Biological, Radiological, etc.) inside Large Western Populations.

Label, label, label.

Why don't you stop labeling and make them your best friend.

Best friends don't do those things to each other.

---

This is not the Cold War, nor even ANY war in the past. This is NEW.

Yes. It's called Hybrid War. The weapons are terror, insurgeon, intimidation and propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare

Note: Please don't be silly, and accuse me of wanting what may/will happen. It will just be what a Terrified Population will demand. It is not pretty, civilized, nor moral. It will just be a Normal Human Response.

?

Am I wrong in what Terrified Human's are capable of?

No.

This is not the Cold War, nor even ANY war in the past. This is NEW.

Yes. It's called Hybrid War. The weapons are terror, insurgeon, intimidation and propaganda.

That is now. I am speaking of the future.
What happens when/if these Weapon's of Mass Destruction (WMD's), are in their possession?

The Future? Is it not enough with the present?
WMD's (new acronyme) are already widely spread.
Best way is to disarm them so nobody can use them.

This is not the Cold War, nor even ANY war in the past. This is NEW.

Yes. It's called Hybrid War. The weapons are terror, insurgeon, intimidation and propaganda.

That is now. I am speaking of the future.
What happens when/if these Weapon's of Mass Destruction (WMD's), are in their possession?

The Future? Is it not enough with the present?
WMD's (new acronyme) are already widely spread.
Best way is to disarm them so nobody can use them.

Specifically... How exactly do you 'disarm them', when they use innocent populations as shields?

Maybe I dont quite follow you.
But which country who have WMD's use innocent populations as shields?

This is not the Cold War, nor even ANY war in the past. This is NEW.

Yes. It's called Hybrid War. The weapons are terror, insurgeon, intimidation and propaganda.

That is now. I am speaking of the future.
What happens when/if these Weapon's of Mass Destruction (WMD's), are in their possession?

The Future? Is it not enough with the present?
WMD's (new acronyme) are already widely spread.
Best way is to disarm them so nobody can use them.

Specifically... How exactly do you 'disarm them', when they use innocent populations as shields?

Maybe I dont quite follow you.
But which country who have WMD's use innocent populations as shields?

I am referring to my below post.

Our problem, in this Brave New World, is that in 5, 10, 20 years: It is very possible that a Psychotic, Mass Murdering, Suicidal group, may be able to obtain, and use Weapons of Mass Destruction (Biological, Radiological, etc.) inside Large Western Populations.

I was speaking of The Other WMD's. These 'weapons' have already been produced by Country's, may be in the hands of relatively small groups.
Since these 'groups' do use innocent populations as shields, how do you 'disarm' them?

I see. I thought you meant nukes and high technological weapons.
The kind of weapons Hans Blix looked for in Iraq.
Well. Disarming viruses and radiological materials are impossibel.
Back to Square one.

Come to Think about chemical weapons... Used in Iraq and Japan subway

Those living in a Fantasy World, believe it.

Our problem, in this Brave New World, is that in 5, 10, 20 years: It is very possible that a Psychotic, Mass Murdering, Suicidal group, may be able to obtain, and use Weapons of Mass Destruction (Biological, Radiological, etc.) inside Large Western Populations.

Since it would be Impossible to Identify, and Stop, ALL these people:

What should we do now in an attempt to stop this? If they do commit Mass Murder, 10,000, 20,000, or more dead, what would we do then?

I am only asking the question. Those attacking my questions, have never given a 'Non-Fantasy World' answer.

Following your own logic, acting now is as pointless as acting in the future. We can't identify everyone now, so even if we act now we will inevitably miss a small group who will still be able to set off a bomb tomorrow. If anything, hunting them down might accelerate their plans.

The problem with this logic is that it is a straw dog. No one here has ever argued that the best way to stop terrorists is to catch them all before they even made a move. So why do you keep attacking this notion, if its a notion that no one has ever stated as something we should seriously look at?