Do terrorists understand the real damage is done by the reaction to their actions?

[Mijin]

@Habeed

But it’s impossible to “make sure” such an event can’t happen again. Only reason the terrorists haven’t done another similar scale attack is that it would take more resources to pull it off. It is by no means impossible, just more difficult.

Well “make sure” was just using overly simple language. Of course I meant just do as much as we can, try to make sure.
Most developed nations are now spending a great deal of money on trying to prevent terrorist attacks, but they are also spending money on fast response following an attack, recognizing that we can never have perfect defense.

Anyway this is all tangential to the main point that I don’t think your calculus works. It’s largely irrelevant what the original precipitating act cost. It’s much more relevant the scale of threats we face and what can be done about them.

I notice you’ve moved on to generally condemning the Iraq invasion. I don’t think you’ll find anyone here defending that, but the right and wrong of that specific conflict is besides the point.

[Nava]

@UDS

Sure. But that ain’t necessarily so every time.

My point is that the country in which a terrorist movement targets operations and the country in which a terrorist movement wishes to effect change are not necessarily the same place.

And mine is that many people in this thread are talking as if they never were the same. Often, they are. Jihadists are as likely to attack a bunch of beachgoers in Tunis as a nightclub in Paris.

The message when the attacks are in their “area of interest” is twofold:

• if you’re not one of the people we wish to control, you should not be here
• if you are, you must behave in the ways we have defined to be appropriate

[botsgotme]

I wonder if a total “scorched earth” response to ISIS terrorism would be effective? Destroy all the villages they are in, destroy their oil smuggling operations, destroy the banks they extract money from.
It may be the only way to eradicate them.

[Ravenman]

The problem is that a lot of places that they control aren’t like they are lousy with terrorists. I’ve heard stories that a village may only have a few ISIL fighters holding many more civilians in fear. Burning down the village hurts the 100 villagers far more than the dozen fighters, who tend to just flee big battles and return later.

[Habeed]

@botsgotme

I wonder if a total “scorched earth” response to ISIS terrorism would be effective? Destroy all the villages they are in, destroy their oil smuggling operations, destroy the banks they extract money from.
It may be the only way to eradicate them.

The problem is, what do you do with the refugees? You either allow them to leave, which means some of the terrorists can slip in with them, or you murder everybody, which gets you international condemnation and it is a crime against humanity. Of course you are correct in that these people will stop fighting if they are all dead. Basically a tautology. And you can’t just kill the fighters - you have to kill the mothers and the “radical” Islamic priests who are essentially part of a machine to create new fighters.

[UDS]

@botsgotme

I wonder if a total “scorched earth” response to ISIS terrorism would be effective? Destroy all the villages they are in, destroy their oil smuggling operations, destroy the banks they extract money from.
It may be the only way to eradicate them.

Not even the Nazis were able to supress guerilla-style opposition through brutalising the entire population. And their willingness to attempt such things certainly exceeds ours.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And the country that invests colossal resources in building the world’s most powerful military is heavily invested in the idea that military power buys security and control, and can solve problems like terrorism.

But history suggests that it can’t. It may have a role to play in controlling or restricting terrorism for while but, ultimately, political action to address the issues giving rise to terrorism will be necessary.

[up_the_junction]

@UDS

Not even the Nazis were able to supress guerilla-style opposition through brutalising the entire population. And their willingness to attempt such things certainly exceeds ours.

To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And the country that invests colossal resources in building the world’s most powerful military is heavily invested in the idea that military power buys security and control, and can solve problems like terrorism.

Sure, it can. Planes, stealth planes, missiles, drones: you just bomb the fuck out of shit and the problem goes away.

@UDS

But history suggests that it can’t. It may have a role to play in controlling or restricting terrorism for while but, ultimately, political action to address the issues giving rise to terrorism will be necessary.

History suggests no such thing. History screams it with every inch of its record.

[Ravenman]

@up_the_junction

Sure, it can. Planes, stealth planes, missiles, drones: you just bomb the fuck out of shit and the problem goes away.
History suggests no such thing. History screams it with every inch of its record.

You realize you’ve just taken diametrically opposite positions in the same post?

[dude5568]

@Habeed

I was hearing about the lockdown in Brussels on the radio today. It’s a ghost town on the streets. Military vehicles and armed soldiers are prominently standing around everywhere. Basically, the terrorists have caused far more economic damage from things like this (and the locking down of the borders between the EU nations, essentially starting the process of breaking up the EU) than the mere 130 lives they took and buildings they shot up.

So I tried to think of what smart terrorists would do now. They wouldn’t attack Brussels. Not now. They’d wait until a month after the security lockdown lifts and everything goes back to normal. The point of the attack wouldn’t be to kill people…it would be to turn their targets into police states, dominated by fear, with heavily armed police out in public everywhere.

That is why terorrism is so destructive. The situation in the middle east is a fucking mess right now. This is the problem as I see it - you cannot defeat people that you cannot intimidate/reason with. These ISIS maniacs are ready to die for their shitty goals. That kind of determination is hard to beat. They have nothing to lose.

What does a U.S Marine fight for , some vague notion of patriotism/doing the right thing , G.I bill … My suggestion is to Wipe ISIS off the face of the earth like removing cancer and then leave the middle east alone, just pull out…cauterize the wound entirely.