Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[martinuzz]

Besides, how are you going to put fear into someone that has already decided they are going to detonate themselves or suicide by cop? Threaten them that you're going to keep them alive? Brrrrr scary!

[Silverthrone]

The thing is, tool created to be used against terrorists will be deployed against other. For exemple, many people implicated in organizind protests against the labour reform law in France were detained under the emergency power granted after the Bataclan.

Well, that is true. Of course, the same could be said against any action taken towards anti-terrorism, although this is certainly one that would require a particular degree of monitoring. The dividing line, of course, is whether a group is extremist and proven to be violent and thus a great danger to the public.

Besides, how are you going to put fear into someone that has already decided they are going to detonate themselves or suicide by cop? Threaten them that you're going to keep them alive? Brrrrr scary!

Once more; there is little use of this particular scheme against those that have already commited to martyrdom. That is the point where an arrest would be prudent. Containment or rehabilitation would follow, depending on the subject and the decision of the court.

[Leafsnail]

You have to be careful with how you police terror suspects. Detention without trial and the shoot to kill policy* were hated by Catholics in Ireland and became a major reason that people joined Republican terrorists.  It's no good detaining one possible terrorist if their unexplained incarceration turns two of their friends against you.

*Shoot to kill has been misrepresented a lot in the media. It's not about how you deal with someone who's representing a clear threat - in that case you use reasonable force, possibly including lethal force. It meant that, if someone was identified as an IRA agent, they could be killed even if they were not at that point presenting a threat.

[smjjames]

You have to be careful with how you police terror suspects. Detention without trial and the shoot to kill policy* were hated by Catholics in Ireland and became a major reason that people joined Republican terrorists.  It's no good detaining one possible terrorist if their unexplained incarceration turns two of their friends against you.

*Shoot to kill has been misrepresented a lot in the media. It's not about how you deal with someone who's representing a clear threat - in that case you use reasonable force, possibly including lethal force. It meant that, if someone was identified as an IRA agent, they could be killed even if they were not at that point presenting a threat.

I wonder how high the misidentification rate was. Kind of hard to ask a dead body if they really were IRA or not.

[Strife26]

The thing is that watching someone 24/24 requires maybe 10 agents per suspect.

Indeed, I heard the estimate was even 20 people per 24/7 watchlist suspect. Combine that with the fact that there are currently about 30k people on the UK watchlist, and you'll see that keeping track of everyone on the watchlist is just not possible. Unless you want to get rid of your healthcare, or maybe your education, or the army, so you can fund an extra 600 thousand police officers.

Easy solution, order 15,000 pairs of handcuffs, then handcuff each of the 30k watchlisted people to another watchlisted person. Boom. The monitoring requirements have now been halved.

[Lagslayer]

Besides, how are you going to put fear into someone that has already decided they are going to detonate themselves or suicide by cop? Threaten them that you're going to keep them alive? Brrrrr scary!

We could try something like this.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[TD1]

It would be brutal, but effective. They do it for paradise. If that's taken away....?

[hector13]

Fiction.

[redwallzyl]

It would be brutal, but effective. They do it for paradise. If that's taken away....?

It assumes that they are in it for that but how many really are? most people are probably broadly a bit more motivated by the good old rape and pillage.

Holy warriors can be a bit hypocritical sometimes. *Cough* Fourth Crusade

[Lagslayer]

Fiction.

Even if it is, it doesn't mean we can't try. We stand to lose very little by doing so.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Starver]

Such behaviour may even incite such hostlities...  Even when not intended as an insult, and probably not much more than rumour.

[hector13]

I'm sure desecrating the corpses of their fallen will pacify those that believe the West hates Muslims. Seems like a fantastic idea.

Can you guarantee that this won't be used as propaganda to recruit others? 'cause otherwise all that'll happen is their number swell, making the problem that much harder to deal with, needing more resources (human and otherwise) to sort it all out. There's a shit ton to lose, up to and including human life.

[Lagslayer]

Such behaviour may even incite such hostlities...  Even when not intended as an insult, and probably not much more than rumour.

I'm sure desecrating the corpses of their fallen will pacify those that believe the West hates Muslims. Seems like a fantastic idea.

Can you guarantee that this won't be used as propaganda to recruit others? 'cause otherwise all that'll happen is their number swell, making the problem that much harder to deal with, needing more resources (human and otherwise) to sort it all out. There's a shit ton to lose, up to and including human life.

Well, NOT doing it doesn't seem to be doing the job.

You either...
1. Do nothing, and they say "You can attack them without fear of reprisal!"
2. Do the job half-assed, and they say "They are killing us! Do your duty and die, too!"
3. Kill them, and everyone they recruit until there is nobody left who will continue.

Options 1 and 2 just do nothing to solve the problem. That is the nature of propaganda. You can't kill an idea with bullets, but you can certainly stop the people who spout it.

[Lagslayer]

So, genocide?

Unless you think that there's a way that you could distinguish the extremists from those who aren't, or somehow think that it's impossible for an extremist to lie.

If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?

How many people have to die before it is deemed cost-effective to root out the killer?

[redwallzyl]

So, genocide?

Unless you think that there's a way that you could distinguish the extremists from those who aren't, or somehow think that it's impossible for an extremist to lie.

If the extremists and moderates are too close to tell apart, what does that tell you?

That they are good at blending in.