The best defense against terrorists is to laugh at them...

[dropzone]

...and the hits just keep on coming with that Times Square "bomber."

Terrorism, to be effective, requires people to be terrorized. At 65 years remove we laugh at the "Downfall" parodies on YouTube, but back then Spike Jones was tweaking Der Fuhrer's face and turning him into a mere human being. Recent events in NYC have delivered us a clown of magnificent proportions. So far he:

- Used fertilizer as part of the explosive.

Yeah, but "not that kind of fertilizer." Miracle-Gro makes tomatoes big, not bombs.

- Used firecrackers as detonators.

Fine if you use real M-80s, which hold 3 grams of explosive. M-88s? As legal fireworks they carry 1/60th of that. "Not enough to hurt a watermelon," said the guy who sold them to him. Did the moron think M-88s were just that much stronger? Spinal Tap Moment: "This one goes to 88."

- Left house key in ignition.

Imaginary FBI guy: We weren't sure it was the guy who bought the truck except HE LEFT HIS FREAKING HOUSE KEY IN THE IGNITION!!!!!"

- Left key to getaway car in burning SUV so he had to take the bus home.

There are no words, except this was a guy who supposedly got professional terrorist training. I know that Al Quaeda has created a version of their recruitment manual that is a virtual "Recruiting Terrorists for Dummies," but it seems to get worse. Apparently, in Pakistan, anybody can hang up a shingle advertising professional terrorist training and get suckers to pay good money to learn how to make car bombs that one American expert claimed, "took several people two weeks to build."

Unfortunately, The Stupid is on both sides. I may have been the first to make such a claim, but since then I've heard several claims that, "My kid could make a better bomb." Of course, not MY kids, who were well-supervised (for cause, which follows), but kids of my generation, who had dads with professional, WWII experience with high explosives so they inculcated us with a casual disdain and familiarity with low explosives and a respect, but not fear, of high explosives. IOW, our dads and us liked, and knew how to, blow stuff up. I sometimes think I've failed as a father because I haven't passed that knowledge on, but it's for the best.

[McHrozni]

There are no words, except this was a guy who supposedly got professional terrorist training. I know that Al Quaeda has created a version of their recruitment manual that is a virtual "Recruiting Terrorists for Dummies," but it seems to get worse. Apparently, in Pakistan, anybody can hang up a shingle advertising professional terrorist training and get suckers to pay good money to learn how to make car bombs that one American expert claimed, "took several people two weeks to build."

The worst part of it is that he probably did some similarly stupid mistakes earlier on, and wasn't caught. That's what usually happens to amateurs such as him.

On the other hand, it's also possible he wasn't caught because he did several mistakes which meant his bomb wasn't going to work all that well, and didn't raise the usual alarms.

McHrozni

[Upchurch]

"criminal genius" is an oxymoron.

[Eddie Dane]

The pink panther returns.

Did he also have an Asian servant who was under orders to attack him every time he got home?

[Eddie Dane]

Actually it reminds me of this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yszKc4m-W9U)

[Darth Rotor]

@dropzone:

You are wrong beyond wrong.

Perhaps the best reaction to terrorists is to laugh -- that Bali nightclub bombing was a real laugh riot, wasn't it? :p -- but the defense against them is absolutely not to treat them as trivial, bumbling boobs, since any number of them are not.

ETA Spain, for example, are not idiots.

An awful lot of the terrorist attacks in Iraq are effective, and lethal. Laughter won't stop that.

Laughter won't stop the bombs going off in Afghanistan, nor the ones that will go off in India if the Indian authorities just sit back and laugh.

No. The premise of your OP is utter tripe. You do not assume your enemy is stupid, unless you want him to kick your butt.

DR

[fishbob]

There is not much in the way of defense against terrorists.
The best way to reduce terrorism is to treat terrorists as common criminals.

They have a cause, they want to be seen as soldiers for whatever their cause may be. Do not empower this by giving them special status and waging war against them.

Catch them, try them, put them in jail or execute them, consider them lower than child molesters.

Do not interview them. Do not publicize reactions of the families of their victims. Do not publish their last words.

Let them rot in obscurity within the justice system.

[AlBell]

I suppose killing their extended families and friends is right out then?

Can we salt their gardens?

[Darth Rotor]

I suppose killing their extended families and friends is right out then?
IMO, that's a far better way to handle them.

But I'm not in charge.

DR

[mhaze]

@dropzone:

You are wrong beyond wrong.

Perhaps the best reaction to terrorists is to laugh -- that Bali nightclub bombing was a real laugh riot, wasn't it? :p -- but the defense against them is absolutely not to treat them as trivial, bumbling boobs, since any number of them are not.

ETA Spain, for example, are not idiots.

An awful lot of the terrorist attacks in Iraq are effective, and lethal. Laughter won't stop that.

Laughter won't stop the bombs going off in Afghanistan, nor the ones that will go off in India if the Indian authorities just sit back and laugh.

No. The premise of your OP is utter tripe. You do not assume your enemy is stupid, unless you want him to kick your butt.

DR

True.

But there's another sort of method of ridiculing the enemy that's proven to work pretty well -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmijlOwnXuE&NR=1

[Drysdale]

There is not much in the way of defense against terrorists.
The best way to reduce terrorism is to treat terrorists as common criminals.

They have a cause, they want to be seen as soldiers for whatever their cause may be. Do not empower this by giving them special status and waging war against them.

Catch them, try them, put them in jail or execute them, consider them lower than child molesters.

Do not interview them. Do not publicize reactions of the families of their victims. Do not publish their last words.

Let them rot in obscurity within the justice system.

Hmmm, then having publicized trials as opposed to closed tribunals should definately be out then no?

[mhaze]

Hmmm, then having publicized trials as opposed to closed tribunals should definately be out then no?

Trials?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoXDzsuqXFg&feature=related

[Skeptic]

There is not much in the way of defense against terrorists.
The best way to reduce terrorism is to treat terrorists as common criminals.

And the best way to deal with an invading army is to sue its soldiers for trespassing and ignoring the "don't step on the grass" signs.

[MG1962]

I suppose killing their extended families and friends is right out then?

Can we salt their gardens?

Romans tried that - didn't work out so well

[rjh01]

And the best way to deal with an invading army is to sue its soldiers for trespassing and ignoring the "don't step on the grass" signs.

Actually, one way is to have close relationships with them. Then convert them to your cause. This may take a generation or two to work. The British were masters of it. Worked for every invasion from the fall of the Roman empire to the Normans. This works because the invaders are a minority group.

[Howie Felterbush]

IMO, that's a far better way to handle them.

But I'm not in charge.

DR

You have my vote when you're ready to be.

[Dorian Gray]

ya if a terist comes just lolz and he will go away lol kthxbye rolleyes

[marksman]

Romans tried that - didn't work out so well

Really? Because the Carthaginians didn't pose too much of a threat after the Romans razed Carthage and salted their fields. The folks who eventually sacked Rome were not related to the Carthaginians. Seems to me the strategy worked fine.

There are many reasons I might not recommend punishing innocent families and salting the farms of the nations from which terrorists hail. But its effectiveness in preventing retribution from th targeted populace is not one of them.

[Virus]

I think the best defence against terrorists is to kill them.

[The Fool]

we should attack Iran..

[fishbob]

Hmmm, then having publicized trials as opposed to closed tribunals should definately be out then no?

Here's a clue - No.

Normal trials. Regular trials. Non-sensationalized trials.

[fishbob]

And the best way to deal with an invading army is to sue its soldiers for trespassing and ignoring the "don't step on the grass" signs.

You can see an army. You can defend against an army.
You can't see terrorists, except on those rare occassions when they set their own underwear on fire.

Treating these zealots as if they are anything other than low-life criminals justifies their cause to them.

[Brainster]

Boxcutters? Hahaha!

:eek:

[Virus]

Treating these zealots as if they are anything other than low-life criminals justifies their cause to them.

Who cares what terrorists think? They are low-life criminals and they can justify it all they want. Do you seriously think being nicer to terrorists will make them say "Gee I was wrong. America isn't so bad after all".

[Darth Rotor]

we should attack Iran..

I don't think you Aussies have the wherewithal to do that, mate. ;)

[NoZed Avenger]

An awful lot of the terrorist attacks in Iraq are effective, and lethal. Laughter won't stop that.

Laughter won't stop the bombs going off in Afghanistan, nor the ones that will go off in India if the Indian authorities just sit back and laugh.

No. The premise of your OP is utter tripe. You do not assume your enemy is stupid, unless you want him to kick your butt.


"Actually, a smile is a lousy umbrella." - Linus Van Pelt.

[rjh01]

What the actual terrorists think is not important. What is important are what these people think
- People who might be recruited as terrorists
- People who donate money and other resources to the terrorists
- People who are sympathetic to the terrorists causes.

Persuade these people not to help the terrorists and you eliminate the threat. However in many cases this will have to be done on a world wide basis.

[Virus]

What the actual terrorists think is not important. What is important are what these people think
- People who might be recruited as terrorists
- People who donate money and other resources to the terrorists
- People who are sympathetic to the terrorists causes.

Persuade these people not to help the terrorists and you eliminate the threat. However in many cases this will have to be done on a world wide basis.

I agree. This was a big part of Petraeus's counter-insurgency plan.

[I Ratant]

Actually, one way is to have close relationships with them. Then convert them to your cause. This may take a generation or two to work. The British were masters of it. Worked for every invasion from the fall of the Roman empire to the Normans. This works because the invaders are a minority group.
.
Work with them to peacefully come to a compromise solution that works... preferably before it gets to the terrorist-in-fact stage.
Fighting doesn't do much except kill a few, and give others the idea that they should be fighting also.

[I Ratant]

Here's a clue - No.

Normal trials. Regular trials. Non-sensationalized trials.
.
Not a chance today, for the Gitmo guys.
The media will be all over, under, sideways and down through the entire process, distilling/distorting/disturbing/disrupting... the only thing they know.

[I Ratant]

What the actual terrorists think is not important. What is important are what these people think
- People who might be recruited as terrorists
- People who donate money and other resources to the terrorists
- People who are sympathetic to the terrorists causes.

Persuade these people not to help the terrorists and you eliminate the threat. However in many cases this will have to be done on a world wide basis.
.
Yes.
Attack the reasons for the discontent.
Face the facts and find a solution.

[DDWW]

At least the next time they should be smarter.

After all, from our TV experts they will now know what fertilizer to use, what detonators to use, and make sure to have their car keys with them.

DD (Who said our education system was broken) WW

[theprestige]

What the actual terrorists think is not important. What is important are what these people think
- People who might be recruited as terrorists
- People who donate money and other resources to the terrorists
- People who are sympathetic to the terrorists causes.

Persuade these people not to help the terrorists and you eliminate the threat. However in many cases this will have to be done on a world wide basis.

I agree. This was a big part of Petraeus's counter-insurgency plan.

.
Work with them to peacefully come to a compromise solution that works... preferably before it gets to the terrorist-in-fact stage.
Fighting doesn't do much except kill a few, and give others the idea that they should be fighting also.

.
Yes.
Attack the reasons for the discontent.
Face the facts and find a solution.
Has it never occurred to you that people may engage in terrorism because they are essentially conspiracy theorists who are willing to do violence?

Dylan Avery with a gun, Stephen Jones with a suicide vest--would you still recommend reasoning with them and negotiating a peaceful compromise solution?

[Darth Rotor]

At least the next time they should be smarter.

After all, from our TV experts they will now know what fertilizer to use, what detonators to use, and make sure to have their car keys with them.

DD (Who said our education system was broken) WW
Public Service Announcement, after a fashion. :p

[I Ratant]

Has it never occurred to you that people may engage in terrorism because they are essentially conspiracy theorists who are willing to do violence?

Dylan Avery with a gun, Stephen Jones with a suicide vest--would you still recommend reasoning with them and negotiating a peaceful compromise solution?
.
Loose individuals will always find a way to fulfill their fantasies.
The organized terrorists appear to have followers and agendas.
Thwarting the agendas is one way to diminish the effect of the roots of the discontent.

[fishbob]

Who cares what terrorists think? They are low-life criminals and they can justify it all they want. Do you seriously think being nicer to terrorists will make them say "Gee I was wrong. America isn't so bad after all".

Where do you get "being nicer" out of prosecuting them as low-life criminals and letting them rot in jail?

You should care what terrorists think. Treating them as something other than low-life criminals gives them the opportunity to see themselves as soldiers with a cause - self delusion on top of their pre-existing fundamentalist self delusion. Treating them as something other than low-life criminals helps them recruit, feeds their resolve, gives them an excuse.

15 to life with Bubba for a roomy is a sharp dose of reality and gives them no justification at all.

[fishbob]

.
Not a chance today, for the Gitmo guys.
The media will be all over, under, sideways and down through the entire process, distilling/distorting/disturbing/disrupting... the only thing they know.

You are probably right. Dammit.

[theprestige]

15 to life with Bubba for a roomy is a sharp dose of reality and gives them no justification at all.
I wonder how that would work as an interrogation technique: "Tell us everything you know, and we'll send you to Gitmo as an enemy combatant. Stay quiet, and we'll send you to federal prison as a common criminal, where you'll be raped daily while sadistic guards look on and laugh."

What do you think? Better or worse than waterboarding?

[CORed]

...and the hits just keep on coming with that Times Square "bomber."

Terrorism, to be effective, requires people to be terrorized. At 65 years remove we laugh at the "Downfall" parodies on YouTube, but back then Spike Jones was tweaking Der Fuhrer's face and turning him into a mere human being. Recent events in NYC have delivered us a clown of magnificent proportions. So far he:

- Used fertilizer as part of the explosive.

Yeah, but "not that kind of fertilizer." Miracle-Gro makes tomatoes big, not bombs.

- Used firecrackers as detonators.

Fine if you use real M-80s, which hold 3 grams of explosive. M-88s? As legal fireworks they carry 1/60th of that. "Not enough to hurt a watermelon," said the guy who sold them to him. Did the moron think M-88s were just that much stronger? Spinal Tap Moment: "This one goes to 88."

- Left house key in ignition.

Imaginary FBI guy: We weren't sure it was the guy who bought the truck except HE LEFT HIS FREAKING HOUSE KEY IN THE IGNITION!!!!!"

- Left key to getaway car in burning SUV so he had to take the bus home.

There are no words, except this was a guy who supposedly got professional terrorist training. I know that Al Quaeda has created a version of their recruitment manual that is a virtual "Recruiting Terrorists for Dummies," but it seems to get worse. Apparently, in Pakistan, anybody can hang up a shingle advertising professional terrorist training and get suckers to pay good money to learn how to make car bombs that one American expert claimed, "took several people two weeks to build."

Unfortunately, The Stupid is on both sides. I may have been the first to make such a claim, but since then I've heard several claims that, "My kid could make a better bomb." Of course, not MY kids, who were well-supervised (for cause, which follows), but kids of my generation, who had dads with professional, WWII experience with high explosives so they inculcated us with a casual disdain and familiarity with low explosives and a respect, but not fear, of high explosives. IOW, our dads and us liked, and knew how to, blow stuff up. I sometimes think I've failed as a father because I haven't passed that knowledge on, but it's for the best.

Supposedly, this guy got support from the "Pakistani Taliban". This raises the question in my mind of whether we should go after them. If this is the kind of "support" they give, maybe we should leave them alone, lest somebody else start supporting disgruntled idiots like the "bomber" (are you really a bomber if you build a "bomb" that has no possibillity of actually exploding?) that will give them instructions on how to make a bomb that actually works. Of course, with this particular idiot, I'm not sure he was capable of pouring piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel upside down.

[theprestige]

Supposedly, this guy got support from the "Pakistani Taliban". This raises the question in my mind of whether we should go after them. If this is the kind of "support" they give, maybe we should leave them alone, lest somebody else start supporting disgruntled idiots like the "bomber" (are you really a bomber if you build a "bomb" that has no possibillity of actually exploding?) that will give them instructions on how to make a bomb that actually works. Of course, with this particular idiot, I'm not sure he was capable of pouring piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel upside down.
My wife's theory is that he got the terrorist version of "basic training", then got sent home to await activation.

Life sucks, debt piles up, the purpose-giving phone call never comes, and finally he decides to activate himself, put his jihadi ambitions and entry-level skills to good use... only, absent the coordination and leadership provided by a competent terrorist cell with a well-defined mission, his rogue action fizzles.

It's entirely possible the Pakistani Taliban who trained him identified his limitations early on, and gave him the terrorist version of "don't call us, we'll call you".

I wonder why anybody would consider it prudent to assume guys like him are the only product of such organizations, or that everybody they've ever sent home from training camp is no more competent than he is.

[rjh01]

Has it never occurred to you that people may engage in terrorism because they are essentially conspiracy theorists who are willing to do violence?

Dylan Avery with a gun, Stephen Jones with a suicide vest--would you still recommend reasoning with them and negotiating a peaceful compromise solution?

The people who believe in CT are not a serious threat. No more of a threat than common criminals. Otherwise we would be under martial law with terrorists demanding the fall of the NWO.

[Darth Rotor]

The people who believe in CT are not a serious threat.
Tim McVeigh is a data point against your remark there.

I'll add Osama Bin Laden as someone at least partly immersed in CT ideology, but he has other issues that come to the fore more often.

DR

[Axiom_Blade]

It's entirely possible the Pakistani Taliban who trained him identified his limitations early on, and gave him the terrorist version of "don't call us, we'll call you".


So, he's like the Pakistani Invader Zim?

[theprestige]

So, he's like the Pakistani Invader Zim?
Sure, if you want to trivialize the reality of what he tried to do, and who he's affiliated with.

I wonder how trivial a trunkload of fireworks and propane tanks would seem if it were discovered that there'd been one aboard the Deepwater Horizon at the time of the blowout.

[JihadJane]

I think the best defence against terrorists is to kill them.

..thereby creating a load more people who want to kill you, with even better reason!

[Darth Rotor]

..thereby potentially creating a load more people who want to kill you, with even better reason!
You missed a spot there, as the outcome isn't a certainty.

DR

[JihadJane]

You missed a spot there, as the outcome isn't a certainty.

DR

Inevitably would be more accurate, actually

[Darth Rotor]

Inevitably would be more accurate, actually

Nope. For a case in point, the Bader Meinhof crowd ...

[Chaos]

Nope. For a case in point, the Bader Meinhof crowd ...

...was able to easily make up for attrition of all kinds for about 25 years. They stopped bombing when people stopped being scared to death about them.

[SaveAmericaFightNWO]

...and the hits just keep on coming with that Times Square "bomber."

Terrorism, to be effective, requires people to be terrorized. At 65 years remove we laugh at the "Downfall" parodies on YouTube, but back then Spike Jones was tweaking Der Fuhrer's face and turning him into a mere human being. Recent events in NYC have delivered us a clown of magnificent proportions. So far he:

- Used fertilizer as part of the explosive.

Yeah, but "not that kind of fertilizer." Miracle-Gro makes tomatoes big, not bombs.

- Used firecrackers as detonators.

Fine if you use real M-80s, which hold 3 grams of explosive. M-88s? As legal fireworks they carry 1/60th of that. "Not enough to hurt a watermelon," said the guy who sold them to him. Did the moron think M-88s were just that much stronger? Spinal Tap Moment: "This one goes to 88."

- Left house key in ignition.

Imaginary FBI guy: We weren't sure it was the guy who bought the truck except HE LEFT HIS FREAKING HOUSE KEY IN THE IGNITION!!!!!"

- Left key to getaway car in burning SUV so he had to take the bus home.

There are no words, except this was a guy who supposedly got professional terrorist training. I know that Al Quaeda has created a version of their recruitment manual that is a virtual "Recruiting Terrorists for Dummies," but it seems to get worse. Apparently, in Pakistan, anybody can hang up a shingle advertising professional terrorist training and get suckers to pay good money to learn how to make car bombs that one American expert claimed, "took several people two weeks to build."

Unfortunately, The Stupid is on both sides. I may have been the first to make such a claim, but since then I've heard several claims that, "My kid could make a better bomb." Of course, not MY kids, who were well-supervised (for cause, which follows), but kids of my generation, who had dads with professional, WWII experience with high explosives so they inculcated us with a casual disdain and familiarity with low explosives and a respect, but not fear, of high explosives. IOW, our dads and us liked, and knew how to, blow stuff up. I sometimes think I've failed as a father because I haven't passed that knowledge on, but it's for the best.

Were you aware of the terror drills that were ran that same day, just hours before? An officer admitted to being in the drill.

[SaveAmericaFightNWO]

The people who believe in CT are not a serious threat. No more of a threat than common criminals. Otherwise we would be under martial law with terrorists demanding the fall of the NWO.

I agree. 9/11 truthers are no threat. two reasons

1) I'm one of them

2) i'm against terrorist attacks, and seek to imprison those that carried them out! (people within our own government and they had the talking media whores to lie for them, all over TV.. lies lies and more lies, about Al-CIA-da, and WMDs and Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11)

3) extra point, our government didn't even want to investigate, it took a lot of support of the 9/11 victims to get answers and they didn't even get 70% of their questions answered to this day, plus Kagan helped stop them from suing the Royal Saudi family for its ties to the attacks.

[beachnut]

Were you aware of the terror drills that were ran that same day, just hours before? An officer admitted to being in the drill.
And by training for a terrorists strike it was good or bad?

Football drills to prepare to play football. Terror drills to prepare for terrorists. What does it mean?

I agree, with 911 truth cult members who can't figure out 911 given 8 years and the answers, who would they be a threat to besides murdering truth.

[theprestige]

I agree. 9/11 truthers are no threat. two reasons

1) I'm one of them

2) i'm against terrorist attacks, and seek to imprison those that carried them out! (people within our own government and they had the talking media whores to lie for them, all over TV.. lies lies and more lies, about Al-CIA-da, and WMDs and Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11)

3) extra point, our government didn't even want to investigate, it took a lot of support of the 9/11 victims to get answers and they didn't even get 70% of their questions answered to this day, plus Kagan helped stop them from suing the Royal Saudi family for its ties to the attacks.
And this, I think, sums up my point perfectly: A terrorist, properly understood, is a conspiracy theorist willing to do violence.

I have no doubt that SAF-NWO is a peaceful person.

But if someone holding similar views declared intifada until a new 9-11 commission answered that 70% of questions that truthers insist are perfectly reasonable? If that person promised suicide murders and car bombs every week until the Royal Saudi family was properly punished for its ties to the attacks? If that person insisted there could be no peace, and would be no peace, until those that really carry out the terrorist attacks--"people within our own government"--and their "media whores" were brought to justice?

I've seen the 9-11 CT subforum, people: Nobody besides the CTists themselves believe they have a rational case against the 9-11 Commission. Nobody believes they should be negotiated with, or that a rational compromise is possible.

Everybody agrees that the proper way to deal with CTists is to explain the facts to them rationally, and if that doesn't work, ignore them.

Easy enough to do, when they're not killing people until they get their way. I understand the situation is somewhat different in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan. In Sri Lanka. In Thailand. In Somalia.

I predict that among the people who any minute now are going to be tripping all over each other to repudiate SAF-NWO's woo with extreme prejudice, are people who have in other threads insisted that we show tolerance, understanding, and a willingness to compromise, whenever such people decide to promote their woo with gun-shot and bomb-blast.

Kill nobody, and you're a crank. Kill one person, and you're a murderer. Detonate a bomb in a crowded marketplace and say it's for "social justice", and you're a folk hero.

[Axiom_Blade]

And this, I think, sums up my point perfectly: A terrorist, properly understood, is a conspiracy theorist willing to do violence.

Terrorism is a strategy. The person employing it is a terrorist. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.

[Darth Rotor]

They stopped bombing when people stopped being scared to death about them.
I am skeptical of your cause and effect analysis. A number of that group were taken when I was a boy living in Germany, when they were active as urban terrorists. The posters in the U-bahn stations, sort of a "most wanted list," got revised with red X's over a few faces. I can't remember who died first, Bader or Meinhoff. Deep memory here, foggy, somebody died in jail.

However, it's been a long time since they were on the "most wanted list" in Germany, as they were then, so if some of that crowd survived, unlike the Symbionese Liberation Army, urban terrorists who didn't survive, I'll offer that it was due to survival via their own adaptation, not an outcome of other people not being afraid of them.

ETA: Baader. Spelling error. :(

DR

[Chaos]

I am skeptical of your cause and effect analysis. A number of that group were taken when I was a boy living in Germany, when they were active as urban terrorists. The posters in the U-bahn stations, sort of a "most wanted list," got revised with red X's over a few faces. I can't remember who died first, Bader or Meinhoff. Deep memory here, foggy, somebody died in jail.

Both, actually. Meinhof in, IIRC, 1974, Baader (along with Enslin and Raspe, with one other surviving) in 1977.

However, it's been a long time since they were on the "most wanted list" in Germany, as they were then, so if some of that crowd survived, unlike the Symbionese Liberation Army, urban terrorists who didn't survive, I'll offer that it was due to survival via their own adaptation, not an outcome of other people not being afraid of them.

ETA: Baader. Spelling error. :(

DR

The point is, all the paranoia and draconic measures and stuff did not hurt them appreciably, and merely served to generate support for them among the more radical elements of society. When they were no longer being treated as Public Enemy Number One whose mere existence was a mortal threat to society, in the 90s, they faded away, and eventually announced their dissolution.

[theprestige]

Terrorism is a strategy. The person employing it is a terrorist. It has nothing to do with conspiracy theories.
Demanding evidence in support of claims is a strategy. The person employing it is a rational thinker. Would you characterize those in the 9-11 CT subforum, currently demanding evidence for 9-11 rational thinkers?

Your definition of terrorism is all well and good on paper. On paper, it's even a correct definition. But in the real world, terrorism is practiced by people who do not have rational demands, who are not interested in rational compromise, and who are every bit as woo in their practices as the people who go to ApolloHoax to dispute the moon landings.

What's more, they attempt to impose acceptance of their woo through violence.

[Axiom_Blade]

Demanding evidence in support of claims is a strategy. The person employing it is a rational thinker.

Necessary, but not sufficient.

But in the real world, terrorism is practiced by people who do not have rational demands, who are not interested in rational compromise, and who are every bit as woo in their practices as the people who go to ApolloHoax to dispute the moon landings.

What's more, they attempt to impose acceptance of their woo through violence.

When an army bombs civilians, what conspiracy theory are they trying to advance? What "woo" are they trying to get people to accept?

[theprestige]

Necessary, but not sufficient.



When an army bombs civilians, what conspiracy theory are they trying to advance? What "woo" are they trying to get people to accept?
You tell me. You're the one who identified terrorism as a strategy. I'll take it one step further: It's a propaganda strategy. So you tell me: What propaganda benefit does an army gain from bombing civilians? What propaganda strategy is being pursued?

Never mind, I'll answer that: None at all, because they're not terrorists.

[MattusMaximus]

I think shooting them first, and then laughing, is a far better way to go ;)

[Axiom_Blade]

You tell me. You're the one who identified terrorism as a strategy. I'll take it one step further: It's a propaganda strategy. So you tell me: What propaganda benefit does an army gain from bombing civilians? What propaganda strategy is being pursued?

Never mind, I'll answer that: None at all, because they're not terrorists.

Terrorism: (http://www.tfd.com/terrorism)
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Armies often use "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence" in order to intimidate or coerce. When bombing civilians, the strategy being pursued (usually) is to get the enemy faction to accede to your demands: surrender, etc. Bombing civilians, while illegal, is an effective bullying tactic.

Terrorism is entirely different from propaganda, though. I think that conflating these two things is a mistake.

[Darth Rotor]

The point is, all the paranoia and draconic measures and stuff did not hurt them appreciably, and merely served to generate support for them among the more radical elements of society.
Who didn't seem to mind them killing about three dozen people. That says more about your radical elements of society than it does about official responses to them. I'd say a gang that killed a few dozen people is worth treating as public enemy number one, or in the top three, wouldn't you? Particularly a generally law abiding society such as West Germany, and later Germany(unified).
When they were no longer being treated as Public Enemy Number One whose mere existence was a mortal threat to society, in the 90s, they faded away, and eventually announced their dissolution.
You have chosen a correlation.

I wonder, Chaos, what else happened between the early 1970's and the 1990's that changed, other than public attitudes possibly changing as you have suggested? Do you think some of those other things that happened influenced their dissolution?

Maybe even age had an impact.
Maybe they realized they were backing a losing, or dead, horse for all those years.

DR

[Chaos]

Who didn't seem to mind them killing about three dozen people. That says more about your radical elements of society than it does about official responses to them. I'd say a gang that killed a few dozen people is worth treating as public enemy number one, or in the top three, wouldn't you? Particularly a generally law abiding society such as West Germany, and later Germany(unified).

You have chosen a correlation.

I wonder, Chaos, what else happened between the early 1970's and the 1990's that changed, other than public attitudes possibly changing as you have suggested? Do you think some of those other things that happened influenced their dissolution?

Maybe even age had an impact.
Maybe they realized they were backing a losing, or dead, horse for all those years.

DR

You´re really grasping for straws, aren´t you?

First off, deserving to be Public Enemy Number One or not is irrelevant; we´re talking about it whether or not it worked, which it didn´t.

You might also want to read up on the Benno Ohnesorg incident and the other things surrounding the visit of the Shah to Berlin before you spread any myths about Germany at the time; the government back then was competent enough at casting itself as the bad guy.

I have not chosen a correlation. It is there. You can, of course, simply deny that the group dissolved itself in the 90s, or that people were less scared of them in the 90s than the late 70s, but then there´s really no point in debating this.
If you have other data which suggests that draconian measures and a kill-them-all attitude toward terrorists and "terrorist supporters" destroyed the Baader-Meinhof gang, bring it on. Baseless claims from a position of patriotic ignorance aren´t going to cut it in this forum.

[Darth Rotor]

You´re really grasping for straws, aren´t you?
No.
First off, deserving to be Public Enemy Number One or not is irrelevant; we´re talking about it whether or not it worked, which it didn´t.
I don't agree with you. Look at how many were captured, and what the level of activity did after the leaders were captured. IMO, you'd have had less trouble had they simply been killed, rather than feeding their political aims with their captivity, but we'll never know that.
You might also want to read up on the Benno Ohnesorg incident and the other things surrounding the visit of the Shah to Berlin before you spread any myths about Germany at the time; the government back then was competent enough at casting itself as the bad guy.
I am sure it was, I'll take a look at Benno Ohnseorg. Thanks.

ETA: Can you elaborate on how that incident cast the government as the bad guy? I don't see how it supports your argument in re terrorists, nor RAF.

What's the connection?
I have not chosen a correlation. It is there.
You continue to present a correlation as a cause, and I think you have it backwards. People were less scared of them in the 90s than the late 70s, but then there´s really no point in debating this.
No, there isn't.

You appear to see people being less scared of them as a cause of their lack of effectiveness, when I suggest it's the outcome of their being less effective made people less scared of them.
If you have other data which suggests that draconian measures and a kill-them-all attitude toward terrorists and "terrorist supporters" destroyed the Baader-Meinhof gang, bring it on.
The decision for capture or kill worked well enough. We may not agree on why they dissolved, but we certainly agree that they dissolved. If you feel they didn't get aid and support from the East, OK, but the political change when the Wall came down changed the environment these folks operated under, politically, in a profound way. You are free to ignore that reality, and attribute their abatement as caused by "people not being afraid anymore." Chaos, what you claim makes no sense.

ETA 2: FWIW, what is your opinion of this article in Der Spiegel?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,627342,00.html
DR

[theprestige]

Terrorism: (http://www.tfd.com/terrorism)


Armies often use "unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence" in order to intimidate or coerce. When bombing civilians, the strategy being pursued (usually) is to get the enemy faction to accede to your demands: surrender, etc. Bombing civilians, while illegal, is an effective bullying tactic.

Terrorism is entirely different from propaganda, though. I think that conflating these two things is a mistake.
Fair enough.

Show me an army that has an official policy of intentionally targeting civilians, for the purpose of achieving strategic goals, and I'll show you an army that engages in terrorism.

Show me a "freedom fighter" with an official policy of minimizing civilian casualties and never targeting them intentionally, and I'll show you a "freedom fighter" that does not engage in terrorism.

But I think this is probably a derail at this point; it really has nothing to do with, say, the correlation between the woo-tastic demands made by the Taliban or Al Qaeda, and the methods they employ in support of those demands.

Feel free to start another thread to debate the semantics of "terrorism", if you like. I probably won't post in it, though.