Fighting suicide bombers

[Pekka]

"
Where I completely disagree with you, however, is when you want to scale up the intensity of the war."

I didn't necessarily mean that you should move from partrolling into 'shoot'em up' full on war. But to raise the stake on certain areas and time. Because when you are patrolling only, you are giving your momentum away, and you will become the target.

So a reversal of that situation. And this does definitely not mean strating a new war in urban area when the first bit of fighting is done.

But I'm also interested in how you could foil plans. It might be possible to be their house name for explosive trades, that is, sell them triggers, RF equipment etc.. and basically you could then become in charge when the stuff blows up or just jamming the frequency to make it not blow up. Blow up off target or not blow up at all.

Counter propaganda, claim they weren't real martyrs, but not as yourself but rather as someone from their own group. Establish rumours and spread lies. Establish 'competing groups' that in reality do not exist. Of course by this you would be able to spread more propaganda and at some point hopefully attract the real enemy to fight this new group and expose themselves. They might want to come and negotiate joining forces or fighting it out, ok let's have a meeting. No one gets otu of that meeting.

Simple stuff like that.. when you capture enemies, spread rumours they jumped sides, and it was a scam all the time, and blame their officers being responsible for it, or some of them. Cause inside fighting.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

That's a very small fraction of what you can do.

If the policy is not agressive and disrupting in general, you sure are going to miss out alot of plots.

Well, most countries that face suicide bombings face them from individual who are part of their civil society, and not from individuals living under foreign military occupation. The rules a society will use to stop individuals inside their borders vs. Individual under military rule outside of their borders are different.

You'd be surprised how easy it is to make cheap weapons or explosive off shoots. And explosives with a handful of bolts mixed in, are twice as deadly.

No, I am not. But cheaply made bombs are not that powerful, and you still need some expertise to put together a plot. If terrorist plots were so cheap and simple to carry out, there would be far more of them that there are. Its always simpler to get a handgun and shoot a bunch of people.

[Seeker]

So how did the Japanese control 95%+ of South East Asia in the face of Ho Chi Minh and his communist resistance (which used suicide tactics)?

Or the Germans in Russia?

Or the Americans in Okinawa?

Or the Russians against the 'Werewolves'/Hitler Youth units in Germany and East Prussia?

Or the Romans in Israel?

There's only three ways to stop suicide bombers-- give in to what they want/make peace, or kill everyone who looks like they might concievably become a threat.

There's a really simple way solve our problems with fanatics:

1. Withdraw any visible Western support,bases, troops, trainers, equipment, etc from the entire Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Bahrain, Israel. Maintain a 'Containment Strategy' similar to the Cold War. That would eliminate much of the motivation and much of the opportunity.
2. Deport any Muslim who cannot prove that he or she is not a threat to national security to the nearest Muslim nation regardless of humanitarian factors, by airdrop if necessary. Eliminates opportunity.
3. Administer a strict oath requiring a total repudiation of the offending ideology to all immigrants (no reason to keep out peaceful, reasonable majority of Muslims). Any public statements found to be in violation of that oath result in deportation as above. Eliminates opportunity.
4. Free and fair trade with Muslim states, not blocking them from investing, even in 'sensitive' areas like ports, further eliminating motivation by raising prosperity.

These 4 Steps, taken together, would virtually eliminate terrorism in Western countries.

Israel is a special case. I believe that, one way or another, Israel will not be able to continue as a unique 'ethnic' state. Only once Israel accepts its inevitable identity as a secular state with a non-racial set of laws with an Arab majority and a Jewish minority living together in peace will terrorism end. And I think that is the inevitable 'endgame', due to demographics, Israeli disillusionment and emmigration, Arab rebuilding and secularization, etc. And I think that both Arabs and Jews will surprise each other with how civilized they can be once they are forced to share the same government and state. I really don't believe that the Arabs will 'push the Jews into the ocean'. I think that they will shock the world(and themselves) with their humanity if they are finally treated like people. It's inevitable, in maybe 100-150 years.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Seeker
There's a really simple way solve our problems with fanatics:

kicking out all the bad people, while not hurting the good people. good plan.

Israel is a special case. I believe that, one way or another, Israel will not be able to continue as a unique 'ethnic' state. Only once Israel accepts its inevitable identity as a secular state with a non-racial set of laws with an Arab majority and a Jewish minority living together in peace will terrorism end. And I think that is the inevitable 'endgame', due to demographics, Israeli disillusionment and emmigration, Arab rebuilding and secularization, etc. And I think that both Arabs and Jews will surprise each other with how civilized they can be once they are forced to share the same government and state. I really don't believe that the Arabs will 'push the Jews into the ocean'. I think that they will shock the world(and themselves) with their humanity if they are finally treated like people. It's inevitable, in maybe 100-150 years.

boy is there going to be egg on your face.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Pekka
Exactly, I don't see them being ready or willing to fight in raids, or even open field battle. WIth inferior weaponry and slim to none tactical ability, it's a suicide mission with no martyrs, and therefore no honour, and therefore for no point.

bingo

Hmm this is an interesting concept.. so instead of being constantly static, you'd become more like a living organism, moving constantly as well. The intel ability of suicide fighters is also inferior, and if you are not too static, you would have more info on your enemy than they on you? Possibly, possibly.. an interesting concept none of the less.

I wasn't talking about being static vs. change, though that is a valid point.

I was talking about reaching all possible geographical intersections of activity.
Don't only guard the possible target.
Also guard all possible path ways and crossing points (airports seaports etc).
Also have people at the origin of the problem - in the US case - Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia.

The claim that terror would be less if the US hadn't been there is not entirely true. Currently the terrorism is funneled to Iraqi soil, instead of US soil. Isolationism would simply invite that terrorism in.


Btw, about the intel. ability of suicide bombers being inferior - true they don't have technical stuff, but they don't need it.

Their goals are simple - basic location info on population centers - easily noticeable patterns of guard on those places. That can all be recorded in several trips by an innocent looking civilian. Even recorded on camera.

Sitting on a bench infront of a guarded place with a notepad and a stop-watch, casually feeding the pigeons is really not hard.

Definitely. I'm assisting in research where.. I've been kind of 'stone' about it because I'm not allowed to talk about the details naturally and I won't, but as part of 'security' and my personal interest on surveillance, it's a new concept of modeling behaviour and building data models on that.. with those models you can search for patterns and make an analysis, so this can be applied to group movements also. I won't say what the detailed concept is though, I mean I can't. One of the applications of that data and analysis is, that you can look for those patterns and discover behaviour that is 'unconscious'. The basic result would then be, 'we know more about you than you knwo about yourself'. If this would be applied in studying group movements and behaviour, you would be able to tell if they are slacking off and repeating something, and thus strike and surprise.

Of course this is done by intel all the time with detailing physical movement, but the methodology we are using is a bit different and I'm ready to state that it is more comprehensive. But maybe it is used in the military as well.

I wouldn't be surprised by lots of things
And I have a good guess that I know what it has to do with exactly ;-)

I don't know why is it so secret, since usually the most secretive aspect is 'means and methods' of acquiring, rather than its analysis methodologies.

Anyways, you're welcome to bounce ideas for advise here.

Anyway, it would be better to get those good targets, because I doubt the suicide bombers decide the targets and the time. There must be a body of command that does that for them. There must be recruiters connected to them. Get to the bomber (before they act), get to the recruiter, get to the trainer, get to the command structure, get to the propaganda machine and get to the financing.

There are command decisions about targets, but the bomber does have a lot of say. Especially once he's out there and measuring his success "rating".

[Elok]

Mix all shipments of fertilizer with pigs' blood.

[Pekka]

I was talking about reaching all possible geographical intersections of activity.
Don't only guard the possible target.
Also guard all possible path ways and crossing points (airports seaports etc).

Right... I thought this was about your own position, rather than the position of the enemy. That is, the enemy can find you easily, of course anything fortified can't be moved, but changing patrolling routes frequently and not making too much patterns there, when searching those in your enemy's activities.

I guess to make oneself less of a target. Including when you want to establish a holding position for a day or so. Keep them guessing so much that they don't guess anymore, they just accept the fact that they can't predict your movements too much and rely on other methods.

Then again, I've made the mistake of assuming they strike at military targets, which isn't the case most of the times.

And I have a good guess that I know what it has to do with exactly ;-)

I don't know why is it so secret, since usually the most secretive aspect is 'means and methods' of acquiring, rather than its analysis methodologies.

It's not a secret or secretive methodology, it is rather new and proven interesting, however the reason I'm not willing to discuss details is that I don't want to give out too much about the research in progress, after all I'm not allowed to discuss about it so.. I don't want to be unethical.

But similar stuff is surely done by intel. It does take more factors in than location and movement though, it is extremely interesting (and scary if you're into privacy like I am).

Anyways, you're welcome to bounce ideas for advise here.

I'll be able to talk more about this after this research is over. The methodology is definitely not secret and not our invention either, so it wouldn't be unethical to explain it, yet I just don't want to take steps and be on the edge, I'd rather just not talk about it.

There are command decisions about targets, but the bomber does have a lot of say. Especially once he's out there and measuring his success "rating".

Really? I find that surprising. I would have thought that most targets plus time would be ordered like.. few hours before the strike or so. HMmh... so it's a bit more random. That's rather interesting. Why would they give this 'freedom' to the bomber, after all they are more than happy to go? Of course they could always give freedom to secondary targets if the first one fails.

[Barnabas]

Pekka

They kill themselves because they want to have sex with 71 virgins

thats the problem

What we need is all muslim preachers to say, you do that, no virgins, you just burn burn in hell forever!

[Imran Siddiqui]

There's a really simple way solve our problems with fanatics:

Ok, let's see that, because this isn't it.

1. Withdraw any visible Western support,bases, troops, trainers, equipment, etc from the entire Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Bahrain, Israel. Maintain a 'Containment Strategy' similar to the Cold War. That would eliminate much of the motivation and much of the opportunity.

The reason we keep those things there is so we can protect our interests in the region, namely oil.

2. Deport any Muslim who cannot prove that he or she is not a threat to national security to the nearest Muslim nation regardless of humanitarian factors, by airdrop if necessary. Eliminates opportunity.

And how does one prove they are not a threat to national security? Do you have to show you voted in an election or something?

And I don't see a difference made with citizens. Furthermore, can we deport Christians that can't prove that they aren't a threat to national security to the nearest Christian country (which would be Mexico, but what can you do)?

3. Administer a strict oath requiring a total repudiation of the offending ideology to all immigrants (no reason to keep out peaceful, reasonable majority of Muslims). Any public statements found to be in violation of that oath result in deportation as above. Eliminates opportunity.

Now would saying that the War in Iraq is bad and the US is pursuing a really retarded foreign policy in its so-called "War on Terrorism" be in violation of said oath? To some that can be construed of supporting the "offending ideology". And what happens when they become citizens? The shackles come off? What about Christians? Do they get an oath against Fascism or Communism as the "offending ideology"?

4. Free and fair trade with Muslim states, not blocking them from investing, even in 'sensitive' areas like ports, further eliminating motivation by raising prosperity.

'Cause if we are deporting Muslims for merely saying something which may be critical of US foreign or domestic policy, I can see Congress allowing Muslim countries to have port deals.

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Swift and decisive military raids against bases and areas of training and production have a huge effect, since they change the pace from "low intensity" where the civilian-disguised guerilla fighter clearly has an upper hand, to "high intensity" where an army has a decisive upper hand.

While these ideas certainly are valid, and raids also interrupt preparations, they have the big disadvantage to produce suicide bombers. While killing someone who prepares to blow himself may be "forgiven" (in the sense that he participates in the war and will be dead in a few weeks anyway), killing uninvolved civilians creates hatred and for some the wish to do something for revenge. Particularly, when women or, even more seriously, children were killed - remember, muslims are a conservative society. For civilians, there is no collateral damage which is acceptible.
Another point is that by attacking Palestinian targets drives people into the arms of Hamas - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Similary, the allied bombing of German cities actually backed Hitler's regime (and German bombs backed the allied governments, which is generally not seen as a problem).
If in a raid I can stop one suicide bombing and produce another one, the net effect is zero except for (at least) one dead person more and a few destroyed buildings.

In my opinion, Pekka's idea of understanding how terrorists think should involve also to understand what makes ordinary people becoming terrorists, and to look for ways to stop that. This certainly will involve trying to get some influence on schools, without being too openly visible. On the other hand, not-really-secretly providing for social and economic welfare may also be a way. People seldom bite the hand which is feeding them (and if someone does, it is time to show that he needs the hand).

One great problem is that Hamas provides the most of the social system in Palestine. Of course together with the indoctrination. Maybe it still helps to compete with Hamas for social services. I do not think they will run out of money so quickly. But someone with a comfortable life also is less likely to blow himself, in which case the money spent by Hamas also works for the right.

I cannot imagine that this will solve the problem tomorrow or next year. But it will never be solved if we do not understand the reasons why someone wants to become a suicide bomber at all. And this is not only indoctrination.

[OzzyKP]

Did anyone else think this thread was about suicide bombers fighting suicide bombers?

How do you figure out who won?

[Adalbertus]

The survivor lost.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Adalbertus
While these ideas certainly are valid, and raids also interrupt preparations, they have the big disadvantage to produce suicide bombers. While killing someone who prepares to blow himself may be "forgiven" (in the sense that he participates in the war and will be dead in a few weeks anyway), killing uninvolved civilians creates hatred and for some the wish to do something for revenge.

Particularly, when women or, even more seriously, children were killed - remember, muslims are a conservative society. For civilians, there is no collateral damage which is acceptible.

True.

However rarely is the case when an army patrol sets out to kill people. It just happens in combat. You get shot at and you shoot back. Sometimes at people that are hiding. Sometimes at someone you thought were armed.

I must admit that the preposition is that once you go to raids, you're reducing your chances of really stopping terrorism, and you're there to "contain" it.

Therefore incursions, and eventually lead to... more incursions. However what "matters" is the lack of casualties on the army's side. And that is what sets the agenda.

Another point is that by attacking Palestinian targets drives people into the arms of Hamas - the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Similary, the allied bombing of German cities actually backed Hitler's regime (and German bombs backed the allied governments, which is generally not seen as a problem).

If in a raid I can stop one suicide bombing and produce another one, the net effect is zero except for (at least) one dead person more and a few destroyed buildings.

You're looking at it wrong.

As I said - the measured effect is stopping suicide bombers from succeeding. NOT stopping their creation. If each raid stops 1 bomber and produces another, and I can create a situation where I can do that indefinitly, reducing their eventual success rate (even though the number of would-be bombers might rise) - this is what counts.


It is not as simple however - since many terrorists are created regardless of raids - due to political or religious coviction. Or plain old huliganism fashion.

Imagine that instead of it being cool doing drugs, your nation's youth decides that it is cool to explode in another nation's face.

In my opinion, Pekka's idea of understanding how terrorists think should involve also to understand what makes ordinary people becoming terrorists, and to look for ways to stop that. This certainly will involve trying to get some influence on schools, without being too openly visible. On the other hand, not-really-secretly providing for social and economic welfare may also be a way. People seldom bite the hand which is feeding them (and if someone does, it is time to show that he needs the hand).

Well Israel has been feeding he palestinians for over 20 years, and got bitten quite hard. Israel has invested huge money in palestinian infrastructure, education, health and culture during the occupation years.

Now it does the opposite- sort of starves them, hoping it will help them see the pointlessness. I see it working in some sense, but the overall effect is more radicalization, and the future results can't be foreseen.

One great problem is that Hamas provides the most of the social system in Palestine. Of course together with the indoctrination. Maybe it still helps to compete with Hamas for social services. I do not think they will run out of money so quickly. But someone with a comfortable life also is less likely to blow himself, in which case the money spent by Hamas also works for the right.

Not always true.
Faith and peer pressure is a strong conviction.

Israel actually tried this and got bitten.

When in the 70s, most of the terrorist and revolutionary activity came from the (israeli built and funded) universities and national sectors, Israel secretly began funding peaceful muslim charities, that called for passive resistance and concentrating on self improvement ("inner jihad").

Oddly enough, one of them peaceful muslim charities has reformed itself and called for very active resistance, in place of "self improvement".
That movement will later be called "Hamas".

I cannot imagine that this will solve the problem tomorrow or next year. But it will never be solved if we do not understand the reasons why someone wants to become a suicide bomber at all. And this is not only indoctrination.

Indoctrination is a much bigger part than anyone thinks.

Everything and anything IS indoctrination.

Reality only matters in the way a person perceives it. If indoctrination dictates a certain narrative - no matter what is the reality - an indoctrinated youth will form a very certain opinion.

[TCO]

Reprisals would have an effect.