Humor me for a minute, I'm merely throwing this idea to the crowd for opinions. As we all know, a large problem for many countries (among other things) is suicide bombings by radical Islamics. Now most suicide bombers do their duty with two things in mind:

1) They will be rewarded by Allah in the afterlife
2) Their families will be taken care of by the organization they are affiliated with (terrorist, state, religious, ect)

Now to tackle the problem of suicide bombings, I analyzed the situation and came to a conclusion: If suicide bombers commit the acts they do with the thought that their families will be safe and taken care of, why not eliminate that possiblity?

Here comes the controversial part:

What if states put together assassination teams and, after a suicide bomber's body has been identified, their family is targeted for assassination? This will most definitely make potential suicide bombers think twice about their decision to eliminate the "infidels". Although I'm aware there is the possibilty that less drastic action can be taken to prevent suicide bombings, it most certainly is a problem around the world.

Suggestions and comments are welcome. I don't exactly agree with my conclusion, to be honest. But I do think that it would weed out the ranks of suicide bombers considerably.

AmishRakeFight

EDIT: After furthur research, I discovered that this is not an original idea. Colonel John B. Alexander, U.S. Army (Ret.) suggested this in 2003.

Humor me for a minute, I'm merely throwing this idea to the crowd for opinions. As we all know, a large problem for many countries (among other things) is suicide bombings by radical Islamics. Now most suicide bombers do their duty with two things in mind:

1) They will be rewarded by Allah in the afterlife
2) Their families will be taken care of by the organization they are affiliated with (terrorist, state, religious, ect)

Now to tackle the problem of suicide bombings, I analyzed the situation and came to a conclusion: If suicide bombers commit the acts they do with the thought that their families will be safe and taken care of, why not eliminate that possiblity?

Here comes the controversial part:

What if states put together assassination teams and, after a suicide bomber's body has been identified, their family is targeted for assassination? This will most definitely make potential suicide bombers think twice about their decision to eliminate the "infidels". Although I'm aware there is the possibilty that less drastic action can be taken to prevent suicide bombings, it most certainly is a problem around the world.

Suggestions and comments are welcome. I don't exactly agree with my conclusion, to be honest. But I do think that it would weed out the ranks of suicide bombers considerably.


Humor me for a minute, I'm merely throwing this idea to the crowd for opinions. As we all know, a large problem for many countries (among other things) is takeover by Israeli World Domination thru economic means, infiltration of the government, terrorist acts and open warfare. Now most politicians do their duty with two things in mind:

1) They will be rewarded by the Israeli Masters with higher political position, money and status
2) Their families will be taken care of by the organization they are affiliated with USA government, Israel Government, Israeli World Domination organization

Now to tackle the problem of Israeli World Domination, I analyzed the situation and came to a conclusion: If politicians commit the acts they do with the thought that their families will be safe and taken care of, why not eliminate that possiblity?

Here comes the controversial part:

What if states put together assassination teams and, after a politician has been identified as selling their country to Israeli World Domination, their family is targeted for assassination? This will most definitely make potential traitors think twice about their decision to work for Israel instead of the USA/Britain/Germany/Canada/Australia. Although I'm aware there is the possibilty that less drastic action can be taken to prevent Israeli World Domination, it most certainly is a problem around the world.

Suggestions and comments are welcome. I don't exactly agree with my conclusion, to be honest. But I do think that it would weed out the ranks of politicians and neo cons considerably.

Certainly some action should be taken against their families, simple deportation of all relatives of suicide bombers might be sufficient. If that doesn't work, perhaps bombing their homes. It has a nice symetry to it. You bomb our families, we bomb yours.

madan + amish:

LOL. You are both ignorant myopic dumbfucks. Typical of neo-con retards. "Hey, I know how to combat terrorism! We'll kill more of the innocent civilians that are under our occupation! I'm sure that after we do so, angry citizens won't even think about retaliating". Yeah, that's worked great in Israel. Collective punishment hasn't exactly pacified Hamas, has it now?

God damn. How do you fucking retards manage to manipulate a keyboard? Doesn't sciforums have bouncers to get rid of dumbshits?

Here's a better idea... why not attack the cause instead of the effect? A country could help curb terrorism by...

1. Stop engaging in imperialism.
2. Stop engaging in the occupation of foreign sovereign nations.
3. Stop bombing someone because they 'hurt your feelings' when they laughed at Sept. 11.
4. Stop supporting corrupt regimes in many countries.
5. Stop breaking treaties.

Before trying to change the behaviour of others, why don't you alter your own fucking shocking foreign policy.

Exactly, mountainhare.

I'm not the first person to suggest this, and I already said at the fucking beginning that I didn't agree with my conclusion. Stop scanning my posts for mistakes and read the damn post. I had already spent some time thinking about it, so I posted it on SciForums. :confused: Is that not the point of an internet forum designed to facilitate scientific, logical thought? And no, America cannot curb terrorists that are bent on destroying America because their RELIGION TELLS THEM TO. We are the infidels described throughout the Koran, you ass spelunker. God damn, it seems that thinking something through and coming to a conclusion that I don't agree with is fucking criminal. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle. I thought, I concluded, I didn't agree. Jesus christ, I swear Happeh's love of ad hominim is contagious.

AmishRakeFight

The Koran is not the only good book that tells its adherents to do questionable things. You're scared of terrorists? You think they are a huge problem? You dignify their actions with your thoughts. Terrorism is nothing. Will amount to nothing. Will be remembered as nothing. Unless the neo-cons have their way. It would be best to treat it no differently than you treat serial killers or drive-by shootings here in the USA. In the USA, we deal with serial killers and drive-by shooters with police and the FBI. Terrorism should be dealt with by the CIA and the NSA, not armies of imperialism or assassination squads. If American justice isn't good enough for terrorists, it isn't good enough for Americans, and vice versa.

When was the last time a drive-by shooting took down the World Trade Centers?

Although you make a good point.

AmishRakeFight

Just a matter of degree. The more people you have, the more will die. I really don't think too many Americans are actually, honestly scared of terrorism, they are just a little pissed off that we got taken. Get over your indignation America, wake up and see that the neo-cons are using your indignation to their advantage and furthered corruption, and go on with your lives. Not that you aren't anyway. Furthermore, take more of what you hear in the media with a little more healthy skepticism. Especially what government officials spew at press conferences and weekly radio addresses.

P.S. Remember Timothy McVey and the Oklahoma City bombing? Amazingly, he wasn't Muslim. Or Arab. Or from over the sea. Homegrown and homespun.

Again, good point. So if there had been a couple secretaries in the WTC, and only pilots in the planes, then it would have been regarded as the same as a serial killer slitting a few hookers throats here and there?

And your 100% correct, most Americans aren't scared of terrorism at all.

AmishRakeFight

Suggestions and comments are welcome. I don't exactly agree with my conclusion, to be honest. But I do think that it would weed out the ranks of suicide bombers considerably.
Seriously the reason why there is suicide bombings is that is the only way Palestinians can hit back , the fact is Gaza and The West Bank are shut tighter than a steel drum . The Palestinians have no Airforce , Navy nor an Army just a lightly armed Police force . For a young human being to strap explosives around their bodies and pack it tight with shrapnel and to walk into a crowded shopping mall and detonate himself is an extremely desparate act . That shows you the hate that has been bred due to the squalid life the Palestinians lead as in comparison to the first world affluency of Israelis . Honestly why does this act garner such an emotional response as compared to when an Israeli F-15 jet drops a 500kg bomb into a crowded Palestinian neighbourhood we act different .And why punish their families ? Are they not innocent ! As for this story of each suicide bomber getting 15 virgins on entering heaven what do the female suicide bombers get , 15 dicks !

Honestly how would you react Amish if you were born into the Gaza strip , which has 70% unemployment , racked with crime , locked down with curfews daily searches . How would you behave Amish if you were a Palestinian .

Seriously the reason why there is suicide bombings is that is the only way Palestinians can hit back , the fact is Gaza and The West Bank are shut tighter than a steel drum . The Palestinians have no Airforce , Navy nor an Army just a lightly armed Police force . For a young human being to strap explosives around their bodies and pack it tight with shrapnel and to walk into a crowded shopping mall and detonate himself is an extremely desparate act . That shows you the hate that has been bred due to the squalid life the Palestinians lead as in comparison to the first world affluency of Israelis . Honestly why does this act garner such an emotional response as compared to when an Israeli F-15 jet drops a 500kg bomb into a crowded Palestinian neighbourhood we act different .And why punish their families ? Are they not innocent ! As for this story of each suicide bomber getting 15 virgins on entering heaven what do the female suicide bombers get , 15 dicks !

Honestly how would you react Amish if you were born into the Gaza strip , which has 70% unemployment , racked with crime , locked down with curfews daily searches . How would you behave Amish if you were a Palestinian .

If I grew up as a Muslim, in a Muslim family, in a Muslim culture, in a predominantly Muslim area of the world, with the knowlege that I cannot legitimately fight back, I would most likely become a terrorist and either: a) Do the things they are doing now or b) Organize a larger attack that will make more of a difference. That's my personality, I suppose. But if I knew that my innocent family would be punished for my actions that would turn it into another situation. Am I selfish enough that my blowing myself up in a market will result in me receiving 15 virgins but my family recieves nothing for their death? But again, I don't think that that is the correct way for a civilized culture to approach the problem. When (if) I think of something, you can count on me to InForm SciForums.

AmishRakeFight

I'm not saying it would have been regarded the same as a drive-by,even with fewer deaths, I'm saying it should now be regarded the same. If you think about it, there is very little difference. Drive-by shooters, serial killers, and terrorists are all out for the same thing. Payback. No matter what the motivation: religion, pride, squalid existences, poverty, hunger, desperation, racism, sexism, etc. For either wrongs committed or perceived to have been committed against their selves, or their views, payback. Sadly, most of the time, there is a kernel of truth and justification behind their actions, though it is definitely easier and more socially acceptable to just label them crazy or evil.

Nonetheless, you don't go out and take a vigilante approach in dealing with them, as we have done in Afghanistan and Iraq. You stay within the law (international laws in these cases) and you don't overreact. You stay calm, reasonable and think before you act. Something bush either doesn't do, can't do, or chooses not to do. Personally, I think it is the latter in his case.

Amish:

I'm not the first person to suggest this, and I already said at the fucking beginning that I didn't agree with my conclusion

You claimed that you 'don't EXACTLY agree', which hints that you think that the idea has a lot of merit, but is not perfect.

The idea has no merit.

A war on terrorism is absurd... you might as well have a war on submarines. Terrorism is merely one method of warfare the oppressed and occupied use to fight against imperialists.

Stop the occupation and imperialism, and you will stop a LOT of the terrorism.

BTW, you seem to characterize terrorists as Muslim fanatics, who kill civilians because Allah told them to.

Have you ever heard of the PLO?
Have you ever heard of the Tamil Tigers?

If I grew up as a Muslim, in a Muslim family, in a Muslim culture, in a predominantly Muslim area of the world, with the knowlege that I cannot legitimately fight back, I would most likely become a terrorist and either: a) Do the things they are doing now or b) Organize a larger attack that will make more of a difference. That's my personality, I suppose. But if I knew that my innocent family would be punished for my actions that would turn it into another situation. Am I selfish enough that my blowing myself up in a market will result in me receiving 15 virgins but my family recieves nothing for their death? But again, I don't think that that is the correct way for a civilized culture to approach the problem. When (if) I think of something, you can count on me to InForm SciForums.

AmishRakeFight
If I grew up in Gaza in 5th world squalor being daily humiliated by the Israeli army of oppression and occuapation I would like to see someone stop me from strapping a bomb to my person and doing the deed . As I said it is a desparate act derived from a desparate situation , the perpertrators are not thinking in a rational way and I dont think the threat of killing their families will solve it , just intensify the struggle .

Brian:

the perpertrators are not thinking in a rational way

False.
Terrorism is a highly effective military tactic. Terrorists are thinking rationally, which is why there are noticable 'campaigns' of suicide bombings.

A short essay by the poster Sauron sums up the logistics of terrorism quite nicely in his post here:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2025742&postcount=150


That's the definition that the groupr or political entity in power would like to sell to the listening audience. In this case, Israel wants the world to believe it.
But it's a lie, as usual. Calling freedom fighters "terrorists" is just a maneuver in the propaganda war:

As von Clausewitz said, every enemy has a "center of gravity". By that he meant, a nexus of forces that (when precisely targeted) will cause the enemy's warmaking ability to fall apart. Col Harry Summers book (goes into detail about how the North VIetnamese knew that the American's center of gravity was the American public's will for a prolonged war of attrition.

http://www.history-asia.com/%20On_S...e_Vietnam_ War<br%20/>_0891415637.html
The history of smaller movements fighting larger powers shows that this has often been employed with successful results.

* The Algerian resistance knew the same thing, when they fought the French for their independence;
* Finland used such tactics against the Russians during WW2;
* Ireland used such tactics against the UK to gain its independence;
* The Afghans took the same approach when wearing down the USSR and eventually convincing them to pull out;
* The Lebanese used the same tactics to wear down Israel in its occupation of southern Lebanon and eventually get it to also pull out

The smaller, weaker side doesn't have to militarily beat the stronger side; all they have to do is make the stronger side pay a high enough price that they are no longer willing to continue with the war. As Harry Summers points out, in a democracy the 'center of gravity' often happens to be the public willingness to continue prosecuting the war. So that is why the US, the UK and Israel have all seen such guerrilla terrorism tactics - they are designed to hit those countries right in their 'center of gravity': public willingness.

If you happen to be a government with a superior military, then it's all very convenient and self-serving to say that terrorism is illegitimate, etc. But what such governments are really doing is trying to control the rules of engagement, and determine what is (or isn't) a valid way to fight. They know they have a better military. So if they can keep the battle confined to that playing field, then they'll win. If such a country succeeds in defining the battle as being one of conventional military forces, then the game is already over. So instead of this being an act of moral outrage to terrorism, it is instead a military tactic itself. If the militarily stronger country can succeed in characterizing the guerrilla actions of the smaller enemy as being illegal, immoral, etc. - then public opinion will be on their side. (Note also that the militarily stronger country's charges of immoral actions, etc. are almost always while ignoring the larger country's own illegal and immoral acts. Witness Israel's outrage at Hamas attacks on civilians, yet they conveniently forget their own military and police force's acts against innocent Arab civilians.)

The terrorist, on the other hand, isn't going to fight in a game where the enemy has a better hand. If you opponent is a faster runner, never agree to a race. Suggest arm-wrestling instead. If your opponent is a champion arm-wrestler, then suggest a game of chess. Never meet your enemy in battle where he is strongest; a principle from Sun Tzu's Art of War. In a guerrilla war, the smaller side is going to change the name of the game and continue the fight on a playing field where the odds are more equal.

So to summarize:

* many countries we would consider to be upstanding members of the world community have used terrorism in the past, when fighting a militarily superior enemy;
* guerrilla actions/terrorism are good military strategy, if they can strike at the enemy's center of gravity;
* the charge that terrorism is immoral is often leveled by the militarily superior enemy not out of moral outrage, but as a battlefield tactic - the militarily stronger combatant wants to restrict the battle to a playing field where it feels it holds the upper hand;
* the charge that terrorism is immoral ignores the actions of the larger, militarily superior enemy;

Brian:

False.
Terrorism is a highly effective military tactic. Terrorists are thinking rationally, which is why there are noticable 'campaigns' of suicide bombings.
Not so sure , I read the story of that 23 YO Palestinian girl who became a suicide bomber . Apparently she was an ambulance medic and one day while attending casualties from the aftermath of an Israeli helicopter missile strike . She was heard to say " this has gone to far " 2 days later she detonated herself in a shopping mall . As for the campaigns they are described as waves , they intensify when Israel provokes the Palestinians . I have yet to see evidence where HAMAS plans suicide bombing campaigns .

Brian Foley:

She was heard to say " this has gone to far " 2 days later she detonated herself in a shopping mall

Which is a rational response, if you want Israel to pull out of Occupied Territory.

Israel will never be inclined to deal fairly with the Palestinians, if the Palestinians don't apply a bit of pressure, and have some leverage.

madan + amish:
LOL. You are both ignorant myopic dumbfucks. Typical of neo-con retards. Doesn't sciforums have bouncers to get rid of dumbshits?

You'd better hope not.

Your use of obscenities and ad homs does little to bolster your arguments.

P.S. Remember Timothy McVey and the Oklahoma City bombing? Amazingly, he wasn't Muslim. Or Arab. Or from over the sea. Homegrown and homespun.
The exception that proves the rule.

Which is a rational response, if you want Israel to pull out of Occupied Territory.

And building walls and targeted assassinations is the rational response if Israel wants security. Which means, if everyone's rational, they'll just end up rationally wiping each other out?

"Throw off those chains of reason, and your prison disapears....."
Rush

Brian Foley:

Which is a rational response, if you want Israel to pull out of Occupied Territory.

Israel will never be inclined to deal fairly with the Palestinians, if the Palestinians don't apply a bit of pressure, and have some leverage.
And having HAMAS lead the Palestinians is the leverage , sure Israel will exploit it and use HAMAS as a tool to delay the peace process but in reality the tide against Israel has turned in world opinion and it is only a matter of time before Palestine will be reborn . Events with Iran has shown which nations are important and Israel for what it is , a totally unimportant and superfluous nation within the Mideast .

Here is the problem with terrorism. Practiced against the wrong people and the wrong targets all you do is galvanize the people you were trying to scare.

Here is the problem with terrorism. Practiced against the wrong people and the wrong targets all you do is galvanize the people you were trying to scare.
It workjed for the Irish and its working for the Palestinians , unless you apply your theory to the Israelis who initiated the terror then I agree .

It workjed for the Irish and its working for the Palestinians

during the last 5 years the palestinians lost more than they have accomplished. how is it going to work?