SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the is-there-a-solution-that-is-less-bad-than-the-problem? dept.
If it seems like every week, there's another terrorist attack – well, you're not wrong. According to one crowdsourcing map, there have been over 500 attacks around the world since the start of 2017, with over 3,500 fatalities. For a period in 2016, ISIS-initiated attacks were occurring, on average, every 84 hours.
Despite improvements in methods and coordination among law enforcement agencies over the past 25 years, they're still hamstrung in a number of ways. With large public gatherings of people becoming more attractive targets for terrorists, what are the best strategies moving forward?
[...] But despite huge budgets and the presence of thousands of added security personnel, it's virtually impossible to prevent a determined terrorist, or guarantee absolute safety. While security efforts for events like the Olympic Games have escalated, terrorists today no longer wait for major events that draw global interest.
[...] The odds are in favor of terrorists. All they have to do is succeed once, no matter how many times they try. For public safety professionals to be fully successful, they have to prevent 100 percent of the terror attempts. It's a number to aspire to, but even the most experienced countries fighting terror – such as Israel and the U.K. – can't measure up to this standard.
[...] These days, it's necessary to consider any place where crowds congregate as vulnerable "soft targets" for the attackers. To better prepare for securing soft targets (and this isn't to say threats against "hard targets," like planes, buildings and infrastructure, have diminished) law enforcement agencies must improve coordination among one another, whether it's via intelligence, information sharing and training. And then there's the need for deconfliction, which refers to avoiding self-defeating behavior – from interagency rivalries and poor communication to insufficient coordination – by people who are on the same side.
[...] Given that there is no way to guarantee complete safety, and that the threat assessment expects more attacks, there are two more elements that ought to receive more attention: community resilience and community policing.
https://theconversation.com/how-can-we-better-protect-crowds-from-terrorism-78443
[Related]:
1996 Atlanta Olympic Games: https://www.britannica.com/event/Atlanta-Olympic-Games-bombing-of-1996
Secure Airport Design: https://skift.com/2016/07/04/how-smart-airport-design-can-make-spaces-more-secure/
Do you agree with this assessment of the security situation ? What do you think could be done to mitigate the effects of such asymmetric warfare ?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Sunday June 04 2017, @09:51PM (10 children)
There's no way of preventing all terror attacks. But there are things to be done:
(1) Refuse to be terrorized.
(2) Adequate and effective disaster response.
That second one will help against nonterrorist disasters, too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @10:37PM
You can thank bush II for losing the war. He showed how weak the world is.
The TSA and those guards ar sporting events, just make more and better soft targets. Look airport bombing.
Long game show we do not believe in them. Look to London and the IRA
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @10:55PM
(3) Stay away from crowded areas and events, there are all sorts of interesting and fun things to do that don't involve mass popular culture.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:01PM
No way?
Wrong.
Kill them before they kill you.
This is war.
Defend your country.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:05PM (2 children)
This times a billion.
It is apparently the natural state of man to want to drastically escalate and reciprocate violence. At best we target that violence against only tangentially related people. At worst, we target innocents. How does that improve the world? How does that make anyone safer? The killing of innocent people is exactly what caused you to decide to engage in reciprocal violence in the first place! It's like we actually want the cycle of violence to never come to an end. But you can't make a gyroscope slow down by spinning it even harder.
The proper response to trolls is not to feed them. Reacting just escalates the trolling. The proper response to bullies is to ignore them. Reacting just escalates the bullying. The proper response to terroristic acts is to mourn the dead, celebrate freedom and democracy, and spread caring and love. Anything that can be done to strengthen the bonds between people. You do the opposite of what the terrorist wanted you to do. You find a way to live your life without fear, instead of giving in to the terror.
Or you could, you know, revert to terrorism and barbarism. Like a horrifically racist, bigoted, narcissistic, pathological liar and now world leader said recently, "We have to go after their families." In other words, you fight terrorism by becoming terrorists. Bomb hospitals, funerals, schools, churches, rape women and children, behead random non-combatants, because on their side there's no such thing as a non-combatant, right? It's not terrorism if our side does it, right? Bashing Muslim infants on rocks is OK if the President says it's OK, right? That will totally make us safer and bring terrorism to an end. No one could ever hate us for ten thousand years for engaging in righteous terrorism of our own. It's God's will. The Christian, white god, not that brown god.
No. I am very sorry that it is so frustrating, but there is no war to be fought against madness and unreasoning hatred. You must simply stand, calmly, stoically, in opposition to it. Show it no fear. Show it no cowardice. Show it no reciprocity. Nobody said it was easy.
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:14PM
These are not "trolls". These people are murderers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 05 2017, @07:23AM
No need for reciprocate violence. Just ship them away with some pocket money if needed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:40PM (1 child)
The problem with that sentiment is that Islamic religious violence is not terrorism, it's Jihad. While Islamists would love nothing more to send you into terror, they will be only slightly less delighted without it.
I'd rather prevent disasters that are preventable, rather than address them after the fact.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 05 2017, @01:06AM
You say Jihad, I say terrorism. Either way, they need to die.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 05 2017, @02:41AM (1 child)
"(2) Adequate and effective disaster response."
That presupposes that you are unwilling and incapable of preventing the disaster. You have closed off more rational lines of thought. It is far more rational to eject the troublemakers before they can cause a disaster. In this case, the troublemakers are Muslims. Muslims, at their very best, provide cover for so-called "Islamic extremists". Just kick them out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 05 2017, @01:21PM
While we are at it, we need to kick you out.
Because, damn boy! you are on a personal jihad to provide cover for white nationalists.
Its like Jeremy Christian and Adam Purinton are your cousins or something.