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: 2) by Bot on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:12PM (2 children)
Well, we have grandparent and parent with opposed strategies, both reasonable, both missing context.
Terrorists have been intentionally created, like dogs prepped for illegal fights, both by the Guantanamo madness (jailing mere suspects, torturing, and then RELEASING them) and the arab spring, which was more of an USraeli winter. The infrastructure, same since the helping afghans against soviets era.
Terror is useful for those in power or sure to be gaining it.
What does this mean? it means that the real strategy will be: militarization of police (already begun before the crisis, like army drills about crowd control happened well before the crisis) secret police methods (begun before the crisis) digital panopticon (begun before the crisis) no freedom of press, no freedom of assembly, no freedom of expression especially religious (these freedom will remain only nominally).
Other scenario, civil war, intervention from either Russia or Usa, Yugoslavia war 2.0.
I will add that your comment about arming citizens is true, but because citizens have been monkeyed by years of mass media. When people were all armed (blades) there were many killings for trivial reasons (even this can be discussed, though, because if the right of passage meant loss of reputation in front of the superior, they were pretty right to knife each others), but it was far from the anarchy we witness now. The propaganda in the media, where police apprehending the culprit after investigations seems to set things straight, is utter bullshit. The crime is done and the victim will suffer it for years, decades, forever.
Plus, every time governments reduced citizens to sheep, bad things eventually happened. Society is for man, not the other way round.
Plus, if you really want to see the broad picture, all of these wars are just the way for a system designed for failure to justify the failure. Remember that even with no 9/11 nor wars, economy would have tanked, only a bit later and with puzzled people. Instead, we have our nice emmanuel goldsteins.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday June 04 2017, @11:14PM (1 child)
note, I forgot to say that militant Islam is terrorist by default, else it seems it's all fault of the imperialists, which is not honest.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Tuesday June 06 2017, @03:48PM
All the fault of the imperialists? No, I don't think that's fair either. Are recent incursions into Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. giving the extremists another lever to use in terms of radicalising others? That's likely to be a yes. If people want to win this battle by warfare, then they're going to have to be OK with turning the entire middle east into a smoking ruin. I'm no expert but I believe that's called genocide and civilised people don't do that sort of thing. While you may argue that these Wahhabists[1] are not civilised, is it worth becoming worse than your enemy - who may well want to subjugate or kill all of us but does not have the capability to do so - to be rid of that enemy? That "hearts and minds" thing needs more work. Go to their country humbly, when requested, as liberators and educators rather than conquerors, to stop the weed taking root.
[1] I initially misspelled that with one 'h' and autocorrect suggested "wabbits".