Terrorist Scenarios

[David Armstrong]

Strange that you would say that I said you said that, because I didn't. I said I agreed, then ended that sentence with a period. I began the next sentence with my own words. You did indeed post the passage that I quoted. I was making a witty, sarcastic reference to it.

And the reference, as I pointed out, has nothing to do with what I said. Thus to attempt to suggest that it is in agreement with what I have said is dishonest.

The OP was about CCW, not CIA analysts.

I see nothing in the OP about CCW. I do see that eric, slopemeno, troy mclure, carguy2244, mannlicher, ramius, and most commenting on the thread agree that the way to stop terrorist attacks is not by an armed civilian jumping into the situation, it is to prevent it through other factors.

You seem to be advocating that all involved should sit on their hands. If this is not what you are implying, then please elaborate, because if so, your post merits much confusion.

Doesn't seem confusing to most, and if you are confused maybe you should try to clarify before making a "witty, sarcastic reference to it."

 

[David Armstrong]

If you don't stop the attacks after they start, just how are these attacks being halted?

If the terrorist kills everybody, then shoots himself in the head, would you say the attack was stopped? I doubt it. Was the school attack at Beslan stopped when the Russians shot the terrorists? No, the terrorist attack had already occurred. You stop an attack by preventing it from occuring, not letting it begin and then interrupting it. The attack has already occurred, all you are doing is reducing the final impact.

You gotta admit, you don't want to try to stop any sort of crime or attack because that will just give the bad guys better information for next time.

No, I don't have to admit that. If you want to make that claim, fine, but don't try to attach it to me. And we are talking terrorists here, members of an organized effort, not individual criminals. In fact, let me quote from an ealier post by somebody else: "Right, had the average citizen of Mumbai been armed, the terrorists would have used other means. Determined terrorists will attack." When terrorists get information about what does not work they tend to change tactics.

How do you stop access to the world?

Don't think you can, but also not sure what that has to do with anything that has been said.

Good intel? Given all the intel being produced, the problem is that there is plenty of good intel out there, but that it is buried in all the other less important or erroneous intel that the "good" intel isn't always recognizable in a timely manner.

Which is why I included "and analysis" in my post.

 

[onthejon55]

You don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack because generally he is well into it by the time the act is recognized and halted

so you're saying that attacking a terrorist is useless correct?

thus i posted:

your right a 9mm to the jugular is pretty much useless

to point out your flaw in logic.

The OP was about terrorist attacks taking place and what to do in that situation. Im pretty sure no one on this forum has the resources to stop a terrorist attack through 'good intelligence and analysis and by controlling access'. so why bring that up? of course the best way to deal with an issue is to prevent it before it happens but you nor i can do that so the best way for the average citizen, like most of the people on this forum, to end an attack is to fight back.

 

[M1911]

"That could not have happened..."

Sure it could, and it has. Westroads Mall in Omaha. Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City. Tacoma Mall Shooting in Tacoma.

 

[Hondo11]

I didn't see anything in the original post about preventing a terrorist attack. I thought he was talking about stopping an attack that's happening or at least mentally going over scenarios.

There's a huge difference between prevention (keeping it from happening in the first place) and stopping one that's currently happening.


I would consider any of the mall-shootings, school shootings, etc, a "terrorist act"...maybe not in regard to motivation, etc, but with respect to the way they're carried out (multiple victims, public setting, etc). So yeah, they can happen here in the US. They already have.

 

[David Armstrong]

I think it may be open to interpretation, but for me the main statment or thought is "There's no way the mass murder that took place in Mumbai a few weeks ago could have happened if the average Indian citizen carried a weapon." This leads to concepts like "Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter" or "Right, had the average citizen of Mumbai been armed, the terrorists would have used other means. Determined terrorists will attack.", etc. that show there is a way.
I think there may be a disconnect between "stopping a terrorist" and "stopping terrorist scenarios." Shooting a terrorist because he is doing something, almost by definition, means that he has already started his terrorist scenario. IMO, hard to say a terrorist scenario was stopped if there are a dozen people already dead/injured from the attack.

 

[David Armstrong]

so you're saying that attacking a terrorist is useless correct?

No, it is not useless and I did not say anything close to that.

to point out your flaw in logic.

There is no flaw in my logic. My statement was that you don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack. If that was true there would be no more terrorist attacks because we have hundreds, likely thousands, of instances of terrorists being attacked during their attack. Yet terrorist attacks still continue. The attacks have not been stopped. Ask the folks in Israel if the terrorist attacks on them have stopped because they have killed lots of terrorists.

Im pretty sure no one on this forum has the resources to stop a terrorist attack through 'good intelligence and analysis and by controlling access'. so why bring that up?

Because if you are concerned with stopping terrorist attacks that is what you need, and that should be pointed out. Imagining that terrorist attacks would be stopped if we just had more folks shooting at terrorists is not realistic, as others have already pointed out.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I would consider any of the mall-shootings, school shootings, etc, a "terrorist act"...maybe not in regard to motivation, etc, but with respect to the way they're carried out (multiple victims, public setting, etc).

Actually, it is motivation that is the distinguishing difference between a terrorist attack and mass murder or serial killing. Unless the attack is carried out against civilian targets for the purpose of bringing about social, political, or religious change, they are not terrorist attacks.

The United States has defined terrorism under the Federal Criminal Code. Chapter 113B of Part I of Title 18 of the United States Code defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism.[24] In Section 2331 of Chapter 113b, terrorism is defined as:

…activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and… (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States… [or]… (C) occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…"

UN Security Council Resolution 1566, March 17, 2005 -a UN panel described terrorism as

any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.

So Columbine wasn't an act of terrorism. The DC Snipers were not terrorists. Many if not most church shootings are not terrorist-based, nor are mall shootings (at least not to date).

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There is no flaw in my logic. My statement was that you don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack. If that was true there would be no more terrorist attacks because we have hundreds, likely thousands, of instances of terrorists being attacked during their attack. Yet terrorist attacks still continue.

You misspoke. You used the phrase "terrorist attacks" to mean "terrorism." Individual terrorist attacks are stopped by violence. Terrorism isn't.

 

[BuckHammer]

And the reference, as I pointed out, has nothing to do with what I said. Thus to attempt to suggest that it is in agreement with what I have said is dishonest.

If that is true, could you please explain what you are trying to say here:

You don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack because generally he is well into it by the time the act is recognized and halted. Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time.

Please, just please try to explain what you are trying to say.

Also,

I see nothing in the OP about CCW.

wtf?
From OP:

There's no way the mass murder that took place in Mumbai a few weeks ago could have happened if the average Indian citizen carried a weapon.

This is the beauty of our Constitution, and the strength of America: the fact that there are so many law abiding citizens who carry a handgun--and who can come to the aid of others in the event of a "shooter" strolling through a mall, killing indescriminately...

...I wanted to yell out, "The only reason he's so calm and arrogant is because everyone around him is unarmed!"...

...In those shopping malls, an unassuming guy might pull out his revolver or pistol and FIGHT BACK...

...the Indian Government should simply announce that all Indian men will henceforth be required to train with and to carry a firearm. I think the terrorists would think twice if they knew they were about to enter an armed society...

What's your interpretation on that? The OP is littered with CCW references. It is not, however, littered with references to intelligence and analysis in prevention. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills over here. So please, devote some thought to this thread, maybe take a break, then come back and ELABORATE. I really want to know what you are trying to say, but you have not made it clear to me.

But how many of you go through terrorist scenarios in your mind?

He is talking about running through a scenario where he is confronted by a terrorist attack. I mean, intelligence and analysis when it comes to prevention is not really the topic. Sounds like an average guy asking if we run through terrorism scenarios and what we plan to do in potential attacks to me.

Doesn't seem confusing to most, and if you are confused maybe you should try to clarify before making a "witty, sarcastic reference to it."

No, maybe you need to clarify. Based on others' posts, I am not the only one that is confused. I only asked that you elaborate, and you did not. Please do so. Believe it or not, I am not some kind of idiot. Just saying, it happens to everybody, you post something and it makes since to you, but not to anybody else. It's no big deal, just a little more elaboration is necessary, you know, explain what you mean. That's what this is supposed to be, a discussion, and I (and others) are having difficulty interpreting your seemingly conflicting posts. All I'm asking for is explanation.

 

[David Armstrong]

You misspoke. You used the phrase "terrorist attacks" to mean "terrorism."

Nno I didn't, I spoke exactly as I wanted to and it is an accurate phraseology. Killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks, it only stops that terrorist. Israelis and others have been killing terrorists for years, yet terrorist attacks continue.

 

[pax]

David ~

If you're not trying to stir the pot, you need to go back and read more carefully, please.

If you are trying to stir the pot, knock it off.

The subject is provocative enough without deliberate equivocation to muddy the waters.

pax

 

[David Armstrong]

If that is true, could you please explain what you are trying to say here:

Seems pretty straightforward. If you kill the terrorist after he has shot 20 people, was the terrorist attack stopped? No. The killing stopped, but the attack has already occurred. You may have kept it from being worse, but the attack was not stopped.

What's your interpretation on that? The OP is littered with CCW references.

No it is not. There is not a single reference to CCW in the thread. There is reference to people being armed, but that is not contingent on CCW.

He is talking about running through a scenario where he is confronted by a terrorist attack.

Fine. My point is that if your goal is to stop terrorist attacks, shooting a terrorist is not a very good way to do that.

No, maybe you need to clarify. Based on others' posts, I am not the only one that is confused.

Sure seems like it, and only reinforces my point. If you don't understand what is being discussed, you should avoid making "witty, sarcastic reference to it."

I (and others) are having difficulty interpreting your seemingly conflicting posts. All I'm asking for is explanation.

AFAIK, most "others" don't seem to have any trouble, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. Killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks. If it did there would not be as many terrorist attacks as we see going on around the world. Arresting rapists does not stop sexual assaults. Shooting murderers does not stop murderous attacks. Killing pirates did not stop pirate attacks.

 

[David Armstrong]

If you're not trying to stir the pot, you need to go back and read more carefully, please.

If you are trying to stir the pot, knock it off.

The subject is provocative enough without deliberate equivocation to muddy the waters.

I'm open to suggestions. What is hard to understand about "killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks"? In order to kill him the attack must have already occurred, and killing him has not stopped his fellow terrorists from going on the next terrorist attack. Killing the terrorists at Beslan did not stop the terrorist attack on the Beslan school, the attack occurred.

We may be talking past each other, it may be semantics, but I really don't understand why some are arguing over this. As I pointed out earlier, eric, slopemeno, troy mclure, carguy2244, mannlicher, ramius, and some others have all basically posted along the same lines, so I'm assuming they understood the issue.

 

[BuckHammer]

Seems pretty straightforward. If you kill the terrorist after he has shot 20 people, was the terrorist attack stopped? No. The killing stopped, but the attack has already occurred. You may have kept it from being worse, but the attack was not stopped.

If an attack was underway, and now it is not, then it has stopped. This discussion is about a single attack, not terrorism in general.

No it is not. There is not a single reference to CCW in the thread. There is reference to people being armed, but that is not contingent on CCW.

Well, the primary way for citizens to be armed (especially in America, which WAS mentioned), is CCW. Because of this, the CCW was most definitely implied. We're just splitting hairs now.

Fine. My point is that if your goal is to stop terrorist attacks, shooting a terrorist is not a very good way to do that.

See my first comment on this post.

Sure seems like it, and only reinforces my point. If you don't understand what is being discussed, you should avoid making "witty, sarcastic reference to it."

Hondo, Double Naught Spy, and onthejon seem just as confused as I am, with comments like:

You misspoke.

and

so you're saying that attacking a terrorist is useless correct?...
...to point out your flaw in logic.

If these statements are not true, then it seems that they are confused, as I was, though I kind of understand your posts now.

AFAIK, most "others" don't seem to have any trouble, and I don't know how to make it any clearer. Killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks. If it did there would not be as many terrorist attacks as we see going on around the world. Arresting rapists does not stop sexual assaults. Shooting murderers does not stop murderous attacks. Killing pirates did not stop pirate attacks.

Please refer to all of my previous comments in this post.

I now understand part of your argument. You are saying that stopping single terrorist attacks does not stop terrorism in general. This, IMHO, is irrelevant since the OP is concerned with preparing for a single attack. I don't know a single ordinary citizen who needs to prepare for every attack, just the one (or a few if they are unlucky) that happens to him. The OP was about armed citizens stopping individual terrorist attacks, not government agencies stopping terrorism in general.

I'm still confused about this, though:

Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time.

You're talking about terrorists preparing for armed citizens? If armed citizens are never utilized in fear of this, then the terrorists will have nothing to prepare for.

David, I think you need to calm down. No one is attacking you.

 

[David Armstrong]

If an attack was underway, and now it is not, then it has stopped.

If the terrorist has killed 20 people was the attack stopped? As raimus put it, "In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage." It's like trying to say that after losing control of your vehicle and hitting two cars, since you were able to get on the brakes and not go over a cliff you stopped the accident.

We're just splitting hairs now.

Perhaps. I don't see how the difference between
"carrying guns" and CCW is splitting hairs, given the strong push for open carry in many states.

Hondo, Double Naught Spy, and onthejon seem just as confused as I am, with comments like:

Hondo seems to have got it just fine. We seem to have a difference in the semantics, but it seems he understood the meaning of my posts just fine, as did all the others I mentioned. I'm sorry if a few people can't, don't, or won't catch on, but maybe you need to clarify why you can't understand "killing terrorsist does not stop terrorist attacks".

You are saying that stopping single terrorist attacks does not stop terrorism in general.

I'm saying that shooting a terrorist who has already started his attack does not stop terrorist attacks. I am saying that the OP's original premise, "There's no way the mass murder that took place in Mumbai a few weeks ago could have happened if the average Indian citizen carried a weapon" is inherently incorrect based on historical facts, as many have pointed out. I am saying that once a terrorist has already engaged in his act of terror it is incorrect to claim that the terrorist attack was stopped.

You're talking about terrorists preparing for armed citizens? If armed citizens are never utilized in fear of this, then the terrorists will have nothing to prepare for.

I don't understand why it is hard to understand this stuff. Slopemeno pointed out the same thing: "Then that backpack would have had Sarin, or C-4, etc, etc. The tool doesn't matter." Double Naught Spy say: "Right, had the average citizen of Mumbai been armed, the terrorists would have used other means. Determined terrorists will attack." Carguy2244: "rkba and ccw, these make us free men - but not likely to impede terrorist acts."

David, I think you need to calm down. No one is attacking you.

I think you need to not make assumptions when it is fairly easy to determine facts. I'm quite calm, thank you, and have seen nothing to cause me to believe anyone is attacking me.

 

[Hondo11]

Double Naught Spy,

There's no point in debating the semantics of the phrase "terrorist act", or how much ground its umbrella covers. I'm familiar with what it is and what it isn't. The Wiki version is nice, but there's more to it than that.


This is your quote:

Actually, it is motivation that is the distinguishing difference between a terrorist attack and mass murder or serial killing. Unless the attack is carried out against civilian targets for the purpose of bringing about social, political, or religious change, they are not terrorist attacks.

Harris and Klebold attacked a segment of a civilian population who they believed had wronged them with the purpose of intimidating that population, creating fear, and bringing about social change. Are they the classic terrorists that we all think about...Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA, al-Qaeda? Nope. Do they meet the definition (which is one of over 100 definition, by the way)? Yep.

But since you read my post so carefully before pulling the trigger, you surely noticed that I didn't equate the typical motivation(s) of the different groups in the first place, but simply pointed out that their methods were similar in some ways. Go sharpshoot somewhere else.

 

[Hondo11]

Terrorist Acts/Mass Killings:

How do you prevent them? By having good intel and acting on that intel. Having intel can mean "seeing and noting the warning signs and then acting on that information"...whether it's a terrorist cell planning and preparing for an attack or a couple of kids with emotional problems who show the intent to act on their feelings.

How do you stop or impede an attack, regardless of the motivation of the attacker(s)? By having the capability and being in place to use that capability. Since the Israelis keep being brought up, let's use them as an example. The civilian population is generally armed...not all, but to a much higher percentage than Concealed Handgun Permit holders in the States. And not just limited to handguns. Long guns are common.

Why do you suppose this is? Because acts of terrorism have happened frequently in many parts of the country (less so since the wall went up...but it could flare up at any time) and the people need the ability and the means to stop an act that is occuring.

The original poster has a valid question.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Harris and Klebold attacked a segment of a civilian population who they believed had wronged them with the purpose of intimidating that population, creating fear, and bringing about social change.

Unless you have some evidence documenting that these guys were trying to effect social change, their shooting doesn't go beyond simple revenge. Change may have resulted, but there isn't any indication that social change was one of their goals, at least not of which I am aware.

And, semantics are critical. Calling all mass shootings and such terrorist acts is a sensationalization that adds attributes to the events that are not present. This is something we like to harp on the media for doing whenever they make more of a shooting than exists or imbue attributes to the shooting that were not present, such as the association of guns with being bad or evil.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The school shooters usually show a pattern of feeling on the outs in their school and many times have suffered from bullying, esp. homophobic taunting. Thus, they have a revenge motivation and part of that is to show the taunters that they can't get away with it. But that isn't to influence a major societal institution so it changes policies as directly as most acknowledged terrorist acts.

Also, the school shooters usually show some history of psychopathology. Despite some rhetoric most organized terrorists don't have such histories.