Terrorist Scenarios

[Hondo11]

Listen, I get it. I know the difference. The point I was making is that sharpshooting my original post (which specifically said there was a difference in motivation but not necessarily in how they're carried out) by using a cut-and-paste "definition" (of which there are over 100...all of them fairly loose) was ridiculous. Many different scenarios and some incidents that have already happened could be made to fit under one of the 100's of definitions of terrorism.


None of which is the purpose of the thread, so I won't further hijack the thread by debating this point.

 

[BuckHammer]

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.

Alright, I said the attack has stopped, not was stopped. If you lose control of your vehicle, hit two cars, then come to a stop, the accident has stopped, but it was not stopped.

...you need to clarify why you can't understand "killing terrorsist does not stop terrorist attacks".

I, in fact, did clarify that I did understand that part. Go back and read it. I understand your position and agree on that point. Terrorists are going to attack no matter what. It's just a matter of setting the level of difficulty.

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.

Current carrying in America WAS mentioned, and the primary method of carry in America is CCW. Talking about the difference in current carry is splitting hairs.

I'm saying that shooting a terrorist who has already started his attack does not stop terrorist attacks.

I agree, but that does not mean that we should say, "Aw, hell, the attack wasn't stopped, so we might as well let it run its course." In fear of them adjusting to victims who are carrying, which it seems is implied here:

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

I believe you are trying to say that if you kill a terrorist in progress, he will resort to other methods of killing (sarine, etc.). But don't you still believe that a terrorist act in progress should be stopped (see my first comment on this post for what I mean by "stopped")? I believe that you agree with me in that they should be stopped, but are just saying that if/when they are stopped, other means will be employed, so therefore terrorist attacks will continue to happen. Therefore, arming the citizenry will not stop terrorism. I get that. I have gotten that for a while. But you have yet to say anything like, "Yes, I believe that if a terrorist attack is in progress, someone ought to attack the terrorist." That's all I've asked for for a while. So, I'm going to pose you the question, David, and I just want a simple yes or no:

Do you believe that a terrorist who is commencing an attack should be attacked?

If yes, then we are in complete agreement, since I have never said anywhere in this thread that an armed populous will end terrorism (see in this post where I say what I mean by "stopped"). If no, then we are not in agreement.

From the 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.

He's saying that there's no way that attack could have happened if the populous was armed. You say that it would have happened, but possibly not via guns and grenades. I agree that it would have happened, but the severity might not have been the same. CDRogers posted this question (which is the topic of the post):

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

I believe he only mentioned the Mumbai scenario in order to further his point that we should be running through/practicing terrorist scenarios in our mind. But I see that you interpret the main idea of the OP differently:

it may be open to interpretation

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

To answer the question posed in this thread (and to try to get it back on topic), I don't run through terrorist scenarios (maybe because I live in Evansville, Indiana and not a major population center), although I probably should.

 

[David Armstrong]

Alright, I said the attack has stopped, not was stopped. If you lose control of your vehicle, hit two cars, then come to a stop, the accident has stopped, but it was not stopped.

So we still have an attack, and we still have an accident. Hard to say that they were stopped. I like raimus' phrasing: "In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage."

Current carrying in America WAS mentioned, and the primary method of carry in America is CCW.

And carrying in India was mentioned, and carry in general, and lots of other things. CCW was NOT mentioned.

I agree, but that does not mean that we should say, "Aw, hell, the attack wasn't stopped, so we might as well let it run its course." In fear of them adjusting to victims who are carrying, which it seems is implied here:

I agree we should not say that, and I have never said that. The implication is of your own making and is not reflective of my position. In fact I believe I explicitly rejected that concept back in post #28.

I believe that you agree with me in that they should be stopped, but are just saying that if/when they are stopped, other means will be employed, so therefore terrorist attacks will continue to happen. Therefore, arming the citizenry will not stop terrorism. I get that. I have gotten that for a while.

Then why do you continue to argue about it unless, as hondo put it, you are just "sharpshooting"?

He's saying that there's no way that attack could have happened if the populous was armed. You say that it would have happened, but possibly not via guns and grenades.

I do not say that. I say the attack could have happened just as it did even with an armed populous.

 

[BuckHammer]

So we still have an attack, and we still have an accident. Hard to say that they were stopped. I like raimus' phrasing: "In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage."

Did you even read what you are referring to here? If so, I defy you to find where it disagrees with what you have posted. Let's please stop arguing about this. In both the attack and accident scenarios, its hard to say that the attack hasn't stopped, otherwise it would still be in progress.

And carrying in India was mentioned, and carry in general, and lots of other things. CCW was NOT mentioned.

Open to interpretation. Whatever. It is ultimately irrelevant.

I agree we should not say that, and I have never said that. The implication is of your own making and is not reflective of my position. In fact I believe I explicitly rejected that concept back in post #28.

Yeah, you said that wasn't what you meant, but you have yet to say what you do mean. All I've asked is for you to elaborate in most, if not all of my posts since then about this:

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

but instead, you take several parts of my posts out of context and avoid my request for you to elaborate.

Then why do you continue to argue about it unless, as hondo put it, you are just "sharpshooting"?

Read my post, I was not arguing about that. Not everyone is out to get you.

I do not say that. I say the attack could have happened just as it did even with an armed populous.

Which was in reference to this:

He's saying that there's no way that attack could have happened if the populous was armed. You say that it would have happened, but possibly not via guns and grenades.

If you noticed, I said possibly.

...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.

You seem to imply that a similar attack could happen with means other than guns and grenades. Just saying that maybe you think that there are other possibilities.

Do you believe that a terrorist who is commencing an attack should be attacked?

You missed my question. Next time you post, please answer yes or no. Along with the elaboration I have been asking for for quite some time. You seem to have olympic level of ability when it comes to dodging questions. You should consider running for office. Unless you hold one, in that case, congratulations, you found your calling.

 

[David Armstrong]

Did you even read what you are referring to here? If so, I defy you to find where it disagrees with what you have posted. Let's please stop arguing about this.

It takes two to argue, and there is nothing to argue about, IMO. When an attack has already occurred it seems strange to me to try to say the attack was stopped. The attack was not stopped, the attack occurred, you have perhaps reduced the effect of the attack.

Open to interpretation. Whatever. It is ultimately irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant why do you keep bringing it up?

Yeah, you said that wasn't what you meant, but you have yet to say what you do mean.

I have said exactly what I mean. I have apparently not said what you want me to say, but that is more your problem than mine. Again, most other folks seem to have figured it out just fine, and I have even used quotes from them to attempt to clarify it for you.

Read my post, I was not arguing about that.

Sure seems like it, and now you are arguing about if you were arguing about it. LOL!!

Not everyone is out to get you.

Again, I do not think so, nor have I said anything to give any indication of that. So I don't know why you would continue to mention it unless you are trying to sharpshoot or start an argument.

You seem to imply that a similar attack could happen with means other than guns and grenades. Just saying that maybe you think that there are other possibilities.

There are always other possibilities when discussing issues like this.

You missed my question. Next time you post, please answer yes or no.

I didn't miss it at all. I tend to ignore questions where the person posting them demands in advance that I answer them in a certain way.
It is obvious that you are now just trying to bait me into an argument by sniping at me, and I'm actually trying to avoid it. If you have a legitimate question I'll be quite happy to answer it, but if all you want are more "clarifications" of things that have already been clarified, or if you just want to engage in more armchair psychology about what I feel, I see no need to continue this.

 

[onthejon55]

When an attack has already occurred it seems strange to me to try to say the attack was stopped. The attack was not stopped, the attack occurred, you have perhaps reduced the effect of the attack.

If an attack has ended, fails to continue, or ceases to persist then it has stopped. If an attack was intended, but never began in the first place, then it was stopped. I figured this out after reading 1 post. Sadly you are on your 4th or 5th post and still cant figure this out.

So I don't know why you would continue to mention it unless you are trying to sharpshoot or start an argument.

Your right. Forums are the wrong place to argue. especially if someone is as horrible at it as you.

You seem to have olympic level of ability when it comes to dodging questions. You should consider running for office. Unless you hold one, in that case, congratulations, you found your calling.

Hahaha

 

[David Armstrong]

If an attack has ended, fails to continue, or ceases to persist then it has stopped.

Was the attack at Beslan stopped? Was the attack at Mumbai stopped? I don't think so. Hard to claim you have stopped an attack when there are a hundred folks dead from the attack. As I have said before, some of you seem to confuse stopping a terrorist with stopping a terrorist attack. The two are often very different. You don't stop a murder after somebody has been murdered, even though you stop the murderer.

 

[onthejon55]

Was the attack at Beslan stopped? Was the attack at Mumbai stopped?

It was not stopped but it has stopped. Unless of course there are people still being killed in Beslan and Mumbai.

Hard to claim you have stopped an attack when there are a hundred folks dead from the attack

.

It a terrorist attack isnt stopped then why dont terrorist just kill millions of people at one time?

As I have said before, some of you seem to confuse stopping a terrorist with stopping a terrorist attack.

Im pretty sure that it is physically impossible for a terrorist who has been "stopped" aka "killed" to carry on attacking people

 

[JohnKSa]

I like raimus' phrasing: "In responding to an attack in progress, the best you can do is mitigate the damage."

What action(s) would you recommend to "mitigate the damage" of a Mumbai-like attack if you were consulted shortly after it began?

 

[BuckHammer]

Hard to claim you have stopped an attack when there are a hundred folks dead from the attack.

You made me do the following:

stop
–verb (used with object)
1. to cease from, leave off, or discontinue: to stop running.
2. to cause to cease; put an end to: to stop noise in the street.
3. to interrupt, arrest, or check (a course, proceeding, process, etc.): Stop your work just a minute.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stop
According to Dictionary.com, the attacks have stopped. Please stop insisting that the attacks have not stopped. I say they have stopped, you say they were stopped, both are true. Stop implying that only one is true. Do you understand this definition? It is very difficult to have a debate or discussion with someone who will not understand this, despite the numerous times that I have tried to make it clear. I could say that the attacks were stopped (meaning discontinued), and you could say that they were not stopped (meaning prevented) and we would both be correct!

When I make posts, and you refuse to rebut them, or answer them, you fail. I am not asking you to answer my questions in a certain way, I just want you to answer them. You do not, thus you fail.

It is very hard to argue with someone who only accepts one or two of the definitions of stop, when there are more than FORTY on the URL that I have presented. This shows ignorance and stubbornness.

if you just want to engage in more armchair psychology about what I feel

I just want answers and clarifications. When you do not answer or clarify (on something that you have definitely NOT made clear), I have to try to figure how you might answer. If you have made clear what I ask previously, please either quote yourself, guide me to your post numbers, or just say what you mean in your next post. It really isn't that hard. I don't even see a reason for your stubborn resistance. You constantly think I'm trying to bait you into an argument:

It is obvious that you are now just trying to bait me into an argument by sniping at me

Don't try to say you don't think that because you stated it in plain English. I am not trying to do this, not everyone is out to get you. Not everyone is luring you into an argument, just relax or something.

If you have a legitimate question I'll be quite happy to answer it

Yes, I sure do have a legitimate question:

Do you believe that a terrorist who is commencing an attack should be attacked?

I fail to see how that is not a legitimate question and/or baiting into an argument. I don't really care how you answer. I just want an answer. I am not baiting you into an argument, if/when you answer, I promise that I will not argue with you about your answer, and if I do, then you can cite this and call me out on it.

If you notice, I have not cited the parts in your posts where you argue about the things that I declared that I will not argue about or that we agree on .

 

[David Armstrong]

It was not stopped but it has stopped.

The terrorists were stopped. The attack was carried out, people were killed, terror was instilled in the populace, etc.

It a terrorist attack isnt stopped then why dont terrorist just kill millions of people at one time?

Because, again using raimus' term, we have mitigated the damage of the attack by stopping the terrorist. The Allies stopped Germany from taking over the world, they did not stop World War II. World War II happened.

Im pretty sure that it is physically impossible for a terrorist who has been "stopped" aka "killed" to carry on attacking people

True, but killing somebody is not the purpose of a terrorist attack. The purpose of a terrorist attack is to instill terror. Stopping the terrorist after the attack does nothing to stop that.

 

[David Armstrong]

What action(s) would you recommend to "mitigate the damage" of a Mumbai-like attack if you were consulted shortly after it began?

Haven't looked at Mumbai in any great detail yet, but I see no reason to think that the traditional contain, isolate, and control process wouldn't work.

 

[David Armstrong]

I am not asking you to answer my questions in a certain way, I just want you to answer them.

"So, I'm going to pose you the question, David, and I just want a simple yes or no:"

 

[pax]

This one's done. No more thread-jacking.

If you all want to go have an argument about who's got the biggest debating balls, go do it somewhere else. THIS forum is for discussing defensive tactics and training.

pax