The goal of terrorism is to cause fear in people, and also to get the people they attack to cause their own problems (e.g. TSA). So, just don't let them succeed in that. Treat them the same as any other criminals, don't give them extra media coverage, don't make new laws, etc. Terrorists can't accomplish anything without the unwitting complicity of those they're attacking.
-- notexactly, Mar 01 2015

Venezuela's president...labeling Bush and Cheney as “terrorists"... http://rt.com/news/...-imposes-visas-usa/
[Toto Anders, Mar 02 2015]

9-11 attributed to the Mossad https://wikispooks..../9-11/Israel_did_it
Seems Islamists are happy to use this explanation [pashute, Mar 04 2015]

Unless they are asked off record https://www.youtube...v=kg6UvjBSqck&t=26m
What do you think of Sheik Ossama? - Sheik Ossama? May he rest in peace. He was the best person on earth. - uh huh. [pashute, Mar 04 2015]

[+].

I've often wondered what would happen if terrorist events were simply not reported at all.

Or, report them wrongly - attribute ISIS attacks to some other terrorist outfit, and vice versa.

Or or, deliberately mis-identify terrorists and give them silly names.

"And tonight's closing story... the terrorist responsible for the Albaquerque bombing has been identified as Scrofus Felchstinker [photo], long-term member of the Paedophile Liberation Army. In a video recorded shortly before the explosion, which slightly damaged two cars, Felchstinker stated that his attack was a protest against the shoddy treatment he had received at Albaquerque's leading incontinence clinic. And now the weather..."
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 01 2015


or

3) McDonald's. A study by the Borne Institute found that one of the most cost-effective ways to stop terrorism was to install one McDonald's in each 10 square miles. Admittedly, the McDonald's has to be heavily subsidised, but still.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 01 2015


There ya go, [Bigs]! I knew we could do better than (2) once we got started.

We could also consider (5) Paying people not to suicide bomb. Just give out $10 in cash money to any terrorist who, on arriving at the cashier, can provide credible evidence that they haven't suicide-bombed in the last 24 hours.

Or (6) provide the 72 virgins right here and right now. Species and gender negotiable.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 01 2015


//those worthy of 72 virgins... are 60 cubits high//

Wait. What? You mean that if you suicide-bomb, you end up 90ft tall? Is this a consequence of the explosion?
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 01 2015


Nope. The cubit was chiefly a unit of length. However, there is also a volumetric cubit, and a weight cubit.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 01 2015


That's a little like saying the way to stop murderers is to just stop dying when they kill you.
-- tatterdemalion, Mar 01 2015


That would work.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 02 2015


The trouble with this idea is that, in an open society, no-one could carry it out. Censoring the media is frowned upon, and the media love terror - and, while the media are reporting it, there's pressure on politicians to be seen to do something. The breakthrough idea would be a means of breaking the community of interest between the terrorist and the journalist. I don't know how to do that, but without it this fails.
-- pertinax, Mar 02 2015


I agree that it's a good idea to get rid of the notion of terrorism, but for completely different reasons. It seems to have become one of those scare words which are used to paralyse thought in order to get people to accept things they shouldn't or distract them from other problems. I don't think we're on the same page with that.

Also, [MB], you did the "[+]" thing but I seemed to be the first person to bun this.
-- nineteenthly, Mar 02 2015


Who is a terrorist? By whose definitions? I'm sure that neither Bush nor Cheney (see link) wouldn't mind to be attended by 72 virgins. Together with their murderous history, makes that them terrorists? At what point would one cease to report their actions to the public? For the worse or the better?
-- Toto Anders, Mar 02 2015


I would like to draw the attention of those yearnimg to reach paradise to the fact that we already have Milk and Honey here. Aisle 3 near the cereals I believe. Perhaps a small subsidy program?
-- AusCan531, Mar 02 2015


//neither Bush nor Cheney (see link) wouldn't mind to be attended by 72 virgins.//

I'm not unsure if you meant what you think you meant.
-- MaxwellBuchanan, Mar 02 2015


//neither Bush nor Cheney (see link) wouldn't mind to be attended by 72 virgins. Together with their murderous history, makes that them terrorists?//

I'm guessing you called in sick the day they taught grammar in grammar school.
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 03 2015


I think that politicians and Presidents in particular should call them out as little as possible. I thought this same thing back during 911. Mentioning them gives them standing. The same goes for serial murderers, school shooters, etc.
-- RayfordSteele, Mar 03 2015


In other news, the International Berkeley Society has formally petitioned the White House to ban the official recognition of the existence of existence. Proponents of the movement argue that the quickest way to resolve a political problem is to ignore that ever happened. Furthermore, by refusing to acknowledge that matter itself exists outside of the mind of the voter, such a problem (or any other problem) should never arise in the future.

The petition is already gaining traction with incumbent politicians. As stated by Chesterfield B. McGillicutty, representative of the 15-and-halfth congressional district of Rhode Island, "If a budget deficit doesn't exist, then it's not my fault!"
-- Cuit_au_Four, Mar 03 2015


In Tom Cancy's _Patriot_Games_, that was more or less the British response to an attack on some royals. The bad guys were tried as criminals for murder, gun use and destruction of property, but never referred to as terrorists or as politically motivated.

After 9/11, which was obviously terrorism, I thought the identity of the perpetrators was being suppressed as per this idea.
-- baconbrain, Mar 03 2015


// I'm guessing you called in sick the day they taught grammar in grammar school //

Where I went to grammar school they did not teach English grammar.
-- Toto Anders, Mar 03 2015


Did they teach logic? The assertion that terrorism is somehow justified or at least understandable because it's all subjective doesn't go a long way towards explaining the mass slaughter of Muslims who are the main victims of the terrorist's war on civilization.
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 03 2015


Terrorism, just in my view, is violent action for a political end which is not overtly sanctioned by any internationally recognised government. That means that false-flag operations can be terrorist and that if there are governments which are not internationally recognised, any aggressive military action they pursue would be terrorist. However, this is not an evaluative definition, just a description. I don't consider it to be a meaningful concept. It's like coming up with a word which refers to both elastic bands and limestone, but nothing else. That might turn out to be useful but I didn't make it up to be useful except as a definition of the arbitrariness of the concept of terrorism. I don't think it makes much difference to someone if they have a bomb dropped on them by the Luftwaffe or if someone hijacks a light aircraft and drops a bomb on them.
-- nineteenthly, Mar 03 2015


Well, probably a good idea to define terrorism. I think we can all agree that it's a method of warfare.

To me it's the deliberate targeting of civilians to add a psychological element to the battle. Making videos of people being burned alive or beheaded, that sort of thing.

Of course it's pretty easy to point out that a nice, justified, morally correct United Nations sanctioned bomb ripping your body apart can cause plenty of terror as well, so you can pretty quickly get lost in semantics here.
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 03 2015


At the very least the media could substitute the words "muslim extremist" with: "some bearded dickwad".
-- zeno, Mar 03 2015


Or notice that most of the people involved are from one country, and it isn't the one that everybody is assuming.
-- baconbrain, Mar 03 2015


[Doc] has it right, although it does get misused in reference to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Someone who engages in asymmetric warfare, but chooses military or government targets is not a terrorist. Whether they are a freedom fighter, an insurgent or a rebel is a matter of perspective. They may cause civilian casualties, but that is not the intent. If they act with reckless disregard to civilian casualties, they may be war criminals (as might state actors who show similar disregard), but they are still not terrorists.

Someone who engages in asymmetric warfare and deliberately engages civilian targets, especially with the intent to cause fear or intimidation, is a terrorist.
-- MechE, Mar 03 2015


I know this would never go over, but I can't help but wonder if religion itself is something which, since it can not be understood by the mind of a child, should not be introduced into their lives while they are minors.
No more alter-boy temptations for the clergy, no more suicide bombers certain that they are takin one for the Big-Guy, no more indoctrinated extremists.
In short, no more brain-washing of children until they are old enough to think for themselves. Then there'd only be the minion-less crazies to deal with.
-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Mar 03 2015


[MechE], nicely put. It's defined by who the victims are, not who the aggressors are.
-- neutrinos_shadow, Mar 03 2015


ME & NS. Yup. Or to put more of a fine point on it, if the victims are specifically targeted non military personnel.

Of course somebody might bring up Dresden, but the argument could be made that Dresden housed workers for the German war industry.

That being said, I don't think anybody on the side of the Allies would have sanctioned rounding up a bunch of kids in lederhosen and shooting them. Pretty safe bet anybody doing that would have been put in front of a firing squad. I hope at least.
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 03 2015


Operation Abigail Rachel / Glencoe / Tokyo
it's not like there isn't ample precedent for deliberate the slaughter of civilians as part of a military campaign.
-- calum, Mar 04 2015


But note that the Abigail Rachel raid was reprisal for the terror raid on Coventry, a civilian target. Hiroshima was a military industrial town and home to a major military base, yadda yadda yadda. Still, yes, we've targeted innocent civilians in the past. We don't do that now though.

Just to further stir the pot regarding WW2. It can be argued that anything we could have done to end that war as quickly as possible was of great long term benefit to all parties involved, including the people of the Axis powers. Can you imagine if we fought WW2 the way we're fighting this war now? It could be argued that if we hadn't lost it outright, it would now be in its 75th year with casualties in the hundreds of millions. And don't think the Axis powers winning would have been all that great for them either. We'd be going on 4 generations of German and Japanese youth dying fighting insurgencies on a daily basis in the far flung provinces of the empire all over the world. (Good luck "pacifying" Texas.) There's also the distinct possibility that Germany and Japan's next step would be to go to war with each other to settle this whole "Who's the real master race?" debate.

Put is this way. If you could go back in time, would you change anything we did in WW2 that might have some chance of changing the outcome?

Food for thought.
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 04 2015


//. Can you imagine if we fought WW2 the way we're fighting this war now?//
This is another version of the thought experiment known as "How Much Better Would The World Be If Someone Could Go Back In Time to 1965 & Shoot Geoff Hurst?"
-- calum, Mar 04 2015


So if you had a time machine, would you go back and "correct" all our mistakes? I'm not smart enough to mess with history myself, maybe you are.

Not just a cocktail party discussion abstract here. We're engaged in a war and thought needs to be given about how to fight it, including analysis of what we did right and wrong in past conflicts. Some planning is required to figure out how we can kill people and break thinks while keeping our petticoats nice, starched and clean, but at some point winning might be nice as well.

Just sayin'.
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 04 2015


//So if you had a time machine, would you go back and "correct" all our mistakes?//
My annotation did not even begin to imply this.
-- calum, Mar 04 2015


I dunno. If I could go back in time and prevent Andrew Wakefield from publishing, I would be strongly tempted to do so.
-- MechE, Mar 04 2015


//My annotation did not even begin to imply this.//

LOL. Dang, just trying to start a friendly conversation.

I'm guessing you don't get invited to a lot of parties eh cal?
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 04 2015


// I'm not smart enough to mess with history myself, maybe you are.

How does one determine this? I might be. I'd go the route of working back through seemingly unrelated minute events, finding a butterfly effect trigger. With careful planning maybe I could prevent WWII from happening by interfering with a delivery at a beer hall.
-- tatterdemalion, Mar 04 2015


Well, if Hitler and his crew were removed from the picture by having the beer delivery denied or being pushed off a balcony, Germany would still be in a pretty nasty, angry state post WW1. Gotta wonder if Hitler would have just been replaced by Schmidt or Müller.
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 04 2015


// I'm guessing you don't get invited to a lot of parties eh cal?//
You are not the first level this accusation at me. As it happens, you are correct in your guess: I don't get invited to a lot of parties, though I am fairly sure that the reason that I don't get invited to a lot of parties is not the fact that I sometimes turn off the professional charm when interacting with people on the halfbakery. In fact, I would go so far as to bet my actual real life bollocks that no-one has ever elected not to invite me to a party based upon anything I have ever said on the halfbakery. Here are likelier reasons that I don't get invited to a lot of parties:
1. I am past the age of going to parties;
2. I don't really like parties all that much, and the people who might invite me know this;
3. I am usually at work when parties happen;
4. I am horribly disfigured and people find my appearance rebarbative;
5. Outside of working hours, I prefer to be naked and / or covered in olive oil and this makes some people uncomfortable;
6. I have difficulty speaking, as part of my disfigurement is that my birth tongue has been replaced by the tongue of a musk ox and people find it difficult to understand the sounds that I make in place of civilised speech;
7. I live at 70°55'N 8°42'W, where there is not much nightlife;
8. I died in 1987; and
9. My manners are such that when those rare people who can cope with my appearance, my oil-slick nudity, my speech defect and my being a well-rotten corpse do speak to me, I am incapable of politesse when they either ignore or fail to understand the clear meaning of the words I have spoken, attempt to put words into my mouth, or resort to putatively joshing insult as a way of cajoling me into having with them what they regard as either a conversation or, more stultifying still, a debate.
-- calum, Mar 04 2015


Well cal, if I were to invite any stranger I met online to a party, it would be you. You're certainly interesting.

Since I quit drinking several years ago, parties aren't as much fun any more anyway but the wife likes them so, oh well. I get to be the designated driver. The life saving nerd if you will.
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 04 2015


Yeah, the correct time to fix WWII is probably sometime in the Napoleonic wars.
-- MechE, Mar 04 2015


//You're certainly interesting.//
Now *that* is a compliment! Thank you.
-- calum, Mar 04 2015


You're welcome C.
-- doctorremulac3, Mar 05 2015


//I don't think anybody on the side of the Allies would have sanctioned [...] //

{glances sharply towards [8th of 7]}
-- pertinax, Mar 06 2015


// I'm not smart enough to mess with history myself//

Actually, we all mess with history, every time we vote (or choose not to vote), and sometimes when we do other things (such as spend money, or save it, or invent things, or offend people) - and we don't know which things.

The difference between messing with future history and past history, apart from the fact that the latter is impossible, is that, for the past, we have a clearer view of the dizzying responsibilities involved. We interfere with future history in happy ignorance. It's a bit like walking a very narrow path with a terrifying ravine on one side, and another terrifying ravine on the other side, except the first ravine is fenced, while the second (unfenced) ravine is hidden by a thick fog bank, so that's OK.

This is such a scary thought that it's no surprise some people prefer to believe its all down to conspiracies happening somewhere else, and therefore nothing to do with them.
-- pertinax, Mar 06 2015



random, halfbakery