Larenxis:
View it as a criminal act and not a military one and use police protocol.

I would love to agree with you on this. But like previous conversations, this is global and sadly, the police can't exactly go outside their own borders. The difference between us attacking them and they to us, is that they're extremists with different goals in mind.

As far as I can see, the terrorists are right bastards. 9/11, the bombings in London, Spain and Bali, and now this. See the link here? They're all on non-military targets. These are normal passive civilians getting killed. A wedding was hailed with gunfire. Police can't exactly take this matter to their hands.

I regreat the option of military having to hunt and kill those involved, but they are brainwashed, and they are dangerous people.

But to those who said 'Nuke Them' you're just as bad. Worse in fact. Who are you going to nuke and where without hurting innocents? I do hope that was the gag option of the choices.

Terrorists are nothing more than Troll's ignore them and they will eventually piss off.

You should also add the option to the poll: Westernise their country through selling shiny things.

zirnitra:

to answer your other question what would you do if a terrorist struck your country and what action I'd want taken. well I like all other British people are completely unscared of terroists so after the tube bombings the only action we wanted our gov't to take was to repair the underground as quickly as possible so we wern't late for work the next day.

Using that mentality, if you and your significant other are stabbed to death by a street gang is it not right to prosecute? Or would that just stir up the gang to even more violence?(

So why would we ignore a terrorist organization that attacked just because it will escalate things?

Appeasement has yet to work, (at least that i've seen) These terrorist are not motivated by a hatred of the west(though they do) but rather it's a power play from within
Every successful attack gains an organization X number of ideological converts, and keeps people in power.

Darth Mobius:
To quote the great HaliWali, "The answer is Rockets, the answer is ALWAYS Rockets..."

"Any problem in the world can be handled with the proper application of explosives."

I suppose the best thing would be to keep them from carrying out attacks. Disrupt their ability to plan and organize. Keep them moving, keep killing or capturing their leaders, and try to get a mole inside the group. You can't end terrorism or extremism, but you can stop keep them from carrying out major attacks.

Kukul:

cuddly_tomato:

Kukul:

cuddly_tomato:

Kukul:

cuddly_tomato:

Kukul:
The best solution to terrorism is producing electric cars and letting those motherfuckers starve.

Yep. This solution is obviously fool-proof as the long suffering and starving people of Afghanistan have obviously never engaged on any terrorist acts have they?

Well its obviously not fool-proof since you didn't get it.
I meant the Saudi Arabians who fund the terrorists, not the starving Afghani
Poor people don't blow themselves up if nobody asks them to.

I do get it. The thing is this - the 9/11 attacks were done on the budget of a few plane tickets and some knives. That's all. A few hundred dollars, at most, bypassed the most expensive and technologically advanced security net in the history of the world. You know how much anthrax costs to produce? Go to a place where they shear the wool of sheep and you will find tonnes of it. Bombs? There is enough material in the average kitchen to make a decently lethal pipebomb if you know what you are doing. Terrorism costs virtually nothing.

You are talking out of your ignorant ass my friend.
9/11 attacks costed more money than you and me will ever earn.
Years of preparations, teaching these people to fly, funding their travels and upkeep, maintaing an army of people who will ensure your seciurity and indoctrinating them properly, paying bribes to maintain secrecy etc.
That costs a lot of money.
Thats why you don't see every group of lunatics killing thousand of people. Just the ones with money.

Hmmm... And how much money did Timothy McVeigh have? More than you or I will ever earn? I suppose making electric cars would have stopped him too huh? And the 7/11 terrorists who bombed London (who were all English). And also the Basque terrorists, electric cars will stop them too! My god it is so simple!

Thank you for enlightening me to my ignorant ways.

I don't know who Timothy McVeigh is, but note that both the Basque terrorists and IRA were not international terrorist groups yet they still had money.
International terrorism requires even more money.
Anyway the soultion clearly isn't that simple, but I believe stripping arabs of their oil-money is a good way to start.

Timothy McViegh was an American terrorist that bombed the Oklahoma federal building (he was also a white suprmecist) He used a truck full of fertilizer as a bomb.(more complicated but Tiny details don't matter). And stripping Arabs of oil money will likely make them more desperate.

cuddly_tomato:
Airstrikes do nothing except antagonize the local populations and create more willing terrorists, so unless you are advocating genocide against areas where terrorists are then it isn't going to work.

To deal with terrorism you have to actually try to deal with it, as happened after WW2 with Japan and Germany. When the allied nations went in, and helped them rebuild. They didn't sanction them into starvation, then bomb them into the stone age, then sell off the rights to rebuild to the highest bidder so that the people living there didn't even have food or fresh water two years after "mission accomplished".

That helps prevent terrorism, but what do you do if it exists at the moment. Just like it helps prevent communism.

On Topic: The problem with terrorist is the use guerilla warfare simarly to the Vietcong. A terrorist may not be spotted until it is too late or disapears into the crowds. Bombing kills civilians and looks bad in newsreels. The best tactic would probably be covert ops.

I read about everything someone has to say about Terrorism. Starting a War with them is just going to make them go underground and make them stronger. How did most you of handle bullies in school? Fucking Ignore them. They eventually lose interest. But maybe thats not how it works with these insane retards. "They attack you, you attack them" is just going to fuel their fires. They LOVE Death, study the religion sometimes, its warped, but as most Americans and most people who dont love seeing mass violence and death, We LOVE life, and as long as we have this opposite idea, there will always be conflict. Only way to top it, is be more outragous then them, or just get to the point and make it that no living thing will never survive The Fallout Of The War, kill everything including the innocent. Destroy. Erase. Improve.

I suppose the only way to stop it is to utterly CRUSH it, completely wipe them out. But that is hard to do for a number of reasons.
1. Most westerners don't have the will to gut it out.
2. there are lots of small groups that go unnoticed.
3. The large groups dissolve and spread like cancer.

Hmmmm... that might be a good way to think about terrorism, compare it to cancer, or viruses.

Here's an idea.

Working on the basis that Terrorism is a need to express dissent blown entirely out of proportion, why not simply fix the inequality which seems to cause so much angst?

Labyrinth:
Here's an idea.

Working on the basis that Terrorism is a need to express dissent blown entirely out of proportion, why not simply fix the inequality which seems to cause so much angst?

Because it's not always an inequality that causes the violence.
Like i've posted before terrorism is just as much about controlling the home population as it is about taking down the west. Osama(or any leader) knows they can not wipe out UK US AU, but they can gain ideological support by attacking these targets. It all comes down to power(and the desire to remain in said power).

For starters, none of this 'Kill the Muslims!' or 'Nuke'm to extinction' bullshit. That will lead to nothing but more people willing to die for the cause. Trying to fight a full-scale war against terrorists leads to nothing but more bloodshed, so it's not worth it.

The best way to stop terrorism is to show extremists for what they really are: animals who don't want what's best for the people, but power/continual fighting. Give the terrorists a lack of reason to fight, and you won't have large numbers to fight against. The truth is, you will always have someone who is going to kill for what they believe in. You can't stop terrorism in its entirety. Instead, make them as small as possible, and unite the country against them.

Edit:

Dele:
Outlaw islam and deny access to your country by islamic citizens.. simple and effective :)

Yeh, until you find that, by outlawing something as influential to a person as religion, you end up getting a large number of home-grown terrorists.

Also, Islam itself (the religion) is not the cause of such violence; it's the idiotic preachers that spur the violence. Shut them up, and the hate stirred up within the Islamic community will dissipate.

Hevoo:
Who ever clicked Ignore them, cute, now get real and go watch the News, These are like Fanboys on Roids. Best thing you can do, is fight back harder, they bomb something, we bomb them back 5 times harder. But you make them fight where they live, bring the fight to them.

This type of conflict is not US vs Terrorist, this is

WESTERN CIVILIZATION VS Terrorist.

Everyone is involved, US, UK, AU, France, Germany, etc, etc, etc.

Cause thats worked really well so far hasn't it? Taking the fight too Iraq and Afghanistan really made US casualty rates plummet like that, I mean, before the war it was like a few thousand and since we've been there its-oh wait a second...

That won't actually work anyway. Terrorism is not a country. it has no president, no government and no seat on the UN. You cannot take the fight to their home, because ideology has no home.

"Bomb back 5 times harder" eh? How does that make us any different from them?
And besides, who is gonna see their innocent family get wiped out because they were in the same vicinity as militant and not take up arms against the ones doing the wiping out?

Your comment about the news is correct, and you know what? Terrorists see it exactly the same way. Publicity is like their lifeblood. The aim of terrorism is too cause massive damage and let everyone know that it was you who fucked them up. By seeing it on the news, getting all riled up and being prepared to give up a little more liberty for safety you are letting them win.
As Jim_Doki said it earlier, "Business as usual"

EDIT:

Darth Mobius:
To quote the great HaliWali, "The answer is Rockets, the answer is ALWAYS Rockets..."

Oh dear.. not again.

sheic99:

cuddly_tomato:
Airstrikes do nothing except antagonize the local populations and create more willing terrorists, so unless you are advocating genocide against areas where terrorists are then it isn't going to work.

To deal with terrorism you have to actually try to deal with it, as happened after WW2 with Japan and Germany. When the allied nations went in, and helped them rebuild. They didn't sanction them into starvation, then bomb them into the stone age, then sell off the rights to rebuild to the highest bidder so that the people living there didn't even have food or fresh water two years after "mission accomplished".

That helps prevent terrorism, but what do you do if it exists at the moment. Just like it helps prevent communism.

On Topic: The problem with terrorist is the use guerilla warfare simarly to the Vietcong. A terrorist may not be spotted until it is too late or disapears into the crowds. Bombing kills civilians and looks bad in newsreels. The best tactic would probably be covert ops.

This is a Hollywood created solution, one that might look great when filming Passenger 57 but is completely unrealisitic when applied to real life.

All those Navy Seals films, all those Steven Segal flicks, have given rise to the urban legend of covert ops. Men immune to bullets. Men who dress in black, even black eyeballs, that disappear in darkness. Men who can beat lions bare handed and are so hard and manly they got kicked out the regular army for being too hard and manly. During the Iraq war, even the mainstream UK media ran polls asking if we should "Send in the SAS". It then took a huge number of former SAS members and defense experts pointing out how absurd the notion was before people stopped jabbering on about it.

Let me ask this - could a team of covert ops parachute into the USA, then make their way to the Whitehouse and assassinate the president?

"But Cuddly! That is the USA you are talking about! Arab countries are different!".

They sure are different. Martial law. Curfews. Anyone with white skin and a weapon would be riddled with bullets in less time than it takes to shout "DUCK!". Miles and miles of open desert with little to no cover. Mountains with lots of cover and plenty of caves, but where the enemy know the terrain and have lived their all their lives. Heavily armed check points scattered around. Every single man and his goat owning an AK-47, which will put you down very quickly, special ops or not.

The idea of doing this in Bagdhad was somewhat mad. No fly zone for a starters - so any helicopter would get noticed and shot down as it was trying to hover above the city to drop off its payload of people. Even if you dropped them at the city borders, they would have to fight their way to Saddam. We are talking about a squad of maybe a dozen men taking on literally thousands of the Iraqi Elite Republican Guard. If, after infinite ammunition and surviving endless hours of fighting, Saddam would have hopped in his Tax and gone back to Tikrit.

Special ops are basically used highly trained military intelligence gatherers. While they are the best choice for dealing with hostage situations there is little more they can do. They certainly aren't assassins.

Labyrinth:
Here's an idea.

Working on the basis that Terrorism is a need to express dissent blown entirely out of proportion, why not simply fix the inequality which seems to cause so much angst?

Because that makes way too much sense. I mean, come on. When was the last time any politician actually made an effort to do anything that made sense? Be realistic, invading countries, starving, oppressing and maiming their populations is the keystone of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world.

2 Words: Carpet Bombing.

But on a more serious note, one must deal with this in a sensible and precise matter.

Sensible, being that one attempts to improve the quality of life for ones antagonists, utilises the old-time British strategey of 'Hearts and Minds', generally treat people with respect and attempt to leech away the support base o extremism everywhere.

However, this is only half the job. No matter how much we try to resolve these differences, there are still going to be fuckers like Bin Laden who are going to kill innocents for no reason beyond their twisted ideaology. Here comes the precise:

Precise application of military force and intelligence.Put it simply- Ocupation is bad. Bombingis bad. Sending a team of SAS men in disguise to wipe their leadership of the map is good. Casually having MI6 and Mossad kill these people in a quiet, efficent way is good thing.

The use of purely a carrot will result in the removal of popular support, but the remaining hardcore will continue to attempt to harm and murder our people. The use of pure stick will simply strengthen the popular base of these psychos, and result in more people being willing to die for other people's ideals.

Oh, and if all else fails, round up the entirity of the western world's prisons, give them small arms and tell them they can have as muchof the middle east as they want as long as they can take it. Brutal, but effective.

Fondant:
2 Words: Carpet Bombing.

But on a more serious note, one must deal with this in a sensible and precise matter.

Sensible, being that one attempts to improve the quality of life for ones antagonists, utilises the old-time British strategey of 'Hearts and Minds', generally treat people with respect and attempt to leech away the support base o extremism everywhere.

However, this is only half the job. No matter how much we try to resolve these differences, there are still going to be fuckers like Bin Laden who are going to kill innocents for no reason beyond their twisted ideaology. Here comes the precise:

Precise application of military force and intelligence.Put it simply- Ocupation is bad. Bombingis bad. Sending a team of SAS men in disguise to wipe their leadership of the map is good. Casually having MI6 and Mossad kill these people in a quiet, efficent way is good thing.

The use of purely a carrot will result in the removal of popular support, but the remaining hardcore will continue to attempt to harm and murder our people. The use of pure stick will simply strengthen the popular base of these psychos, and result in more people being willing to die for other people's ideals.

Oh, and if all else fails, round up the entirity of the western world's prisons, give them small arms and tell them they can have as muchof the middle east as they want as long as they can take it. Brutal, but effective.

/agree

Fondant:

Precise application of military force and intelligence.Put it simply- Ocupation is bad. Bombingis bad. Sending a team of SAS men in disguise to wipe their leadership of the map is good. Casually having MI6 and Mossad kill these people in a quiet, efficent way is good thing.

For some reason I think this will not work too well.

Seriously, the quicker people realise that Rambo is not a reality show, and Spec Ops are as vunerable to bullets as anyone else, the quicker we will stop hearing this absurd suggestion offered up as a serious solution.

cuddly_tomato:

Fondant:

Precise application of military force and intelligence.Put it simply- Ocupation is bad. Bombingis bad. Sending a team of SAS men in disguise to wipe their leadership of the map is good. Casually having MI6 and Mossad kill these people in a quiet, efficent way is good thing.

For some reason I think this will not work too well.

Seriously, the quicker people realise that Rambo is not a reality show, and Spec Ops are as vunerable to bullets as anyone else, the quicker we will stop hearing this absurd suggestion offered up as a serious solution.

Funny thing this is how they got the Osama number 3 and 4 guy... So it works

Hevoo:

cuddly_tomato:

Fondant:

Precise application of military force and intelligence.Put it simply- Ocupation is bad. Bombingis bad. Sending a team of SAS men in disguise to wipe their leadership of the map is good. Casually having MI6 and Mossad kill these people in a quiet, efficent way is good thing.

For some reason I think this will not work too well.

Seriously, the quicker people realise that Rambo is not a reality show, and Spec Ops are as vunerable to bullets as anyone else, the quicker we will stop hearing this absurd suggestion offered up as a serious solution.

Funny thing this is how they got the Osama number 3 and 4 guy... So it works

Nope. They got them by invading a country and by using thousands of troops to subjugate territories where those folks were living. They were captured in military operations comprising aircraft, mobile armour and mechanized infantry, not one guy in a torn shirt and a bandana made of the Stars and Stripes.

Spec ops make decent intelligence gatherers and are good at dealing with homeland hostage and terror situations, but they are of limited value as military assets.

Larenxis:
View it as a criminal act and not a military one and use police protocol.

I agree, fully. Terrorism is a crime, not a military act; treat them like criminals. You don't call in the Army for an armed robbery, you call the cops.

-- Steve

cuddly_tomato:

Hevoo:

cuddly_tomato:

Fondant:

Precise application of military force and intelligence.Put it simply- Ocupation is bad. Bombingis bad. Sending a team of SAS men in disguise to wipe their leadership of the map is good. Casually having MI6 and Mossad kill these people in a quiet, efficent way is good thing.

For some reason I think this will not work too well.

Seriously, the quicker people realise that Rambo is not a reality show, and Spec Ops are as vunerable to bullets as anyone else, the quicker we will stop hearing this absurd suggestion offered up as a serious solution.

Funny thing this is how they got the Osama number 3 and 4 guy... So it works

Nope. They got them by invading a country and by using thousands of troops to subjugate territories where those folks were living. They were captured in military operations comprising aircraft, mobile armour and mechanized infantry, not one guy in a torn shirt and a bandana made of the Stars and Stripes.

Spec ops make decent intelligence gatherers and are good at dealing with homeland hostage and terror situations, but they are of limited value as military assets.

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Bin-Laden-Commanders-Account/dp/0312384394/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228158362&sr=1-6

Yeah, read that book.

It proves my point.

Anton P. Nym:

Larenxis:
View it as a criminal act and not a military one and use police protocol.

I agree, fully. Terrorism is a crime, not a military act; treat them like criminals. You don't call in the Army for an armed robbery, you call the cops.

-- Steve

Terrorism is a bit more serious than armed robbery. I don't think SWAT is quite capable of dealing with para-military organizations. At the same time, just dumping the military in the region isn't going to work, they're not fighting against other armies.

Perhaps the best option would be to take some members of SWAT and other such special forces, train them in para-military tactics, and use them. A specific task force to deal with such people.

Hevoo:

cuddly_tomato:

Hevoo:

cuddly_tomato:

Fondant:

Precise application of military force and intelligence.Put it simply- Ocupation is bad. Bombingis bad. Sending a team of SAS men in disguise to wipe their leadership of the map is good. Casually having MI6 and Mossad kill these people in a quiet, efficent way is good thing.

For some reason I think this will not work too well.

Seriously, the quicker people realise that Rambo is not a reality show, and Spec Ops are as vunerable to bullets as anyone else, the quicker we will stop hearing this absurd suggestion offered up as a serious solution.

Funny thing this is how they got the Osama number 3 and 4 guy... So it works

Nope. They got them by invading a country and by using thousands of troops to subjugate territories where those folks were living. They were captured in military operations comprising aircraft, mobile armour and mechanized infantry, not one guy in a torn shirt and a bandana made of the Stars and Stripes.

Spec ops make decent intelligence gatherers and are good at dealing with homeland hostage and terror situations, but they are of limited value as military assets.

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Bin-Laden-Commanders-Account/dp/0312384394/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228158362&sr=1-6

Yeah, read that book.

It proves my point.

Why not actually look at some historically accurate cases of Spec ops use, rather than reading Mr Gung-ho Johnsons account of his glorious battle?

I doubt we will find common ground here, but just take a look at military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spec ops rarely, if ever, took part in direct military assaults. They were used mainly to monitor supply routes and assess the military assets of towns and fortifications in the areas of their operations. Hell.. they don't even use Spec Ops on search and rescue missions after Eagle Claw, and use marine battalions for that. They have never, ever, been successfully deployed as assassins and supersoldiers because that is simply not what they are about.

Solid Snake-esque soldier-ninjas might have some romantic appeal in movies and video games, but in practice it's not a reality. Sorry.

Do what Scotland does where you pull them out of their car while they're on fire and beat the crap out of them. Then it's free pints all round!

Show no fear and let the people fight back :D

cuddly_tomato:

Hevoo:

cuddly_tomato:

Hevoo:

cuddly_tomato:

Fondant:

Precise application of military force and intelligence.Put it simply- Ocupation is bad. Bombingis bad. Sending a team of SAS men in disguise to wipe their leadership of the map is good. Casually having MI6 and Mossad kill these people in a quiet, efficent way is good thing.

For some reason I think this will not work too well.

Seriously, the quicker people realise that Rambo is not a reality show, and Spec Ops are as vunerable to bullets as anyone else, the quicker we will stop hearing this absurd suggestion offered up as a serious solution.

Funny thing this is how they got the Osama number 3 and 4 guy... So it works

Nope. They got them by invading a country and by using thousands of troops to subjugate territories where those folks were living. They were captured in military operations comprising aircraft, mobile armour and mechanized infantry, not one guy in a torn shirt and a bandana made of the Stars and Stripes.

Spec ops make decent intelligence gatherers and are good at dealing with homeland hostage and terror situations, but they are of limited value as military assets.

http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Bin-Laden-Commanders-Account/dp/0312384394/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228158362&sr=1-6

Yeah, read that book.

It proves my point.

Why not actually look at some historically accurate cases of Spec ops use, rather than reading Mr Gung-ho Johnsons account of his glorious battle?

I doubt we will find common ground here, but just take a look at military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Spec ops rarely, if ever, took part in direct military assaults. They were used mainly to monitor supply routes and assess the military assets of towns and fortifications in the areas of their operations. Hell.. they don't even use Spec Ops on search and rescue missions after Eagle Claw, and use marine battalions for that. They have never, ever, been successfully deployed as assassins and supersoldiers because that is simply not what they are about.

Solid Snake-esque soldier-ninjas might have some romantic appeal in movies and video games, but in practice it's not a reality. Sorry.

You clearly have not read this book, nor do you want to have a adult talk, So I'm not going to debate with you anymore on this topic.

Last comment, the book I linked is not some awesome totally cool Rambo nut case ops guy..... Didn't your mom tell you not to judge a book by its cover.

Hevoo:

You clearly have not read this book, nor do you want to have a adult talk, So I'm not going to debate with you anymore on this topic.

Last comment, the book I linked is not some awesome totally cool Rambo nut case ops guy..... Didn't your mom tell you not to judge a book by its cover.

Yeah right...

Just lol.

As someone who read through as many suggestions as I could, and someone who plans to make her living studying terrorism and how to prevent it, I have this to say. (As a note, I'm going to attempt to keep this short. I could go on for hours about terrorism.)

Ahem.

Much in the same way you cannot stop war, you cannot stop terrorism. If you focus on suicide attacks (and rightly so, it's the method of choice these days), understand that when, and only when, suicide attacks no longer get the attention of everyone will terrorists change tactics, usually to something worse (though what that'd be is beyond me).

Terrorists have a symbiotic relationship with the media, and the media gives them power (much in the same way that if you're a media outlet, you're going to cover X terrorist event because that's the big story). However, if you ignore the message of terrorists, it takes away their power. If you show that you will live your life without fear, without changing the policies of your nation, without showing that you cave to terrorist demands, you are taking away the power of terrorists, and that is one of the only ways to slow terrorism.

As long as there are people to bully others and use fear as their weapon, terrorism will exist. There are things that can be done, but none of it is an end-all plan.

And to those who, still, equate Arabs and terrorists... They are not the same thing. The terrorists we think of these days are, yes, Arab (or Persian), but that does not mean that Arabs are terrorists. You CAN'T equate the two. You want a terrorist group that's not from the Middle East? Try the Tamil Tigers. Try the Aryan Nation. Try the Earth Liberation Front.

For those of you interested, check out The RAND Worldwide Terrorism Incident Knowledge Database Project and the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism. The latter is out of Oklahoma City (and a place I hope to intern at this summer). Actually, looking back, you can ignore everything I wrote and go on RAND. It'll do a far better job of teaching than my quick forum post could.

cuddly_tomato:

sheic99:

cuddly_tomato:
Airstrikes do nothing except antagonize the local populations and create more willing terrorists, so unless you are advocating genocide against areas where terrorists are then it isn't going to work.

To deal with terrorism you have to actually try to deal with it, as happened after WW2 with Japan and Germany. When the allied nations went in, and helped them rebuild. They didn't sanction them into starvation, then bomb them into the stone age, then sell off the rights to rebuild to the highest bidder so that the people living there didn't even have food or fresh water two years after "mission accomplished".

That helps prevent terrorism, but what do you do if it exists at the moment. Just like it helps prevent communism.

On Topic: The problem with terrorist is the use guerilla warfare simarly to the Vietcong. A terrorist may not be spotted until it is too late or disapears into the crowds. Bombing kills civilians and looks bad in newsreels. The best tactic would probably be covert ops.

This is a Hollywood created solution, one that might look great when filming Passenger 57 but is completely unrealisitic when applied to real life.

All those Navy Seals films, all those Steven Segal flicks, have given rise to the urban legend of covert ops. Men immune to bullets. Men who dress in black, even black eyeballs, that disappear in darkness. Men who can beat lions bare handed and are so hard and manly they got kicked out the regular army for being too hard and manly. During the Iraq war, even the mainstream UK media ran polls asking if we should "Send in the SAS". It then took a huge number of former SAS members and defense experts pointing out how absurd the notion was before people stopped jabbering on about it.

Let me ask this - could a team of covert ops parachute into the USA, then make their way to the Whitehouse and assassinate the president?

"But Cuddly! That is the USA you are talking about! Arab countries are different!".

They sure are different. Martial law. Curfews. Anyone with white skin and a weapon would be riddled with bullets in less time than it takes to shout "DUCK!". Miles and miles of open desert with little to no cover. Mountains with lots of cover and plenty of caves, but where the enemy know the terrain and have lived their all their lives. Heavily armed check points scattered around. Every single man and his goat owning an AK-47, which will put you down very quickly, special ops or not.

The idea of doing this in Bagdhad was somewhat mad. No fly zone for a starters - so any helicopter would get noticed and shot down as it was trying to hover above the city to drop off its payload of people. Even if you dropped them at the city borders, they would have to fight their way to Saddam. We are talking about a squad of maybe a dozen men taking on literally thousands of the Iraqi Elite Republican Guard. If, after infinite ammunition and surviving endless hours of fighting, Saddam would have hopped in his Tax and gone back to Tikrit.

Special ops are basically used highly trained military intelligence gatherers. While they are the best choice for dealing with hostage situations there is little more they can do. They certainly aren't assassins.

Labyrinth:
Here's an idea.

Working on the basis that Terrorism is a need to express dissent blown entirely out of proportion, why not simply fix the inequality which seems to cause so much angst?

Because that makes way too much sense. I mean, come on. When was the last time any politician actually made an effort to do anything that made sense? Be realistic, invading countries, starving, oppressing and maiming their populations is the keystone of spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world.

I still believe in my stance. You did make some good points on that they are not assassins. But when the enemy hides in caves and bomb-proof bunkers, a small elite group would work best for that. As opposed to raiding Baghdad, this is a job for superman a large military battalion.

Terrorists don't have a distinct location. So, you can't just waltz into countries and bomb them. We were able to invade Afghanistan because their government openly supported terrorist factions. This is why it is very difficult to fight terrorism: they don't have a home.

I was hoping a response of:
Go to Corner, Get into Fetal position. Then Cry.

I wouldn't go so far as to ignore it, but more to show that you're not intimidated by it. If terrorism gets a major reaction, it kind of encourages the terrorists. if they see that a suicide bombing will make the country fall apart and stand still, they will probably keep on doing it until you give in. On the other hand, ignoring it might just make them try harder.

Acknowledge something happened, mourn for a little bit, then move on. crying over the past won't do anything but let terrorists know they're getting to you. I know some people might find that a bit heartless, but it's true. if you don't get over it, It will probably just get worse.

How about, KAAAAAAABBBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know, for all intents and purposes the taliban appeared to be surrendering (they were starting peace talks with the Afghan government). We would seem to have broken their will, however, the al queda remains at large despite our constant eliminations of their higher ups. this of course merely makes room for the next douche to fill the gap so. I don't know if eliminating terrorism is possible, just hindering and suppressing it is probably the key. and eventually one group will fade away and be replaced by another.

Bump for new question

Cuddly, I don't mean to be rude, but you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. The SAS fought overwhelming numbers in Malaya (Jungle), Aden (Desery) and Indonesia (Jungle). You're understanding of special forces seems to be based on some sort of absurd armchair-strategist appreciation of what is in reality the most feared fighting force on the planet.

And some other points:

1. The Republican guard couldn't take on any modern army. They are no more 'elite' than the Volksgrenadier regiments of Nazi Germany. There training is poor, their equipment outdated, their morale atrocious and their mobility nonexistant. To call them 'elite' is to raise the quality of the british armies to 'supreme', the shock troops (paras and commandoes) to 'indestrcutible' and the SAS to 'Gods of War'.

Cuddly, you clearly have no more understanding of this than I have of spatial aerodynamics and their assorted relations to the movement and trajectory of pies. Perhaps even less. Please cease pretending to understand what we speak of.

Source: Ghost Wars: The History of the SAS.

Fondant:
Cuddly, I don't mean to be rude, but you clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. The SAS fought overwhelming numbers in Malaya (Jungle), Aden (Desery) and Indonesia (Jungle). You're understanding of special forces seems to be based on some sort of absurd armchair-strategist appreciation of what is in reality the most feared fighting force on the planet.

And some other points:

1. The Republican guard couldn't take on any modern army. They are no more 'elite' than the Volksgrenadier regiments of Nazi Germany. There training is poor, their equipment outdated, their morale atrocious and their mobility nonexistant. To call them 'elite' is to raise the quality of the british armies to 'supreme', the shock troops (paras and commandoes) to 'indestrcutible' and the SAS to 'Gods of War'.

Cuddly, you clearly have no more understanding of this than I have of spatial aerodynamics and their assorted relations to the movement and trajectory of pies. Perhaps even less. Please cease pretending to understand what we speak of.

Source: Ghost Wars: The History of the SAS.

Someone sure got butthurt that their precious myth of the SAS got given some critical analysis. Hey - I am English too, I understand the national pride in them, but it is very much false pride. Sure they had successes in the Iranian embassy and... the Iranian embassy. But then they did bravely wipe out a bunch of unarmed civilians once too.

Looks like another lesson on Reality vs Hollywood is in order....

Lets deal with the easy thing first, Iraqi Elite Republican Guard. "Elite" Republican Guard is part of the actual name of that army. In much the same way that I live in Great Britain. I don't mean that Great Britain is literally "great", I mean that is the name of the actual country. See? It's kinda like how its a name? If it wasn't I'd feel like an arrogant toss-pot every single time I said "Great Britain".

But.. hehe... you know this already. You were just kidding and are not really that uninformed I am sure.

As for the rest? Well I have yet to see a single credible military analyst, or someone who wasn't trying to sell a book to a dumb wannabe Rambo, actually support your theories on the SAS being immune to bullets.

Iraq was invaded. Afghanistan was invaded. Kosovo was invaded. And during every single one of these invasions the UK tabloids were running with "Send in the SAS!", like that's some kind of answer. It took military analysts (including former SAS trooper who was involved in the Iranian embassy siege) on every damn channel pointing out the absurdity of it to get them all to shut up.

They can't do it. In fact a single company containing nothing more than well equipped US GIs would make considerably more progress than an SAS unit, a battalion certainly so. See, this is the thing - bullets kill people. Any people. When someone points a gun at you and fires (this tends to happen in a war) then the chances are fairly high that you are going to sustain an injury (or worse). Now, this might come as a shock but this includes the SAS, Navy SEALS, Spetsnaz, and every other team of the week that every school-boys (it's always the boys) dad "used to be in". Spec ops deal in avoiding getting shot in the first place. They don't do this by magic bullet time power. They don't turn themselves into a form of elite mist that lets the bullets pass right through them. They don't stop the bullets by being in a Hollywood movie, and the entire enemy suddenly coming down with a case of "Can't Aim Right". They avoid getting shot by avoiding putting themselves into situations where they would be likely to get shot at.

They do this by avoiding conflict. They don't fight (like you see in Navy SEAL films). They keep out of the fighting.

This is what makes them valuble - decent, hard, information. You can use spy satellites and unmanned drones all you like but they will never be able to feed back reliable and solid info. Also, by the time you get that info it might already be out of date. Nor will unmanned drones and spy satellites be able to back up & communicate with local factions who might be friendly, harass light enemy units (spec ops NEVER take on armies or even large companies, if you think so you are smoking something), or sabotage enemy assets.

Hell... they don't even use heavy body armour as the GIs do.

Just as spies are not like James Bond, spec ops are not Martin Riggs or whoever else is appearing in a cinema near you. This also includes Andy McNabb, Nick Stone, or whoever else is appearing in a book near you.

With all that in mind, they are next to useless for the purpose being assigned to them in this thread by one or two people. They could not be parachuted, helicoptered, boated, or otherwise transported into a foreign country and take out the leader - it's a fantasy, a dream, a Michael Bay movie. But then of course, if you have spent a large amount of money on SAS books, and a large amount of time and energy soaking up every single embellished paragraph of the books written by people who (of course) need to keep their identities secret because they are so elite, then I can see how you would be hostile to anything which challenges the notion that SAS men can only be brought down with kryptonite.