Fight terror with terror?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by SKJOLD, Jan 28, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. No

  2. yes

  3. Stop messing around and Nuke Em!

  1. There was a tale did the rounds that when Hisbolla was all powerful in Lebonon they kidnapped some Russians for whatever reason. The KGB reputedly kidnapped some of the Hisbolla relatives and got their own people back by using same methods.
    One of the actractions of terrorisam is that there is no infrastructure to strike back at.
  2. It's a bit of a "snake oil" solution. Primary problem being that the terrorists are from all over the Arab world, hence identifying and "engaging" their relatives is somewhat problematic.

    The other practical problem is finding a suitable number of Brits. Outside of psychiatric establishments, who are prepared to murder and genitally mutilate women & children who have not directly caused any harm.

    However..... Training up a few of the locals to play exactly this game isn't beyond the realms of possibility.
  3. I'd suggest reading the book "Having been a soldier" by LCol Colin Mitchell

    It covers dealing with terrorism from Palistine through Aden. He had a specific philosophy of dealing with terrorists that seemed (according to the book) to work. Basically a system of being firm and in control, without resorting to terrorist acts.
  4. RC, you may wish to send that publication to the 'Farmboy' know as GWB. He may graduate 3rd grade. Of course as long as its in large print with cardboard pages certified as water proof and chewable. Pop up being an option. Although I feel it would be trashed in a fit of non understanding.
  5. It was a (KGB) spetsnaz team. In one instance, they infiltrated a heavily guarded tango compound, kidnapped the boss, decapitated him, and sent his head back as a warning. Good skills, but perhaps a little extreme for our tastes. I wonder if theres any mileage in recruiting a few of those blokes, and letting them work their magic.
  6. We have already tried to fight terrorism with terrorism (as such) with the so called "Shoot to Kill" policy in NI. Look at the crap that brought with it, too many "Do Gooders" defending the rights of the terrorists, after all they are human and have the same rights as the rest of us (fecking b@llocks).

    I would agree using their own tactics on them would bring the feckers to their knees, but at what consequences:

    1. Outcry from the brain washed public.(Ok abit strong)
    2. Do Gooders having a field day.
    3. Lawyers raking it in.
    4. Public purse getting emptied.
    5. More of the little feckers joining terror groups out of sympathy.

    And I am sure the list could go on.

    As a so called righteous nation, I don't think fighting terrorism with terrorism would work. But by feck what a good idea to do so.

    Can you imagine the Paras sending a video to Al Qa'eda, showing the beheading of their family members. Sorry Paras you just came to mind.
  7. Taken from the BBC article:

    Does that statement not just summarise it extremely concisely?

    Tactics, which lead to a brutal and bloody campaign that LASTED FOR YEARS!! 8O

    Not what we want another bloody vietnam!! (or is it just to prop up the defence contractors?)
  8. Ollie North is still knocking about. Anyone got his number?
  9. If I've been through this before, on here my apologies.
    There's a sociologist, German bloke, can't remember the name but he has this hypothesis about the post cold war world and the so called "new world order". Basically he postulates that since the fall of the Soviet Empire virtually the entire world has, to a greater or lesser extent, politicaly centralised. There are remarkably few Governments anywhere which follow a fundamentalist or extreme agenda. The majority of those that do are, coincidentaly, names on the "axis of evil".

    He goes on to suggest a situation arising over a period of decades where the majority of those nations remaining outside the "centerist agenda" will drift in that direction of their own accord as dictators die and are replaced or overthrown or as the populations demand the percieved liberalism of the globalist agenda.

    He has two caveats.

    The first is that the Untied States and China must remain if not friends, at least on speaking (trading) terms.

    The second is that the oil producing Islamic States do not form anything approaching a unified power block.

    Both are inter related as either happening can be the catalyst for the other.

    The point becomes moot at a stage when Gulf oil starts to become as, or more, expensive than that extracted from other regions. At this time, the stance of the Gulf States becomes almost immaterial globally and a whole new phase of global power politics begins.

    So, for what will amount to the majority of the rest of the lives of most here the world will be concerned with keeping the Islamic world unstable and maintaining good relations with China...

    And the point of posting all this in this particular thread?

    It may not actually suit those in power to realise a totally peaceful situation in the Middle East.
  10. A bit of a waste of the lives of the guys that we've lost already if we replace one tin-pot terrorist of a leader with another one!
  11. With China's ever growing economy and lack of their own fuel reserves in country, the necessity to keep the Middle East at least partially stable would benefit the west and China. However the simple fact is that America for all it's announcements about 'freedom' and 'democracy'only wants 'freedom ' for countries it controls and who are willing to supply the oil it needs.
    Slightly off subject , however,

    Strange when you consider the brutal regime in Saudi Arabia and that countries funding of known terrorist groups that good old dubya ,didn't send the marines in to Riyadh all guns blazing !!
  12. My understanding is that there are only 3 ways to deal with terrorism. Give in to them, Destroy them totally, Terrorise them so they stop their campaign. Destroying them totally requires action at an early stage otherwise there are too many unless we are talking of somehwre like Argentina where people just disappear. Giving in has the obvious problem. That leaves countering terrorism by State terrorism. Problem there is that such action will soon show out and bring down condemnation from those not involved in the problem. Solution is to resolve in advance of State terror, what will be done to both terrorists and commentators. That is where those resorting to State terror have fallen down. Soon, someone will get it right and the idea becomes tenable. Seems horrific.