Raids, Arrests & Bombings

[Fish]

I always find it frustrating that immediately AFTER a major incident we suddenly bomb known training camps and areas where known terrorist HQ's are along with multiple raids and arrests in our own and neighbouring countries, so, if we have and live under a constant threat, why aren't we being proactive and doing this prior to the mass murder these terrorists carry out, why is it the world only reacts after the event?

Now I'm not naive enough to not know, especially with my background, that operations and threats are being constantly eliminated all the time without public knowledge, but I do find it frustrating that our intelligence and knowledge of some of these individuals and more so breeding grounds and training areas are well known so why are we monitoring them and allowing them to act first rather than do what we should do and flatten these camps & HQ's as a matter of course once immediately known stunting their growth at every opportunity!

 

[chrisd]

I also think that simply monitoring a couple of hundred jihadist sympathisers is a waste. Bring them in and tell them that if they contact ANY known (potential) jihadist, after a warning, they will either be deported if they came in as immigrant or held in detention if born here and, if they ever go abroad to a training camp, banned country or organisation, that they will never be allowed back into the country - never ever under any circumstances!

 

[Khamelion]

I always find it frustrating that immediately AFTER a major incident we suddenly bomb known training camps and areas where known terrorist HQ's are along with multiple raids and arrests in our own and neighbouring countries, so, if we have and live under a constant threat, why aren't we being proactive and doing this prior to the mass murder these terrorists carry out, why is it the world only reacts after the event?

Now I'm not naive enough to not know, especially with my background, that operations and threats are being constantly eliminated all the time without public knowledge, but I do find it frustrating that our intelligence and knowledge of some of these individuals and more so breeding grounds and training areas are well known so why are we monitoring them and allowing them to act first rather than do what we should do and flatten these camps & HQ's as a matter of course once immediately known stunting their growth at every opportunity!

I think you hit the nail on the head, with the bit I've highlighted. The powers that be know where certain individuals or groups are and they no doubt get targeted and eliminated, the public does not need to know about the covert stuff, but the public does need to know something is getting done. Which is why the news always reports after the event, give the public the confidence the bad guys are getting killed.

But as you write, it prompts the question why after and not before? Well, the public are a fickle bunch and if the news reports an unprovoked (I know) attack on a group of fundamentalists, before they've blown something or some people up, there would be outcry and public disgust at offending their [The fundamentalists] human rights.

I'm aware fundamentalists don't give the same courtesy (if they did there would be no fighting), but the western powers that be have rules to which they are held accountable, the fundamentalists, well to be frank just don't give a sh.....

 

[Astraeus]

It takes 20 intelligence officers to monitor one suspect around-the-clock. It is simply unsustainable to monitor, with sufficient proximity, the multitude of suspects, sympathisers, hate preachers, activists and lone wolves and doing-so would be at a hugely disproportionate cost given the loss of life which it would prevent. You are of course also right to identify that the BBC and other media outlets hear about the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of foiled plots and it is only because we hear about the more callous/calculated plots that we can actually ascribe to these morons anything other than an iota of intelligence. Hearing about some of the foiled plots, you realise that for the most part 'fundamentalists' are a bunch of delusional, poorly-educated outcasts who pose no great threat to civilisation and are happy to be dragged along by whatever ideology is sold to them by their peers, be it football hooliganism, drug dealing or Islamic terrorism.

I always find it frustrating, as do you, that in the aftermath we learn somewhat curious facts like Molenbeek having long been suspected of being a "safe haven" for terrorists, Belgium having not legislated its black market for weapons until as recently as 2005, and individuals being let out of countries and then back in having travelled to Syria, Pakistan, Yemen or wherever else.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Is it possible that they did not have enough evidence to get any sort of conviction before hand for the arrests in Europe? So you can't just go and arrest people and keep them detailed without any evidence they have done something wrong, just because they might do so in the future. But once they knew who was involved in the attacks they can then link them to the attackers and therefore have some evidence of involvement in a crime?

As for preemptive bombing of training grounds etc then do you not need an UN mandate to start bombing other countries?

Or am I being a bit naive and yoghurt knitting?

 

[Old Skier]

Is it possible that they did not have enough evidence to get any sort of conviction before hand for the arrests in Europe? So you can't just go and arrest people and keep them detailed without any evidence they have done something wrong, just because they might do so in the future. But once they knew who was involved in the attacks they can then link them to the attackers and there have some evidence of involvement in a crime?

As for preemptive bombing of training grounds etc then do you not need an UN mandate to start bombing other countries?

Or am I being a bit naive, yoghurt knitting?

Nail Head

 

[Hacker Khan]

I think you hit the nail on the head, with the bit I've highlighted. The powers that be know where certain individuals or groups are and they no doubt get targeted and eliminated, the public does not need to know about the covert stuff, but the public does need to know something is getting done. Which is why the news always reports after the event, give the public the confidence the bad guys are getting killed.

But as you write, it prompts the question why after and not before? Well, the public are a fickle bunch and if the news reports an unprovoked (I know) attack on a group of fundamentalists, before they've blown something or some people up, there would be outcry and public disgust at offending their [The fundamentalists] human rights.

I'm aware fundamentalists don't give the same courtesy (if they did there would be no fighting), but the western powers that be have rules to which they are held accountable, the fundamentalists, well to be frank just don't give a sh.....

I would not think the public would be upset with 'offending human rights'. Just a little bit uneasy about the general principal of bombing overseas countries on the assumption that certain people may do something.