Should we strike?
-
If Intelligence is notified of terrorist cells in the region, should the Armed Forces send out special forces to strike the terrorist homebase?
The best way to stop a terrorist strike in Singapore, is to pre-empt the terrorist. Agree? Do you think its right for the government to strike terro cells in other countries. We all know that the forces in our neighbouring countries, is incapable of stopping the terrorists.
Ok, not incapable but less effective. PM Howard is right, for his pre-emptive strike statement. Terrorism is a threat to National Security. But sending in troopers to another's country's soil is seen as an intrusion.
For ppl who knows the "rules", Which is right? Responding to a threat to National Security or Intrusion. Hope u guys understand my language, poor sentencing. Sorry!
-
strike? where?
we can't even determine the hq...... 
-
oh... Intelligence will tell. Informants, sources, HUMINT.Originally posted by duotiga83:strike? where? we can't even determine the hq...... 
-
u noe this wont happen.Originally posted by Airborne Guards:If Intelligence is notified of terrorist cells in the region, should the Armed Forces send out special forces to strike the terrorist homebase?
The best way to stop a terrorist strike in Singapore, is to pre-empt the terrorist. Agree? Do you think its right for the government to strike terro cells in other countries. We all know that the forces in our neighbouring countries, is incapable of stopping the terrorists. Ok, not incapable but less effective. PM Howard is right, for his pre-emptive strike statement. Terrorism is a threat to National Security. But sending in troopers to another's country's soil is seen as an intrusion.
For ppl who knows the "rules", Which is right? Responding to a threat to National Security or Intrusion. Hope u guys understand my language, poor sentencing. Sorry!
if we really do receive such intelligence, chances are we will share it wif the relevant country. to do something about it or not is really up to them.
australia may have the clout to say pre emptive strike, but even for them trying to pull it off will be a difficulty. wat do u think of singapore? if singapore ever tries to do something like this, wat will the country accuse us of?
so, no, for political reasons, singapore is not likely to ever engage in unilateral pre emptive strikes against terror cells. -
Yes, we may as well just bomb every establishment that has the "Terrorists wanted - enquire within" sign on the front window.
-
When the black sept murdered israeli athletes in the 1972 munich olympics, mossad agents were covertly despatched to carry out hits on the terrorists..a sort of retribution/pre-emptive strike mission, and western europe soon became a battleground.
when howard mentioned about pre-emptive strikes, i believe he wasn't thinking about sending a fleet of f-111 to bomb a terrorist nest somewhere in the hood'. i believe he was thinking abt keeping his SAS boys busy -
If we launch a pre-emptive strike, there will be a risk that the surgical strike will escalate to a full-scale war. That will achieve the the terrorists' objective of inciting violence and instability.
Also must balance the risk and political fallout of the war with the "benefit" of destroying the terrorist cell. This will bound to be some collateral damage.
At most they can put one or two bombs here and there. Even if they have two are three "Balis" in singapore less than 1000 will die, this is much less than the loss in humar lives if the pre-emptive strike result in a full-scale war.
If some Malaysian rebels are holed up with P. Ubin, how will you react if MAF commandos tear down our precious metal fence land on Ubin and launch a "pre-emptive" strike on a "rebel base" and also accidentally kill half a dozen Singaporean nature lovers in the process before withdrawing. -
Well if we do find a terror cell that is not state sponsored we can always pass the intel onwards to the country they are currently in.Like how we share intel to help in the arrest of JI members in Philipines and i think Malaysia also.If it is a target of oppotunity that will pass in a matter of hours or days then it gets alittle bit more tricky.This is where regional cooperation between countries is needed to form a combine anti-terrorist unit.If it is state sponsored(ie the ex-IRA and terror cells in Libiya) then it's a whole new ball game.Originally posted by Airborne Guards:If Intelligence is notified of terrorist cells in the region, should the Armed Forces send out special forces to strike the terrorist homebase?
The best way to stop a terrorist strike in Singapore, is to pre-empt the terrorist. Agree? Do you think its right for the government to strike terro cells in other countries. We all know that the forces in our neighbouring countries, is incapable of stopping the terrorists. Ok, not incapable but less effective. PM Howard is right, for his pre-emptive strike statement. Terrorism is a threat to National Security. But sending in troopers to another's country's soil is seen as an intrusion.
For ppl who knows the "rules", Which is right? Responding to a threat to National Security or Intrusion. Hope u guys understand my language, poor sentencing. Sorry!
Oh and how come your english here so good then in school so lousy ar? haha and you spent your time in class typing this out ar??tsk tsk tsk -
A few thousand lives lost in a few terrorist bombings can mean alot to Singapore, where the people are the resources. The thousands that died can or may include important individual that contributes alot to the economy... and many other ppl from different wakes of live. Perhaps you are right, sending in troops without prior notice may cause the matter to escalate into a full-scale war but i still believe that sending in our own troops would be a good solution to terrorism.
Our neighbour's troops, commits war crimes on their mission. Not the first time i read that in the papers. (eg rapes and others). Of the many people who are rounded up and detained, majority of them unarmed. Recently, troops even turned against their own government. What ever the reason, it still shows how the troops conduct themselves. A bomb can explode right behind the security forces who had been guarding the area. They can't even guard against themselves, not to mention "helping" others.
Of course we must not kill Diplomacy. We can still co-operate with them, but we should send in our elites. It's a matter of national Security and i believe the Armed Forces shoulders the responsibility of protecting the people. We are better equiped, better-trained and strongly believed to be better-desciplined. We may not have experience but its better than sitting back, set up checkpoints and barriers and wait for the terrorists to hit against the barriers. I correct my statement on un-notified attacks in other states.