... try something else. The subject here is violence motivated by ideology. Whether that ideology comes from ISIS, animal rights activists, abortion pros/cons or supremacist groups of any race or creed, their main tactic is to attack people in public to gain visibility for their cause.
I am fed up with it. I am also fed up with society's collective inability to stop it. Therefore, I am open to suggestions for new tactics that might improve on what we are doing now. To start the ball rolling:
After the attacks in Manchester and London, Prime Minister Theresa May suggested greater control over the Internet & social media, to counter one of the most widespread channels of radicalization. Like any tactic, this has its dangers; it would be easy to overdo it to the point of suppressing free speech. On the other hand, narrowly targeting proven motivators of violence could pay off. This would require cyber-warriors on the digital battlefield to distinguish between the usual loud malcontents and the true promoters of violence, and jam their signals.
A related question is: How do the radicalizers find people who can be radicalized? One big element is the personal data for sale in the business world. We've all scrolled down through privacy "terms of service" legalese and just clicked "accept". I believe it would be a huge benefit to society if we had a simple international agreement that forbids the buying or selling of any data attached to a name, address, or other way of identifying a specific individual. Marketing companies would hate it, because they would not be able to winnow data for targeted sales pitches, but personally I would love to see telemarketers starved to death for lack of my data.
Another route of attack would be to go after funding. This would require an international agreement to freeze the assets of those who advocate public violence. Internally, in the USA, it could be done under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) law, but we'd need a way to handle international links. Follow the money.
Here's a controversial suggestion: Try to understand the radical's cause. While many bad actors sign up with extremist groups just to justify venting their personal spleen, most of these groups do have some sort of stated agenda, and in most cases there is a more moderate, non-violent element with the same agenda. Engaging these non-violent elements in sincere conversation helps take away the argument that violence is the only option left because they can't get their message out any other way.
Finally, I think we need to see the distinction between true solutions and band-aids. Much of government policy is a tale of good intentions poorly implemented by politicians who want to claim they did something before the next election. These problems didn't arise in a day, it's going to take time to make progress.
