So... What will it take for our current administration to (A) mutter the word Terrorism, and then (B) decide enough is enough?

COL Charles Williams - Agreed Sir, but when Trump calls someone a terrorist based off their given name, then the title begins to loose credibility. When the "experts" begin going in and the real intent isn't known, but terrorist is thrown around, it looses it's value. Instead of trying to label the problem, we should analyze it, figure it out, and take proper steps to address it without giving it a "life" of it's own. MDMP it. Hypothesize it. I believe that's what we're doing when we label it. Same with ISIS and other terrorist organizations. We give them "life" while they take it from others. We might be saying the same thing a different way.

Hooah SSG Warren Swan not sure Mr Trump is worth listening to. What do you recommend?

CPT Pc Arroyo It would be a goodwill showing of professionalism if you can explain why you voted me down. I gave my example, I'd be interested in hearing yours.

COL Charles Williams - Sir: I didn't forget you.
We need to realize that ammunition CAN NOT kill an Ideal
We need to stop with the fear mongering and come up with a plan that no one will agree to, but works in everyone's favor.
1. Identify the problem. We are quick to assign a name or group of religion as the sole issue at hand without actually studying what is the root causes. We also are prone to looking at this in a military action which works against a known enemy with a known location. All it does is make those in the military feel they're doing something, it makes legislators feel good knowing they can run back to their states and tell them they're engaged with the problem and here are your tangible results.
2. Analyze the problem. The problem in my eyes is NOT Islam, Muslims, or anything that we are shown it to be. We are looking past the problem. It's not blood and bone, it's an ideal given to those less educated in some cases, very educated professionals in others. I took a terrorism class and it turned out that most of the "terrorists" aren't the "goat f*ckin) people we see, but very well educated professionals with long family roots, and a good background that would pass even the most stringent background checks. The problem IS the ideal and appeal of terrorism. You have a man or group of people who aren't "militant", will never see the actions they have others take first hand, but through persuasion, "education" at selected schools, threat of harm to the family, can get these individuals to do their deeds. It's not based off the fallacy of 72 virgins or some "heaven" the American public is fed as a means to fear the unknown. I will also use civil rights as an ideal that was beaten, bloodied, lynched, shot, segregated, whatever, but while various members of the ideal were systematically killed, the idea survived and grew a life of it's own. It survived and ended up changing the law, forcing integration, and allowing multiple races to exist together. So we need to analyze the mindset of radical Islam, and figure out what would be the best non lethal means to effect change.
3. Gather courses of Action: We've dropped the largest tonnage of bombs since Vietnam maybe even WWII. What's changed? We've killed thousands of "terrorists" and got where? We've lost thousands of servicemembers to death, or injured after 14 years of war. What was the outcome? ISIS uses the most effective media team short of Trump to get their message out. It's well documented how good they are, but we make no real attempt to understand that end of the deal. It's not a sexy option, won't give the initial "bang for your buck" that SOF or bombs would. They operate with this media team in well known areas, but are nowhere at the same time. To show a time where the US did the same and it was effective, we've dropped leaflets in the past warning of imminent danger to people if they don't leave. It worked and where there were those that stayed were deemed enemies and dealt with accordingly. Shows of force are another mental form of getting a point across. You know its there, and can feel their intent, and in most cases those it's directed at stop what they're doing. So do we need to continue down the road we're on? No. We can wage an effective IO campaign using the internet as our support vessel, waging "war" while being unseen. Make ISIS quantify and justify what they're doing. Take the fight to them. Use the media from their "home" countries as another means to get the message we want out through a "credible" source to those who could be influenced. We can use non profits as another means to take a message to the enemy. Stop the use of non profits used by American's but rather ones ran by Muslims who are progressive and accepting of the message we want to convey. In the Stan we used to hand out blankets, candy, and radios. The radios were pre programmed to a US ran station that wanted to change the narrative. To me it was a fail being that many knew this after awhile, and then only took them to use for other things. The US also needs to take a strong look at policies currently in place to see are they effective? Are we backing the right person or group? Both the Iraqi PM and the Afghan presidents were bad choices. In a rush to get them to take the lead, grab the one who seems less inclined to do ignorant stuff, and he's the FIRST one to do it once in power. To combat this, use a more stringent vetting process. And once we find that person we want, surround him with supporters who want what we want, yet get what they want/need in the process. Stick with this group. Religion is a powerful tool. Rather than isolate the Islamic Clerics, we use the moderates in the US and European countries to push out a pre formed agenda to their Mosques. They are where the influence begins before the radicalization begins. I firmly believe they are the gate keepers to everything. Peaceful and otherwise.
4. Implement courses of Action: Self explanatory. It needs to be a sudo-public thing. You want everyone to feel they're the winners in this. We need the American public to buy into it just as much as we want the terrorists to stop harming innocent people in the ME. As we move through this, again we look at current policies and adjust fire as needed. We also vary the use of direct action vs. indirect actions to balance out the equation so there's no "grasp" of tactics by others who could exploit them for their benefit. In regards to IO, take the kid gloves off. We have way too much talent in Cybercommand not to let them do their business. Should they run into a problem that would violate a regulation, have the ability to use a civilian contractor inline with the troops.
5. Access, revise, and Implement. It's a circular evolution that gets adjusted as required, and has to remain open to get the best results. While doing this, military options can be used, but the spin has to be better than making one group feel good. We're too prone to making Americans feel "safe" to actually telling them you are safe, and here's how we're doing it without actually killing anyone.
Sir this is the short version. Anymore than this, and you'll be reading this mess long into your Command as a Combatant Commander.

Just work place violence. If you call it terrorism, I'll get sent to Gtmo next time I throw a stapler across the office.

PO3 (Join to see) Interesting... as for some reason, no one even talks about these incidents anymore... are we used to them? Or, are we afraid that we will be accused of be biased, racist, racial profiling etc?

COL Charles Williams - properly some of both, news media play a big role of "distracting" and entertaining the masses ....

Even when ALL of the evidence points to Terrorism the current Admin will call it workplace violence...even with pipe bombs and booby-trapped house