"air security lies in deterrence"

[Cub Driver]

This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:

January 7, 2004

Business World
Air Security Lies
In Deterrence, Not Nuggets
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.

That information and intelligence are two different things was amply
demonstrated by the executive branch's difficulty in deciphering
Iraq's weapons progress from a distance. Making sense out of noise
seems again to have been a trouble last week as several governments
cooperated to cancel or delay a dozen flights due to terrorist alarms.

A British newspaper pointed to a police "informant" who had fingered
British Airways, Air France and Aeromexico as targets for
hijack-and-crash plots. U.S. papers pointed to e-mail or phone traffic
for a specific flight number, BA 223. The Journal cited six passengers
on an Air France flight with names similar to known terrorists. All
these tips seem to have come a cropper, or so the news organizations
report.

Oh well. Disruptions were fewer than those caused by a thunderstorm
over Cleveland, though thunderstorms tend not to produce the same
lingering effects on airlines that terrorist scares do. And at least
our willingness to cancel routines based on slight or ambiguous
evidence adds a new complication for terrorist groups already
straining to pull off jobs with slender resources and a shortage of
personnel who are both motivated and competent (the hiring criteria
being especially stiff in the suicide era). This is a silver lining to
what is, objectively, our stronger propensity to panic over al Qaeda
since Sept. 11, even though al Qaeda objectively is weaker.

Still, judgment should play a role, and judgment says Sept. 11-style
hijacking plots have been removed from the terrorist arsenal. Speaking
with the New York Sun recently, former Sen. Bob Kerrey, a member of
the federal commission investigating the attacks, made the key
observation: "The hijackers recognized we had the wrong rules on the
airline. We could have taken that means of delivery of a weapon off
the table, had we merely said, lock the pilot up front and resist. We
never made that confession of that mistake."

Mr. Kerrey, no longer in office, can say what other politicians won't.
Aviation will remain a target not only for the obvious reasons, but
because it's a sprawling and highly routinized system:
Vulnerabilities, once found and tested, can be counted on to persist.
But that has implications for us too. Instead of turning ourselves
upside down over ambiguous nuggets of information, we should recognize
that we can deter attacks with a high degree of confidence simply by
focusing on vulnerabilities that are every bit as apparent to us as
they are to terrorists.

In the context of the recent hullabaloo, it's interesting to note what
was known and done without hullabaloo in the pre-9/11 past.

In 1994, French commandos killed four Algerian terrorists who'd taken
over a plane, landed in Marseille and ordered up a full load of fuel
with the suspected aim of crashing it in Paris. In 1995, a rollup of
al Qaeda operatives in Manila uncovered firm evidence of a plan to
hijack a plane and crash it into CIA headquarters. In July 2001, the
Italian military went on full alert during a G-8 summit in Genoa based
on intelligence of a hijack-and-crash plot while President Bush was in
town.

These are mere highlights of what had been deluge of indications more
substantial than "chatter" about the possibility of such plots.
Looking back now, we shouldn't be berating ourselves for not noticing
the stray clue that would have led us to the 9-11 plotters. We should
be berating ourselves for not plugging the hole that the terrorists
were counting on -- that is, for not revoking the FAA protocol that
said terrorists were to be negotiated with, not resisted.

If you suppose al Qaeda sticks to its knitting, it's not hard to
figure out where its investment in loophole-hunting is concentrated
now: How to get bombs aboard multiple flights simultaneously.

This was the gist of the well-documented Bojinka plot, planned out of
the Philippines, which aimed to blow up a dozen U.S. airliners
simultaneously. A test bomb aboard a Philippine Airlines flight killed
a Japanese businessman in 1994, and only lucky (and diligent) police
work in Manila prevented the plot from going further. You don't need
chatter to recognize the significance of Richard Reid: The shoe-bomber
with his matchbook was meant to test a solution to getting an
explosive on a plane without the necessary timing and ignition
mechanism that would likely show up on an x-ray. The Brits just
arrested another potential shoe-bomber in November, finding also a
pair of socks impregnated with three kinds of plastic explosive,
evidently for a suicide bomber to wear around his/her neck.

We'll leave out the case of 9-year-old boy who showed up for a flight
in Orlando in July with a handgun sewn into his teddy bear. His
parents said a strange girl had appeared at their hotel room door with
the bear as a "gift." The FBI says the investigation is pending and no
arrests have been made. Presumably the agency has examined
surveillance videos to see who might have been watching from the
shadows when the boy tried to take it through security checks.

Passenger profiling is a useful layer of security, but we'd be nuts
not to maintain a high level of random screening too. Keep this in
mind next time you're tempted to throw a fit when grandma or some
four-year-old is pulled out of line. What stops "Bojinka"-style plots
from happening is the fact that suicide terrorists are presented with
an unacceptable chance of being stopped at the turnstile.

America's vulnerabilities, on paper, are unlimited. But the lack of
attacks should remind us there's a sizeable gap between the desire to
do us harm and the means to pull it off. Let it also be said the Bush
administration has contributed to the misallocation of energies with
creation of a Homeland Security Department. Out another side of its
head, however, it's pursued a remarkably patient and proactive
strategy to eliminate al Qaeda and address the deeper quandary of a
Middle East that has been hurtling down history's dead end for too
long.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:

Thanks. I agree with your assessment.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[John]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:
>
> January 7, 2004
>
> Business World
> Air Security Lies
> In Deterrence, Not Nuggets
> By HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.
>
<snips>

> But the lack of
> attacks should remind us there's a sizeable gap between the desire to
> do us harm and the means to pull it off. Let it also be said the Bush
> administration has contributed to the misallocation of energies with
> creation of a Homeland Security Department. Out another side of its
> head, however, it's pursued a remarkably patient and proactive
> strategy to eliminate al Qaeda and address the deeper quandary of a
> Middle East that has been hurtling down history's dead end for too
> long.

I agree that the essay is a bit more sensible than the majority of the
administration's reactions to America being a victim of terrorism, and
it is good to see the WSJ perhaps moderating its usual position, but
the Mr. Jenkin's comments in the above paragaph lead me to judge it
not totally sensible when standing alone.

In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
have prevented harm after 9/11. What a joke. Look at the millions of
man-hours of energy; billions of dollars expended and wasted; millions
of significant distruptions of people's lives; countless compromises
of freedom and personal liberty; thousands of U.S. military
casualties; tens of thousands of dead, maimed and crippled foreign
nationals (Afghan and Iraqi, mostly); and a massively increasing
budget deficit that will probably effect our children for decades.
Oh, but it seems those things don't count as long as our country's
brave and heroic political leadership can prevent any direct
casualties on American soil and, by the way, get re-elected.

Many of those around the world who hold the U.S. in disdain are
probably laughing their heads off at the way a "rag-tag" (well, who
knows if they are really 'rag-tag' but we get that impression from the
spin-meisters) group of religous fanatics can cause such endless
disrupton for the world's most super-power by just making threats.
They don't need suicide bombers. Perhaps they are getting huge bang
for their bucks by just whispering rumors on cell phones, posting
cryptic internet mnessages, and floating bogus plan documents. What
has happened to our courage as a country? If we were really
courageous we would have long ago proclaimed that we were not going to
let our lives be disrupted out of fear, while at the same time we
would silently seek out the culprits with fierce determination. We
have a courageous military, but we are seemingly not a courageous
population. Let us reflect a little on what courage really is. To me
it is not proof of courage to proclaim, "Security at any price." Some
famous politician once expressed his leadership by entreating that,
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." He was quite correct
in that.

In the last sentence above, Mr. Jenkins calls Bush's policies
"remarkably patient." Since when does the rush to declare war on a
foreign nation demonstrate remarkable patience?

Okay all of you testosterone enraged war-hawks, let me have it now for
daring to speak out against a good ol' popular war in which we
definitely have God on our side.

Sorry that this is so off the topic of piloting, but I didn't start
the thread.

John Pierce

[C J Campbell]

"John" > wrote in message
om...
|
| In the last sentence above, Mr. Jenkins calls Bush's policies
| "remarkably patient." Since when does the rush to declare war on a
| foreign nation demonstrate remarkable patience?
|

Since when does ten years' effort at bringing about a peaceful solution
constitute a 'rush' into war?

[David H]

I agree with you.

While the article cited above make does some sense, it still misses the major issues....

No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat terrorism." Even under the worst
totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still cause damage. No matter how many countries
we invade and pave over, we won't be able to stop those that hate us from doing us harm (in fact, the more we go
around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

The "generals" are just re-fighting the last war again. Say whatever else you will about al Qaeda, they're not
stupid. They found a weakness and exploited it. But that trick only works once, and I seriously doubt that
aircraft will be used in the next attacks. It's going to be something else entirely, since almost all of our focus
is on things that fly. Duh.

Perhaps we should spend some tiny fraction of the time and money and though that has gone into the "war agaist
terra" on asking honest questions about WHY we're so hated. President Bush says it's because "they're jealous of
our freedoms." Hmmm....does that really make sense?

John wrote:

> Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> > This sensible essay appears in today's Wall Street Journal:
> >
> > January 7, 2004
> >
> > Business World
> > Air Security Lies
> > In Deterrence, Not Nuggets
> > By HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.
> >
> <snips>
>
> > But the lack of
> > attacks should remind us there's a sizeable gap between the desire to
> > do us harm and the means to pull it off. Let it also be said the Bush
> > administration has contributed to the misallocation of energies with
> > creation of a Homeland Security Department. Out another side of its
> > head, however, it's pursued a remarkably patient and proactive
> > strategy to eliminate al Qaeda and address the deeper quandary of a
> > Middle East that has been hurtling down history's dead end for too
> > long.
>
> I agree that the essay is a bit more sensible than the majority of the
> administration's reactions to America being a victim of terrorism, and
> it is good to see the WSJ perhaps moderating its usual position, but
> the Mr. Jenkin's comments in the above paragaph lead me to judge it
> not totally sensible when standing alone.
>
> In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
> have prevented harm after 9/11. What a joke. Look at the millions of
> man-hours of energy; billions of dollars expended and wasted; millions
> of significant distruptions of people's lives; countless compromises
> of freedom and personal liberty; thousands of U.S. military
> casualties; tens of thousands of dead, maimed and crippled foreign
> nationals (Afghan and Iraqi, mostly); and a massively increasing
> budget deficit that will probably effect our children for decades.
> Oh, but it seems those things don't count as long as our country's
> brave and heroic political leadership can prevent any direct
> casualties on American soil and, by the way, get re-elected.
>
> Many of those around the world who hold the U.S. in disdain are
> probably laughing their heads off at the way a "rag-tag" (well, who
> knows if they are really 'rag-tag' but we get that impression from the
> spin-meisters) group of religous fanatics can cause such endless
> disrupton for the world's most super-power by just making threats.
> They don't need suicide bombers. Perhaps they are getting huge bang
> for their bucks by just whispering rumors on cell phones, posting
> cryptic internet mnessages, and floating bogus plan documents. What
> has happened to our courage as a country? If we were really
> courageous we would have long ago proclaimed that we were not going to
> let our lives be disrupted out of fear, while at the same time we
> would silently seek out the culprits with fierce determination. We
> have a courageous military, but we are seemingly not a courageous
> population. Let us reflect a little on what courage really is. To me
> it is not proof of courage to proclaim, "Security at any price." Some
> famous politician once expressed his leadership by entreating that,
> "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." He was quite correct
> in that.
>
> In the last sentence above, Mr. Jenkins calls Bush's policies
> "remarkably patient." Since when does the rush to declare war on a
> foreign nation demonstrate remarkable patience?
>
> Okay all of you testosterone enraged war-hawks, let me have it now for
> daring to speak out against a good ol' popular war in which we
> definitely have God on our side.
>
> Sorry that this is so off the topic of piloting, but I didn't start
> the thread.
>
> John Pierce

[Robert Henry]

"David H" > wrote in message
...
> I agree with you.
>
>
> No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat
terrorism." Even under the worst
> totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still
cause damage.

On this, I vehemently agree. History proves it.

> (in fact, the more we go
> around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

That is a risk, but the deterrence security model requires a commitment to
act in response...without exception. It also requires rational actors....

That said, I believe that having enemies is a fact of human existence. The
problem with perfect security is that it's so good it keeps everybody out
and nobody benefits. Ultimately, what is needed to overcome terrorism is to
have those that support it decide, "It's not worth it." That can even be, "I
hate you, but it's not worth it."

I think the jury is still out that deterrence is the most appropriate or
complete approach, but it makes sense to me as a core component.

[Dave]

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message
news:nr4Lb.70297$hf1.12680@lakeread06...
>
> "David H" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I agree with you.
> >
> >
> > No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat
> terrorism." Even under the worst
> > totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still
> cause damage.
>
> On this, I vehemently agree. History proves it.
>
> > (in fact, the more we go
> > around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).
>
> That is a risk, but the deterrence security model requires a commitment to
> act in response...without exception. It also requires rational actors....
>
> That said, I believe that having enemies is a fact of human existence. The
> problem with perfect security is that it's so good it keeps everybody out
> and nobody benefits. Ultimately, what is needed to overcome terrorism is
to
> have those that support it decide, "It's not worth it." That can even be,
"I
> hate you, but it's not worth it."
>
> I think the jury is still out that deterrence is the most appropriate or
> complete approach, but it makes sense to me as a core component.

There are two ways to tackle terrorism.

Accept that there will be attacks and institute measures sufficient enough
to make the risk of getting caught or prevented high without causing a
massive change in lifestyle

Or batten down the hatches, pull up the draw bridge and repel all boarders,
friends and foes alike.

In the latter scenario the terrorist has clearly won, in the former, there
may be a few casualties but the win/lose is less clear cut.

I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists what
they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to normal.

This is a common outcome.

[Cub Driver]

>In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
>have prevented harm after 9/11

I don't think that's what Jenkins said. Indeed, what I think he said
was that the Homeland Security money was largely wasted, as compared
to the success of going after Osama in Afghanistan. Proactive, not
reactive.

But then I can barely remember what I said yesterday, never mind what
I read!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"David H" > wrote in message
...
> I agree with you.
>
[snip]
>
> Perhaps we should spend some tiny fraction of the time and money and
though that has gone into the "war agaist
> terra" on asking honest questions about WHY we're so hated. President
Bush says it's because "they're jealous of
> our freedoms." Hmmm....does that really make sense?

Esentially, it is a rephrasing of their own words.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net

If anything, it's an understatement.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >In the above paragraph the writer implies that our security measure
> >have prevented harm after 9/11
>
> I don't think that's what Jenkins said. Indeed, what I think he said
> was that the Homeland Security money was largely wasted, as compared
> to the success of going after Osama in Afghanistan. Proactive, not
> reactive.
>
> But then I can barely remember what I said yesterday, never mind what
> I read!
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

I agree Dave, ah...Dan!

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Dave"
> writes:

>
>There are two ways to tackle terrorism.
>
>Accept that there will be attacks and institute measures sufficient enough
>to make the risk of getting caught or prevented high without causing a
>massive change in lifestyle
>
>Or batten down the hatches, pull up the draw bridge and repel all boarders,
>friends and foes alike.
>
>In the latter scenario the terrorist has clearly won, in the former, there
>may be a few casualties but the win/lose is less clear cut.
>
>I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists what
>they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to normal.
>
>This is a common outcome.
>

With terrorists willing, and even eager, to die for their cause, and that cause
is the destruction of Western Civilization in favor of an Islamic theocracy,
there is really only one acceptable way to deal with them.

That is to guarantee that if they act against you, their CAUSE will die, or at
least be frustrated.

Deterence is difficult when an enemy doesn't care about his own life, or even
those of his family. But if we demostrate that whenever they get our attention,
it will result in a net setback to their goal of world domination by Islam,
WHATEVER the cost to us is, then terrorism becomes counterproductive.

So far, the price to them for 9/11/01 has been the loss of their only true
Wahabi theocracy in Afghanistan and their only real, effective army and
political leader in Iraq.

Any further actions against us should cost them their Shia theocracy in Iran
and their next largest military power (Libya haven gotten the message and taken
itself off the board) in Syria.

But that is how deterence works in this case. Every action they take against us
must result in a setback for Islamofascism as a world player.

Don


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Tom Sixkiller"
> writes:

>
>> Perhaps we should spend some tiny fraction of the time and money and
>though that has gone into the "war agaist
>> terra" on asking honest questions about WHY we're so hated. President
>Bush says it's because "they're jealous of
>> our freedoms." Hmmm....does that really make sense?
>
>Esentially, it is a rephrasing of their own words.
>
>http://www.prophetofdoom.net
>
>If anything, it's an understatement.
>

To put it in the simplest possible terms, they hate us because their children
think Brittany Spears is cool, and in an electronic age, they can no longer
isolate their children from her immodesty with our satellites raining her belly
button down upon them.

You can complicate the matter with all sorts of historical greivances and
accussations against the West, but in the end, they are lashing out at the
modern world because their sixth century culture cannot compete for the hearts
and minds of their children.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Kyler Laird]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

>> I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists what
>> they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to normal.

>If what they want is to kill all the infidels, life hardly returns to normal.

If you think they want to "kill all the infidels" then we need to stop
calling them terrorists. They're warriors/soldiers/crusaders.

Terrorism is useful for changing the attitude of opponents, but not for
destroying opponents. If the goal is simply to kill, then causing terror is
a waste of energy. (Here's an opportunity for someone to discuss the Catholic
Crusades.) In fact, they'd do much better at killing us by keeping a very low
profile and simply running a successful fast food chain that also sells
cigarettes than by causing very high profile/low body count disasters as in
New York City.

If on the other hand they just want the US to stop bothering them, terrorism
is probably one of the few means they have available that has a chance of
success.

So now imagine what life would be like if we granted *that* request.

I don't pretend to know what "their" motives are, but just saying they want
to kill us isn't consistent with their actions and our language.

--kyler

[Dave]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dave"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >There are two ways to tackle terrorism.
> >
> >Accept that there will be attacks and institute measures sufficient
enough
> >to make the risk of getting caught or prevented high without causing a
> >massive change in lifestyle
> >
> >Or batten down the hatches, pull up the draw bridge and repel all
boarders,
> >friends and foes alike.
> >
> >In the latter scenario the terrorist has clearly won, in the former,
there
> >may be a few casualties but the win/lose is less clear cut.
> >
> >I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists
what
> >they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to
normal.
> >
> >This is a common outcome.
> >
>
> With terrorists willing, and even eager, to die for their cause, and that
cause
> is the destruction of Western Civilization in favor of an Islamic
theocracy,
> there is really only one acceptable way to deal with them.
>
> That is to guarantee that if they act against you, their CAUSE will die,
or at
> least be frustrated.
>
> Deterence is difficult when an enemy doesn't care about his own life, or
even
> those of his family. But if we demostrate that whenever they get our
attention,
> it will result in a net setback to their goal of world domination by
Islam,
> WHATEVER the cost to us is, then terrorism becomes counterproductive.
>
> So far, the price to them for 9/11/01 has been the loss of their only true
> Wahabi theocracy in Afghanistan and their only real, effective army and
> political leader in Iraq.
>
> Any further actions against us should cost them their Shia theocracy in
Iran
> and their next largest military power (Libya haven gotten the message and
taken
> itself off the board) in Syria.
>
> But that is how deterence works in this case. Every action they take
against us
> must result in a setback for Islamofascism as a world player.
>

The point is that every setback for Islamofascism is fuel to their claims
that Americanofascism is the great evil they always said and serves to prove
their point.

Its a no win and in the end it is retribution for the sake of retribution.
An eye for an eye or we will kill ten of you for every one of us etc etc.

This is nothing new, its being going on for over 1000 years. All that's
changed are the weapons and the tactics.

1000 years ago in the crusades, we would slaughter 30,000 or so of them and
they would do the same to us.

It is always the case when you have two sides convinced that they and only
they are right and have god and justice blah, blah, blah on their side.

The outcome is a continued escalation

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave wrote:
>
> I suppose there is a third scenario and that is to give the terrorists what
> they want and even if that means they win so what, life returns to normal.

If what they want is to kill all the infidels, life hardly returns to normal.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> To put it in the simplest possible terms, they hate us because their
children
> think Brittany Spears is cool...

I'm honestly hoping that they have moved beyond Brittany by now!

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Dave"
> writes:

>
>It is always the case when you have two sides convinced that they and only
>they are right and have god and justice blah, blah, blah on their side.
>
>The outcome is a continued escalation
>
>

This is only true if the two sides are morte or less evenly matched. We aren't.

They have reached the limts of their escalation, and perhaps have even lost the
capablilty of even equaling their past efforts, and we have barely scratched
the surface of our conventional capabilities. And should they succceed in
another major attack, we can go WAY beyond conventional.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Dave]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dave"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >It is always the case when you have two sides convinced that they and
only
> >they are right and have god and justice blah, blah, blah on their side.
> >
> >The outcome is a continued escalation
> >
> >
>
> This is only true if the two sides are morte or less evenly matched. We
aren't.
>
> They have reached the limts of their escalation, and perhaps have even
lost the
> capablilty of even equaling their past efforts, and we have barely
scratched
> the surface of our conventional capabilities.

Thats why an ill man requiring kidney dialysis is still running rings around
you.

There weapon is money, they are making the government spend billions on
security, keeping armies on mobilisation, running down the value of the
dollar.

The US always thinks about conventional weapons.
What would the government have been spending the money on its been spending
on the TSA etc?

Maybe have left it in the tax payers pocket?


And should they succceed in
> another major attack, (its aready happening you are being bled dry)we can
go WAY beyond conventional. Yeh (my dick is bigger than yours stuff) Kill a
few more again, what you gonna do kill everyone until the US are left?

And they win again doh!

[Cub Driver]

>The outcome is a continued escalation

Didn't work that way with Germany and Japan in the 1940s.

Indeed, didn't work that way with Russia in the 1980s.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Wdtabor wrote:
>
> To put it in the simplest possible terms, they hate us because their children
> think Brittany Spears is cool, and in an electronic age, they can no longer
> isolate their children from her immodesty with our satellites raining her belly
> button down upon them.

The same can be said of most of the people in Moultrie, Georgia.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Rosspilot]

> they can no longer
>> isolate their children from her immodesty with our satellites raining her
>belly
>> button down upon them.
>
>The same can be said of most of the people in Moultrie, Georgia.

LMAO :-)


www.Rosspilot.com

[ShawnD2112]

Yes but we can't do unconventional and never have been able to. As long as
we try to fight them with US heavy weapons, we're going to lose.
Counter-insurgency and winning hearts and minds are not our strong suits.

Shawn
"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dave"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >It is always the case when you have two sides convinced that they and
only
> >they are right and have god and justice blah, blah, blah on their side.
> >
> >The outcome is a continued escalation
> >
> >
>
> This is only true if the two sides are morte or less evenly matched. We
aren't.
>
> They have reached the limts of their escalation, and perhaps have even
lost the
> capablilty of even equaling their past efforts, and we have barely
scratched
> the surface of our conventional capabilities. And should they succceed in
> another major attack, we can go WAY beyond conventional.
>
> Don
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Dave]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >The outcome is a continued escalation
>
> Didn't work that way with Germany and Japan in the 1940s.
>
> Indeed, didn't work that way with Russia in the 1980s.

Germany, Japan, Russia, Islamofascists, notice any difference? Doh!

[Dave]

"ShawnD2112" > wrote in message
...
> Yes but we can't do unconventional and never have been able to. As long
as
> we try to fight them with US heavy weapons, we're going to lose.
> Counter-insurgency and winning hearts and minds are not our strong suits.

You can say that again. You cannot even win the hearts of your friends.




>, "Dave"
> > > writes:
> >
> > >
> > >It is always the case when you have two sides convinced that they and
> only
> > >they are right and have god and justice blah, blah, blah on their side.
> > >
> > >The outcome is a continued escalation
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This is only true if the two sides are morte or less evenly matched. We
> aren't.
> >
> > They have reached the limts of their escalation, and perhaps have even
> lost the
> > capablilty of even equaling their past efforts, and we have barely
> scratched
> > the surface of our conventional capabilities. And should they succceed
in
> > another major attack, we can go WAY beyond conventional.
> >
> > Don
> >
> > --
> > Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> > PP-ASEL
> > Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG
>
>

[Cub Driver]

> Germany, Japan, Russia, Islamofascists, notice any difference?

Not really.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dave]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Germany, Japan, Russia, Islamofascists, notice any difference?
>
> Not really.
>
Thank you point proved and kill filed

[Geoffrey Barnes]

> Thank you point proved and kill filed

Wow... that must leave just me and maybe 3 other people on this news group
who aren't in your kill file.

Is this your life?...

Step 1: Select a discussion group which has nothing at all to do with
politics, and indeed nothing at all to do with your day-to-day life..

Step 2: Jump into every thread you can find, twisting the topic into
whatever it is that you want to talk about...

Step 3: Display indignant suprise when others react negatively to your
behavior...

Step 4: Enter into a brief argument with anyone who bruises your feelings,
making a series of posts that are no more than 20 words long...

Step 5: Swell the size of your kill file until it seems like nobody is
posting on the discussion group any longer...

Step 6: Go back to Step 1!

To quote the immortal Fletch, "God, I admire you"!

[Kyler Laird]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > writes:

>Step 5: Swell the size of your kill file until it seems like nobody is
>posting on the discussion group any longer...

Step 5.5: Tell everyone about the glorious new kill file addition as
though it's a mammoth achievement.

--kyler

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "Dave"
> writes:

>> >The outcome is a continued escalation
>>
>> Didn't work that way with Germany and Japan in the 1940s.
>>
>> Indeed, didn't work that way with Russia in the 1980s.
>
> Germany, Japan, Russia, Islamofascists, notice any difference? Doh!
>
>

Nope, all fascists of one stripe or another, and all needed to be defeated
rather than appeased to end their aggressions.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG