"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