"air security lies in deterrence"

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