"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

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

"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

"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

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...."

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!

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

"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!

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

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...."