We Are All Spaniards

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...

Finally a sensible statment. Sorry, Jay, as much as I wish it weren't so,
you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.


Why not?

you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.


Why not?

Because it is a TACTIC, not an ENTITY.
There is nothing to "wipe out".











www.Rosspilot.com

In article et,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Finally a sensible statment. Sorry, Jay, as much as I wish it weren't so,
you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.

Why not?

Jumping in hear. The problem with the drug war is that we are
attacking it from the supply side and as a criminal problem (which it is).
However the real problem with drugs is more on the demand side. As long
as teh demand exists people will use and get drugs. Some drugs are easier
to obtain than others (eg. meth vs. cocaine) but if there's a will there's
a way. Further we do very little in prevention and treatment, which has a
small (in fact very small) reduction in demand.
Terrorist are not overly concerned about the legalities of their
actions. Laws ONLY affect people that actually CHOOSE to obey them. And
while we can put in place laws/procedures to make it more difficult to
commit acts of terror (much like drugs) we can not eliminate them. Even
if we lived in a police state you can not control every human's
actions24/7.
There are battles you win, battles you lose and some battles that you
just have to forever keep fighting. Drugs of abuse of existed nearly as
long as record history. And when one looks at human history it is often a
collection of wars (and the mating habits of the nobility). We can no
more stop terrorist than we can stop war, or future wars, or acts of mans
disreguard for the life of other men.
What we can do is attempt to minimize the damage that these people
can inflict on our lives. The question becomes were do we as a society
and each person as a citizen want to draw the line of personal freedom vs.
safety. Some don't mind living in a police state, I do. And I believe
that the USA is not, was not and should not become a police state. I
believe that a free nation should have free citizens and as much as
possible open doors. I believe that part of THE PRICE OF FREEDOM is that
some people will choose to abuse that freedom to commit criminal acts
including terrorism. But _I_ would rather live in a nation that is most
free with risk, even high risk; than a well 'controlled/planned' society
with lower risk, risk never reaches zero.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004 18:47:48 -0500, John Harlow wrote:

What you need to do is remove the fuel from the fire. Americans need to
stop thinking they know what's best for the world.

o-ooohhhh.

:-)

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

"John Harlow" wrote in message
...
There is no such thing as "stopping terrorism". It is a fantasy . .
. an illusion . . . an impossibility.

Finally a sensible statment. Sorry, Jay, as much as I wish it weren't so,
you could spend every dollar in the world on fighting terrorism (just like
the "drug war") and you won't wipe it out.

What you need to do is remove the fuel from the fire. Americans need to
stop thinking they know what's best for the world.

Every country in the world suffers from terrorist attacks. It is not just
America or countries that support Bush. Nor is Bush the cause of every
problem in the world. Sure, Spain might not have supported the US in Iraq.
They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and
Germans. They would still be attacked by numerous other terrorist groups,
from Basque separatists to violent anarchists. If nobody had attacked Iraq,
we would still be attacked by Kurdish separatists seeking support for their
cause, Palestinians, Croats, American Indian separatists, political
extremists within our own borders, Iraqi agents trying to get us to do
something else, etc.

The fact is that there will always be people who oppose what we do -- no
matter what it is that we do -- and who will be willing and able to use
violence to express that opposition. Therefore there will always be
terrorists. There have always been terrorists.

Frankly, I think that opposing thugs like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
is worth doing. I suppose we might have convinced those guys to like us more
if we had given them all our money and bent over and grabbed our ankles.
Really, though -- do you want the respect of people like that? I just don't
see the point of trying to score high on the popularity meter of
organizations and people like the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Weathermen
wing of the Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers, or
Timothy McVeigh.

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 06:44:32 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:

They could have caved and supported Hussein like the cowardly French and
Germans.

to say it direct: YOU ARE AN IGNORANT IDIOT.
stick a finger up your ass and whistle.

§$%&§$/&$&$§"%$!!!!!

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

I don't see "hunting them down and killing them" as either feasible or
effective. For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more
waiting to take his place with greater fervor and comittment.

Well, Lee, I understand that the POTENTIAL for terrorism will always be with
us. That is a sad fact of life.

However, I will argue that the reality of terrorism can be crushed to a
large degree. Madrid is a wonderful case in point -- did you see the
demonstrations today? Millions of Spaniards have now come to hate and
despise the terrorists worse than ever before -- a reaction that is
diametrically opposed to what the terrorists sought.

When it becomes obvious that their barbaric tactics have accomplished
precisely nothing -- AND they are picked off, one by one, and are jailed or
dead -- then (and only then) will terrorism cease to be a significant
threat.

To think otherwise plays completely into the terrorist's hands.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:EdN4c.8278$po.151155@attbi_s52...
I don't see "hunting them down and killing them" as either feasible or
effective. For every one you kill, there are 10,000 more
waiting to take his place with greater fervor and comittment.

Well, Lee, I understand that the POTENTIAL for terrorism will always be
with
us. That is a sad fact of life.

However, I will argue that the reality of terrorism can be crushed to a
large degree. Madrid is a wonderful case in point -- did you see the
demonstrations today? Millions of Spaniards have now come to hate and
despise the terrorists worse than ever before -- a reaction that is
diametrically opposed to what the terrorists sought.

When it becomes obvious that their barbaric tactics have accomplished
precisely nothing -- AND they are picked off, one by one, and are jailed
or
dead -- then (and only then) will terrorism cease to be a significant
threat.

To think otherwise plays completely into the terrorist's hands.


Terrorist / freedom two sides of the same coin.

The world is full of them - and it is totally dependent on which end of the
telescope you look out from.

After all were not the founding fathers terrorists seeking to overthrow the
legitimate government?

"S Green" wrote in message
...

After all were not the founding fathers terrorists seeking to overthrow
the
legitimate government?



Seeking to overthrow the legitimate government? Yes. Terrorists? No.

Incidentally, someone's informed me that the attack in Spain was 911 days
after "911". I haven't bothered to do the maths, but it's apparently only
911days if you include the time difference in the calculation. (911 x 24hrs
previously at that time of day was 11/09/01 in NY).