On 10 Jul 2003 17:25:04 -0700, (Von Bailey)
wrote:
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net (Captain Compassion) wrote in message news:<3f0d7eae.3036476@news.verizon.net>...
On 10 Jul 2003 06:24:34 -0700,
(Von Bailey)
wrote:
Well it all comes down to how much you want the problem to go
away.
The name of the game is terrorism. Terrorism can only be
defeated by
greater terrorism.
How does creating more of something get rid of it?
You know the old saying the best defence is a good offence. :)
Yeah, but I was hoping for a relevant answer instead of an
irrelevant
sports cliche.
The
advantage that the terrorists has is they are willing to use
terror.
They ain't gonna play by your rules if you are not willing to play
by
theres then you may well lose.
No. The advantage that the terrorist have is the new style of
warfare
that they have devised and which is the subject of this thread. A
state military without a specific target is simply a large weapons
stepping on things. If the logic of terrorising more than the
accused
terrorist worked then Israel would be safe and secure right now
against Hamas. It is not and their efforts have caused an
escalation
instead of a decline in terror.
I suspect that guerrilla warfare and the desire to use any means to
make your point predates todays Islamic terrorists. Remember back to
the 70's and 80's folks like Badder-Minehoff and the Red Brigade?
Where are they now? Did they stop their terrorist activity because
they got their way? No. They are gone begause their major sponsor,
the
Soviet Union, is gone.
All your example does is point out that guerrilla warfare must have
broad support in some local or regional population to be successful.
Terrorist with a "religious base" or one's based on saving a "culture"
as opposed to imposing an unproven other (as in your examples) will
have a base of support already created instead of having to grow from
a small group of egocentric leaders serving the purposes of someone
else. It is far easier for someone born and raised in a religion or
culture to die for a god or way of life that you have faith in all
your waking life in than some political system being preached to you
by some young revolutionaries who cannot define why their vision is
better.
Hamas, Viet Nam and the African National Congress used what were
called terror tactics and they are all thriving just fine regardless
of the mechanized warriors using 3rd generational war tactics sent
against them.
Pointing at the bloody mess made killing off thousands of people
doesn't stop them from coming, it just creates more of them to
recruit. Once americans figure this out maybe as much will be spent
saving lives in foriegn countries as we do killing in those same
countries.
Then let's withdraw from the world and let them sort it out. Just two
rules.
1. Don't ***** with the oil.
2. Attack us and nukes will fly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Giving society cheap abundant energy . . . would be the equivalent of
giving an idiot child a machine gun." -- Dr. Paul Ehrlich
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
"...observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists amidst all
their appeals to nature and pleas for 'harmony with nature' there is
no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival.
Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot
survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision
i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears..." - AYN RAND
"The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left, 136.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky
Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net
.
