fighting terrorism

[Biggsk@aol.com]

Lucas writes:

<< My opinion is: Terrorism must be fighted. No doubt on
 it. But killing innocents in another nation will only
 multiplicate hate, intolerance, and more wars. >>

I agree - but what do you do when the terrorists wear no specific uniform and 
rasie their children to become terrorists (reference the dancing in the 
streets scenes in the West Bank last week)?

No one wants to kill innocent people - but many of these people openly and 
not so openly support those that attacked the United States.  On Fox News 
last Friday a reporter was interviewing people on the street in Islamabad, 
Pakistan, and when asked what would they do if the United States retaliated 
against Bin Laden, they all said, "we will become the next Bin Laden!"

That is what we're dealing with - a certain amount of these people think we 
are declaring war against Islam (we are not) - and no matter how much talking 
we do that we are not, they will still think and believe to the depths of 
their souls that we are.

As I stated earlier, wars with a religious base tend to be among the nastiest 
wars ever fought in history with a lot of non-military casualties.

As for the U.S. Army reaching out and killing its enemies so as to not take 
casualties, uhhh...if you look at history you will see that most armies did 
that that had any brains or a good combat doctrine.  As Gen. George Patton 
told his troops, "no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his 
country...he did it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his!"

Makes sense to me.

Greg Biggs/CVC