"Robert Henry" wrote in message
news:nr4Lb.70297$hf1.12680@lakeread06...

"David H" wrote in message
...
I agree with you.


No matter how many of our freedoms are taken away, we can never "defeat
terrorism." Even under the worst
totalitarian police state imaginable, a few dedicated people can still
cause damage.

On this, I vehemently agree. History proves it.

(in fact, the more we go
around behaving like that, the more potential terrorists we create).

That is a risk, but the deterrence security model requires a commitment to
act in response...without exception. It also requires rational actors....

That said, I believe that having enemies is a fact of human existence. The
problem with perfect security is that it's so good it keeps everybody out
and nobody benefits. Ultimately, what is needed to overcome terrorism is
to
have those that support it decide, "It's not worth it." That can even be,
"I
hate you, but it's not worth it."

I think the jury is still out that deterrence is the most appropriate or
complete approach, but it makes sense to me as a core component.

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.