"air security lies in deterrence"

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...."

"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