Jed Rothwell wrote:
Edmund Storms wrote:
No one can win against a foe who is willing to die for their belief . . .
True for non-conventional wars. Many Japanese people were willing to die
for their country in 1945 but the U.S. won with conventional weapons and
techniques. (I think the war would have been over soon even without the
atomic bomb.)
and people are only willing to die when they feel very strong about
their belief and see no alternative. The question is, how can the
rest of us respond in a way that is more effective and avoid being
sucked into the black hole of attack and counter attack?
I don't think this approach will work under present conditions. In the
process of denying funding, the people will get even more improvised and
desperate. Funding can not be cut fast enough to stop the growing
desperation. This method worked occasionally in the past but now things
have changed. The physical infrastructure and economic stricture on
which modern society is based is more fragile. Therefore, small isolated
terrorists attacks can have a much bigger effect. Take 911 for example.
The lose of life and damage to the economy was relatively small.
However, the cost of the response has been huge, including the cost of
the war in Iraq. The attempt to down airliners with explosive, even
though it failed, will significantly increase the cost of doing business
for the airlines, which are already near bankruptcy already. Many
examples can be provided to show that the effect of this method of
combat is increasing. If the price of gas goes much higher, a worldwide
depression might be triggered. This would be a maximum effect that
could be caused by a small action. So, we can not continue down the
present path. Quite simply, I believe Bush is leading us all into disaster.
Ed
- Re: [Vo]: OFF TOPIC How to deal with terrorism Edmund Storms
-
