Re: Kev

Steve.

“Nuts….you love it really! :D”

Not sure that I’m loving it at the moment.

“Basically preventing an attack taking place simply means that absolutely nothing untoward occurs – a difficult thing for the media to report in a fashion that sells its publications! Preventing those attacks and disrupting terrorist preparations though, for me anyway, do still fall in the category of “hitting terrorists hard”.”

What I’m saying is all successes against the terrorists should be reported on. All we hear is a successful suicide bombing in this, that or any other country. If the anti-terrorist agencies are having successes report them. It might just be comforting to know that the terrorists aren’t having it all their own way.

“This to me though is the same as empathising with the murderer who was just listening to what “the voices in his head” told him to do or the paedophile who was himself abused as a child.”

No! My comment was a response to your saying who would consider terrorists to be right. I’m just pointing out that there seems to be enough people willing to answer their call. Perhaps if more was seen to be done to stop terrorists they might have greater problems recruiting.

“I believe, firmly, that the greater view would be that these terrorist actions are reprehensible in the extreme. Just like Vortex said therefore the discussion should no longer be as to the legitimacy of what these people are doing, rather, how we can stop them as quickly and finally as possible.”

I agree and have absolutely no problem with that. I am not a supporter of terrorism. Nowhere have I said that the actions of the terrorists have any degree of legitimacy. Perhaps i could have made myself clearer.

“Again I’d dispute that as it lends itself to the argument that all Al Qaeda terrorists are “soldiers” in some fashion.”

They consider themselves to be soldiers. This is what I think we fail to understand. They have resolve, they have determination. That makes them very different. This is a long term problem which might continue for years.

“All of these were hit unconventionally, but, they were politico-military targets and, from a strictly military viewpoint, valid and not acts of real terrorism.”

And by saying that haven’t you just agreed with me?

“My answer to your question would therefore be yes they could, but are choosing the attrocity where they can plan in depth and are settling for simplistic suicide attacks against easy targets now that their command, control and logistics has been so heavily disrupted.”

So make a big deal of it. Show the world that the war against terrorism is at least having some success.

“Well I think intent counts for a lot here especially when you are comparing the defoliation plan to terrorist attrocities. Also it does seem a little weak to compare people who’ve had their crops destroyed to people on a hijacked airliner thats being flown into a building!.”

I’ll give you that. That’s something i should have considered more fully.

“Kev, I’d have no problem with this IF you weren’t trying to establish a parrallel between statisticians inventing body counts to justify collateral damage to the deliberate and callous targetting of civillians by a terrorist organisation.”

Wiping out whole villages was pretty callous by my standards. Equally, for those who were there it is probably an understanadable reaction.

“Forgive me if I think this is a clear contradiction Kev!. You first say that Vortex cant claim the efficacy of American bombing when they resorted to the A-bomb and yet you believe it was an absolutely valid and efficient tactic towards getting the war ended??? Huh? :)”

Vortex was espousing the American policy of pinpoint bombing while criticising the area bombing attacks by the RAF. I just pointed out the discrepancy between his view of pinpoint bombing and the two largest area bombings of the war. I have no problem with the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I just asked him to explain how he reconciles one with the other.

“Comparitive to 9/11 ALL of the above taken together has a very low order of significance. Terrible to put it that way because people have died, but, 9/11 showed an advanced level of C3I which had to be eliminated at the rush because that “intelligence” allows small forces to act in a manner disproportionate to their size. “

That’s probably why we disagree. You and I view death differently, we’ve discussed that before. I do see your point though.

” Its when those people can be trained, focussed, armed and skillfully deployed that the big problems arise. That is not happening anymore!. “

Let’s hope it stays that way.

See, all those words you and I have wrote and not once have we resorted to abusing each other.

Regards,

kev35