Enduring Freedom

[Hicksey]

My only addition to this thread:

Anyone who does not know that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons should probably refrain from engaging in discussion about such weighty topics. It seems in this day and age every halfwit with a keyboard feels entitled to an opinion.

Correct me I am wrong, but is this not a place for people to post their opinions and discuss such matters?

Who made you the arbitor of who should and should not post what?

Obviously not all of us have all the answers. Part of posting here is learning others POV and researching your own periodically. I don't know that I am right and I don't assert that I am. Part of the reason we post here is to discuss our opinions as a litmus test to see what others think.

[Black Dog]

I disagree. I think that sticking around to deal with the consequences of an action you felt was right makes one much more courageous. Even Jesus did that. He did what he felt was needed to be done and stuck around only to be hung by the Romans. That's courage.

And the people that are paying them, which if you read what I posted were the ones I described as the cowards, are the worst cowards of all. They put the idea into the heads of people that they should kill others, and pay them to deal with consequences they refuse to. Cowardice if I ever saw it.

How is that any more cowardly than a general or politician who orders soldiers into battle while lounging about in safety far from the front lines? What's the difference?

I thought you were a lot smarter than the average lefty. If there's any left winger here that I would expect more than the sarcastic and flippant remarks, the racism inference and the oversimplification of that post, it would have been you. Its the first time I've seen you add a post to a thread and add nothing to the debate.

Well, you know what they say: garbage in, garbage out. But really: I can't help thinking that your acting offended is simply a way for you not to deal with the substantive parts of my post. How about the fact Iran has never claimed to be developing nukes? How about the utterly facile assertion that the "flypaper strategy" works because of a lack of attacks here (despite the fact that terrorism here was hardly an everyday issue even before 9-11)? And how about the utterly bizzare notion that we need to use violence to demonstrate the futility of violence?

[Hicksey]

I wish the neaderthals over there in the middle east would join the rest of us in the 21st century and realize that they have to get along with other countries they may not like.

Heck, even do business with them, like we do! If there's one thing we western coubntries are good at, it's not letting our principles get in the way of business.

Paying people to walk onto buses full of innocent people is cowardly and solves nothing.

It's far more heroic to blow that bus up with an unmanned drone or Apache helicopter.

But since they refuse to join us in civility, we have to speak to them in a language they both understand and wish to acknowledge -- violence. It is tragic they choose to take this route. But its their choice. I think everyone involved would much rather deal with it diplomatically than send the military in, as would I. But as much as I don't like to use the military to deal with disputes, when it becomes necessary we cannot hesitate.

"Awful boors, these savages. Like children, wot? Give them an inch and they'll take a bloody mile, that's for sure. Only one way to deal with such bounders, eh? Well, like the Good Book says 'spare the rod...' and all that."

And Bush's plan of engaging them on their own ground seems to have stopped the attacks here.

Yeah, because before he came along, I couldn't walk down a street in Canada without geting blowed up or decapitated.

As costly and distasteful it is to do it, until they choose to listen to our words and hence stop forcing us to speak with our military IMO we're left with no choice but to go and do whatever is it we need to do to win each and every battle and eventually the war.

We don't want to wipe you brown bastards off the face of the earth. But you've tied our hands here. Really, you've only yourselves to blame.

Like it not we're trying to avoid nuclear warfare. Lets fight them conventionally before they get the capability. I wouldn't mind them having the weapons in the first place, but they have proven they're not trustworthy. When someone constantly talks of killing someone, do you allow them to obtain a weapon?

Who is "them," anyway? Just the amorphous mass of brown people out there?

What people cannot ignore is that these countries aren't seeking nuclear weapons so they can say that they have them and then put them in storage. Countries like Iran have been vocal and asserted that they wish to use them to wipe Israel from the planet. And Israel has asserted that it will seek them to be able to mount a similar offensive.

Considering Iran's party line has been that they are not seeking nuclear weapons, I find your assertion thet they have openly spoken of using nukes on Israel to be rather dubious. Oh and Israel already has nukes. Lots of 'em.

Because Bush did go, the terrorists have engaged them over there instead of here. Though there is still loss of life, it is on a much smaller scale than if we were to ignore a threat like that which now comes from Iran. What's worse? A few brave men willing to give their lives today for a better tomorrow? Or millions because we ignored the problem until it loomed too large to tackle it and win before they were capable of such atrocities?

Small loss of life? How many Iraqis have died? Thirty thousand? Fifty thousand? How many thousands will have to die in real life to balance any number of hypothetical deaths?

Until these countries learn that they have to get along with even those whom they hate and that violence and death are not answers to anything, what do we do with these neanderthals? They refuse to join us in the 21st century. We live in a day and age where disputes are solved peacefully through diplomacy. Until they choose to join us and communicate in that language we must meet them and speak one they will not only understand, but also acknowldge. Violence. Yes, it sucks. But until they wish to deal peacefully and understand that they cannot simply blow countries they do not like off the map what else can we do? They cannot take tantrums and fly planes into buildings killing thousands when they're not happy with someone. I want diplomacy to be the answer more than anything, but until we have a willing partner in diplomacy, this one-sided conversation is a waste of time.

So just to clarify what you're saying: violence never solves anything, which the subhumans of the middle east don't understand, which is why we need to apply violence on a massive scale in order to teach the lesson that violence doesn't solve anything. Hmmm. I think I see a flaw in your logic, but I just can't pin it down....

I thought you were a lot smarter than the average lefty. If there's any left winger here that I would expect more than the sarcastic and flippant remarks, the racism inference and the oversimplification of that post, it would have been you. Its the first time I've seen you add a post to a thread and add nothing to the debate.

Over the time I've been posting on this type of message board I've come by a fair amount of left wingers that I have respect for that don't resort to those types of comments. It is my experience that when a left winger disagrees but has nothing to add he resorts to those types of comments. In the past I've thought you were not like that Black Dog, why now?

[Black Dog]

Over the time I've been posting on this type of message board I've come by a fair amount of left wingers that I have respect for that don't resort to those types of comments. It is my experience that when a left winger disagrees but has nothing to add he resorts to those types of comments. In the past I've thought you were not like that Black Dog, why now?

Let's see: I read a post full of factual inaccuracies, dubious assertions, circular logic, broad generalizations and terminology that implied denezins of the Middle East are "neanderthals" and addressed it accordingly.

Sorry if that was harsh, but really: take a look at what you wrote and tell me you belive, for example, that "Until these countries learn that they have to get along with even those whom they hate and that violence and death are not answers to anything...we must meet them and speak (the language) they will not only understand, but also acknowldge. Violence."

I'm having a helluva time seeing the logic there.

[KrustyKidd]

I disagree. I think that sticking around to deal with the consequences of an action you felt was right makes one much more courageous. Even Jesus did that. He did what he felt was needed to be done and stuck around only to be hung by the Romans. That's courage.

True, but it doesn't take away from giving up your life for something you believe in either. You call them cowards just to have an extra insult to throw in but in fact, they are not. Let me make something clear, I think they are wrong, misguided, screwed up, brain washed but, one thing they are not is cowards.

[Hicksey]

I disagree. I think that sticking around to deal with the consequences of an action you felt was right makes one much more courageous. Even Jesus did that. He did what he felt was needed to be done and stuck around only to be hung by the Romans. That's courage.

And the people that are paying them, which if you read what I posted were the ones I described as the cowards, are the worst cowards of all. They put the idea into the heads of people that they should kill others, and pay them to deal with consequences they refuse to. Cowardice if I ever saw it.

How is that any more cowardly than a general or politician who orders soldiers into battle while lounging about in safety far from the front lines? What's the difference?

I agree that their results are no better. But at least we try not to knowingly target innocents. IMO that puts us up the evolutionary ladder by at least a rung or two.

I thought you were a lot smarter than the average lefty. If there's any left winger here that I would expect more than the sarcastic and flippant remarks, the racism inference and the oversimplification of that post, it would have been you. Its the first time I've seen you add a post to a thread and add nothing to the debate.

Well, you know what they say: garbage in, garbage out. But really: I can't help thinking that your acting offended is simply a way for you not to deal with the substantive parts of my post. How about the fact Iran has never claimed to be developing nukes? How about the utterly facile assertion that the "flypaper strategy" works because of a lack of attacks here (despite the fact that terrorism here was hardly an everyday issue even before 9-11)? And how about the utterly bizzare notion that we need to use violence to demonstrate the futility of violence?

I have considered the whole "flypaper" thing a success -- so far -- because IMO engaging them on their own ground has preoccupied them and prevented further attacks here. I never thought nor said that terrorism was an "everyday problem" in North America.

I'm not saying that violence should or ever can demonstrate the futility of violence. I never said that. Another oversimplification. I questioned why we would wait for countries hostile to us and that have openly threatened us have the weapons to do so, and do so -- to tackle the security risks they pose not just to us but their neighbors? I've said that IMO we take much less casualties in conventional warfare and take a nuclear hit out of the question if we take care of them before they get the nukes. Call me crazy, but I don't trust countries that openly tell others they wish to wipe entire countries off the map with nuclear weapons. I think a fight to destroy their current efforts to produce nukes, before they are so armed, is much smarter than to wait.

[Hicksey]

I disagree. I think that sticking around to deal with the consequences of an action you felt was right makes one much more courageous. Even Jesus did that. He did what he felt was needed to be done and stuck around only to be hung by the Romans. That's courage.

True, but it doesn't take away from giving up your life for something you believe in either. You call them cowards just to have an extra insult to throw in but in fact, they are not. Let me make something clear, I think they are wrong, misguided, screwed up, brain washed but, one thing they are not is cowards.

I won't deny that they are horribly misguided, but other than that I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here.

My opinion is that the action only makes half of courage, the courage to deal with the conequences of the action makes the other.

[Hicksey]

Over the time I've been posting on this type of message board I've come by a fair amount of left wingers that I have respect for that don't resort to those types of comments. It is my experience that when a left winger disagrees but has nothing to add he resorts to those types of comments. In the past I've thought you were not like that Black Dog, why now?

Let's see: I read a post full of factual inaccuracies, dubious assertions, circular logic, broad generalizations and terminology that implied denezins of the Middle East are "neanderthals" and addressed it accordingly.

Sorry if that was harsh, but really: take a look at what you wrote and tell me you belive, for example, that "Until these countries learn that they have to get along with even those whom they hate and that violence and death are not answers to anything...we must meet them and speak (the language) they will not only understand, but also acknowldge. Violence."

I'm having a helluva time seeing the logic there.

I said in a nutshell that as long they they choose to speak with violence, we should meet them and speak that same language until they are willing to join the rest of the world in discussion and speak peacefully in a diplomatic manner.

Remember the golden rule? Apply it. Treat others how you wish to be treated. If you want to be shot at, bombed and ultimately killed, keep up the violence. Come and join the rest of the world in peace and you will be treated in kind.

[KrustyKidd]

My opinion is that the action only makes half of courage, the courage to deal with the conequences of the action makes the other.

Well then there you go, on one hand they are courageous in doing the action. As for not being there to deal with the consequences, they are not able to as they are dead so the second part is neither courageous nor cowardly as there is no actin that can be taken eitherway.

[Black Dog]

I agree that their results are no better. But at least we try not to knowingly target innocents. IMO that puts us up the evolutionary ladder by at least a rung or two.

IMO, that's hair splitting. Either sending others to do one's dirty work is cowardly or it's not. The nature of the dirty work isn't really the issue.

I have considered the whole "flypaper" thing a success -- so far -- because IMO engaging them on their own ground has preoccupied them and prevented further attacks here. I never thought nor said that terrorism was an "everyday problem" in North America.

My point was, there's no way to determine whether engaging them over there as prevented anything. It's impossible to quantify.

I'm not saying that violence should or ever can demonstrate the futility of violence. I never said that. Another oversimplification. I questioned why we would wait for countries hostile to us and that have openly threatened us have the weapons to do so, and do so -- to tackle the security risks they pose not just to us but their neighbors?

I'm wondering who you're talking about. What countries have threatened us? More to the point, what countries are a threat to us?

I've said that IMO we take much less casualties not in conventional warfare and take a nuclear hit out of the question if we take care of them before they get the nukes. Call me crazy, but I don't trust countries that openly tell others they wish to wipe entire countries off the map with nuclear weapons. I think a fight to disarm before they are so armed is much smarter than to wait.

Again, even if someone issued such threats (no one has), what's to say they will carry them out? Like I said how many millions will have to die to prevent a thoretical loss of life? Basically, you're basing you position on the assumption that once nukes are aqcuired, they'll be used. IMO, that assumption is flawed.

[Hicksey]

I agree that their results are no better. But at least we try not to knowingly target innocents. IMO that puts us up the evolutionary ladder by at least a rung or two.

IMO, that's hair splitting. Either sending others to do one's dirty work is cowardly or it's not. The nature of the dirty work isn't really the issue.

I have considered the whole "flypaper" thing a success -- so far -- because IMO engaging them on their own ground has preoccupied them and prevented further attacks here. I never thought nor said that terrorism was an "everyday problem" in North America.

My point was, there's no way to determine whether engaging them over there as prevented anything. It's impossible to quantify.

I'm not saying that violence should or ever can demonstrate the futility of violence. I never said that. Another oversimplification. I questioned why we would wait for countries hostile to us and that have openly threatened us have the weapons to do so, and do so -- to tackle the security risks they pose not just to us but their neighbors?

I'm wondering who you're talking about. What countries have threatened us? More to the point, what countries are a threat to us?

I've said that IMO we take much less casualties not in conventional warfare and take a nuclear hit out of the question if we take care of them before they get the nukes. Call me crazy, but I don't trust countries that openly tell others they wish to wipe entire countries off the map with nuclear weapons. I think a fight to disarm before they are so armed is much smarter than to wait.

Again, even if someone issued such threats (no one has), what's to say they will carry them out? Like I said how many millions will have to die to prevent a thoretical loss of life? Basically, you're basing you position on the assumption that once nukes are aqcuired, they'll be used. IMO, that assumption is flawed.

Its no secret that the Muslim nations in the middle east hate Israel and want to kill their people. Its been common knowledge for years. You think that we should trust such people with nukes? I don't. IMO it is akin to trusting a murderer with a gun. Whether used or not, its just not a smart thing to do.

[Hicksey]

My opinion is that the action only makes half of courage, the courage to deal with the conequences of the action makes the other.

Well then there you go, on one hand they are courageous in doing the action. As for not being there to deal with the consequences, they are not able to as they are dead so the second part is neither courageous nor cowardly as there is no actin that can be taken eitherway.

To me that means that they're as courageous as they are cowardly. The truly courageous man would blow up that bus because he thought it was the right thing to do, stand up to be judged for his actions and accept the judgement.

To me, not sticking around to be judged for actions you believe are right means that somewhere down deep inside you know they are not.

[KrustyKidd]

To me that means that they're as courageous as they are cowardly. The truly courageous man would blow up that bus because he thought it was the right thing to do, stand up to be judged for his actions and accept the judgement.

If that were the case, they would not be able to blow up as many buses because they would need better technology, which they do not have in as great amounts as voluteers. Hence, they consider not being able to stick around a necessity rather than an action they have a choice in the matter about.

To me, not sticking around to be judged for actions you believe are right means that somewhere down deep inside you know they are not.

To put this into perspective try looking at it from a soldier's standpoint. He becomes a father than, is called off to war. In your books, he would be a coward who didn't have the courage to stick around and raise his family. Even though he had no choice. His choice was made when he joined that army.

[Black Dog]

Its no secret that the Muslim nations in the middle east hate Israel and want to kill their people. Its been common knowledge for years. You think that we should trust such people with nukes? I don't. IMO it is akin to trusting a murderer with a gun. Whether used or not, its just not a smart thing to do.

When someone says something is "common knowledge" its usually a way of freeing onself of the burden of providing proof. Now, surely if the Muslim nations of the Middle East were so consumed by their desir eto destroy Israel, then they wouldn't be signing peace treaties (as Egypt and Jordan have done) or trading arms with them (as Iran has done). But even if one accepts your premise, there's still the matter of Israel's military superiority (including its large arsenal of nuclear weapons), which would turn any attempt by the weaker Arab/Muslim states to destroy Israel into a kamikaze strike. As I've said before, there's absolutely no reason to believe the corrupt regimes of the Middle East would destroy themselves for the chance to destroy Israel.

[KrustyKidd]

As I've said before, there's absolutely no reason to believe the corrupt regimes of the Middle East would destroy themselves for the chance to destroy Israel.

Correct. The mindset of the average person of Islamic and Arab inclination is to believe they are right no matter what. Therefore, all problems they encounter are not of their making and, Israel is a perfect focal point for all their ills. The leaders of these nations encourage this thinking as it keeps the masses preoccupied outwardly in their anger rather than towards the leaders themselves. However, while simmering under control, there is always the potential for it to reach the boiling point.

[Hicksey]

To me that means that they're as courageous as they are cowardly. The truly courageous man would blow up that bus because he thought it was the right thing to do, stand up to be judged for his actions and accept the judgement.

If that were the case, they would not be able to blow up as many buses because they would need better technology, which they do not have in as great amounts as voluteers. Hence, they consider not being able to stick around a necessity rather than an action they have a choice in the matter about.

To me, not sticking around to be judged for actions you believe are right means that somewhere down deep inside you know they are not.

To put this into perspective try looking at it from a soldier's standpoint. He becomes a father than, is called off to war. In your books, he would be a coward who didn't have the courage to stick around and raise his family. Even though he had no choice. His choice was made when he joined that army.

You make a good point. However, the types of decsions we are talking about are much more serious than starting a family. We are talking about actions that involve taking the lives of others. Many of the people that are recruited as suicide bombers are not recruited as soldiers.

A question: if killing those people is the right thing to do in their eyes why not just take the bus and publicly put a bullet in the brainstem of those aboard to get their point across? Why do they have to kill themsevles to get a point across?

I think that the 72 virgins was BS made up many years ago to counter the moral objections the bombers had expressed.

[politika]

My only addition to this thread:

Anyone who does not know that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons should probably refrain from engaging in discussion about such weighty topics. It seems in this day and age every halfwit with a keyboard feels entitled to an opinion.

so you think your the only on here who can say somthing?

[KrustyKidd]

You make a good point. However, the types of decsions we are talking about are much more serious than starting a family. We are talking about actions that involve taking the lives of others. Many of the people that are recruited as suicide bombers are not recruited as soldiers.

Wrong. They are on Jihad and see themselves as a soldier of Allah. Suicide bombers are the lowest teir in a terror cell and are usually young and expendable. The makeup of a cell is actually amazing in that they are a self contained unit where they live together in their own little world. No contact with others in any real form and the only people they have anything in common with are their comarades who are just as brainwashed as they are. Those they kill are seen as extensions of the government they are trying to overthrow as they chose that government by election and, any doubts are taken away by the others in the cell in theological discusion. There is a planner who is usually the senior person and, there is the often a complete phsycotic nut who, while thinking he is in charge is very seldomly. While possibly not even be interested in the movement and purpose itself, his function is to keep the horror alive by dreaming up and pushing the others into killing, thus not allowing the momentum to be lost. The bombers themselves are kept around for a while to ensure they are motivated and brainwashed to the point where they are sure they will do the job, often given smaller jobs of watching, relaying messages and such until they bond with the group.

A question: if killing those people is the right thing to do in their eyes why not just take the bus and publicly put a bullet in the brainstem of those aboard to get their point across? Why do they have to kill themsevles to get a point across?

Easy. It takes away from the randomness of it as well as making a lot more difficult to pull off. Meaning, with a bullet and a guy going up and down the aisles doing as you say executing people, there is a methodical purpose to it wheras a bomb just makes it a freak show. One where nobody knows where it will happen and when thus setting the entire country on edge. With your scenario, you need to have to to three people minimum to pull it off and with the added complications, adds to the risk of detection. With the payoff remaining the same, the chances for it's sucessful conclusion are lowered to thirty percent or worse.

I think that the 72 virgins was BS made up many years ago to counter the moral objections the bombers had expressed.

I disagree. The numbers are all from different clerics as there is no set number or even virgins at stake. It is an expression of paradise, not to be taken literally. For example, when you suddenly come into money, you say you hit the jackpot. In reality, you did not run over a pot of jacks in the middle of the road, it is an expression to convey an idea.

These gius are already motivated and, remain outside society within their own group. Feeding off each other's beliefs and all. In their down time, they might get together and discuss numbers and what they want to find in pardise. 72, 10, 1000. Whatever. Like hungry soldiers talking about getting home while in the field, extra large with the works, case of beer, the beach, their kids, girls. None of it is written in stone, just candy for the mind.

[politika]

My question to you guys and girls is what happans when we need to send re inforcements because lot of our soldiers are going to be killed by years end. Will we have enough reservists or full time forces to be sent to keep the mission at the current soldier count it is at?

Although I agree with this mission I do think it is going to be like the American casualties in Iraq.

[KrustyKidd]

My question to you guys and girls is what happans when we need to send re inforcements because lot of our soldiers are going to be killed by years end. Will we have enough reservists or full time forces to be sent to keep the mission at the current soldier count it is at?

Although I agree with this mission I do think it is going to be like the American casualties in Iraq.

US has 150 thousand in theater. With 2000 dead over the past three years. That's one dead for every 150 on the ground.

We have two thousand. So, question is, can we withstand 75 dead over three years? Or, broken down more, 25 a year?

[politika]

My question to you guys and girls is what happans when we need to send re inforcements because lot of our soldiers are going to be killed by years end. Will we have enough reservists or full time forces to be sent to keep the mission at the current soldier count it is at?

Although I agree with this mission I do think it is going to be like the American casualties in Iraq.

US has 150 thousand in theater. With 2000 dead over the past three years. That's one dead for every 150 on the ground.

We have two thousand. So, question is, can we withstand 75 dead over three years? Or, broken down more, 25 a year?

Interesting question, If we can not sustain the number we already have their by bringing in fresh troops than the mission could end with as you say more than 25 dead a year.

[Hicksey]

Lets assume you are all right.

So we just let these people fight and kill and not pay any mind to it until the fight reaches our shores again?

What if the next strike is nuclear?

What if the next one kills 300,000 instead of 3,000?

Is anyone to blame for not acting to prevent it?

I know these are yet more hypotheticals, but if we are to pay no mind to what happens there now we had better be ready to predict and deal with any consequences.

[Black Dog]

Lets assume you are all right.

So we just let these people fight and kill and not pay any mind to it until the fight reaches our shores again?

What if the next strike is nuclear?

What if the next one kills 300,000 instead of 3,000?

Is anyone to blame for not acting to prevent it?

I know these are yet more hypotheticals, but if we are to pay no mind to what happens there now we had better be ready to predict and deal with any consequences.

All you've done here is set up a false choice betwen military action and total inacton. Good old fashioned intelligence work and vigilant policing will always be the best line of defense against terrorism. All a military "war on terror" will accomplish is the further marginalization and radicalization of the very people we need on side, thus increasing the probability of 9-11 styl attacks on our shores.

[Hicksey]

Lets assume you are all right.

So we just let these people fight and kill and not pay any mind to it until the fight reaches our shores again?

What if the next strike is nuclear?

What if the next one kills 300,000 instead of 3,000?

Is anyone to blame for not acting to prevent it?

I know these are yet more hypotheticals, but if we are to pay no mind to what happens there now we had better be ready to predict and deal with any consequences.

All you've done here is set up a false choice betwen military action and total inacton. Good old fashioned intelligence work and vigilant policing will always be the best line of defense against terrorism. All a military "war on terror" will accomplish is the further marginalization and radicalization of the very people we need on side, thus increasing the probability of 9-11 styl attacks on our shores.

With all due respect paid, the whole world thought Saddam Hussein was armed with nuclear and biologicals and we've seen how that turned out. The only dispute at the UN was how to proceed with them.

Lately, intelligence hasn't proven very reliable and especially unsavory since the 9/11 report.

So what if they're wrong, AGAIN?

These people have always hated us because our way of life completely contradicts their belief system and also because of past strong arm tactics by the US and Europe. That will not change no matter how nice we are to them. The only thing that has changed over the last 25 years is the severity and location of the attacks.

[Black Dog]

With all due respect paid, the whole world thought Saddam Hussein was armed with nuclear and biologicals and we've seen how that turned out. The only dispute at the UN was how to proceed with them.

Well, first that's not entirely true. There was considerable skepticism within the global intelligence community about Saddam's capabilities. The consensus view existed at the political level among those who, in maany significant cases, only listened to the information that supported their existing views.

Lately, intelligence hasn't proven very reliable and especially unsavory since the 9/11 report.

Sure, there a re problems with intelligence and there's problems with bueracracy. But it's still the best tool available. Just because the cops don't catch every criminal is no reason to disband the police and declare martial law.

So what if they're wrong, AGAIN?

Then more people will die. But even if we put the odds of that at 50-50, it's still only a possibility. Whereas, under your solution, a lot of people will definitely die and you'll still be left with no guarantee that another catastrophic attack won't happen.

These people have always hated us because our way of life completely contradicts their belief system and also because of past strong arm tactics by the US and Europe. That will not change no matter how nice we are to them. The only thing that has changed over the last 25 years is the severity and location of the attacks.

I guess I'm not particularily clear on what your solution is. You're advocating a "get tough" approach, but what does that mean and how will it alleviate the threat of terrorism? One could, I suppose, try to end the threat posed by radical Islamic (which, contrary to all the hysteria about Islamonazifascistninjas, is at most a threat to our lives and property, not our actual way of life) by bombing every Muslim nation into submission, detaining everyone of the Muslim faith here and generally embarking on a kind of global ethnic-religious cleansing program that would give Himmler a boner, but I doubt that's a path anyone would seriously consider travelling. Basically, you can't beat an ideology with force unless you are prepaed to go all the way and exterminate every possible practicioner of said ideology.