From: Adam Flinton 

Randy wrote:
> I would agree, but if these are a bunch of onesy-twosies as opposed to one
> or two massive  takedowns a-la organized crime (which, in my view, terrorism
> fits that operational model to a degree) then all you have done is whacked
> one cell, but others cells will take over.
>

Smackamole.

How many moles can you smack with a hammer in the next 30 seconds....

It's a matter of fitting form & function to message.

If you are selling liberty, democracy, rule of law etc.etc. then you have
to follow it or it's just warlordism. People equate you & your enemy as
just being players in the killing game.

You are not actually aiming at the active ones except to subject them to
the rule of law (i.e. they are crims who need to be apprehended, tried
& if proven to be guilty sentenced & detained). The intended
audience is broader.

It is only by demonstrating that you do actually stand for something in a
political mnessage sorta way that you can start draining the swamp.

Take an easy example:

Hamas vs the Israelis.

Israel went all out inc assasinations & other basically terrorist
actions against hamas & their supporters.

Is Hamas stronger or weaker as a result?

Is Israel strong or weaker as a result?

So Israeli terrorists get to fly F-16'es & Apache where Hamas
terrorists get to fire home made rockets or strap bombs to themselves.

Or...

Israeli forces get to defend Israelis using F-16'es & Apaches where
Hamas forces get to defend Palestinians with home made rockets or by
strapping bombs to themselves.

Take your pick.

It then gets really tricky e.g. is an illegal foreign mil occupation a
gross act of terrorism? If so then Hezbollah should be feted for standing
up to terror.

The main question is :

Is violence (esp of the deadly variety) an acceptable way to conduct
politics. Yes or no.


Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5