In summary, we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US there can be no permanent modus vivendi that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state be broken, if terrorist power is to be secure. This political force has complete power of disposition over energies of one of world's greatest peoples and resources of world's richest national territory, and is borne along by deep and powerful currents of terrorism. In addition, it has an elaborate and far flung apparatus for exertion of its influence in other countries, an apparatus of amazing flexibility and versatility, managed by people whose experience and skill in underground methods are presumably without parallel in history. Finally, it is seemingly inaccessible to considerations of reality in its basic reactions. For it, the vast fund of objective fact about human society is not, as with us, the measure against which outlook is constantly being tested and re-formed, but a grab bag from which individual items are selected arbitrarily and tendentiously to bolster an outlook already preconceived. This is admittedly not a pleasant picture. Problem of how to cope with this force in [is] undoubtedly greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face. It should be point of departure from which our political general staff work at...Quote has been trimmed
I don't think that's true. We rely too much on technological solutions and don't pay enough attention to subtleties of human behavior and the information we already have about real and suspected terrorists. The Israelis, as prime targets for this sort of attack, have focused much more on those aspects, and seem to be doing a pretty good job.
I dont have a problem with them if it makes the skys safe from cowards that want to kill innocent people in the name of their god because were considered infidels in their religion.
Prime targets or prime suspects? You even complete the circle in your comment,problem + solution=profit. Terrorism is their business.
They are many things but getting on a plane and blowing yourself up dosen't sound like the work of a coward.
Yes,how brave,killing a bunch of innocent people that wont even have a chance to fight back.
Sounds like cowardice to me.
No surprise here. It was only a matter of time before this became implemented everywhere(or in the majority of airports). I would rather be subjected to this(as embarrassing as it would be) than get blown up while flying to wherever it is that I am going.
These A-holes think they are warriors and fight as best they can. Getting on a plane and blowing yourself up to fight this war is not cowardice....it's effective.
Tell me, under similar circumstances wouldn't you do the same for your country had it been invaded and occupied?
On 18 August 1940, RAFVR Sergeant Bruce Hancock of No.6 SFTS from RAF Windrush used his Avro Anson aircraft to ram a Heinkel He.111P; there were no survivors.
On 15 September 1940, Flight Sergeant Ray Holmes of No. 504 Squadron RAF used his Hawker Hurricane to destroy a Dornier Do-17 bomber over London by ramming but at the loss of his own aircraft (and almost his own life) in one of the defining moments of the Battle of Britain. Holmes, making a head-on attack, found his guns inoperative. He flew his plane into the top-side of the German bomber, cutting off the rear tail section with his wing and causing the bomber to dive out of control. The German crew were killed in the crash, while the injured Holmes bailed out of his plane and survived. As the R.A.F. did not practice ramming as an air combat tactic, this was considered an impromptu manoeuvre, and an act of selfless courage.
Effective??? One dead terrorist, multi-dead people and the fight goes on. You may not brand it as cowardice, Avro, but many do and for good reason.
Duh! That would be a resounding NO,the very idea of strapping a bunch of explosives to my body does not in any way appeal to me. I would however be amoung the first to pick up a rifle and start shooting the suckers.
You betcha, shadowshiv, I am in complete agreement.
P.S. Anyone scanning my privates might find it a bit off-putting.
It sure ain't bravery, which requires action in the face of fear for a life you don't wish to lose. This sort of cowardace is no different to the individual than sitting in your car in the garage with the engine running or eating your gun. These cowards place so little value on human life that they are willing to take others along with them for some promise of reward in the afterlife, rather than face life and the challenges it delivers. But the real cowards are the ones who recruit the suicide bombers and hide away rather than face their opponents.
Not really, using your aircraft, or whatever, as a battering ram to protect your country from invasion by identified combatants is quite a bit different than blowing up innocent civilians for no apparent reason. There was a declared war between nations going on at the time and military targets are fair game, I fail to see how commercial airliners and office buildings fit that bill. These guys aren't defending anything and are going up against defenseless targets, cowards.
So a guy charging the line in WW1 knowing he will die for God and country is any different? Please...give your head a shake. Like I said they are many things but cowards isn't one of them.
What was Dresden? They play war by a completely different set of rules than European codes of honour. Maybe it's okay to target the people who will put pressure on their governments in their way. Unions do it all the time here. Remenber - all is fair in love and war.
In total war, which which has no bottom, there are no innocent civilians.