Summations Only

You believe wrongly.

Hey vimesey, Okay, help me understand, it seems like you are being contradictive. How am I wrong?

Not wishing to speak for Vimesay, but the anti-aircraft missile defence batteries were attempting to prevent this (mostly by deterrence than action):

Hey Ringo,I thought your first reply about IG Farben was odd. A joke? It prompted me to re-read my previous reply, and then conclude I could have been clearer.Okay, good. Thanks.There is a lot more nuance, facts, and back-history to understand my pacifist argument. Unfortunately, I am at a disadvantage, the war-mongerer's simple talking points of "middle-east bad, need to bomb them," is a lot more understandable to simple-minded conservatives/voters.

Yes, in 9/11/2001, anti-aircraft missile defence batteries may have helped. But so would have installing cabin locks too . . . But then again, not supporting the Majahideen in the first place would have prevented 9/11 too.But this is 14 years after 9/11, do you also propose we put anti-aircraft missile defence batteries on the roof of your home?Edited by dronestar, : cabin locks, clarify

Too silly to require comment

Tangle has pretty much summed it up.The anti aircraft guns were a response to a now known tactic of terrorists to fly planes into buildings. It serves as a deterrent- it makes the terrorist's job harder. And in addition, if the deterrent doesn't work, it might actually work in practice, and reduce the damage of an actual airborne attack.No counter-terrorist measures will ever prevent every attack - some will get through, as they did tragically last week. But sensible measures will undoubtedly make terrorism harder to undertake, and will therefore serve to reduce the frequency and lethality of attacks overall - a sensible outcome, if you want to do what you can to protect innocent lives.(And quite apart from that general position, I clearly do not believe that anti-aircraft weaponry is especially effective at preventing suicide bombers and assault rifles).Again, dronestar, please note that I entirely agree that Western countries have been and remain responsible for indefensible behaviour in a great many countries. Yes, we are to some extent reaping the harvest of what we have sown. But that in no way means that we abandon our responsibilities to try to defend our citizens against being blown up and shot. We should certainly include, as part of those efforts, a more enlightened foreign policy, but we should also, and do also make every effort to physically prevent what attacks we can.The world is full of evil arseholes. They are not, however, exclusively western politicians.

Errrm, no. Tangle summed up knowledge of terrorists attack in 2001. That was 14 years ago. Tangle didn't actually read your argument: "And whilst they persist"That means now. Not 2001.Thusly: anti-aircaft guns on a roof or two would not have prevented the Paris attacks, thus they are not sensible. (terrorists have moved away from using planes as weapons since more effective counter-measures, such as cabin door locks, have been put in place. Very sensible!)And that is my whole point. We have simpler, more cost-effective ways to prevent future terrorism strikes as I outlined in my previous posts. Indeed, many times, NO ACTION, like not supporting violent radical organizations or dictator nations, does less harm. Agreed, but I would include western voters who knowingly support the evil politicians.Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself Vimesey.

I'll part company with you on that one. I can't put Mr and Mrs Miggins of Acacia Agenue, Swindon, into the same category as the sort of people who like to burn people alive (or, I'll concede, Donald Rumsfeld et al). I think it really devalues the term "evil arsehole".

A locked door in my house won't keep someone from breaking in through a window, thus it is not sensible. Do I have that right?Terrorists can no longer easily hijack planes as weapons, so they returned to using them as targets, and a Russian airliner is blown to bits.We take off our shoes and limit our carry-on liquids because of past attempts to use them as explosives on planes; we limit sharps because they have been used to cut throats on planes. I don't think TSA has intercepted any explosive boots or shampoos, but if we stop those security checks, those methods will again be available to terrorists.There are thousands of planes and dozens of airlines, as well as air freight services and private jets. One successful hijacking or theft, and a terrorist again has a highly effective guided missile; one disaffected pilot achieves the same.Given all that, why isn't it sensible to have a few anti-aircraft placements around a high profile target? I think you are confusing the stupidity that got us into this predictament with quite sensible defenses.

I'm not sure that splattering the wreckage of an airliner all over Manhattan is an improvement.

Hi Omni,I'm running low on allies on this forum. Where is Onifre? And now I find that you also think rocket launchers on your home's rooftop is . . . sensible?Et tu Omni, et tu? 1. Finite resources. The terrorists playbook has nearly an infinite amount of strategies. We simply don't have the resources to plan for each of their acts. You don't think Paris did every possible, . . . sensible, . . . precaution?2. Is this the world where you want to live? Anti-aircaft guns on your home's roof? Really? When does it end?Do we need to walk around with a RPG launcher? Will it at least have a cup-holder? De we need to buy pick-up trucks with the scud-launching option? Sheesh, I've been complaining that Honda ripped me off for a $29 gas tank cap. What would they charge me for an OEM scud-launcher? When ISIS changes their strategy next year, will I need to upgrade my vehicle to a tank? I don't think Dunkin' Donuts drive-thru can accommodate a tank's width or height. Then what do I do? And if ISIS goes rural, do I need to fit my livestock? I think the first sensible step is to stop funding/supporting/supplying the terrorists. It'll only take money out of the wealthy military industrial complex, their lobbyists, and politicians. It'll be difficult, but I'll try to live with that.

quote:

---

We must ask ourselves why lethal weapons sold to those who are planning to cause much suffering to individuals and society? Unfortunately, the answer is, as we all know — it’s just money. Money, drenched in blood, and often innocent blood.

​

Pope Francis

---

Je suis Fallujah

Certainty, apparently, is for the attackers; defense does what it can.The goal is to prevent strikes on a densely populated central target. One assumes there will be fewer casualties in more thinly populated outlying areas by mounting defenses at the city's perimeter.If your goal is to bomb the White House with a 767, the likelihood of hitting the Potomac or National Christmas Tree instead is also something of a deterrent.

Extremely entertaining pastiche of false dilemmas and straw men you got there, dronestar--with pictures!--and all to shame me.Maybe you and Greatest I Am should get together and see who has the biggest self-righteousness...But I've got two perspectives, and I ain't ashamed.Sure, stop every manner in which the U.S. helps funds get to terrorists--support for whoever, etc. ISIL will still have funds because they, like many terrorist organizations, are at least partly self-funded by looting, narcotics and other criminal means; they also have wealthy individual backers. All that, too, I suppose, can be countered in time, at least in theory.But they're throwing bombs and firing Kalashnikovs at us right now--slam every cork you can think of in the money bottle today, and those attacks will still be possible tomorrow. Perhaps you think the West should expiate its guilt by welcoming terrorist attacks, but I don't. A nation that already has the resources to protect high profile targets--people, remember?-- with anti-aircraft measures and fails to do so is criminally negligent of its population.We can't defend ourselves out of a terroristic world, but even if we make the foreign policy, military and economic reforms that more directly address the root causes of terrorism, we'll emerge far more bloodied if we don't defend ourselves effectively in the meantime. Merely locking the cabin doors of airliners, the only practical measure I've seen you support, won't get it. My belief in the right of self-defense does not convict me of advocating inflammatory foreign policies.

The West has been surprised by the rapid rise of ISIS and its ability to project its power beyond its "borders." ISIS must have access to significant funds, and I think it's oil: U.S. Steps Up Its Attacks on ISIS-Controlled Oil Fields in Syria. ISIS's annual oil income is estimated at $500 million.--Percy