CurtAdams@aol.com wrote,
> The controversy about Maher concerns me. All he said was that, contrary
> to W's claims, flying a plane into a building is a brave act (however
> heinous),
> while shooting cruise missles from 2 countries away is the
> cowardly action.
> He's absolutely right;
I share this concern. We must be careful to assess any enemy accurately and
completely. Calling these terrorists "cowards" is merely a misplaced
insult. It is misleading because suicide bombers or religious fanatics are
not motivated by cowardice. They are motivated by martyrdom and promises of
an afterlife. Any security defense set up to deter cowards will fail.
This was one of the main failures of our previous security systems. Such
systems assumed that hijackers wanted to live. Our airline crew training
procedures, air traffic control procedures and military procedures were all
based on this assumption. This is why everyone let the hijackers continue
unchallenged. The only exception was the final flight that knew what
happened to previous flights. With this new knowledge, they fought back and
prevented a fourth massacre.
If we mistakenly assume that these terrorists are cowards, we will again be
devising inappropriate security procedures that do not deter these kinds of
terrorists.
-- Harvey Newstrom <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant, Newstaff Inc. <www.Newstaff.com> Board of Directors, Extropy Institute <www.Extropy.org> Cofounder, Pro-Act <www.ProgressAction.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:11 MDT