"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:15:00 -0600, Ignoramus11056 wrote:

On 2008-11-28, Bill Noble wrote:
(top posting fixed)

"Ignoramus11056" wrote in message
...
http://www.reuters.com/article/world...4AQ52120081127

``Security specialists say the attack was probably months in the
planning and appears to have been finely tuned in its execution, but
it ultimately relied on only an estimated 25 gunmen lightly armed with
assault rifles and hand-grenades.''

What they forgot to say that it relied also on the fact that the
Indian citizens who were attacked, were not armed. Somehow, I have
hard times visualizing this attack happening in, say, Oklahoma City.



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
in a crowded place, it is not at all clear that a whole bunch of scared
and armed to the teeth civillians, shooting at attackers and at
eachother because they don't know who the attackers are, would reduce
casualties.

It would probably increase casualties, but it also probaly would deter
attackers.

I don't think so. The real attackers in these cases aren't the
misguided, angry young men doing the shooting (or driving the planes, or
whatever). It's the organization of cynical old men who mis-guides them
to suicide attacks. By the time some kid with a gun shows up in your
vicinity he's just a guided missile, manufactured in a factory where kids
are cheaper and less valued than computers.

I don't know _what_ would do the trick,

The same thing that always has. You have to know of these things in advance.
That allows deterence.

Prevention is another matter and requires the removal of the root cause.
Were the US really of a mind to screw the Taliban and Bin Ladens bunch, we'd
simply require the Big Three to each build and run a manufacturing plant in
Afghaistan.

Good jobs, full bellies and a bright future for a child are all the
incentive necessary to behave in a civilized manner.

JC