>>Skeeter the response has to be on scale with the attacks.<<
victor, nice ad hominem. absurd, but that is a minor detail, right?
>>Of course we must try to avoid hurting innocent people.<<
uh, victor, that was my point you contested by saying the ALL were GUILTY. at least you see the light.
>>These people seem to understand only savagery in response to their savagery. It did the trick with M. Quadaffy, even though many insisted it wouldn't.<<
dangerous folks need to be dealt with. we should avoid as much collateral damage as is deemed reasonable without devaluing humanity to justify some irresponsible killing. i thought it was unreasonable for you to attack this point and, after a really weird and convoluted process, you now agree without being agreeable ;-)
>>Did you know that Bush was scheduled to deliver an address to the UN about a week after the attacks supporting a new independent Palestinain state?<<
radicals of this nature don't want peace. they want war. they want a pissed off palestine and a justification to kill innocent people. i think we are different.
i would do something different, though, if i were in bush's shoes. i would provide the taliban (even though they are a bad, bad joke) with the evidence. then, after they balk, i'd proceed with military action. but, i'd give them the chance. |
