> Before I respond I want to reiterate that the
>attack on the USA was an awful event. No one
>should ever have to live through that kind of
>terror. I think and pray about this event many
>times a day.

If you really believe that nobody should have to live through this kind of terror, why do you insist that the appropriate steps to take in order to stop it SHOULDN'T be taken?

> How far are you willing to go?

Ok. Take your slipperly slope argument somewhere else. I don't buy it--it's a logical fallacy and it's crippling your reasoning.


> Taking your statement to the extreme "we"
>would have to kill almost everyone else because
>no matter how many people we kill there are some
>left who feel that they have no option but to
>respond in kind. And it will never end until
>just a few people are left standing.

Right. And if I punch you, you'll punch me back, and then I'll punch you again, and so on and so on, until we're both reduced to quivering lumps of jelly. You're taking things to illogical extremes and doing yourself a disservice by actually believing this is a valid extension of what I said.

The TRUTH is, if I punch you, then you punch me back, and we trade blows, at some point one of us is going to cry uncle. It's not going to GET as far as you seem to think it will, because one of us will give up long before that point is reached.

THAT is what I'm saying. If country A is harboring known terrorists, we say "Give them to us, so that we may put them on trial" or "Put them in prison so that they may not commit these crimes any longer." If they won't, we strike at their military and industrial centers until they reconsider.

Would talking it out be better? Sure it would be. But it's simply not going to work. You don't negotiate with terrorists. You *can't*. To them, it's just a sign of weakness, an invitation to strike at you again. Everytime they've struck us, we've negotiated, or done nothing, or struck back at them in a very limited manner. So they've gotten bolder, and struck at us again. They will escalate the terrorism until we strike back or capitulate. I, for one, choose to strike back.

>
> I am the parent of 2 small girls. When someone
>hits them should I be advocating that they try
>to take off "Jane's" arms so that she can't ever
>hit them again?

It's not a fair analogy and it's another argument to a false extreme. A better analogy would be if someone killed your daughter, then your wife, then your mother, then your father, then your brother, then your sister, then got caught. Do you put them away for life, so they can't ever kill anyone ever again? If you say "no", you deserve to live in whatever world would result from such uncivilized notions.

> I don't expect to ever live in a "safe" world.
>There are too many sinful people out there
>(including me) but I will continue to advocate
>for a different way of responding because I
>don't see any evidence in the world today that
>force works for very long. In some situations
>it may work for a while but there always seems
>to be someone who nurses the grudge until they
>can respond. Even in Germany look at the rise
>of the Neo Nazi groups and the anti-immigrant
>sentiments that come out from time to time.

Yeah. Having a few neo-nazi groups in Germany today is MUCH worse than having the Third Reich ruling the planet. Good one.

-- Dave