Kevin Tarr wrote:
>
> No, it is a sound idea. """"IF"""""" it is proved that a nation
> supported and financed this, they should become glass-fused parking
> lots.
>
Let me see if I understand what you are saying. Ok, I discount
the fact that we all should be in an emotionally distorted
state, the closer to the victims the worse. But:
(a) if the attack was made by palestinians, do you preach
that all territory that is occupied by palestinians be
nuked?
(b) if the attack was made by the government of Iraq, do
you preach that all Mesopotamia be turned into nuclear waste?
(c) if the attack was made by colombian drug dealers, do
you preach that Colombia should be erased?
(d) if the attack was made by some fanatic fringe group
of USA citizens [like Oklahoma], do you preach that the
USA should nuke itself?
I - seriously - can't imagine a good way to deal with
terrorism. I think that a non-violent response to
terrorism is *not* a good reply; however I also don't
think a state should become terrorist to strike back.
Back to the discussions that began this horrible day:
we were discussing how Israel should deal with palestinian
terrorism. I was going to reply that Israel should not
stay quiet and let them attack. I also don't think
Israel's attacks against Palestina are overkill, but I
may be biased.
BTW, is there any significant fact that has an anniversary
today?
Alberto Monteiro
