On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> > McViegh did not target innocents. Bin Laden did target
> > innocents.
>
> I'm confused.
So is Mr. Donald.
> Is Mr. Donald saying McVeigh did not surveil his target
> sufficiently to know that there was a day care center in the damage
> pattern? Or is he saying it only takes one "non-innocent" in a damage
> zone to justify an attack? (in which case, how is he privy to Bin
> Laden's attack plan, such that he can rule out any "non-innocent"
> targets)
No, Mr. Donald is demonstrating irrational thought processes.
You see, McVeigh isn't a terrorist because he had purity of purpose. But
Bin Laden IS a terrorist because he had purity of purpose.
--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
0xBD4A95BF
"An ill wind is stalking
while evil stars whir
and all the gold apples
go bad to the core"
S. Plath, Temper of Time
