[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/29/06 6:22:43 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about
>
>> the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of
>> losing an American city to a nuclear weapon, or losing several
>> million Americans to a biological attack is so real that we need to
>> proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.
>>
>> And, I further think that we should propose a Genève convention for
>> fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight
>> outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass
>> destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject
>> to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect
>> civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength
>> that it is truly horrendous.
>>
>> This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national
>> dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than
>> wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally
>> happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.
>>
>> http://www.newt.org/backpage.asp?art=3819
>>
> Sounds like he's watched too many episodes of "24." :)
>
>
>
>
> No, Newt is ahead of the curve. Think about it now so you can prevent these
> things from happening or think about what we should have done after it
> happens. Didn't the Blue Meanies take control of Pepperland because non of
> the Bliss
> Ninnies believed they were coming? And there ain't no more Beatles to sing
> All You Need Is Love.
For Newt to be ahead of the curve would require a change of the laws of
physics. He's more like a throwback to the 16th century.
