In a message dated 11/29/06 8:27:15 P.M. Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > In a message dated 11/29/06 6:22:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mailto:[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.http://www.nehttp://www.n_ (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. I'll save this one. The next time we have a major attack on the homeland, I'll throw back in your face.
