I am constantly amazed at the fuzzy thinking that some people exhibit by
dragging up this obviously silly argument.  Now let me get this straight by
using another example that, I believe, is entirely analogous.  We have a war
against crime in the US.  It has been going on for as long as the US has
been in existence.  We were looking for the Beltway Snipers.  I think that
it was ridiculous to worry about trying to stop any other criminals because
we couldn't stop the snipers.

Is that your logic?  Are you saying that because we can't be certain that we
have killed USB (you say OSB) that we should ignore the fact that we have
plenty of both other threats and resources with which to pursue them, and
instead just sit around looking for a needle in a haystack?  USB was always
the figurehead and the money man.  His underlings were the planners and
shakers.  They are the ones we need to get.

Or are you saying that we should have ignored Germany in WWII, because Japan
was a big enemy (actually, a much more rational argument), or ignored Italy?
No, we needed to rid the world of these threats - it was both our duty and
our obligation.

>From my perspective, this type of argument seems self-destructive.


John W. Redelfs wrote:

> Is everyone pretty convinced that Osama bin Laden is still alive?  If he
> is, maybe we should finish that part of the War on Terrorism before adding
> Saddam Hussein to the hit list.  --JWR

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to