If you want it to be a "law enforcement issue"

Post #151,406 by bepatient 4/16/04 10:57:17 AM Reply	If you want it to be a "law enforcement issue" You have to be willing to give law enforcement the proper tools to do it. Which you aren't. 4 lilly whites cannot be investigated until they commit some type of crime. You have to stop them before they start building it. But you can't, because you're not allowed to investigate them. See a problem here? If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,409 by mmoffitt 4/16/04 11:01:14 AM Reply	You want it to be a "war"? How's about you telling me the object of any war? Hint: It ain't victory. 'Nother hint: It's PEACE. Now, how's about you telling me with whom we reach this peace? Wars are of finite length and result, ultimately, in peace. What's the end-game for this "War on Terrorism"? Hint: There isn't one. 'Nother hint: There can't be because this is not a war at all.
Post #151,410 by bepatient 4/16/04 11:12:01 AM Reply	I want it solved. By the most effective means possible. And I don't like the term "War on Terror" because its not entirely accurate. Nor do I like the term "police action" because thats not entirely accurate. But to pretend that we can use the same rules that got us into this mess to get us out of it is just that. Pretend. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #151,417 by jbrabeck 4/16/04 11:48:30 AM Reply	Simple solution Kill off the entire population of the world except for you. Short of having only one inhabitant, nothing can prevent all terrorism. They, the terrorist, is fighting for an idea. Tim McVey was a terrorist. The only thing that makes us civilized are laws. Realizing that I'd rather obey the law than go to jail. If I didn't care about the results of my actions then I'm freed to do whatever I want. If a terrorist is willing to die for his beliefs, then war won't stop him. Neither will police action. Believing that any agency could infiltrate all organizations and prevent further terroristic actions in an exercise in fantasy. There will always be terrorists. A War on Terrorism is ludicrious. Unless the War is only a front to restrict our freedoms. "We're at war, therefore ...". A war must be against a country with whom we can negotiate a ending. ObL cannot end the terrorism. So we cannot declare "war" on ObL. When will Schrub declare "peace"? Week after his reselection?
Post #151,438 by jb4 4/16/04 2:06:32 PM Reply	When, indeed! "We're at war with Eastasia. We've alwasy been at war with Eastasia!" jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT

Welcome to IWETHEY!