|
|
|
|
Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points kicks Liberal lying sacks in the
On 24 Jun 2004 14:20:25 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:
Let's think about the choices we have. You could be:
A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide
terrorism by whatever means necessary.
B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups
killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized
world.
C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the
problem will fix itself.
So which are you?
Dave
I'm stunned. Not one of the choices you offered.
According to what you just wrote:
If I am not in favor of carpet bombing the entire middle East with
thermo-nuclear devices (an example of "any means neccessary" to eliminate
terrorism), then my only other choice is to declare that
active terror groups killing innocent civilians........(as opposed to high tech
super powers with thermo nuclear bombs killing innocent civilians)......is
absolutely OK.
You forgot the "hide your head in the sand" choice...... But that
would make it "trinary" thinking.....
I would not want to carpet bomb innocents either. But when the
terrorists are so gutless as to hide behind them as human shields,
what choice would we have?
Doesn't work for me.
I'm in favor of capturing or killing the individual criminal *******s involved
in terrorist activities, by any reasonable means that won't result in our
creating far more innocent civilian casualties than the
terrorists have already.
Very good Chuck! That sounds like the perfect plan. Now all we need to
do is call the Starship Enterprise and have them scan the plant for
the DNA signatures of all the terrorists so that we can beam them all
into a detention cell on some outer world controlled by the Klingons.
Wake up! We haven't yet found OBL, his top henchmen, or the Iraqi
insurgents. The terrorists hide in countries that will not allow us in
to search for them (Pakistan). How do you resolve this? If there are
countries who support the terrorists either overtly or covertly, then
how do we apprehend them? Should there not be, as "Bush the almighty"
has suggested, a price to pay for those countries who aid and harbor
these terrorists? How do you fight an enemy who transcends borders?
I'm not in favor of invading our way through a check list of third world
countries under the guise of "fighting terrorism". (But I bet you already knew
that)
If those countries have been shown to "aid and abed" terrorists, then
do we not have a right to act? If not, then game over, since we'll
never get them. We might as well erect a wall around our country and
hide behind it, and close all of our borders.
Yes, I know that neocons are all about limiting choices.
Conservatives love choices. Guns, Schools, Medical coverage,
Privatized social security, Elections..........
But you guys have a
ways to go in this country before you can presume to tell me how I must think,
(choice A or choice B).
Chuck, it's not that we think there are only 2 choices, it's that
we've already rationalized all the other choices and have discarded
them due to their impracticality. We're not binary thinkers, we're
analytical thinkers.
Dave
|