(apologies to those who see my first post of this before it deleted, I
forgot to mark it as OT)

For an article by an athiest, I though this was pretty decent.

http://www.neoatheism.com/editorials7.html#war


I personally long for the day when America had the balls to stand up for
itself regardless of how many civilians died. Granted, civilian death isn't
really a good thing, but if an innocent has to die because they are standing
in front of a terrorist, let them die.

Reasoned Insanity wrote:

Just out of curiosity, who defines someone as a 'terrorist'?
Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...852835,00.html


--
// Janne

"Stuart Krivis" <jd (AT) mongo (DOT) krivis.com> wrote

Um, no, but I believe that our government should take whatever steps needed
to protect us. Only a complete idiot would assert such a thing from my
comment. I don't really care so much about what you think of me. I'm not the
one who seems to enjoy taking it up the ass by foreign powers.

" .dbu," <howard (AT) dynoisadork (DOT) com> wrote

I prefer "chicken sh!ts who hide behind their religion and kill their own
kind and don't care".

The only good terrorist is one who has assumed room temperature. May many
more do so soon.

People don't understand these goofuses are not going to give up until we
raise the level of their pain. If they bring a knife, we bring a gun. If
they send one of ours to the hospital, we send one of theirs to the morgue.
That's the Chicago Way, and that's how you get these nuts. When the level
of their loss is higher than they can stand, they will quit.

Charles of Schaumburg

Stuart Krivis wrote:


OK shoot. Tell us the definition and who sets it.


--
// Janne

n5hsr wrote:

Wouldn't this make G.W.B terrorist as well?


I'm afraid you're wrong here. Doing 'terror' will only get you
more 'terrorists', not less. But I take it you are not dumb and
this is precisely what you want. Right?


--
// Janne

.dbu, wrote:

Well, only thing certain in this respect is that do not
terrorize anyone (no wars with political agendas). That
alone might do the trick.

And as far as 9/11 and London bombings go, in my humble
opinion it is not even proven who was responsible. At
least the evidence was never released to general public.
Still think it was Osama? May very well be, but there is
really no hard evidence to prove it. If you have some,
tell it to FBI as well [link to Osamas resume]:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

So who did it? Get an answer to that first before jumping
into new war.


--
// Janne

"Janne Karhunen" <Janne.Karhunen (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Blowing terrorists heads off will do the trick. How many American lives do
you want to let be killed before you decide that live and let live isn't
working?

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:27:12 +0300, Janne Karhunen
<Janne.Karhunen (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

gawd we have another KooK on the loose....

--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free Thanks to the Brave'

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:21:09 GMT, " .dbu," <howard (AT) dynoisadork (DOT) com>
wrote:

You are being polite to a KooK?

Why?


--

Scott in Florida

'The Land of the Free Thanks to the Brave'