A US political discussion....

Aramike · 01-27-09, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aramike

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Funny how some people still think you can negotiate with Islamists.
Go ask the Israelis, only way of controlling is by force, only way to defeat is annihilate.
This ofcourse brings many moral considerations for the western side.
While we ponder these, they continue what they have been doing for decades and centuries.

Islamist and Islamic-extremists are two different things.

And I don't see anyone here suggesting negotiation other than you. We are suggesting that the wholesale destruction of a city is an inappropriate response.

There are many levels in between the two.

To a destruction of a another city? We disagree then.

Dude, pay attention.

No one said that either. We are responding to this, from Haplo:

Quote:

If we are hit again by islamic terrorists - and since they don't care about their own lives, we will hit something that does have true meaning to them. Call it a cold war mentality - but the next US target that gets hit by islamic terrorists, the "holy city" of Mecca becomes a big hole in the ground.

No where in there did he mention that the destruction of Mecca would be only in response to the destruction of a city.

Even so, I'd disagree with "preselecting" a city, in any case. That's silly and tactically/strategically inflexible.

Not to mention, would be a great way to invite further terrorism from normally benign sources...