> Carl Remick wrote:
>
> >"Tightly focused"? Weasel words, Doug. Just how much collateral
> >damage are you willing to put up with?
>
> You first - what the hell do you think should be done?
Why not start with getting a universally-accepted definition of "terrorist", as well as what criteria must be met to be considered to be "harbouring" or "aiding" terrorists. Then, once those are in place, round up immediately all those who fit the description and who are culpable in terms of the definitions and evidence available, and begin the lengthy process of dealing with metering out sentences and reparations. Of course, failure to provide evidence or to block attempts to gauge damages after the fact should be considered to be "aiding and abetting" terrorism too.
The current situation is utterly unacceptable: a unilateral, loose and self-serving definition of "terrorist", sweeping demands by the US on everyone else to either be with or against them in the "fight against terrorism", murder and carnage in Afghanistan, use of force to accomplish political ends _without compromise as an option_, indiscriminate bombing by legions of just-following-orders military types with inferiority complexes and the underlying problem of injustice in the Middle East and elsewhere. Surely no-one in their right mind could support the farce that is being palmed off as "war".
If any of this was truly about justice, or even reasonable vengeance, surely the ample opportunities afforded the murderers in the coalition should have been snapped up, not shunned. No, this is merely an excuse for kicking the shit out of some poor people that have nothing at all to do with the situation at worst, or who have at least offered solutions to the alleged probles at best. This is probably the worst case of imperialist bullying in recent memory. This is - moreso even than Desert Jerk-off - a grand media extravaganza because the fucking military in the US has egg all over its face and needs to start masturbating in public again.
Grrr. </rant>
Sorry Doug, but I really thought we could have had much better from you than your unconscienable stance of supporting this barbarism, whether unilateral or multilateral, without providing some framework in which the playing field is level.
Cheers Zak