> At 01:08 AM 10/24/01 +0800, Jacob Segal wrote:
>
>> But you don't shot the criminal if someone else in standing in the way.
>>
>> Jacob Segal
>
> is there some reason people can't actually read? or think a little more
> deeply. i'm sorry to be snotty, but there was absolutely nothing in doug's
> or seth's comments that would suggest that either of them think that an
> innocent person just standing in the way should get shot, let alone
> claiming that the suspect should get shot!
>
I read ok. Doug and perhaps you oppose the current bombing and would support a UN sponsored military action after some sort of international fact finding. What I haven't seen is Doug or you explain just how this theoretical military action could occur without the killing of innocents. It seems to me that any military action would have to be broad - -not tightly focused - - in order to be successful and to protect itself.
> furthermore, your scenario is just a little too simplistic. if someone is
> legitimately wanted by the sizzlean for having just committed a crime and
> he takes refuge with his grandmother, then if the grandmother drags out the
> shotgun and refuses to let the ssizzlean in, starts screaming out the
> window at the pigs, and takes a couple of potshots, well...? or, even if
> granny doesn't get her gun and just refuses to turn him over, she ought to
> be kept from harm but, at that point, she's a criminal and no longer innocent.
>
> kelley
>
>
I don't understand "sizzlean." In any event, I agree that the Taliban are fair game since they are protecting the criminals, however, the problem is Grandma's five year granddaughter who might be shot in the process, i.e. the Afghan people.
Jacob Segal