Jacob Segal wrote:
> What I haven't seen is Doug or you explain just how this
> theoretical military action could occur without the killing of innocents.
>
I don't think "killing of _innocents_" is a useful phrase. (I'm pretty sure I haven't used it in any of my posts.) I think it might be better phrased as follows: "How can a small proportion of the persons involved in the 9/11 attacks be found and secured without the mass killing of large numbers of military and civilians not involved in the original attacks?"
Tens (even hundreds) of thousands of "guilty" people go scot free every year. These thousands include "private" criminals but they also significantly include those whose criminal activity is nominally in support of the law. Killer cops, bribed meat inspectors, Congresspersons who deliberately underfund health inspection agencies, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter (perhaps the main villain in the present case). In fact probably over time only a minority of criminals (of all stripes) get punished.
How can proponents of "justice" defend this mass slaughter of bystanders in a pursuit which itself is grossly inadequate to its own declared ends?
Carrol