>
> so, do you actually have a plan that is different than doug's?
>
sorry to ask this again, but what is it that doug or you or others offer as a plan? some kind of "targetted" act of force to capture obl and his buddies? what if that is logistically infeasible? i think i saw some posts that said "innocent lives will be lost anyway, thats unavoidable", but how can we trade lives this way? say you capture obl w/o a single afghan life lost, then what? will that end attacks including the current anthrax scare if that is of his doing? how about the rest of his fellows who are at large in the US? should we do extensive searches to apprehend these people? should the US tighten immigration? i would really appreciate a clarification of this position, since i have trouble differentiating it from what i would expect as typical right-wing or centrist response. doug asks (of pacifists in general, i presume, including garden non-violence action varieties such as myself): would you take a spore for the anti-empire? but what does that mean? who is spreading these spores around? do we know its obl? would grabbing the man put an end to it? quite opposite to the accusation against pacifists that their theory is pacifism for its own sake, the case seems to be that the suggested alternative is violent action for its own sake!
if all this is confusing only to me, i apologize for the waste of bandwidth! last one from me on this,
--ravi