some thoughts on day 1

[Arne Herl�v Petersen]

No, indeed, it does not.
*If* you can identify the perpetrators, pinpoint their location and take
them out surgically, I feel that most people would applaud. It would be
better, though, to have them schlepped to Haag and tried in front of the
world. That way they wouldn't be martyrs for anyone, but exposed as the
murderous lunatics they are.
After WW II we had the Nuremberg process. We didn't just hang the
bastards in the nearest lamppost, even though God knows they deserved
it. We believed in the principles of due process.
But somehow, based on past experience, I doubt that you will hit only
the guilty. Last time you bombed a pharmaceutical factory. What will it
be this time? The Kabul bazaar? Refugee camps from Lebanon to Peshawar?
Some poor camel drivers' camp somewhere in a Central Asian desert?


David Morris wrote:
> 
> Your point below does not preclude a counter-strike which is strategically
> chosen.  It does not force inaction.
> 
> "Revenge is a dish best served cold."
>           Sicilian proverb.
> 
> DM
> 
> >Arne Herløv Petersen's most relevant point:
> >If your (understandable) cries for revenge now make you abandon all the
> >principles our civilization stand for, the terrorists will have won their
> >most important victory.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp