Reverse philosophy
 

I've basically given up trying to explain reality to people who simply cannot or will not grasp it. It's pointless. I feel like I've been talking to a bowl of Jello.

So... for those that fit into that category, here's something for you to chew on:

You say that because I want them to pay for what they've done, that I have the same view as the terrorists. You say that because I want our dead people to be avenged, that I am no better than the terrorists. You say that because I think bombing the shit outta them is well deserved, that I AM a terrorist.

You also claim that because of these things, I am a racist as well.

I say to you:

You want us to do nothing? You are anti-war? You are angry with people such as myself who DO want them punished severely?

Terrorists also want peace... for their fellow terrorists... hence, YOU must also be a terrorist.

Terrorists also don't want innocent terrorists killed, therefore YOU are a terrorist.

Terrorists are probably wishing right now that they could *talk* their way out of this one... YOU want to *talk* it out, YOU must be a terrorist.

You are mad at people such as myself... YOU are demonstrating racism against people that want revenge. That makes YOU a racist.

Is this starting to sound foolish? It should..... that's how you sound to me. Sucks to have it all reversed on ya, don't it?

When the JELL-O starts answering you, then I would be a little concerned ...

The Jello has been answering, my friend... I need to go back to Maui, get on my surfboard, and flush all this shit from my mind before I lose it.

I have mentioned this before and I will do it again cuz some people just dont get it.

There IS middle ground between bombing and nothing. Let me repeat that, there is middle ground between bombing and doing nothing.

What is that middle ground you ask, assinations by the US government is one possibility. Keep it low profile, covert even and just take out those responsible. No need to kill all of the lemmings as well.

So for those who want to bomb the shit out of them, there is no need to be that drastic. And for those that want nothing to be done, well if nothing is done then act like those recently will continue.

True Rivex.... there have been alot of options explored. However, when you talk about sending in assasination squads, perhaps you should take a look at the published conclusions (Pros & Cons) of those options that our leaders have ALREADY explored. This is one of them.

Yes, (Pro) sending in assasination teams has been determined to be the highest probability of success, because of the loss of life aspect as well as the ability to possibly recover data from Bin Laden's computers and disks foreseeably offering information on future terrorist plans.

However, the Con to that is that it's basically a suicide mission. Given the layout and terrain and other factors of Afghanistan, the people we send in on those missions will likely never be seen again, thus making it an unuseable alternative.

So.... here we are. Back to square one.

I am not sure about that con though. The US is willing to lose lives by bringing in ground troops or even airplanes, but not willing to lose lives with special forces?

You don't understand. If those guys go in on a suicide mission and are killed, all we have gained is more filler for body bags.

It will not work, therefore it is not an option. This isn't my opinion... it has been examined and published.

Maybe I dont understand...but what more do we gain by bombing their country, losing men during the battle and still not kill bin laden...I am just saying that people are going to die either way, and there is a chance that we wont get him either way. So I would rather them try the less drastic approach first.

But by doing that, all you are gaining is the sentencing of a group of highly trained men to their deaths. That's it. What is so hard to understand about that? You might as well just shoot them here and now and save on the gas money to get them there.