foiled terrorist plot?

[spazz]

Alright, so you are losing me a bit here....

When I said you would pick a random city, you corrected me and said that "The city would not be random, the city would be where the terrorists who destroyed our building would live obviously."

The natural conclusion then, would be that you would destroy High Wycombe since, had these idiots been successful, this is the city "where the terrorists who destroyed our building would live obviously." But when I made that conclusion, you accused me of "liberal bullshit".

So, exactly which city would you destroy? And who would get to play God and decide which 300,000 people must die for the actions of this handful of British citizens?

Also, please stop accusing me of "liberal bullshit" when we are merely trying to have a reasonable discussion of opposing viewpoints. When you disagree with a point I raise, debunk it and counter it without resorting to personal name-calling and foul language. We've been down this street before Spazz. Keep it civil and argue your points intelligently. Debate me on the issues I raise, not on some assumed and cliche label you want to attach to me (and/or anyone else who just happens to disagree with you). That's the way it works.

I might be inclined to call you a radical, qausi-religious fundamentalist, right wing extremist, racist, Bush-loving, neo-conservative. But see? That gets us nowhere. It doesn't accomplish anything. It's likely to be an inaccurate caricature of who you really are. It doesn't further my argument, or make my argument any better. It merely makes me seem like someone who can't see past a label, or my own pre-conceived stereotypes. It simply attacks YOU personally. It makes it seem as if I don't have any legitimate means, other than juvenile and inane name-calling, by which to counter your equally legitimate arguments. Keep the name-calling and the foul language in the schoolyard, and let's debate the issues instead. Deal?

Thats fine, I am not attacking you though. I do not remember calling you liberal or your statements bullshit. I was simply saying how the media would affect the situation, which is why we will never have the balls to solve the problem in the first place. If anything the liberal media is good in a sense it restricts our government from harming us, but on the other hand we cannot defend ourselves from terrorists because of the media.

I am by no means republican, if I had a chance to vote I would have gone with kerry this election. Simply because I care about our economy more then this whole terrorism issue. I was just posing a potential solution to a problem which I know bush would be opt to accept it then say kerry.

Well the city would obviously be chosen intelligently, we would not pick it out of a hat. If I had to do it, I would choose a city where the majority of terrorists and islamic fundamentalist live. But really any city where you could get the point across. It would have two effects: It would make the citizens more opt to fight against these terrorists and it would make these terrorists less responsive because now we have put a price to pay on the table. The price is more then any of them could afford.

Again: I challenge you to come up with a better solution, would love to hear it. Might even give me something to think about.

Sorry if you got offended when I made an example out of your statements about genocide etc.