From: "Antti Kurenniemi" 

"Geo."  wrote in message news:40536868{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > Give us a chance will ya?
> >
> > I don't want to. The worst case scenario is that you'll stirr up the
whole
> > ant hill, and the next bomb goes up in the school my nephew goes to. It
> will
> > not work, no matter how big an army you have or how many countries you
> > invade.
>
> So you suggest what, appeasment? make the terrorists happy and
> they'll go away? I mean it's OK to not agree with the method we
> have chosen but then don't stop at that, suggest something better.

Fix the problem, not just the symptom. Hardly as cool and glamorous as
going to war, but would be effective in the long run.

Ever wonder why there are no Swedish terrorist groups? Or Finnish for that
matter? Is it because we're so much afraid that if we were to become
terrorists we would be shot? I don't think so.


> Assume for a moment that terrorism is effective, that it can provide
> motivation for change.
>
> If it were up to me, I'd put together an assassination squad and give them
> this list: http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/fugitives.htm
> and about a billion dollars of funding.
>
> It likely won't solve the problem but it will terrorize the terrorists and
> may discourage much terrorist activity. And compared to the methods
> bush is using, it's relatively inexpensive and likely will result in a lot
less
> innocents getting killed or displaced.

Assume for a moment that there is a lot of terror in the world already. I
don't want to add to that, especially since it's been demonstrated over
decades that it's not effective. Sure, you can kill all the terrorists
today, but there'll be a new bunch bombing away tomorrow.


Antti Kurenniemi

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5