Cryofax
celaeno@shavenwookie.nospam.com (Celaeno) wrote in message

If a country harbored known terrorists, then they knew that further terrorists acts originating from within their own borders was possible. That they didn't expel or arrest the terrorists means they approve of and support such activity. If the terrorists were hiding in a country unbeknowst to the country's government then that's a different situation entirely. Currently the thinking is that the Taliban knew of, harbored, and approved of Bin Laden's activities. But we need to be darn sure before we go bombing Kabul.

You can't seperate the civilians from the rest of the country. They live there, they're part of the country. If that country commits an act of war we are at war with that entire country.

And stop with the "you're no better than the terrorists" crap.

Nobody wants to make it worse. But then sometimes things get worse before they get better...

Sounds like you're saying killing people is bad.

Celaeno
And you disagree with that?

Cryofax
As a blanket general rule? Yes. Sometimes people need to be killed.

Celaeno
In this case, I'm saying killing the right people might be good, killing the wrong people is (as always) bad.

Cryofax
Of course nobody wants to kill the "wrong" people. But if we take out all the terrorists, but unintentionally kill some civilians (not thousands, but let's say a few hundred) in the country does that mean the operation was a failure?

Celaeno
Not act rashly.

Cryofax
We haven't thus far. We could have nuked Afghanistan by now if we wanted to.

With this in mind don't you think we need to nail the whole country hard now? That Taliban government is fanatical even by Islamic standards...