Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33
Problem is the weaker kid has sworn to kill the big kid and based on past history has shown the ability/will to kill when able. And if another kid (Iran/NK/Pakistan) on the playground give the little kid a grenade (suitcase nuke) and he sneaks it into the big kids backpack (via sleeper cell, tunnel, etc.) the big kid is hurt real bad or dead.
My original point in all this is for the U.S. to take seriously, target, and eliminate terrorist groups who have directly declared war (jihad) on us. If we keep looking the other way and not taking the fight to them, we will have another 9/11, or worse.
|
I get taking them seriously; I get the embargo, basically; I get destroying the tunnels (though I think it was an excuse more than necessity); I get a lot of it.
I don't get carte blanche approval of killing 2000+ people nearly half of whom are on the extremely innocent side (women although they aren't nearly as innocent as they claim!
, babies, kids, and seniors). I don't get using the fallacy of the cellphone/soft bomb warnings, in an area where you can't reasonably seek shelter from the hundreds/thousands of airstrikes that have been carried out.
If you think beating the little kid to a pulp is gonna make him want to make peace with you, I think you are wrong, I think it's going to make other little kids want to gang up on you so that they can take you it.