Re: Re: OT: Fwd: Letter from Australia

[loveofbuffy@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Yeah, but don't you think it's possible that the terrorist's aim was 
to provoke the situation into full-scale war? Fighting them in a very 
open, guns-blazing etc way seems to be playing right into their hands.
But enough of this. Bring on the fics!

Andy Jamison



--- In buffywantswillow@y..., "Jason" <jbulle@w...> wrote:
> It's a good sentiment; the problem is that turning the other cheek 
only
> empowers the aggressor. What these people want is to disrupt our 
way of life
> and to instill fear in us. They hide inside the borders of 
countries that
> claim to detest their actions while funneling money to them behind 
closed
> doors...while those countries citizens celebrate the event. A 
rational
> adversary can be reasoned with, shown that peace is mutually 
beneficial, war
> mutually destructive. But this only holds under the premise that 
both sides
> want; at the end of the day to go home, happy and alive to their 
families.
> The attackers firmly believe that their way into heaven is paved 
with the
> blood of others, and to die killing as many of us as possible is 
not only
> honorable but required by god. They give no thought to their own 
lives in
> these actions, and so do the unimaginable. We have tried 
appeasement,
> Clinton bent (us) over backwards to make friends for nothing. They 
don't
> want our friendship, just our death, when dealing with a foe that 
only
> speaks in violence and death taking the high road only makes it 
that much
> easier to take the ground from beneath your feet, unfortunately you 
must
> respond with greater force. YES, partially in vengeance, part in 
justice,
> and partially to make them fear repeating the act. Any other course 
simple
> emboldens them.
> 
> I hope it never goes this far but there are ONLY two ways to deal 
with an
> entity that hates you and seeks your death.in the past we have 
reasoned with
> our adversaries, who at the end of the day weren't that different 
in their
> desires than we are(MAD
> 
> 1) Remove their ability to harm you
> 
> 2) Make the idea of what will happen if they do so terrible, that 
the
> thought is impossible
> 
> Both of these are terrible in their own way, but in the case where 
the human
> life means nothing to one side all the more for both. its a grim 
view I
> suppose but to allow attacks to go unchallenged is worse