This page shows the source for this entry, with WebCore formatting language tags and attributes highlighted.
Eradication is the only way
That's the consensus opinion of today's <a href="http://www.newsday.com">Newsday</a> <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/letters/ny-vpqltr292390143sep29.story">letters section</a>. It's full of cogent discourse like: <span class="quote"><q>If we fail to respond, make no mistake it will be perceived as empathy. The next time - and there will be a next time - will 20,000 American lives be lost? ... I would like to ask the family and friends of those murdered by the hijackings if they want to "turn the other cheek." ... I'd feel terrible if I did less for my children than the previous generations have done for us.</q></span> Does our response have to involve killing innocent civilians of our own? Is that the legacy we want to leave? Apparently so, as: <span class="quote"><q>[An armed] response may not deter future bombings but it could comfort the families of the victims. ... No peace-loving person likes wars, but there are times when one must take up arms.</q></span> How can you advocate attack when it is the U.S. attacking, controlling and killing abroad that has brought this level of rage to bear on us in the first place? How can you advocate attack when we don't even know who did this? When the prime suspect lives in a cave in the poorest country in the world? Do we slaughter citizens of other countries to "comfort the families of the victims"? How will that prevent future attacks? Attacking anyone will provoke more attacks. Killing everyone with a beef with America is impossible.