No, I didn't. Please pay better attention to your attribution. On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
But Nato's escape clause won't work this time round. For as the Afghan refugees turn up in their thousands at the border, it is palpably evident that they are fleeing not the Taliban but our bombs and missiles. The Taliban is not ethnically cleansing its own Pashtun population. The refugees speak vividly of their fear and terror as our bombs fall on their cities. These people are terrified of our "war on terror'', victims as innocent as those who were slaughtered in the World Trade Centre on 11 September. So where do we stop?
Let's see - terrorism has to be accepted because it only kills our children on purpose; retaliation is evil because it sometimes kills theirs by accident. If we accept the moral equivalence of terror and retaliation, the question is not "where do we stop?" but "where do we begin?"
The right of self-defense is as fundamental as the right to life itself. Pacifists may comfort themselves with the fuzzy notion that meeting bin Laden's demands (and presumably the demands of every other two-bit killer with enough cash to buy a Kalashnikov and some plastique) will free us of the threat of terrorism; unfortunately, I have studied terror for 25 years and know better, so that comfort is denied me.
The only real alternatives are (1) retaliate against the attackers, no matter who they are or where they lurk, or (2) accept that anybody with a grudge against people who are happier than he is has the prerogative of taking life with impunity.
Marc de Piolenc Philippines