So I guess you would also consider leveling, say, Detroit or Buffalo, which also "harbored" terrorists?
Look, just because terrorists are in a city, doesn't mean that the city "harbored" them. Most people don't even know the bad guys are there -- and a lot of them probably wouldn't want them if they knew the bad guys were there. But it looks like you'd kill them regardless.
My only consolation in this discussion with the rancid "kill 'em all" crowd is that you're spending your manly energy screeching murder on FR, rather than making a hash of things in the real world.
Perhaps you mis-read my post....I was calling for leveling of all cities that harbor terrorists, regardless if in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia (especially those fuelinig terrorism on Iraq from outside nations).
So I guess you would also consider leveling, say, Detroit or Buffalo, which also "harbored" terrorists?
Maybe this statement is missing one crucial word "KNOWINGLY" would be that word ! Iraq ,Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia "KNOWINGLY " harbors these Murdering Thugs Detroit and Bufflalo Were not seen as Knowing Harborists of terrorists but these other countrys were KNOWN to harbor Terrorists for decades !
Its funny some people go to water over a missing word !
When they negotiate in the Middle East, people die. I just think it should be the "bad guys" and the more of them the better. Nuclear option should never be taken off the table in a time of war (if you are too afraid to use nukes, why have them?) if you wish to keep thugs from running amok. After all, the only good Jihadi is a dead jihadi.