[ought-six]

Yeah, you sound just like John alQerry: What alQerry and you both embrace is to treat the war on terrorism as a law enforcement issue; i.e., just bring to justice those who actually committed the act of terror. By your logic, suicide bombers are "brought to justice" when they blow themselves up (and countless innocents along with them). Thus, you would advocate abandoning Bush's WOT right now, because the 19 terrorists who carried out 9/11 died in the attacks, so they "were brought to justice." Suicide bombers are bred quite easily in the Islamist world, so we'd be facing acts of terrorism against us from now until ddomsday if we were to follow your line of thinking. I subsribe to the concept of total war when we are fighting for our national and cultural survival (yes, survival, because th eIslamists will not stop until they are either destroyed or they turn America into an Islamic republic: You know that, and that is not a patronizing comment). My comment about nuking them was in response to them nuking us first. And in reality, if they do get a nuke, they will use it, and you cannot dispute that. And yes, I'd turn their holy sites into green glass.

[HitmanLV]

Yes, I do dispute that, we won't use nukes in a situation like that.

I support treating the war on terror as a war, not a law enforcement issue.

You skew what you project to be my logic. I do not give suicide bombers any kind of 'pass' regardless of why you thuink I would. I advocate going after their infrastructure and agents with military might.

Your advocacy and insistence of going nuclear is more like a petulant child's behavior. No way we would go nuclaear after being on the receiving end of a small nuclear attack via a terror network. It just won't happen - your fantasy of holy cities as glass is, thankfully, a fantasy.