Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/14/2004 3:25:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:30:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
............arrest the guy who funded a terrorist attack.

Which do you think is a more effective deterent?

Stupid question? That's what I heard the other night!

Tj



explain how you're going to nab the guy who funded it without invading.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:34:13 PM EST
I support whichever choice involves carpet bombing.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:34:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:37:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By TheRedHorseman:

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
............arrest the guy who funded a terrorist attack.

Which do you think is a more effective deterent?

Stupid question? That's what I heard the other night!

Tj



explain how you're going to nab the guy who funded it without invading.



In addition, explain how you're gonna nab the guy when the country he resides knows what he did and the gov't is sheltering him.

This is Osama & Afghanistan you're talking about right?
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:38:48 PM EST
Well, if much of the country funded, or otherwise facilitated the attack.... arrest them all... but to be practical, that pretty much means "invade the country and put them under house arrest".
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:48:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2004 3:48:20 PM EST by ajm1911]
[obligatory] get I mean do both [obligatory]
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:49:45 PM EST
Top Top