On 12 Sep 2002 at 8:18, Blunderov wrote:
>
>
> joedees@bellsouth.net
> Sent: 12 September 2002 06:29 AM
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> I will NEVER FORGET what happened when we lowered our
> guard in the face of a religiously fanatical and implacably zealous
> membotic enemy, nor what might happen if such scum are given WMD's by
> a self-styled Saladinic warlord. It cannot, it must not, it WILL NOT
> be allowed to happen henceforth.
> Yes, I do hate the mind virus of Radical Islam, for I have seen what
> that virulent infection compels people to do. Any sane person
> realizes that it is paradoxical, yet nevertheless true, that the one
> thing that a tolerant people or society finds intolerable and cannot
> in good conscience abide is intolerance itself, and radical Islam is
> the very DEFINITION of 'convert or die' intolerance. Such savage,
> vicious, brutal, blind, willfully ignorant, absolutistic and
> theocratically institutionalized intolerance cannot, for
> civilization's sake, be allowed to prevail. <snap>
>
> [Blunderov]
> Listen to yourself here Joe. Listen to the way you are using language.
> It is very emotional. There is a lot of mixing up of "is" and "ought".
>
>
> Is it good to make decisions of literally earth-shattering proportions
> based on limbic promptings?
>
> It never works out well for me anyway.
>
> Warm regards
>
To not act at all could very well result in nuclear catastrophe; the longer
we wait, the harder it'll be on both us and on them when we do act. The
cost-benefit analysis is logically decisive; the equations seem cold, but
they are eminently utilitarian and humanistic.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:22 MDT