Subject:
|
Re: A question of remembrance...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 May 2001 17:57:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
697 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I come from the "never negotiate with terrorists" school of thought, and I
> think there is a lot of merit in that approach. Terrorists need to be
> apprehended and smacked down, not accomodated.
Please define "terrorist".
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Good question. I gave my definition in this post: (URL) about the second or third para down. To your point about soldier==terrorist and vice versa, I agree that the perception sometimes runs that way. But that's at least in part an effect of a (...) (23 years ago, 2-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
| (...) Where the fault is split 60-40 I think you're right. But what if the fault is almost all on one side? (it's not 60-40 in this case but it's not 99-1 either, so this is a hypothetical, I want to know what you think) What then? I come from the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
197 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
