Dale Botkin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Roman Black wrote:
>
> > The Pentagon was a valid target. Fact. If any group
> > believes it's at war with the US then the Pentagon
> > is a very valid target.
> >
> > I am curious why Justin's post has caused such
> > anger??
>
> Roman, perhaps you missed the news -- the Pentagon was attacked using a
> civilian airliner full of innocent noncombatants.  There *is* no valid
> target for such a "weapon".  That attack also coincided with other
> attacks, using similarly loaded civilian airliners, on nonmilitary
> targets.  These attacks brought about the loss of thouands of innocent
> lives.  That's why we're so angry.


Dale, yes I did see the news. I also comdemn the
terrorists actions and feel some of the emotion
that the US citizens must be feeling. :o(

But the level of emotion doesn't affect the validity
of the target. If some psycho person believes himself
to be at war with the USA the Pentagon is a valid
target. It's an excellent target. It's a sensible
target. Please let's not let a rational and sane
Piclist dissolve into heated emotional discussion
and personal attacks. I thought Justin's posts
were reasonably appropriate (he didn't swear or
attack anyone) he simply dared to express his views
on the matter. What was dismaying was the amount
of personal flame he received for some fairly tame
words. At no point did Justin say he liked, or agreed
with, or supported the terrorists.

We already see the terrorist's actions turning
piclisters against each other, it would be a shame
if a loss of freedom of speech follows.
-Roman

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads