XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.greens, alt.politics.gw-bush   
   XPost: alt.politics.liberalism, alt.politics.republicans, alt.radio.talk   
   From: vithant01PI@comcast.net   
      
   On 21 May 2004 19:36:16 -0700, kingssman1@hotmail.com (Kingssman)   
   wrote:   
      
   >Perhaps liberals would actually put an end to all future terrorist   
   >attacks thus ending the war on terror?   
      
   Here is the Encyclopedic Britannica's definition of terrorism.   
      
   "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in   
   a population and thereby to bring about a particular political   
   objective."   
      
   Notice it does not tell how to tell who is a terrorist and who isn't.   
   Nor does it give a specific address for the terrorist.   
      
   So how does the actions of Liberal's or NeoCons, end the war on   
   terror.   
      
   How did the British effectively  deal with Colonial terrorist?   
      
   How did the Germans effectively deal with French, Dutch, Russian, etc   
   terrorist?   
      
   How did the British deal  effectively with Chinese and Indian   
   terrorist?   
      
   How do you propose that we effectively deal with terrorist from   
   anywhere?   
      
   Terrorism does not need constant acts of terror, they can be spaced   
   out as far apart as the terrorist wants.   
      
   So you don't know who the terrorist is.   
   You don't know exactly where the terrorist is.   
   And you don't know when the terrorist is going to attack.   
      
   Well you anal orifice you are truly fornicated aren't you?   
      
      
      
   --Remove Pi from email.   
      
   It was like that when I found it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)