> No, it's time to send an unmistakable message that state 
> terrorism will no
> longer be tolerated.  Instead of useless cruise missile 
> pin-pricks, the US and
> NATO need to be willing to inflict a massive amount of 
> non-nuclear damage upon
> Kabul, the Afghan capital (i.e. completely reduce it to 
> rubble, at least the
> parts of it not already reduced to rubble by the ongoing 
> Afghan civil war).
> 
> There are a few choices for doing this:
> 
> - as an ultimatum, i.e. "send us bin Laden or we will destroy 
> Kabul".  This
> gives them an option to avoid civilian casualties (good), but 
> lets them escape punishment for harboring Evil (bad).

[other similar semi-coherent babbling deleted]

Perhaps you have confused the United States, where we work within our
self-imposed framework of civilization (things like the Constitution,
United States Code, Code of Federal Regulations, etc.) with countries or
societies where "Might makes Right" is the rule of the day and anything
you can get away with is acceptable--kind of like the people who
attacked the WTC.

> My own opinion is that [nuclear retaliation] would be GROSSLY
irresponsible, 

This has *got* to be a joke.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *