In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:10:33 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:26:21 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
wrote in
:

It seems to me that we "turned the other cheek" too many times in the
past: Lebanon, Khobar Towers, Mogadishu, the embassy bombings, the USS
Cole, etc.

Can there be too many times? Aggression only spawns more aggression.
Isn't that the wisdom behind Christ's words?

IMHO, you have to "turn the other cheek" only once. If he hits you
again, you flatten him, which is long overdue.

That's not a very enlightened attitude, IMO.

I think that it is a very enlightened approach -- it assures survival to
promote further "enlightened attitudes."

J.C. never mentioned what you do after the other guy hits you again.

Some people and groups respect only superior force.

An alternative to combat must be found. The causes of Martin Luther
King and Gandhi prevailed without their resorting to barbarism. It
took _sacrifice_ and commitment to a noble ideal, but they would have
ultimately failed without the weight of public sentiment being brought
to bear in their behalf.

Isn't it time we outgrew our reprehensible past behavior, and learned
to walk fully upright?

If our species doesn't learn to respond passively to attack, the human
race is doomed to a life of war. Isn't that obvious?

Well -- the first order of business is to understand your adversaries.
If their basic attitude is barbarism, then that is all they will
understand. Isn't that obvious?

Remember -- MLK and Ghandi were dealing with adversaries who operated
from a basically civilized point of view. AQ does not -- they only want
dominance and to kill "infidels."