[extropy-chat] POLITICS: terrorism and strategies

[Gregory Propf]

Robert J. Bradbury wrote:

>I bask in the radiance of my own intense insights... :-;
>

Or you stuck your head in the microwave.

>  
>
>>One currently sees a few people getting kidnapped and beheaded, yes.
>>    
>>
>
>"Few" is a relative term particularly if one confines oneself to
>a perspective that "Western" individuals are worth more than
>non-Western individuals (I'm not suggesting you are saying this --
>
I am not saying this.  I am saying quite the opposite of course.  Oh, 
you're talking about the Sudan now.  Somehow we shifted from responding 
to the beheadings with nukes to somehow nuking the Sudanese into 
stopping their wars.  Two different things of course.  And neither 
action makes any sense at all.

>As pointed out in other messages the death toll would not be millions.
>
You want to nuke Jerusalem.  I think quite a number of people live there.

>
>But I challenge you to present
>a case where the path(s) we are currently on will *not* require
>the ultimate use of nuclear weapons.
>
I challenge you to provide proof that the current "path we are on" will 
not require the immediate sacrifice of 100 virgins to the god Foobar 
from the planet Kroton.  Your question shifts the burden of proof in a 
classically absurd way.  It is *you* who must provide evidence that our 
response to terrorism (or anything going on in the world right now) will 
require nuclear weapons.