View Single Post
Old January 9, 2009, 01:38 AM   #19
BuckHammer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Location: Indiana
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
Strange that you would say that to agree with David, since David did not say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckHammer, not David Armstrong
Don't try to stop the terrorist, just let him finish. That way, after he is done, he won't be able make his attack better next time .
Strange that you would say that I said you said that, because I didn't. I said I agreed, then ended that sentence with a period. I began the next sentence with my own words. You did indeed post the passage that I quoted. I was making a witty, sarcastic reference to it. The OP was about CCW, not CIA analysts. If anyone is witnessing what is clearly a violent terrorist act in progress, the way terrorism is effectively prevented is pretty well irrelevant at that point. The threat should be stopped immediately, by civilians if necessary. If a violent terrorist attack is already in progress, then the threat should absolutely be stopped by attacking the terrorist during the attack. This is in contrary to your statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
You don't stop terrorist attacks by attacking the terrorist during the attack because generally he is well into it by the time the act is recognized and halted. Even if you manage to thwart an act you simply give the terrorists better information on how to attack you next time.
You seem to be advocating that all involved should sit on their hands. If this is not what you are implying, then please elaborate, because if so, your post merits much confusion.
__________________
Luck runs out.
Boiler Up!

Last edited by BuckHammer; January 9, 2009 at 01:40 AM. Reason: fixed grammatical error
BuckHammer is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03408 seconds with 8 queries