Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre
It's the classic move when having a debate such as this.
Those that argue for in-action can prove their case for doing nothing, by doing nothing. Even though the potential outcome of doing nothing is very dangerous.
They can then goad those that call for action, to undertake action - even though all we are doing is debating the issue - and if no action is taken they claim victory.
Not putting their money where there mouth is...................
|
No. I've called you out on your words and now you're back-pedalling.
And that's just it, I've not suggested we "do nothing". In fact I've not suggested anything other than people think of the consequences of their actions.
There has been little or no 'debate' about this - the vast majority have suggested the media gets in the terrorists' faces and up the ante. If someone supports that sort of action (as is their right) then at the very least they ought to do their bit, rather be an armchair expert safely in their own homes.
This reminds me of that bit in Life of Brian where John Cleese's character issues the orders but won't take part in the kidnapping because he has a "bad back"....
---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:25 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy
That'd be a pretty low thing to do, cheap point scoring over an issue such as this when the bodies are hardly even cold
|
Cheap point scoring? I'm asking you to back up your words with actions, that's all and the fact you seem to take issue with it speaks volumes.