Rather than replying individually & repeating myself, I'm replying to everyone here, rather than just Jim.

>I'll sum up with the observation that IF this was any kind of preemptive self-defense action, then it was surely the most ill-conceived notion of that type in the history of man-kind! Bar none.
>
>Jim Nelson

I will agree there, in no way do I condone what has happened, but am trying to understand why it happened. Until the reasons why the event happened, there will always be the threat that it will happen again.

I read all the suggestions of use of force here, but they are not the answer. How do you know when enough force has been used ? Can you really believe any one when they say "OK, we give in, we will agree to your demands" ? At the end of it all, the real reasons are still there & the terrorists will bide their time, & live amongst us, until complacency sinks in & the time is right to strike again.

Whatever people think of my views, I would like to see those that are guilty punished for what they have done. I would also like to live in a future world where the likelihood of such an event happening again is minimised. It has been suggested that I am living in cloud-cuckoo land for thinking that more peaceful solutions will achieve that objective, personally, I think that is where those who promote force as a solution are living.

What I keep thinking about is what would have happened if it were the other way round, if news came to the US that a high-ranking Afghan official had been discussing an attack on America with a Pakistani official. What sort of level of response would the US government made ? Would they have the targeted centres of military & government - I think that the answer to that would be yes. Would they have taken action to destabilise the economy of the country making it more difficult to fund a response, possibly. Would they have gone for targets with high symbolic value to the people in that country - possibly.

You might argue that far fewer innocent people would have been killed by the US, but that would have been for many reasons, including the high tech weapons & the lower population density. Without access to high-tech precision weapons, they used what was available to them.

The rhetoric against Bin Laden, & the military build up to catch just one man is only making this persons reputation grow. Regardless of the reasons behind the military build up, much of the media are presenting it as all for catching this one man, this is what the world sees. Win or lose on this one, you have created an incredible icon for those that believe in him. If he gets away then there is the obvious propaganda value there, if he is caught then it will be remembered by his followers that it took thousands of soldiers & hundreds of war planes from the worlds super power to catch just one man.

As to the growing reports that the action was years in the planning & practice runs had been done, it is worrying that with all the money the US spends on its intelligence services this could have gone unnoticed. Was this complacency (its never happened before, so its no real problem) or arrogance (nobody would have the nerve) on the part of those running the intelligence service.

I wont apologise for asking questions or for being provocative. I am disgusted & angry at what happened & want to stop anything like it happening again, anywhere in the world. I am sufficiently grounded in reality to know that this is impossible, either with force or by peacable methods. Difficult questions need to be asked & I beieve they should be openly asked & debated - you may not agree with my views or I with yours, but both should be heard.

In seeking justice for the dead or simply avenging their deaths, how many more people is it acceptable to be killed. How many of our own soldiers are we prepared to see die ?