On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 13:21:29 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:47:48 -0500, *JimH* wrote:


Sure he did. His actions indicated he was intent on killing hundreds.

No, Jim, his actions were *misinterpreted* as indicating he was intent on
killing hundreds. If that was his intention, he would have needed a way
to accomplish it. He didn't, no bomb, no weapons.

Again, the Air Marshals may have been justified in the use of deadly
force, but this man did not "deserve" to be killed.

Kinda like everyone 'misinterpreting' Saddam's weapons and intent? So Bush may have been justified
in his attack, but Saddam really didn't 'deserve' to be attacked?

--
John H

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Wishing you Peace, Fellowship, and Good Humor as we celebrate the birth of OUR Lord, Jesus Christ on the Christmas Holy Day.