| ... about gods. To your opposition, it doesn't matter what *you* think, and vice-versa. You each think the other one is evil, weak, morally bankrupt and should be eliminated. You're not intimidated by them; they're certainly not intimidated by you. The "bigger gun" theory goes by the wayside. The other glitch is the belief in a bigger gun is limited thinking. Someone will always invent a bigger one and a better way to inflict damage. In this case, a fuel-laden 767 is pretty damned impressive. Let's face it, there were far better tactical targets than the WTC. There are far better tactical targets than children. It seems to me that the objective isn't elimination of the opposition--it's inflicting pain and punishment. *That* isn't a Darwinian Survival of the Fittest; it's establishment of rank, and rank won't do any good if the subordinates are eliminated. It also won't do any good if the subordinates are ruled through fear rather than respect. (This is where that "bigger gun" invention comes into play again.) So, is your argument to kill them all, or is it to intimidate them in subservience? Make up your mind. Talking about a big gun is pointless in the former, and the latter has a way of biting you on the ass. Don't count on converting them. If you're going to wage a war, do it smart. Use your resources effectively and don't give away your position by taking potshots. Baski | 
