See, here's the place where you and I fundamentally disagree. Intentions do not necessarily equate to a crime. Go read Orwell's "1984" sometime, pay attention to the concept of a thought-crime, because that's what you're advocating here.

For nearly half a century, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had nuclear weapons that were pointed at us. Under your rules, Kyle, we should have attacked them. Why didn't we? Because it was a BAD IDEA. Same thing here - if we take out one terrorist cell, you better believe there are dozens out there ready to pick up where the others left off, and the tighter you squeeze, the more that will slip through your fingers.

I'm all for going after countries that pose a concrete, palpable threat to us. But batting at shadows and phantoms is more than a waste of our time, it's further entrenching the view of the U.S. as the "Great Satan".

Three Points

1.) I've read 1984, as well as Orwell's other famous works, and I'm most definitely not advocating thought-crime. The phase "looking for the means" clearly defines action. I don't really give a crap if somebody hates my guts with every atom of their body, but if they chanting about killing me while frantically searching for a gun, I tend to take a little more notice. If you're really looking for thought-crime, go look through the archive of "hate crime" legislation.

2.) We didn't attack the Soviets because it would mean the end of the world. My rules only apply to the unique situation of terrorism, only to those who hide in the shadowy places of the world, and only to those who only purpose is the destruction of American lives and property.

3.) These terrorist groups have already attacked multiple times, We shouldn't just sit back and wait for it to happen again. As for the "dozens of terrorist cells out there ready to pick up where the others left of"? They're going to die no matter what; it’s just a question of when/where, either later on a crowded street with hundreds of innocents around, or now at the point of our guns.

It would suck to have to combat generation after generation of terrorists, but given the live-in-fear alternative, the choice is clear to me.

Another thought: when you deal with terrorists, but you must be aware that they will always be "shadows and phantoms" as you put it juby. Another thing to consider is that "we" (i.e. the government) probably knows a lot more about locations and identities they "we" (the people) are aware of.