"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt, it's going to be decisive." - President Bush, in a meeting with Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, September 13, 2001

"This is not a battle between the U.S. and terrorism but between the free and democratic world against terrorism." - Prime Minister Tony Blair, UK

"It's God's responsibility to forgive Bin Laden ... It's our responsibility to arrange the meeting!" -- United States Marines

"Make no mistake, the U.S. will hunt down and punish those responsible." - President George W. Bush

"We'll be patient, we'll be focused, and we will be steadfast in our determination. This battle will take time and resolve but make no mistake about it, we will win." - President George W. Bush

"I don't care, dead or alive — either way, it doesn't matter to me," Bush said. "I don't know whether we're going to get him tomorrow or a month from now or a year from now. I don't really know. But we're going to get him."

In an interview with ABCNEWS' Sam Donaldson, Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "We want him brought to justice. If justice happens to be a 500-pound bomb that lands on him because he wouldn't surrender, well then, justice has been served."

What to do if you fall into a conversation with someone about the terrorist attacks who doesn't believe in retaliation:

Engage in conversation, and ask if military force is appropriate.
When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
Wait until he says something to the effect of - "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."
When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would be awful and he should not cause more violence.
Wait until he agrees, and has pledged not to commit additional violence.
Punch him in the face again, harder this time.
Repeat steps 5 through 8 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

"This is not an issue of any religion, Muslim or otherwise. It is not an issue of any country or any group of people. It has to do totally with terrorism" — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 4, 2001

I found this on a newsgroup a while ago and I think it is the clearest explanation of why the United States is not negotiating with the Taliban:

We have presented our 'proof' to the world courts. The world courts found him guilty as accused or we would not have been able to construct the coalition on such short notice.

Let me see if I can explain this to you in terms you may understand:

Situation: You are visiting a large city with your wife. You walk past an alleyway and are attacked by a gang of thugs. One of them beats you and leaves you severely battered. He then rapes your wife. The rest of the gang holds you down and watches.

You go to the cops. What would you have the cops do?

Call the gang together and ask them to hand the thug over? Then negotiate when they ask the cops to give them absolute proof against the gang member?

Go in and arrest the gang member and bring him into a courtroom?

And what if the gang holes up and uses weapons to protect their gang member from arrest? Should the cops:

Give the gang proof that the gang member is guilty?

Take him by force.

And what if the gang protects him and sends its members out to terrorize the rest of the city to 'put the fear of God' in them should they try to bring the thug to justice?

I really would like to know how you would handle this theoretical situation? I really would.

I don't want to lose any more American lives. None of us do. But, Sweetie, sometimes you have to handle criminals as though they were criminals.

Linda