Don't avoid the subject, GUEST,Neville, by pointing Chamberlain out. I am no appeaser - where in my post did you read "don't get any terrorists"? What I DID say - but you chose to ignore - is that innocents are about to die along with the guilty. And once dead, they are bound to be branded "terrorists", along with the real ones, to avoid the damage to statistics.

But perhaps it is YOU who are the appeaser. Did you think of that? By having no courage to recognise and stand up to the wrongs, and condoning them in the name of some greater good, you are in fact "avoiding rocking the boat".

Flattening Fallujah because there are terrorists inside is an admission of failure (they cannot locate them more accurately than that) and allowing innocents to die along with the guilty is nothing short of a crime, of the type that others have in the past been convicted for by international courts.

But tell me this: If it was discovered that a cell of terrorists intending to blow up say the Capitol were hiding somewhere in a mid-size city, say Baltimore, but you couldn't locate them precisely to stop them, what would you do? Would you flatten Baltimore? Would you allow first some people to leave, after you screened them? No time - this would take days, and the terrorist's plans are imminent.

So would you nuke the place and take out the innocents along with the guilty?

Or is it OK to do the same in Fallujah because they are Iraqis, and their lives are worth less to you?

Put your hand on your heart, pray to your God if you believe, and answer me that.