Flattop:

I'd be interested to hear what you believe the national response to a unilateral act of massive aggression like the civilian attack of last Tuesday should be?

It seems vividly clear to me that there is an organized network of individuals behind it, because of the support, training, and synchronization (not to mention cash) needed to have so many sleeping agents waking up and striking within minutes of each other.

That network of individuals is probably a segment of a larger network, whose common theme is the intent to commit acts of destruction in a terrorist or guerilla fashion against the United States or those nations which have allied themselves with the United States.

The declaration of war lacks the usual predicate, agreed; that is because those who have initiated the attacks are not willing to let themselves be seen, nor their group to be named, nor their location to be found out -- a state of mind that could readily be characterized as cowardly. But never mind that.

Given that such a collection of people exists, and that they are an association because of their agreements on means and general purpose, at least, and that they have indeed commited atrocious criminal acts against large numbers of civilians, here and elsewhere...what do you think we should do?

Send them hamburgers? I am sure they need them.

Sit and talk? They have made it clear they are prepared to resort to extreme subterfuge. Why would they now begin communication in earnest?

Forgive them? Which time? This one? The next?

Do you feel this is not an act of war, to destroy so many lives suddenly, violently, intentionally, in a surprise attack? How would YOU characterize it?

If it is an act of war, and it has shed all the blood available in some 5,000 humans who last Monday morning thought they were living normal, productive lives...what do you recommend as a national response to such an act?

Tactical croissants?

A