Rue

Thanks Bon. I appreciate your dialogue too. I hope Andrew understands that many of us who support Israel want Palestinians to have their own nation and live in peace and we want the same thing for them as Israel and we do not think Israel is perfect in this conflict. Both Palestinians and Israelis are trapped by terror and both suffer equally and the pain of Palestinians and Israelis can not be pitted against one another as Figleaf does to make it sound like a sock fight or a pit bull fighting contest with a top and under dog. No one wins in this conflict but I suppose terrrorists as long as their violence can prevent peaceful dialogue.

Buffy since you are providing maps where are the ones with the sites from where the terrorist cell operates from?

"But it still all boils down to that, H A T E. " And with those precise words Besty, I believe you summarized it all.

I will not answer because I think it can not ne answered. Terrorist actions are the result of irrational behaviour. Any explanation given to explain them may be a pretext, excuse, rationalization, justification, etc., but they would only be humans trying to rationalize irrationality, and that is an exercise I won't engage in. To me there can be no reasons why terrorists do what they do, just excuses. To me there is always the choice of engaging in rational dialogue.

They very manner in which you pose the question provides your opinion and answer. I''m not sure how I could have posed the question differently to canvass the subject I am directed toward here. Of course you have already read some of my views. The reason I am asking is that by examining opposing views I can assist people to understand that my view is the correct one. Well now. I would tell yourself to give yourself a hand, but it appears you are already doing that with yourself.

Given Figleaf's admitting his agenda for his post I have deleted my response.

And your analogy? The aboriginal people most certainly consider things occupied. Once again you show how selective you are with the use of the word "occupied" and only use it to refer to your political opinions as to Israel and its actions but with no one else.

They very manner in which you pose the question provides your opinion and answer. Why ask a question you answer? You do this all the time. You ask questions containing your answer and opinion showing everyone you already made up your mind what the answer should be then, when people respond with an answer that does not conform to your preconceived opinion you tell them they are wrong. The fact that you use the words "occupied" and "why should Israel be allowed" make it clear where your head is at. I am not interested in listening to you state the same opinion over and over so excuse me if I pass.

The palestinians are terrorizing the canaanites or the Philistines? Perhaps the Moabites? Nabateans? ...aboriginal peoples of palestine....give me a frickin break. Especially considering the huge migration of Jordanian Arabs into the mandate area between 1900 and 1940..... http://www.meforum.org/article/522 Simply put, arabs are not native to palestine. You mean Jews are aboriginals of the Middle East? Gosh this is confusing. All this time I thought they came from Walmart. Actually the true Arab, i.e., the Beduin Arab travelled thousands upon thousands of miles and no one is sure where they originated, some say India, some say from the Mongolian planes, others say they are a mix of peoples from the Caucasian mountain area and Pesian area-the point is they fucked as they went along so they would be so inter-mixed no one can say for sure what the totality of their parts are. There are many theories to that. What is known is the Arab people are in fact a mix of many peoples and like Jews are considered part of a sub race called semites. People inter-change the word "Arab" for "Muslim" for "Palestinian" or anyone basically who looks Cuban. The majority of Muslims are not even Arabs and some of them are should I say it...caucasian, mongoloid and negroid!!!! Yes imagine that. The actual aboriginal peoples to the area known as Palestine would consist of Jews, then Christians then Druize and Muslims.. All of these peoples would have come from the same semitic peoples. Zoroastreans and Bahaiis two other aboriginal peoples of the Middle East would be more likely in what is today Iran or was called Persia and we know the Zorastreans were around before the Jews who were around before the Christians, then Muslims and Druze. The majority of Muslims who ended up in Palestine were never aboriginal to the area but why let the facts get in the way. My point is Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze all have aboriginal ties to the area known to today as Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza but the vast majority of the people in this area today are in fact not descended from aboriginals of those 4 groups but from outsiders who moved into the area. In fact the vast majority of "Palestinians" were always descended from Muslims who travelled to the MiddlePalestine and were never native from there. So in that respect, today's Jews, Muslims and Christians of the Middle East are all inter-mixed mongrels as is the case everywhere else in the world except for of course those areas where some of us l who are known to visit the Jerry Springer show ike to remain inbred to protect our alleged "pure" blood. The entire world is made up of descendants from bastrards and bastardesses. We are all descended from rape victims, wars, conquests and illegitimate out of wed lock ungodly relationships. I mean imagine that. Next I will say bastards are all children of God and come from God. Then I will say yes one bastard was not really a bastard at all, see his mother was impregnated without sperm. Miracles happen in the Middle East. I mean you have guys building big wooden boats that store thousands of animals and doesn't sink from the shit from the animals, you have bearded angry men climbing mountains, other bearded men smoking dope and having their wives right down what they say in their stoned stupor on leaves and turning that into a religion, and then you have say a child whose mother got pregnant without sperm. Yah its an amazing place the Middle East. A lot of shit happens there.

"As for rockets, the pullout from Gaza was a half-measure which failed to deliver the reasonable expectations of the Palestinians. "\ I love Figleaf how you sit and speak as if you know what the reasonable expectations of the Palestinian people are. You of course are an expert on how they all think and can speek for all of them collectively and lump their opinions in one neat black and white concept because you are a psychic, a genius, and of course as well all know this is all so simple-Israel poo poo kaka, Palestinians good good good and victims. Right? Your attempt ti justify the convenant of Hamas and its actions are with due respect as idiotic as Buffy saying the hatred for Israel has nothing to do with hatred for the state being Jewish. I suggest you, Buffy, and Kuzzad find Higgly and get together and start a Israel poo poo ka ka seminar and teach the world. You guys are all in my opinion brilliant and gifted and add so much depth to the analysis of the conflict. I bow to your wisdom. Here all this time I thought the hatred for the state of Israel was because it was Jewish. Imagine me getting that all wrong until Buffy straightened me out. And then you. Well thanks to you I now understand no Hamas's convenant to wipe out Israel no no no its not true, they only want to shoot missiles and kill civilians not to eradicate Israel and take it all back, not at all, its just because they are being reasonable I mean its all so obvious now. Thanks to you. I understand it all now Figleaf. Its reasonable to shoot missiles at civilians. Perfectly reasonable because the people being shot at are poo poo kaka right? Poo poo ka ka people deserve to die. Yah very reasonable. It all makes sense. Your presumptions and arrogance to think you know what Palestinians think and feel and can represent them with such simplistic neat black and white assumptions is past arrogance it is absurd. I would love to see Figleaf in the Gaza telling Palestinians, its me your saviour Figleaf!!!Yes I understand!!! I know!!! You want to kill Israelis because its reasonable!!!!!!Its reasonable to kill!!!! Yes reasonable I say!!! Get them!!!!!Poo poo ka ka people. Blow them up!!!! Its reasonable!!! Everyone now lets sing together, that Israeli Jew, you know he is poo poo, blow him up good, that won't be misunderstood.....bang pow smash, no problem Iran will fund your missiles with cash! No need to get huffy, you are supported by Buffy! and you know who else is glad, your ally Kuzadd! oh good grief don't forget me Figleaf! I have news for you Figleaf. if you ever bothered to speak with Palestinians, particularly those that have suffered, you would not dare patronize them and talk about them as violent simplistic bafoons like you do. You may not think so, but not all Palestinians particularly reasonable ones agree with what Hamas is doing and do not appreciate being exploited by it. But then in your simplistic world they are all one angry group of victims who want to kill right Figleaf? Read your words. But then it would never dawn on you just how patronizing and condescending your comments are to Palestinians because you are after all their spokesperson and have the right let alone the brilliant psychic ability to speak on their behalf and know how they feel. Figleaf, Prophet of the reasonable Palestinian peoples. Figleaf the prophet who tells us all what reasonability is.

Why sure Buffy has it all figured out, i.e., "These boycotts are largely symbolic, and they are a response to the ongoing illegal occupation and oppression of the aboriginal populations of Palestine." In case you haven't noticed Buffy Jews are aboriginal to the Middle East. So are Christians. But hey why let that bother you right? "It's not anti-semetic - get over your paranoid self delusions." Many of the comments are in fact anti-semitic as they attack all Jews and make negative comments and accusations about Jews in general. Of course again you have read the comments from all the people involved in the boycott so you would know right? "Israel is NOT disliked because she is a Jewish state - she is disliked because of her actions towards those under her occupation. " Now you are talking drivel. For you to say such a purile thing when you have read the covenant of Hamas is embarassing. "But go ahead jbg - spin spin spin your horse hooey." And what are you spinning. I mean you really want anyone to take you seriously when you make comments like Israel is not disliked because its a Jewish state? The whole point, the whole pith and substance of the hatred flows from the concept that Jews should not have a state and for yout o deny that or pretend that is not the conflict is past being absurd or selective its just plain ridiculous. But like you said Buffy, spin spin spin your horse hooey. (Horse hooey....can you please not use such language!)

This coming from a man who makes it a point whenever possible to suggest aboriginal peoples are unjustified in seeking redress under Canadian law. I guess your being Canadian and your concept of Canadian citizenship is nothing more then a crass opportunity for you to manipulate for what ever suits you at any given moment. Listen up. If you feel no loyalty to Canada, you have zero business lecturing aboriginal peoples or any Canadian on anything because you admit you feel no responsibility to your fellow Canadians so you have no right to expect any of the benefits that come from Canadian citizenship. No Canadian citizenship is not something that ony works if it is to suit you. How you twist swearing allegiance to 'bowing to immigrants" is of course anyone's guess. No it is not stupid to swear an allegiance to the country you expect citizenship from. Citizenship is not a right, it is a privilege. It means if we want to enjoy the benefits of citizenship there is a two way contract-it is n't just given to you and you have no obligation to giving anything back and these imigrants you lump in one category and dismiss are more than willing to do this precisely because unlike you they do not take their citizenship for granted. Its easy to be smug about rights you take for granted and conside your God given rights. Charles Roach's arguement is a legal one as to the choice of which symbol to use as head of state-it is not about him saying he does not believe in swearing an allegiance, he is simply arguing who Canadians should swear to. As much as I disagree with him, I respect his sticking to a principle all these years and unlike you he respects Canadian citizenship and its laws and that is precisely why he engages in this debate. You think it stuipid to show respect to fellow Canadians and the vision of Canada? Then you expect people to take you seriously? Man and to think you think you are in the position to lecture aboriginal people on how good they have it after such a comment. What a joke.

I can't understand why it is NOT official policy that all military personnel be single rather than married. We want fighters, not emotionally charged family men burdened with wives and children in a dangerous occupation. Ah I get it!!! SInce gays in your opinion can't get married, they could then under your definition all join the Army! I got it! There is a place for them in Canadian society after all!

Well you actually are stating what conventional international law tries to and that is if someone at the tim they engage in an act are fighting invading soldiers to defend their nation, then it would be considered a legitimate act of war and the person when captured is a pow and is supposed to be released at the end of the hostilities when a peace treaty is signed or there is a cessation of hostilities. The problem is in these cases, the combatants are not part of soevrign nation armed forces. They are in fact people who are not even citizens of a country who enter that country and join terrorist cells which by their nature are vigilante groups operating outside the law. Sometimes these combatants or terrorists enagge in legitimate acts of war, i.e., fighting soldiers of other armies wearing uniforms, other times they engage in illegal acts by not wearing uniforms and attacking civilians. International conventions as to warfare did not contemplate the blurring of roles and terrorists who can switch back and forth from legitimate to illegitimate acts of war. Now before you say the US like terrorists are foreigners, unfortunately whether people agree or not, under international law, the US and other armed forces are legally in Afghanistan. Taliban native to Afghanistan would be one thing. Taliban or terrorists who come from other nations would be another. Non Afghani natives engaged in terror or even war with the US legitimately are not in the country legally and so from that perspective have no legal right to engage in war which again was not contemplated by international law which assumed only natives of countries at war would be fighting each other and these wars would not be engaged by people outside armies of the countries at war and say by illegals who sneak into countries and then joing terror cells. It is not easy. Your point though goes to show we must redefine under international law how to define illegal from legal combatants and that is not going to be easy and is precisely why you have people like Colin Powell and most lawyers in the US Jag unit saying Kadr is a military prisoner, but civilians such as Dick Chaney saying he should be treated as a civilian. Technically he was a civilian terrorist illegally in the country but at the time he engaged in his action, it would be considered a legitimate act of war in the sense that Kadr had not initiated the precise attack on where he was and responded to an armed attack. International law would say the US attack initiating the incident was legal but that Kadr would have the right to defend his life. Its a mucky confusing legal definition that makes little sense. The bottom line is he was a child exploited for political purposes. He was a child of a terrorist family brought up to believe terror was legitimate. Do we treat a boy brought up with such hatred and presumably under the control of his terrorist father say the same way we treat an adult terrorist? It is admirable to think we should show compassion and sympathy for children exploited to engage in war but froma purely practical point of view it may not be possible to think we can apply the Youth Justice Act to such incidents. First of all they are happening overseas. Secondly the degree of violence is so severe it goes past say simple non violent crimes of a misguided youth. Child terrorist issues are not going to be easy to define legally because of their very nature. One thing is for sure, you would not want sucha "boy" living next to you if you heard him saying his aim was to destroy you and your family and anyone of the same religion as you.

How very turgidly Canadian to scoff at the US. How very naive to see the US as unfree. Your enslaved mind blinds you.

"If one is to assume that the only " right " way to wage war is to field armies, then would we not have to condemn the resistance movements of the Second World War?" You respond by fusing or mixing two distinct things, guerialla or resistance units that only enagge in war against soldiers or military targets with terrorists. The difference? The resistance or underground in Europe did not have convenants and charters calling for the world wide murder and death of specific religious or ethnic groups nor is your comparison of the tactics used by the World War Two underground to what Hamas does even deserve a response. That said, even the resistance movements may have engaged in illegal or criminal activities as would conventional soldiers. What you refer to as the "right" way is your phrase. Some of us believe any use of murder or violence is not right. "I am certainly not going to do that." You did precisely that my equating what the resistance did in World War Two to what terrorist cells are doing today. You in fact insult the memories of people in the resistance who did not and would never engage in what Hamas or PFLP or Hezbollah do. "In terms of the second point, I thought Yasser's Al Fatah was the controlling power of the PLO. So, it would seem odd to think that the other groups would say to themselves, " Well, Fatah has all this money that they squirreled away to make themselves rich. I guess we'll just sit back and relax and wait for them to give it back! "" Hello can you please try read about the PLO? It was/is an umbrella organization of over 300 autonomous cells each with their own leader doing their own thing often at cross purposes to one another and whose only thing in common is the desire to eradicate Israel. Arafat controlled Al Fatah nothing else. Andyes when the other groups saw Arafat funneling money they lined up for their percentage of kickbacks. Where have you been? Would it not dawn on you some of these so called impoverished terrorists took money under false pretenses and used their liberation guises to legitimize their organized criminal activities and no they weren't all thinking of Palestinian civilians. One of the reasons Hamas came about was precisely because the Muslim Brotherhood was disgusted at the wide spread coruption. Now Hamas today, has fallen for the same internal coruption. "Lastly, why do you assume that when I said a one state solution, I meant an Islamic state? " Oh here comes the I never meant anything by what I said denial. So tell me. Show me a state in the Middle East that is a one state government other then Israel that is not Muslim? Um uh um, no problem the Muslim world will have no problem with a non Muslim country in their midst. No wait. They do have a problem.Oops. "Yet, we have proof that it is possible for Muslims to get behind secular government, like in Turkey." In case you haven't noticed, comparing the Muslim Middle East countries to Turkey is absolutely ludicrous given the Turkish approach to Islam and the rest of the Middle East's approach to Islam is like comparing apples to oranges. Not only that to suggest Turkey is a model of the one state you suggest is way past absurd. But if you want to believe Turkey is a role model for the world be my guest. In regards to your suggestions about Israelis being progressive I must say you are even more progressive then any Israeli I have ever known and so I call on you to take every single Jew and Muslim out of the Middle East and settle them in your neighbourhood and show them how it is done. Another arm chair expert lectures others how to be tolerant. Why don't you start in your own neighbourhood. What is it with this need to act like missionaries and lecture Israel and of course all Middle East Muslims using your analogy? Do you feel morally superior or in the position to be able to lecture them? Do you have need to proseltyze people? By any chance do you have a beard or a holy book in your hand when you make these comments? Do you stand on a mountain? You know I am sorry to make such comments, but your lecturing gets absurd because it assumes you know better and are in the position to lecture people in a conflict how to get along. Sorry, and I did not mean to be personal but I have to take what you say tonque in cheek. Any solution for peace will come not from you or so called experts like you who lecture from safe cushy places, but by the people on both sides of the conflict who have suffered and continue to suffer and no they are not in your head space precisely because they are tramatized and both sides will need a considerable period of time seperated before they can heal and even talk about joint projects. No you can't take victims of terrorists on both sides and shove them into one country. That is ludicrous.

I wouldn't go that far, but the Boxing Day Tsunami was definitely an Israeli operation. Stop blowing my cover. No. You actually are making it appear you are blowing my cover in a cover to my cover operation and now I am covering your cover of my cover by this post.

Another fine example of the debating skills so eloquantly displayed here! Argus did you mispell your moniker? Forget an 'e' somewhere? Why would something so obviously off the wall be dignified with a serious response. The argument is a ludicrous, sick joke, except it's not funny. JBG you are part of the conspiracy so watch it. Signed, fellow conspirator. p.s. I know how you make matzoh.

Irony example: misspelling accurately Pathos example: A conspiracy nut asking to be taken seriously on a political discussion board. Dance due I spelled deluded dilluded and I make lots of spelling mistakes but I would hope you forgive moi. I would take a bow but I am worried some posters may interperate that as a chance to kick or mate.

Well, if they don't, I guess the operative questions would be " Why not? " and " What should be done about it? " . If the two-state solution cannot work, I guess there is always the one-state solution. Yes there is ample precedent for democratic states in the Middle East and throughout the Muslim world. Muslim theocracies are nothing but tolerant of their non Muslim minorities. They do not engage in humanr ights violations against say Hindus or Christians with dark skin or Bahaiis, or gays, or communists, or Jews, or trade unionists, or feminists. They avoid coruption, political police forces and enjoy open elections. Yes you are right. A One state solution along the lines of Iran, Syria, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Algeria, would work. Brilliant. I wish I had thought of that.

More informed people than you or I have already gone to great lengths discussing the origins of terrorism as a tool for asymetrical warfare. For all the talk of Iran and Syria supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, you do not see the Iranian Revolutionary Guard blowing themselves up in pizza parlours because they actually *have* the resources to field armies. Palestinians do not. With due respect what you said makes absolutely no sense. Hamas, PFLP, Islamic Jihad, Al Fatah, Hezbollah, are funded with millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, and an elaborate network of charities and businesses. To say terrorists simply engage in terror because they can't accord to fight conventionally is a silly thing to say and you should be embarassed to say it. Terrorists choose the tactics they do not because they do not have enough money but precisely because they feel they can't win a conventional war-no more, no less. Your assumption they are poor victims left to no other means to express themselves is a joke. Would it also not dawn on you that people without money have other means other then terror even if it was the case they were poor? Using your anaology how do you explain what Martin Luther King or Ghandi were able to achieve? You really need to find out just how much financial funding goes on with terrorist groups and what financial resources are under their domain before you make such comments. May I suggest you first start by finding out how many billions the PLO misappropriated and placed in French and Swiss bank accounts fueled by selling heroin and hash hish. May I also suggest you find out just how much money Hezbollah gets from Iran or the fact for example just this year Sudan provided $10 million in funds to Hamas.

Not if the reason you hate them is because they are violent extremists. It would be racist I suppose if you hated them because you hate the fact that they are Muslim. Many Muslims hate Muslim extremists too. I think it is no different then say here in Canada. When we see a person commit a crime, and we point out they are black or white, the question is does that make it racist? To me when we get into the ism words like racism, sexism, etc., are we not talking about the exercise of using negative generalizations to negate an entire perceived group of people? No one complains if we do it in a positive manner, its when we do it in a negative manner. As a Jew I find it offensive and anti-semitic when people who claim to be criticizing Israeli foreign policy or Israeli government policies, use the word "Jew" and engage in negative comments that generalize all Jews in a negative way and has having the same negative characteristics when criticizing Israel. I think for example, when discussing Muslim terrorists, what happens is some people don't just limit their criticism to the terrorist behaviour, they go the next step and start generalizing ALL Muslims believe in terrorism and its a religious thing. I think its true many terrorists are Muslim and we often use the word Muslim terrorist to differentiate it from say terrorists in other parts of the world, but we all know the line between Mulsims and terrorists has been blurred by the constant use of the word in a negative way, just as the word Zionist has now become the popular way to make a disparaging codified reference to a negative generalization about Jews who support Israel and live outside Israel. To me I read what people say and look for the context of how they say it. It usually becomes evident by the number of generalizations they make and whether those generalizations are negative or positive, where there head is at. I noted today there was a story in the Toronto Star about some lady in Vaughan, Ontario running a questionable day care operation and at the end of the story, Star writer chose to describe her as a Jew from the Ukraine. It had nothing to do with the story at all so I would question why was it placed in the story and does placing it in the story do nothing more then incite people to hate her because she is a new Canadian immigrant from the Ukraine who is Jewish since the rest of the story is about negative things she has done. I think say black people are concerned that when crime is reported it is always pointed out the criminals are black and they feel they only read negative stories about blacks in that context and never positive ones. There is no doubt our press likes to dwell on the negative and not the positive, and so when it identifies race or ethnicity, etc., its often done in a negative story. So does that fuel racism and intolerance or are the press merely doing their job and reporting things? I would say when we criticize groups or people we simply need to take care not to generalize about an entire group of people. I know when I wish to discuss terrorists in the Middle East, I try to say Hamas or PFLP, but there are so many terrorist groups I sometimes refer to them as Muslim terrorists or Muslim fundamentalist groups. It may very well be Muslims feel this keeps muddying their good name buy connecting it to terrorists who they do not feel represent their religion or views, and so I think its understandable why people whose religion or group is group referred and connected to negative things, get nervous and concerned. No I am not sure if there will ever be a way to speak in a way that does not offend someone.

I have stated in other posts and will state it again the use of words like "terrorism" and "genocide" have become meaningless as people now use them constantly in many subjective contexts to gain the moral upper ground when arguing or advocating their political views. We also see people who try sanitize terrorism by using sanitary non threatening words like "freedom fighting" or "liberation fighting" " or struggle to achieve self-determination", etc. From a legal perspective the international treaties regarding terrorism are outmoded. The international conventions contemplate conflict between two uniformed military entities and that these military entities are armed forces of sovereign governments. Today most terrorist cells are in fact para-military organizations. They are not armed forces of a soevriegn nation. They are in fact vigilante groups, autonomous operations that act outside the law. Their operatives do not wear uniforms and in fact use the guise of pregnant women, old women,t he disabled, journalism trucks, children, hospitals, ambulances, moques, schools, community centres, nun's uniforms, priest uniforms, rabbiah uniforms, etc., to disguise themselves. More importantly they deliberately target civilians not soldiers and even if they do target soldiers they do not fight one on one but passively by placing bombs avoiding direct confrontation. New international laws are needed to update what terrorism is and provide it a definition that can't be misappropriated every time someone feels they can use such a term to criticize someone they disagree with. To me a terrrorist organization is Hamas. It has a charter that calls for violence and killings of innocent civilians. Terrorists engage in actions designed to frighten people en masse. Its part of the psychological component to terror-the idea is that if you scare and traumitize people by your actions you can defeat them. There is a fine line when a conventional army engages in psychological warfare and terrorism and that is why the old conventions are outmoded. There is a very fine line legally between terrorists and say a conventional soldier torturing a civilian to get information if that civilian is innocent. Its not an easy thing to define legally. While organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah make it easy to define because of their charters, it gets quite murky when we have terrorist cells using charities and corporations to raise funds for them or when they use banks to launder their money.

BC Chick you mistated what I said. I stated and quite frankly I don't know how you could manage to do that after re-writing it again. I stated; "To me a terrorist is someone who tries to justify savagery by saying it has justifiable reasons." You then misquoted it by saying; "It wasn't my definition, it was Rue's. Rue said that terrorism is justifying savagery and violence." I never stated what you stated. You completely altered what I stated and gave it a different meaning. What I find funny, is that you quoted me verbatum, then misquote and change the words? Why? There is a huge difference in what I stated and what you have. With due respect BC Chick it would appear you are either; 1-trying to discredit what I said by changing it; 2-in a rather clumsy way are trying rationalize or intellectualize in an effort to make terrorism seem normal and something everyone does. I go back to what I stated. A terrorist engages in violence to express his or her political will. Then they use political words to explain why they did what they did. There is nothing complicated about what I said. Trying to justify savagery and violence after the fact with political words is what I am getting at. Your spin that terrorism justifies savagery and violence is the exact opposite of what I said. I will say it in even simpler terms-NO political opinion can or should be justified by expressing it with violence or acts of terror. To me terrorism is nothing more then the act of using violence and terror to express political will. No more, no less. Now your comments are absurd. To suggest we are all terrorists is absurd. The fact is each day, the vast majority of us may disagree with each other politically, but do not choose to kill each other or engage in terror and violence to express our will. We instead vote, or become involved in social causes or write on political forums, or do nothing etc. No we are notall terroristsin precisely because we choose to rational and reason over emotion and physical action and repress or primative and primal need to kill and be violent in order to live in a civil society and co-exist with one another. Your are taking the fact that humans may very well have a primal urge to kill or destroy and twisting that to suggest its normal for people to have terrrorist tendencies. Most of us agree a person who resorts to violence and killings has somehow failed to be civilized. I most certainly do not agree with your attempted effort to intellectualize terrorism and misquote my words to do so.