Re: (NBC) Ending Terrorism

> Honestly Define Terrorism as Attacks Which Directly or Indirectly Target
>                     Civilians' Regardless of the Perpetrators 

No, terrorism has already been defined. Terrorism is 9-11. It's the Olympic
Games where the Israeli athletes were murdered. It's the old man pushed off the
side of the cruise ship. It is NOT the US bombing military targets and
inadvertently killing civilians. There is no moral equation to solve. Terrorism
is the planning of an act whose purpose is......."let's kill some innocent
people and let's do it because we want to send a message that the innocent are
vulnerable." Terrorism is NOT bombing an Afghan cave. Terrorism IS the WTC. 

>  As long as unequal standards are applied to the judgment of international
>conduct,
>                     violence will remain an acceptable option. 

How can we have anything but unequal standards? We'll ratchet up the
international court thing when the Prime Minister of Malaysia stops lamenting
the fact that there are still Jews left alive in the world and when the Arab
mosques stop preaching the hatred that they do. Right now....its difficult to
trust a good portion of the planet when it comes to determining the difference
between civil and barbaric. 

>Bush administration officials continue to define this as a struggle against
>"evil,"
>                     defining terrorism as a problem solely of small groups
>of "wicked" people.
>                     Instead, we should seek to understand what motivates
>those who attack civilians.

I agree with this portion. Should we ever locate Bin Laden I suggest we ask
him, "why did you attack us and kill innocent civilians?" I suggest this
question come just before he's pushed off the "new" towers in NYC. We can rig
up some special monitoring equipment around his neck, just in case he happens
to answer before he hits the ground. :-)