"Bill G." wrote:

Terrorism in your case is just a matter of semantics. If a country has
a military, does that somehow make it's killing of women and children
more legitimate? Arafat is a democratically elected leader, as is
Aslan Mashkadov. Why are their soldiers labeled "terrorists"? Because
they lack a significant financial backing?

Are you insane? Drunk? What is it? I call evil people who drive a car into a populated area
with the intent to blow up anyone they can, children, women, men, husbands,wives etc... an
evil psychotic terrorist. I don't care what politics you have decided to color the
intention with. It is wrong, and defending it, believing them to be *okay* because of
purpose or as *their means to an end* is absolutely the most horrific twisted thinking you
can come up with.

Perhaps you want one of your children to be part of what happen in the Chechnya school this
week? You know...they were *freedom fighters* Or maybe you'd like to move to Sudan (who has
a military) and enjoy the brutality and starvation and murder. It's all for the better
cause of freedom in life isn't it?


--
Nathan

"Imagine if there were no Hypothetical Situations"