I'm not indifferent either, but there's nothing I can say about this that hasn't been said much better by many others including you. We are at War. We must defeat the terrorists. And, yes, I too am a disqualified 50 year old.

Pim Fortuyn again. With his death and in his death, the battle lines were drawn....

Interesting picture of the man. Bald and smoking a cigar -- exactly like that other prophet of the West's debacle, Oswald Spengler.

Let's see. It was terrorists who fought the British during the American revolution. It was terrorists who fought the British to establish the Irish Republic. And it was terrorists who bombed Dresden on Feb 14-15, 1945, in which untold numbers of civilians were killed. And that's not to mention the aerial bombings of Munich, Cologne, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, etc., etc., etc., virtually none of which had any effect on the conduct that war, but which resulted in the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of civilians. Terrorism has a long history.

Oh, and it was terrorists who napalmed the little Vietnamese girl shown in that famous picture during the American war on Vietnam.

You want people who have supported of terrorism? Look in the mirror. Americans aren't particularly innocent in regards terrorism.

I'm glad I don't believe in collective guilt, Raj. Otherwise I might look in the mirror and see Michael Moore!

Sorry, Eric. You and more than a few Americans seem to believe that terrorism is something new. Let me disabuse you of that notion: it isn't.

Putting words in my mouth does not help your argument; I never said terrorism is new. Such savagery is as old as man. If you think all Americans are guilty of terrorism because a girl was napalmed in Vietnam, well, it's pointless debating you -- although you might have fun if you started your own blog.

I haven't seen Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" so i can't dispute anything you say about it. But is it really encouraging terrorism to compare modern terrorists with the American Revolutionaries? I just mean, isn't that a classical way of discussing issues? Please tell me if i am wrong, but it seems like you are saying that just by critixizing the current Administration, Moore is encouraging terrorism. That's like Bush saying "you're with us or with the terrorists" which was when i realized that Bush had no clue about freedom. But i expect better arguments here.

Perhaps you would like to change some of your wording or i am misunderstanding things?

"The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow – and they will win."

-- Michael Moore

If I were a terrorist, I'd be encouraged.

(I've added "xyz-abc", to mark my comments.)

Again, maybe i'm missing something, but i don't see the "terrorist" in that Michael Moore comment. Moore is saying that the Iraqis now are fighting against an "occupation" as they see it. Whether that's true or not, i hope you are not trying to equate the local actions in Iraq now, with those terrorists (no quotes) who killed people on September 11. I don't know what's going on in Iraq right now, but i saw with my own eyes (with the help of some cameras), thousands of non-combatants killed. Killing non-combatants is terrorism. I'm against killing US soldiers, but they are soldiers and it is arguable (from different perspectives) who is "the enemy" there.

Probably i've missed something here, but that was not a very good example. As a person who loves freedom, i am afraid of the current administration's equating criticism with terrorism and would be surprised to find you, at ClassicalValues.com doing the same. I will have to see the film, i suppose, to "understand", but i'm disappointed that you couldn't make that clear for me.

The Chechen terrorists, those who behead civilians in Iraq, AND those who carried out the 9/11 attacks all share the belief that civilians (including children) are approriate targets. They all claim to be fighting various forms of what they call "occupation."

I'm glad we agree that killing non-combatants is terrorism. I don't know anyone who seriously maintains that criticism is terrorism (least of all myself). Please bear in mind that the purpose of my post was to remind readers that I don't care for the killing of children, and I am sick to death of those who offer excuses and moral equivalency arguments. They're not terrorists though -- and they have just as much right to free speech as cheerleaders at a football game.

raj has a point, anyone can view anybody involved in war as a terrorist. I guess it all depends on what side you are on. I can't blame the terrorists for how they conduct the war, they don't have any tanks or airplanes to use so terror will suffice for them. Unfortunately for them, their methods are going down a path that Japan followed when they attacked PH. And raj also points out something that we did effectively in WWII that we aren't doing as well these days, that is putting your foot on the enemy's throat and crushing it. Your enemies will continue to fight until they know that they are defeated. What we should do is step it up a notch or two and let them figure things out while they sit in their own ruin. There are all kinds of books written by defeated soldiers of WWII that describe the devastating effect that flattened home cities had on the front lines.

Excellent points raj!