So that fool lit his crotch on fire because of those bad, bad Americans. He's too much of a coward to attack military targets so he furthers Islam by murdering women, children, and innocent civilians.

Are you trying to say he"s justified??!!!!!  Revolutionaries attack military targets; terrorists attack civilians and the most vulnerable. Revolutionaries are sometimes heroes, but terrorists are always vicious cowards.

You are claiming garbage from your fanatical anti-American websites as facts and continually painting the Americans, British, and Canadians as the villians.

Pakistan is corrupt, true. But there is no government or party in that region that is NOT corrupt. The legitimate government there is fighting Tribalist, Islamic fanatics that are far, far worse. The best the West can do is encourage the least corrupt pack of bandits - the same way we choose political parties here.

If the Taliban take over Pakistan, the slaughter of innocents will rival the Holocaust, if not worse. And half their population will be thrown into a bondage worse than slavery. (if they aren't there now).

You seem to believe that everything will be hunky dory if the west just packed up and went home. What ridiculous fantasy!

It makes sense they picked a complete loser that no one would miss if he blew himself up , too bad he didn't when he was putting on the crotch bomb at home ......

Terrorists are always vicious cowards? Really? So are the Americans and British and French and Russians all vicious cowards for the terror they've spread in aeirial bombing that killed at least hundreds of thousands in recent years? Is a man who bombs civilians from 5000 feet a hero?  Is a man who commits suicide in the act of killing a coward?

Look. I don't give  a damn for pro american or anti american or pro terrorist or antiterrorist. i I don't live in your medieval world of spirits and fairies and angels and devils. Try to remember that.

In this case, most of the press did not report the extended involvement (not just recent) of American forces in Yemen. We may or may not approve of their presence but that's not the point. The point is they are there. There is a war on. Many people have been killed.

It's not unusual to retaliate when you're getting killed. When the trade towers were hit, the US reponded by bombing and then invading Afghanistan. When moslems are killed, some of them respond with terrorism.

We're not dealing with angels and devils or any of that pro and anti crap. We're trying deal with the reality of how people live.

Instead of doing that, we get new media that report only part of the story - as if the US had bombed Afghanistan, but the Russian news in reporting it did not mention the attack on the trade towers.

We have a news media which generate hatred - as you can read in your own posts - a hatred based on the medieval world of good and evil spirits.

The consequence has been a rapid spread of wars - now going on in at least four countries with Iran almost sure to follow. In the process, the terrorists are actually gaining support.

Stop pretending you're clint eastwood for a minute, and think of where this is going. Western forces cannot be stretched much further. The US forces overseas are already close to half mercenaries. Nor can the western economies stand the economic strain.

Now, Israel wants a war with Iran. (Please don't waste your time calling me an anti semite. I really have no time for that nonsense.) Israeli leaders have said publicly that want a war, and they have also said they need to use tactical nukes to do it.

Actually, Israel is the best placed country in the world to use nukes. If it were done by a major power like the US, China, Russia, India - the chances of instant retaliation would be far too great. A country with only  a few bombs cannot do it because it knows it would be obliterated in return (oh, i know. they're stupid, not like us.)

Israel has a considerable supply, enough so it can use a few, and still have over 200 for retaliation against anybody who objects. It also knows the us cannot permit such an attack on Israel.

Once that happens, tactical nukes come in for general use.

But I bet you'd rather talk about good and evil spirits, and call people names like anti american and coward. You're wasting that sort of babble on me. I live in a world of real people.

Ooh Judds - revolutionaries attack military targets? In the whole history of revolution, I would find it hard to get a single case supporting that. The French revolution killed far more cvilians than solciers.  In fact, it was the french revolution that formally invented terrorism? Remember the reight of terror?

The American revolution had gangs called Sons of Liberty - whose normal targets were civilians who were on the British side - or simply rich enough to be worth robbing.

read up on some of the activities of the reolutionay Cromwell.

Stalin was a revolutionary. He killed more than the holocaust.

The Taliban will retaliate if it wins? Yep. What do you think will happen with the "democratic government" we created wins?

It's very kind of you to express concern for the Afghan people. But they never invited the US to invade them, or to set up the opium barons, or to bomg their cities, and to install a war lord indentical to the taliban as their democractic leader.

should we siimply walk away? That's what's going to happen. That or nuclear war. In ten years, a huge US army with full equipment has not be able to contain a relatively tiny band of hill fighters. What do you think it will be like when they add Pakistan to the load - as they are already doing?

Read some history. For four hundred years we won these colonial wars with ease. Since 1945, we have lost most of them - and the others have been stunningly bloody and, worse expensive.

Should we just walk away. Hell, no. Clint Eastwood would never walk away. He'd just go butting in everywhere as if he had a perfect right to go into any country he felt like, killing however he felt like, and setting up whatever government he liked - and taking the oil.

That is the way we did it for hundreds of years. But it's over. get used to it.

Or, if you insist on believing in your medieval world of good and bad spirits - carry a big cross wherever you go to keep the bad ones away.

I don't buy your figures for starters.

If the governments got out of all foreign countries, the most vicious and brutal groups would take over the more vulnerable ones, then sell out to the worst sociopaths in the world - Free Enterprise. The worst kind of foreign interference in Africa and even North America came from civilian businesses and civilian greed, not armies

 There is no question that many revolutions used terrorism tactics. That doesn't change my definition.

as it is the most brutal and vicious countries take over others - as the western countries make most of the world its colonies by force. The people of of india and indonesia and south america and hawaii and vietnam did not ask us to come in to save them from brutal rulers. We went in anyway, killing millions and ripping off the resources. And to say this is just the greed of the companies is misleading. it is government that enables companies to do that. And If a country attempts to save itself from that greed, it will find itself confronted by western troops.

YOu would think it, seemingly, a big thrill for a iraqes to come under American contol - even with the loss of oil and of over a million dead. Would you cheer if Iraqis conquered the US? Do you really think all those countries welcome our broops? If so, why is Afghanistan able to hold off a much bigger and more sophisticated western army?

The reason is most Afghanis don't want us there. For the matter, the government there we are defending is corrupt, vicious so that few in Afghanistan pay any attention to it. They prefer the taliban.

We have to face it. The western countrie ARE the most brutal and ruthless in the world. And it's not working any more. We ignore that lesson at our peril.

As for terrorism, it is a method of fighting that has been used throughout history, including by our side. It simply means killing used to inspire terror and disorganization. Tha's what the British bombing of Iraq was about in the 1920-s, the nazi bombing of Guernica, the american bombing of Tokyo, the Britsh bombing of
Dresden, the German bombing of london.

Terrorism is a METHOD. YOu can't fight a war against marching or a war against shooting or a war against bombing. You can't fight a war against propaganda. The whole idea of calling this a war against terror is to diguise the imperial purposes it is really about, and to generate a racial hatred of the "terrorists"

Terrorism. What on earth do you think the bombing of lao and cambociia were that killed half a million civiians? That was done by American bombers. How do you thing so many civilians got killed in Iraq, a country with few military targets?

There is no such thing as a war on terrorism. It's a slogan to generate a homicidal hatred.

graeme