Nerd,

Thank-you for a very good description of terrorism:

"It meant that, since they did not have the
resources to fight against armies in a conventional way, killing thousands of people on each side, they had to make each
killing count for as much as possible. Adding terror to the equation, by killing five people one could have the psychological
impact of having killed a whole company of soldiers. The idea was actually to preserve life, among other things. (In a country
where the military was overwhelmingly made up of conscripts, the theory was that killing civilians was really not much
different than killing soldiers, who were merely conscripted civilians anyway."

Of course, terrorism has evolved as "The New World Order" has been foisted on global citizens with little or no say about it. The very idea that business interests know what is best for 'us' is paternalistic to say the least. How else can people fight against the domination of world power?

Is the little guy just expected to submit to the bully? Since there is no place to run, some people have chosen to fight. Most mudcatters choose to use their words as weapons, some folks march to protest, some strike, some pray, some attempt to negotiate, some use terror. Which is the most effective?