Your response was predictable, anonymous one. Here is my explanation:

There is a time to fight. Several times, in fact, and here are some of them...

When you see someone attacking a woman, a child, an animal, or any innocent victim...stop them! Use whatever force is necessary. Resist? Hell, yes.

When a foreign army pours across your borders and a foreign airforce violates your skies...fight them. Hell, yes. As long as it is feasible to, fight them. If they are undefeatable, you have some choices in front of you...bide your time...fight a guerilla war against them...fight them from the shadows...or, if you choose, live with them for the time being (as millions of people did with the Romans, the British, the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Americans). Which of those options you choose will depend on your individual temperament, and the degree of your anger, I expect. It's up to you.

When someone physically attacks you for no good reason...fight him. Hell, yes.

When someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night...fight him. (if you feel up to it...I leave that to your own judgement).

When your own government puts storm troopers in the streets and violates the civil rights of many of your own citizens....fight them (if you are willing to risk the consequences...I leave that up to you).

I am in no way suggesting that one NOT defend oneself against a genuine attack BY someone else. I am suggesting that one not live by the philosophy and practice OF attack. The USA is forever preparing for its next target of opportunity, and those targets are always located in strategic territory...as regards oil, trade routes, and military considerations. The USA routinely terrorizes other countries, verbally threatens them, and attacks them on false premises (such as nonexistent WMD's). It promises democracy, but delivers puppet governments and dictatorships.

Those are not defence iniatives by the USA, they are attack iniatives. The US Department of Defence was not defending any Americans when it invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. 911 was an incident requiring police action on an international level, not military action. Al Queda is not a country, it is a secret organization. Secret organizations are fought by covert means...police action on an international basis...not by invading whole countries and subjugating them. To invade either Afghanistan or Iraq because of Al Queda was not a response which could conceivably yield the result which it sought...and the action was NOT taken to eliminate Al Queda...it was taken to secure strategic positions in regards to Caspian oil and Middle Eastern oil.

What does all that add up to? ATTACK. Attack for direct financial and strategic gain.

I am opposed to attack. I am not opposed to legitimate defence of a nation, a community, or an individual.

I regard the petition as intended to stir up more anger and paranoia in people who are already angry and afraid. That will not help anyone. Al Queda is probably happy to spread around similar petitions (from the opposite angle) to fire up the next generation of suicide bombers.

Everyone is against terrorism! Everyone. The only problem is, they don't call it terrorism when they are the ones doing it. They are blind to their own contributions in that regard.