Unfortunately there are parts of this and other related threads which demonstrate only too well the fundamental problems of deciding who is a terrorist. I don't know of anyone at the 'cat or out of it that is not appalled by the loss of life in the attacks on the US. I would hope that even any adults shown as rejoicing at the news, (in the clips I saw there was I think one woman who featured prominantly, and one gentlman in the background, the remainder were kids who were reacting the same way as kids everywhere to the presence of a TV crew.) would on reflection be appalled at the loss of life if they were considered as individuals rather than symbols of US Aggression / dominance etc.

So that's the first problem, seeing others as people, not symbols, and one the "bomb them back to the stone age' proponents need to be fully aware of.

Secondly, even on the 'Cat; which probably can't be taken as representative of the populations of our respective countries, as despite everything we still listen to each other and generally don't loose our cool; there has been several intemperate defences of people's "just causes" and even a completly spurious argument that "My groups terrorism isn't as bad as their's, we tell you before we blow you up.".

Either we oppose terrorism, in all it's forms wherever it occurs and for whatever cause it is perpetrated, or we are merely trying to wrap up revenge in sophistry.

As to politicians and their motives, I wonder if Senator Hatch is still willing to stand by his statement made after the bombing of the WTC, that "supporting (ie providing training, arms and money from the CIA to prosecute the war against the Russians despite that acknowledged fact that he and the other Mujahadeen leaders hated the US) to Bin Laden was justified and he would do the same again.

As Bill says politicians are generally speaking no better or worse than the rest of us, but they will always behave like politicians.

Pete M