It's not that I'm in favor of terror.

It's just that I wonder why some terror is acceptable, but other terror is not.

We support the Saudis, too. Oh joy oh rapture: they aren't Communists.

Now we have a new rubber-stamp enemy (except for the anti-war protesters, who are apparently still "Communists"): as long as you're not a Muslim fundamentalist, you're OK. This makes the world safe for Jewish fundamentalists, Hindu fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists... who will go on to kill each other later.

Oh, wait -- Saddam isn't a Muslim fundamentalist -- but he talks to them! The Saudis will send them lots of money, but won't invite them to tea at the palace, so they're still OK...

sigh...

Doesn't this ever make your head hurt?

I spent part of yesterday putting together the shell of a pathfinder on the theology of the "Just War" theory, starting with Augustine, for a kid doing a research project. (You can't do that without taking a little time to read from the sources on the list to evaluate where they go, so I've had a little to chew on since yesterday afternoon.) The key to this theory is consistent application of principle. We don't have any consistency. I like to think we have principles, but sometimes I wonder.

Being the least objectionable alternative is not enough.

Regards--
Mary Anne