This is interesting. In the article Sawad claims to desire peace. If, just for a moment, we are to take him seriously on this claim, it would seem that he believes violence can generate it. He then goes so far as to thank the Australian protesters for their efforts in his cause. The protesters were clearly all about peace, no question of that by anyone. So, regardless as to if he believes this line or not, the statement is attempting to link his claim of a desire for peace with the protester’s desire for peace.

An excerpt from the article,...

“Ironically, from a terrorist accused not only of the Bali bombing but of church bombings and the bombing of an ambassador's residence in Jakarta, Sawad claimed he had a message of peace for the world. "For all human beings to stop now in this world, destroy all of the destructive weapons . . . if there were no weapons then peace can be created," he said. “

Let’s be honest, I think we all have strong doubts anyone would suggest that Sawad is anything but a complete lunatic, save for those of equal insanity.

Yet, and this is the strange part, you seem to have no trouble believing this exact line and recommended course of action from GWB. Why is that?

You then go on to assume you know the mind of the terrorist/political leaders based on a misrepresentation of this one man’s claims? That’s some mighty serious clairvoyance ya got going there. Have you considered working with the police?

Now, I’m no expert, but it would seem to me that even Saddam Hussein would be aware that the protesters did not condone, or support his rule. To presume such colossal ignorance on his part is the sort of thing one would expect from propaganda reels, but who knows, anything is possible, after all. However, it seems much more probable that he was aware of the politically soft laterals of the US as an exploitable target for propaganda. … but maybe you’re right, maybe he really did see the protesters as people that loved and wanted to get snugly with him. I haven’t done a psychological profile on him, so I wouldn’t know.

Then to attempt to polarize the discussion by imposing a dichotomy based on such obviously questionable information seems to be more about a kind of ad hominem attack on those with differing opinions outside of the immediate discussion. A kind of ‘long term’ character assault. Terrorist enabler indeed.

The US Army manual more or less defines terrorism as the targeting of civilians for political, religious or other ends. In 1945 the US administration targeted approximately 200,000 civilians directly. By definition this makes them a terrorist state (at least at the time,… what is the statute of limitations on terrorist activities?).

Regardless of any justifications (reasonable or not), if one accepts the definition, then one must accept the designation. So, if you support the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, you support terrorism. Funny how that works.