The US Department of Justice defined terrorism in 1984 as "...violent criminal conduct apparently intended: (a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (b) to influence the conduct of a government byintimidation or coercion, or (c) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."

In 1986 the official summary was "....the unlawful use or threat of violence against persons or property to further political or social objectives......."

Official definitions are self serving declarations that pit government against those that are revolutionary, have ideological purposes opposed to the existing power structure, dare to threaten property, or want to change society by coercion.

Defining terrorism as an act causing or intending to cause terror is a circularity that obscures more than is revealed.

William Howard Taft enunciated US policy when he said, "Intervention is justified when it was made necessary to guarantee the capital and markets of the United States."

So, if we invaded Irag to keep our SUV's rolling it was merely consistent foreign policy by a Republican administration. The question we have to ask is, if by so doing does the US fit into the definition of being a terrorist state?

Ghandi recognized the value of gainig the moral imperative in a situation and used his moral high ground to defeat an arrogant and war puffed-with-success Churchill and the British nation.

It really is not "appeasement" to be aware we need world opinion on our side to attact the soverignty of any nation. This administration squandered the capital of our moral position earned by the horror of 911 by being arrogant, stupid, and politically inept.

Mark Twain said, "when you find yourself in a hole, stopp digging."

Publius