It's bad when the US goes after terrorists with an eye for an eye mentality and then you say that's exactly what you would do if your family was harmed.

So which is it? Is an eye for an eye acceptable to you or is it only acceptable when you do it? And then when the Israelis use "disproportionate response" where the heck is this "empathy" you speak so highly of? Surely if someone fires a rocket at your family trying to turn them into pieces of bodies scattered everywhere you would want to, and I quote, "devote the rest of my life to doing damage to who- and what-ever did that to my family."

So Israelis who feel persecuted and who fear for their lives after an unprovoked rocket attack are bad because....

because...

because...

...they are doing exactly what YOU would do if you were in their shoes?

You see my problem with your reasoning Bows? You are like the perfect example of the mirror principle in action. You HATE exactly what is in YOURSELF.

You despise Israelis for going postal after an attack and then point out how you would be doing just the same thing!!!

It's just you now have created in your mind a complex set of justifications. The Israelis stole land, are bad persecutors, are in bed with the evil US. So now you justify violence for some and are horribly offended by it in others.

See that's not how I was brought up. In my corner of Liberalutopia ALL violence was bad. Any liberal who would be promoting violence wouldn't be a real Peacenik - but an anarchist or fanatic. Those folks were dire enemies of true peaceniks.

Bows, you are the opposite of a peacenik - you're a violencemonger just like many of the liberals here. How many liberals here proudly declare their possession of firearms? I count three without thinking too hard. Can you imagine a true peace-loving liberal even touching a firearm?

I can't.

I still recall the classic image of a peace protester placing flowers in the barrels of rifles. A classic moment for the peace movement.

Even if those protesters were misguided they had convictions. Todays liberals are foul-mouthed, violent and corrupt - and have nothing to do with those folks who actually had a sense of moral conviction. Folks here talk non-violence and diplomacy while showing they are just as undiplomatic, violent and brash as any "neo-con" or "conservative chickenhawk" could ever be!

I'm afraid the left here has nothing in common with the left I used to respect for their conscientious objector-ism, pacifism and devotion to peace.

Now we have leftists like Alec Baldwin who talk about killing the Speaker of the House and his family. That's the new archetype for today's leftist - a psychopath who promotes peace through violence, says he'll leave the country if Bush is re-elected and then like many other leftists who are allergic to their own words denies he said what he said - ot that he was misinterpreted.

I know what a peace-lover, pacifist or person who believes mankind is a brotherhood believes in and sounds like - and no leftist here or anywhere in the public eye today fits that description.

My hippie ex-neighbor who drove the flower painted peace-wagon would be protesting against today's left just as much as he would protest the right...and he would be disgusted & ashamed at how far the left has lost its way, yet he would forgive you once you denounced your evil ways and found the path to true peace.

There are no peace-promoters here. Only degrees of hate-filled, violent folks, justifying certain acts of violence which they support and endorse or accept as necessary. All the world has left are neo-leftists.