A response to Robert and ER. I apologize for the longer discourse on this post. The more I thought about it the more I wanted to do it.

First, the definition of terrorism to rebut Robert's assertion that some of what I mentioned wasn't terrorism. The definitions add that terrorism is intended to further some political aim. The examples I used were where "Deliberately killing innocent men, women and children" was mentioned were in the furtherance of political aims, thus were terrorism.

I did not use words such as "reprehensible", "slaughter" or "atrocity". More on that later.

ER, the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam was either terrorism or a crime against humanity, take your choice. I did not say it was used to kill people, though it was dropped over village after village after village. It was used in part to destroy the ability to grow food, and was intended to deprive the civilian population of sustenance and force them into US run concentration camps. The NAZIs used the same term with Jews - relocation.

Now, as for the rest of it the three of us are very, very close. If you can, Robert, disabuse yourself of the term "morality" and simply look at the actions. Is a RPV strike which hits an innocent wedding any different than a suicide bomber which hits an innocent marketplace? Yes, there could have been combatants at the wedding. The people who fired the weapon should have been certain there were. And, yes, there could have been combatants at the market. Leaving "morality" aside, the actions are identical except that the suicide bomber has demonstrated a firm belief in his cause and the RPV pilot has just done a job.

As far as the atomic bomb shortening the war with Japan, a look at the history rather than the news stories reveals that Japan would have given up earlier except for the "unconditional surrender" clauses. They were willing to surrender if the Allies had only granted what they ultimately did - a ceremonial position for the Emperor. They did not want the Emperor hanging from a lamppost. I will say that if I were President at that time, or a B-29 pilot, I would have cheerfully dropped the bomb. And later history would have demonstrated it wasn't needed.

If one leaves out the "yes but"s and simply looks at the actions one can get a clearer view. Grievances on an international scale are always responses to responses to responses, with the provocations being the result of provocations and the "morality" determined not by morals but by the nationality of the moralizer.

It is unreasonable to America to expect to have America's interests as their own. After all, the US doesn't respect other countries interests when they conflict with ours. And it is reasonable to expect other countries to protect their interests from encroachment, even by the US.

Morality, like patriotism and religion, is a refuge for the scoundrel, a way to justify my terrorism while allowing me to condemn the same acts on the other side. The problem is that on a grander scale morality on both sides of the equation cancels out and leaves innocent people on both sides far the worse for wear.

I don't expect many people to follow this. Shame-based folks will NEVER be able to follow it. However, if one can move past the "I'm right because I'm me" adolescent view of the world and try to understand why the other guy is the way he is a whole new world opens up. Raoul understood this almost instinctively.

I know in you two there is a good audience and even if you continue to disagree you at least heard. I wish I was able to explain myself better.

Arf