A more reasonable article than most, but as usual, tries to fog the definitions of terrorism to the point where any violent action by anyone is equally justifiable or to be equally condemned.

I won't defend Russia's actions in Chechnya, but last I heard, America was not performing "daily terror, mass arrests, rape and torture" on their enemies. Even Israel, arguably more heavy-handed than America, does not approach what the Russians are doing.

Is the line between soldier and terrorist a fuzzy one? Sometimes.

One can make a certain case for someone who would drive a truck full of explosives up to a military outpost of their enemies and blow themselves up. Terrorism? Or military action? Is a truck any less of a legitimate military weapon than a missile?

But anyone who stands four feet from a child in a city cafe or a bus, or a bedroom, looks them in the eye, and then chooses to rip it to bloody shreds with bullets or a nailbomb, is a terrorist. And there is no excuse for such tactics, even assuming that such actions ever accomplished anything except hauling down vengeance on one's head. Sorry, but nobody is going to move me from that position.

Ever notice how "Israel's right to exist" is never brought up any more? I have yet to see any current Palestinian leader who does not believe the entire area of "Palestine" is, and should be, under complete Palestinian rule. This attitude, of course, is not supposed to be considered to be any form of hostility towards Israel.

Interestingly, one gets the impression that the "man on the street" in both Israel and Palestinian territory is a lot more flexible than the leadership of either country on some form of mutual settlement. Note, however, the skepticism that this would actually end the violence.