Glenn wrote:
> You didn't answer the point made. The point being that terrorism can be a
> very difficult to fight and Israel, as an example, has fought
> for many years and the fight has not yet been won.

Ironically, this might put Glenn in a dangerous agreement with President
Bush who recently said this about the war on terror:

"I don't think you can win 'it'.  But I think you can create conditions so
that
the -- those who use terror as a tool are -- less acceptable in parts of
the world."

During the 9-11 hearings, there was a common theme coming from Powell and
Rice in that they didn't want to fight terrorism by matching strike with
strike.  This is what Israel has done for years and it leads to this
Hatfield/McCoy never-ending kind of feud.  Indeed, the administration *is*
taking a different approach to terrorism than the US has done in the past.

IMHO, one of the primary conditions that leads to terrorism is the absence
of freedom.  For any people under oppression, the cost of terrorism becomes
worth the price - not only acceptable in price but even honorable.  Contrary
to the opinion of some, freedom is the natural human condition and people
from all over the world yearn it.  Unfortunately, giving freedom to some
means taking control from others and you can end up with a fight on your
hands, as we have in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The people fighting the new
Afghani and Iraqi governments and coalition troops are not fighting for the
freedom of these people but for their own control.  The Palestinians are not
free, not only from Israel but from their own 'government'.  The Israelis
are not free because of the constant threat to their existence they live
under.  This is a perfect recipe for terrorism and these are the conditions
we need to change.

Mark W.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *