[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godslayer I disagree with you there. You see there is a common threat. Terrorists are not limited to exclusive activety within the U.S. There are terrorist bombings and killings all over the world: Israel, Ireland, Central and Latin America, and, obviously, Iraq. Granted, the terrorist groups are not acting in conjunction with eachother, at least not directly. However, one terrorist act gives courage to others to instill terror in others.

But is this the case? Does some group in Zimbabwe, suffering under one of the most oppressive regimes in the world currently, feel heartened because a terrorist strike in Iraq works? I have to question this. Lumping all terrorists together, all causes, all regimes and situations, doesn't work well. One might as well conclude that just because a bloodthirsty dictator like Guatamala's Rios Mott got away for years literally with murder, doesn't mean every dictator in charage of a nation elsewhere feels they can do the same, and never pay the consequences. Individual circumstances require indvidual treatment, and the terrorist that ignores this is a dead terrorist, IMO.

[b]Also, when one terrorist group acts, it causes terror in other places, thus increasing the effect of terrorism. So, you see, all terrorism affects everyone worldwide. this is the common threat. this threat may not be a specific country, but does that make it any less of a threat? NO!! This is NATO's purpose in today's world. it may have been created to protect against Russia, but it can and is being used and adapted to fight a new threat.[/QUOTE]

And what about state-sponsored terrorism? This has been going on at least as long as rebel terrorism, almost certainly longer. What deals with this threat? While the Russian military blithely engages daily in human rights violations on a massive scale in Chechnya, and China labels anybody in Tibet who tries to keep the local culture alive a "terorist," who helps redress these wrongs?