[MaggieL]

So...terrorist violence is an appropriate means of expressing idiology? Tony posed a specific example. Simply saying that "appropriate things are appropriate" is kind of empty.

The example you rung in of the Predator Hellfire strike certainly wasn't motivated by idiology, it was a tactical response to a tactical situation: someone the CIA knew to have attacked an US warship was detected enganging in further operations in that same country, and they interdicted him with violence. His idiology--the *reasons* for his attacks--were not at issue, nor do I think they should have been.

This brings us back to my earlier point: when a group attempts to advance it's politicsl and idiology by commiting acts of violence against any target they think will generate attention or sympathy, it's beyond foolish for the group attacked to allow such acts to actually advance that idiology on their own agenda.

This is why you don't humor a child who throws a tantrum; if you reinforce such behavior by rewarding it, you will only encourage more of the same.

The way I analyse Tony's hypothetical is:

You have offered the opinion that "now that the-group-that-shouldn't-be-called-fascist-or-islamic is comitting terrorist violence on Western targets, the West should pay more attention to the interesting social insights propounded by the group. That the West does not do so is evidence of Western religious and cultural prejudice and blindness".

Tony's response in this framework might be presented: "Very well, if the West does study these ideas as you propose, but concludes they are mistaken, is attempting to advance *our* ideas by picking targets for their terror value and obliterating them an appropriate response?"

"Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander", you see.