Do apologists for terrorists find it impossible to live in this century?

Actually, Noam Chomsky is quite happily pounding out his hairbrained ideas on his little blog (the poor man's sole source of legitimacy in the areas of ethics, international law, and government, I believe...) and the belief that he is still relevant (he has no credentials other than a blog in government, and,oy, outside of American linguists-who are even now getting sick of him-he has not been relevent in a long time. Neo-Whorvanism all the way...). I'm sure that Wright would also be quite contentedly singing "G-d damn America, her chickens came home to roost on 9-11" to the skies if he had not been exposed for the sanctimonious shadow of an actual spiritual leader that he is.

I have no problem with genuinely peaceful Muslims, and I hope that they manage to wrest control of their religion from the whackjobs. Granted, given the Muslim communities in the ME and large parts of Africa (as evidenced in the cartoon reactions that you pointed out-truly peaceful communities should be able to take a mild joke without trying to subvert the remainder of the world's rights to free speak. Among sign of a culturally advanced and peaceful civilization is a willingness for dialogue, artistic or otherwise), they have their jobs cut out for them, and that is why I fully support them. I just hope that the people who try to say that terrorism-purely symbolic attacks on civilians in an effort to induce fear or get one's way through the bloodshed of children- is "justified" or "holy" or anything else rot in hell. 3000 innocent men, women, and children did NOT ****-ing bring that on themselves on 9-11, and I think that Chomsky and Wright would both have a different view on the matter if they had been taking a stroll through the towers at the time of impact.

Peace

Of course they bring it up, it is the only defense they have. What they forget to mention is the times and the circumstances during which it all happened. Sure Christians committed atrocities but what was the level of civilization back then? they still cut heads of and put them on posts outside of towns if that tells you anything.

So how can anybody compare what the Crusaders did and what today's terrorist do?

Truth is Christians back then wanted to expand their religion by force.Today's terrorist want to hold back their own people from progress and civilization because it is the only hold they have.

You seem to be forgetting all the Planned Parenthood bombings and the George Tiller assassination, to name a few. I would also submit that the intrusion into California politics by the Mormons from Utah would be another act of terrorism.

You see, terrorism is a tactic employed when you don't have any other means to use.

Thus, since we in the West (who are mainly Christian) support Israel (a Jewish state) and suppress the surrounding Muslim states, we take away their ability to speak diplomatically, financially and militarily. The only way left for them to be heard is through acts of terrorism.

The Christians in America that bomb clinics, kill doctors and fund initiatives are using different tactics to the same end, to be heard. Granted, fewer people are hurt as a result of their actions, but that is more a result of the means they have at their disposal rather than any sort of taste for violence.

I understand the argument you are trying to make, but you don't seem to want to look at the bigger picture.

Those who have political power find no need to resort to terrorism.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090910/ts_nm/us_mexic...

There are crazy people in every religion and good moral people too. My best friend is Muslim and one of them most good, kindhearted person I know

NOPE.