All debatable arguments and answers, yes, but maybe the CIA had the right reasoning just after 9/11 when they called the rising Islamic terrorism "blowback", just as right back through history any advances into another's territory to gain power or contraband must expect to sow as much reaction as a country or a civilisation can afford to give.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap, is now going on from both sides,
far worse than any colonial skirmish. Part of it now also, seems a revival of Cecil Rhodes' "survival of the fittest formulation" that Great Britain and America, with Australia now added to the Anglophile Alliance, would be the choice of a Christian God to rule or police a future world.

Looks like we are among the chosen, as David Rockefeller's Trilaterist Movement has already discussed such a future, with Tony Blair said to be a member, as well as George W'. That is why George Bush junior can always lift himself with what is called Trilateralist wealth on his side. In fact, it could be said that much more than the Sri-Lankan Tamil Tigers, who hold the record for suicide bombing, it is understandable that the majority of Muslims would be far more desperate, believing their religion could be on the way out, women and kids believing this, and all.

It seems what we need instead of these superior white narco-religous groups is more mixed race groups with much more wisdom and understanding or simply just plain common sense.

Further from Bushbred,

As was brought up about George W Bush being backed by David Rockefeller and his wealthy Trilateralists, we might hope that our newer surging billionaires like the owners of Microsoft and Google may dedicate to a troubled world the so much needed historical eruditeness that especially Google seems to be contributing to on our Internet Favourites.

George C, WA - Bushbred

Dr Kent opinionates an idea that leads to the very success of terrorist activity. No body who follows any type of ethical process would accept terrorist activity as being a logical or ethical approach to meeting a terrorist demands. Terrorists by virtue of their activity occupy a particularly neteured space within the public forum. Neteured not in terms of sexist politics but particularly in terms of disabling of the ability to retain the personal politick via a generatiional transmission. This eunech type state creates an illogical environment where any activity that perpetuates the (often legitamate) agrievement is viewed as a neccesary event so that the grievance is perpetuated not by generational (or even class) transmission but by the intevention of the those who occupy that particular space that can be viewed as priveleged. Dr. Kent's comments mean that the terrorist act has succeeded. When the priveleged defend the actions of the disenpowered (he has by arguing that governments that suspend dialogue with terrorists it leads to more dangerous attacks, a very personalised political approach) the very acts that initiate that action have succeeded regardless of the act itself. Dr. Kent's comments prove him to be an agent (and apologist) of terrorism rather than a critique of it. This apologistic action is a self-sustaining reflex that allows legitimises terrorist activity.