Terrorism doesn't in itself solve those sorts of problems either, of course, but sending a message that there is a problem is sometimes the difficult first step towards finding a solution.

My reaction is the same as one might take to a crying baby who realizes by crying they get attention, because I don't know how else to discourage it: if terrorism is your answer, you have no rational basis to complain about being repressed.

You can say it's a reaction, but one you lose the moral high ground, you're dirt.

And I can say it without hypocrisy, because I've known for years that I'm dirt; I never had any moral high ground, despite my dislike of terrorism.

What saddens me more is when loss of life causes people who don't see the big picture, to try and cure the disease by suppressing the symptoms

Allow me to take the other side: if you aren't doing anything to restrain people who advocate your position, why should anyone take you seriously? (not you particularly, obviously)

Don't get the idea that I'm holding up the government here as ideal, either. Not a chance. The Clinton administration was less odious, at least, but these ones have foreign policy which basically boils down to "piss all over everyone who doesn't share our agenda". I didn't vote for them. I pray that in the next election Bush doesn't manage to make himself a "wartime president" and thus get retained, and maybe, maybe we have a chance to salvage the government's image in the eyes of other countries.