Here's a controversial idea for you guys to think about: Is terrorism ever excusable? Most people would immediately claim that under no conditions should one human kill another, other that in self-defence. However, would you say that when the Israeli army bulldozes civilian homes of the Palestinians, they are committing an act of terrorism? Of course not. Where are the young men with bombs strapped to them, the blown up buses and- most importantly- the attention of the world's media. Continuing, is it any more justifiable for a Palestinian suicide bomber, whose house has just been demolished, and his child shot 'accidentally', to blow up a bus, than it is for a Muslim extremist to bomb a subway simply because he disagrees with the 'ideals of western society'? Most people would agree that the Palestinian, who is fighting to end the persecution of his people, should be less vindicated than the man who attacked with no justification. Yet, by doing so, we are, to some extent, justifying terrorism, simply by by saying that it can come in different extremes. The only way to totally condemn something is to treat any of it with the equal disgust and view any acts of it equal in cruelty. But can you do that with terrorism? Can you compare a man who has no other way of fighting his opressors, the murderers of his family, a man who has no more to live for, with a man carrying out an act with no provecation but his own selfish views? Think about it.