Our founding fathers broke away from a tyrannical government who taxed them without adequate representation. And they did not murder innocent parties in the process. How many people did Washington, Jefferson or Henry kill that were not British soldiers?

As for Hamas, if they only attacked Israeli military targets, I would not consider them terrorists as much as paramilitary resistance. The attack on the Pentagon is less terrorism than a military attack. The attack on the WTC though, killed thousands of innocent civilians and is therefore terrorism. Terrorism is defined by targets and methods. Targets must be military, and methods must be war-like. Cutting off individual’s heads to scare populations is terrorism. Shooting a rocket from Gaza into Israel is warfare.

I do not buy the moral equivalency argument that al Qaeda, Hamas or Hezbollah are freedom fighters in the same vein as Solidarity, Our Founders or the Iranian democratic student movement. There is a marked difference between legitimate resistance and murder for political purposes.

Hope this helps to clear up my views.

But in order to really put Iraq in its proper place in the terror scheme, we must first define who are terrorists.

In 1987 the UN came up with a definition, but giving an exception and stating, “nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom and independence, as derived from the Charter of the UN, of people forcibly deprived of that right…”

(of course you can guess which two countries voted against this passage of the definition of terrorism-US and Israel)

So, groups like Hamas who are fighting within their own country and trying to gain Independence are not terrorists. If you say they are, then our own founding fathers were terrorists too! American revolutionaries did fun stuff like tar and feather and quarter with horses!
Even the Boston Tea Party was an act of terror!

Even with the Palestinian groups being considered terrorist, the support of Islamic terroris stem overwhelming from Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Why didn’t we invade them? I guess Iran is next, but will we ever invade SA, doubtful. I don’t support massive invasions, they are very destructive, counterproductive and can be accomplish through non-violent means. Ask India and Gandhi.

Boston has supported the IRA, does that give England justification to bomb Boston?

Terrorism is nasty, but so is dropping bombs and destroying cities(falujah).