>That it would, if it were.
>
>Dragan, go back and read some of the posts - there is a definite trend of trying to assign partial blame for things like the Iranian revolution,

I understand. There's no way a full blame could be assigned to any side.

You are simplifying things. The original paragraph, where this subthread began, reads:

"State-sponsored terror and murder, pure and simple. Islamic Fundamentalists have vowed to attack the West for years, and have a history of unlawful and immoral acts against the United States. Your leading questions smell badly of appeasement for terrorist activities."

You obviously think it's pure and simple, but someone has to tell you. What the UK and the USA were doing in Iran (and other mid-East countries) in the fifties and up to end of seventies is one of the major causes. Perhaps islamic fundamentalism wouldn't gain so much ground without so much imported fertilizer.

IOW, I disagree with your description of the West as having a high ground in this case. It all comes around.