We all now have this generalized idea of what a terrorist looks like. Before it was Cubans, who look somewhat average, but now it's Middle Eastern people so we generalize terrorists as having big turbans and sand pouring out of their boots. How a terrorist acts is universally understood, chaos and destruction. Most of the time it involves explosives, but in places like the Congo in Africa it involves bands of people - sometimes children - totting fully automatic assault rifles (9 different nations are/were involved in the Congo war).

So how does someone from those countries view involvement of other countries? Would invading another country to stop the violence not be considered terrorism in its self? Would invading Iraq not be considered terrorism? We are using extreme force to slaughter terrorists and Insurgents, so where does the line between terrorism and liberation fall? When they flew planes into the world trade center, we went over there and out of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran we attacked Iraq and Blew up their buildings with missiles. I don't understand why we combat terrorism with terrorism, and then say that we are ridding the world of it. We are just as bad as they are on many fronts. No matter how organized or efficient we are; we are still just terrorists like they are using their own ideals of warfare and destruction against them.