I've never really understood the mindset of a terrorist.
Or our reluctance to even use the word, "terrorist."
It's like my doctor...when he tries to find a nice way of saying I'm too fat.
So he says something like, "Neil you could afford to lose a couple of pounds."
When I know he's thinking, "More like a couple of hundred!"
But that's human nature.
To err...on the side of nice.
But we're doing so with lunatics who really aren't so nice.
Now don't get me wrong. I'm the last person to jump to conclusions.
And I commend the president for doing the same, when this Boston tragedy first hit...aptly pointing out it was an "act of terror."
I thought he comported himself very well, and with great restraint.
It's not easy being "consoler-in-chief, " and sadly, he's had to play that role a few too many times.
I think he does it well.
What disturbs me is our collective reluctance to take on the disturbed.
Whether home-grown or not, when you kill innocent people, you are a terrorist.
You have terrorized.
You are terrifying.
But I think "terrorist" is a leap too few take, especially in the media, because too many find the very word "terrorist" too much to take.
I understand the fear that we don't want to paint whole peoples with the same brush.
But I do find it a little odd we have no such trouble painting the well-to-do with the whole "fat cat" brush...
Or those who question climate change, with the whole "ignorant fringe" brush...
But that's another brush. And another issue.
Here's my issue:
When you call someone a terrorist...you're not saying they're "Al Qaeda," or "Chechnn," or "Basque separatists," or any separatists.
What you're saying is that those who kill innocent civilians automatically makes them terrorists.
We're a good people trying to be nice and diplomatic.
But we're doing it with savages, who'd sooner see us "nice...and dead."
We're trying too hard and they're trying just as hard to make sure we keep trying to be nice.