A few weeks ago, I and a few others were called "racist" for expressing our perception that a disturbingly significant fraction of Muslims support terrorism and the related perception that very little open criticism of terrorism or terrorist groups goes on in Muslim countries. I freely acknowledge that that's a perception/stereotype - brought on, in large part, by reading the newspaper and debating people in forums such as this who either support or refuse to unequivocably condemn terrorism. Does that make it racism? Only if the perception is unwarranted and fuels generalized hate. Well, as it turns out, this is a perception that can relatively easily be measured against reality (the "hate" part can easily be answered with the mirror in the last paragraph of my post). All you have to do is ask Muslims if they support terrorism. Ask them if they have confidence that Osama Bin Laden is acting in the best interests of the Islamic world. And here's what Muslims have to say on the issue: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248 Percentage who often/sometimes support suicide bombings against civilians: Jordan 57 Lebanon 39 Pakistan 25 Indonesia 15 Turkey 14 Morocco 13 Percentage who think Bin Laden is "doing the right thing regarding world affairs" Jordan 60 Pakistan 51 Indonesia 35 Morocco 26 Turkey 7 Lebanon 2 Also of note is the discrepancy between Muslim's attitudes toward non-Muslims vs non-Muslim's attitudes toward Muslims. Ie, while virtually 100% of Jordanians have an "unfavorable" view of Jews, only 22% of Americans have an unfavorable view of Muslims. These numbers (which, btw, are down since 2002 in most countries, contrary to what the Democratic Party and many foreigners would have us believe) paint a distubing picture of widespread support for terrorism in Muslim nations (with emphasis on a few nations in specific problem areas). These attitudes also manifest in this forum. There is a disturbing tenancy for some to defend the concept of terrorism by arguing over its definition or equating intentional vs unintentional deaths, while refusing to unequivocably condemn specific acts under any name. Word-play also happens with words like "condone" vs "justify" vs "understand". Such hairs are not worth splitting: no matter how one chooses to defend terrorism, its still murder and still wrong. No, it is not ever even "understandable" (that one came up recently). Even for someone who recently lost a loved-one, temporary insanity can legally only last a matter of minutes. After that, a person is responsible for their actions and to act on rage and kill uninvolved people because of some weak association is murder, period. It is not understandable. It makes no more sense than killing the neighbors of someone who killed a family member of yours in a car accident. It may be noteworthy that they didn't ask Americans if they support suicide bombings. Anyone wonder why that is? Its because Americans never do such things. (caveat: Oaklahoma City is the only such incident I know of and was an attack on the government, not random civilians). It almost sounds absurd to even suggest it: Why haven't any family members of 9/11 victims flown to Saudia Arabia or Afghanistan to blow up busses and trains? Simple answer: we just don't do such things. That significant fractions of certain Muslim countries not only tolerate, but actually condone such actions is horrid.