What should be the response to violence?

Quotes from a rather long, but interesting article titled, The theory of power shows that weapons indicate weakness, not strength, by Michael Jennings:

"Showing a lack of understanding of history, President Bush, in a speech to the nation on Sunday, September 16, 2001, used the term "crusade" to refer to what he wants for the United States. During the Crusades [rhodes.edu], from 1095 to 1291 A.D., Europeans traveled to Arab countries to kill Arabs."

"In calling for a "crusade", President Bush said the worst thing that could possibly be said. To many Arabs, this word meant that he was calling for an indiscriminate killing of Arabs. ABC News reported in a September 22, 2001 story that the term was upsetting to many people in the Middle East."

"The Guardian [guardian.co.uk], a respected newspaper in England, reported in a September 22, 2001 story, Threat of U.S. strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY attack. [guardian.co.uk], that the Bush administration had threatened the Taliban with military strikes about two months before the recent World Trade Center bombing. The story says that the threat "raises the possibility that Bin Laden … was launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as U.S. threats."

"On U.S. television there has been very little reporting of the fact that millions of Afghans are on the edge of starvation. The September 22, 2001 BBC News story The refugee crisis: How should the world react? [bbc.co.uk] says, "Aid agencies are warning of an epic humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, threatening the lives of millions of ordinary Afghans."

"There were U.S. citizens who didn't like the activities of the U.S. police forces in Waco. There were people who were psychologically unbalanced by these activities. One of them, Timothy McVeigh, decided to retaliate and bombed a U.S. government building in Oklahoma. So then the U.S. government killed him."

[more here]