Michael JT, thanks for a great headline, and perhaps a start about the least acknowledged part of the War on Terror.
It's a strategically important attempt -- but I'm afraid I think it's your weakest, somehow. You end with mere resistance to the idea from the famous Pogo quote: “We have met the enemy, and he is us”. Perhaps my own passion against the lousy press coverage blinds me to yours.
But where’s the reference to Daniel Pearl’s videoed execution, which surely fits in your thesis?
Well, take a look: ignoring the problematic title for the moment, it's not intended to be passionate. That's one way that "cycle of violence" can be read, and no doubt many do read it that way.
But that primate-instinct gloss doesn't do justice to how the decisions are made on both sides.
Wir haben an diesem Tag die junge patriotische Jugend Europas geeint und ein friedliches aber bestimmtes Zeichen gegen eine verfehlte Politik der permanenten Krisen und der offenen Grenzen gesetzt, die in ihrer Fahrlässigkeit den Terror zum Normalzustand werden lässt.
It's wrong to use a headline saying "Militants avenge abuse with taped beheading" because it implies that militants have some kind of just cause for an act of vengeance - even though any legitimacy is immediately cancelled by the savagery and self-promotion implied in "taped beheading." But it's OK to have a headline like "Spinning for Al Qaeda" to describe writers and editors who'd go with such a headline, even though the clear implication of such a headline is that they are working on behalf of terrorists?
(Besides, it's what their patrons around the world are paying them to do.) What do the terrorists cloak themselves in for moral legitimacy?