Yoshie, the only part of that message that you can be referring to is the following:
(2) Which party is the most legally and morally culpable: (A) a man who, telling boldfaced lies, votes for a war of aggression to invade a foreign country, compelling soldiers to blow up armed combatants, civilians, and properties; (B) soldiers of the invading army who follow the order that violates law and morality, blowing up armed combatants, civilians, and properties; or (C) men of the occupied country who resist the foreign army of occupation and indigenous collaborators, blowing up armed combatants, civilians, and properties?
It seems to me that the order of legal and moral culpability would be (A) > (B) > (C), from the most culpable to the least. You don't seem to be ashamed of voting for and urging others to vote for (A) while sounding shocked, shocked that there are people who support (C). Why?
Your position (C) above does NOT make the distinction you claim it does: you lump together the "blowing up of armed combatants, civilians and properties" together - you do not distinguish between them as you claim - then you go on to to discuss the culpability quotient: well hey surprise, (C) comes way down at the bottom, presumably meaning no significant culpability: So now if we want to condemn the killing of civilians but stay within your universe of discourse then we are also condemning all "resistance fighters" including those who kill combatants. This is a paltry sleight of hand. You've been burned with this archive stuff before; I'm surprised you don't give it up. But at least you've backed off from the racial hocus pocus (cat got your tongue there?). BTW I don't think anyone is shocked at your support for (C); the way you've formulated it is all too typically opportunist. As for the rhetorical question that follows, well I won't give it your preferred answer. Why I don't support (C) in the way that you have formulated it is precisely because it deliberately obfuscates the issues, so that one form of fascism (political Islam) is painted a lovely shade of red. But red fascism is fascism. You want to have another try at the terrorism issue? - your performance on that question is not impressive so far.
Tahir