There's a difference between trying to
understand those who kill Americans and
advocating the killing of Americans.
In the first case, the writer tries to discuss the motivations of the enemy, but also points out that the enemy is wrong.
In the second case, the writer tries to discuss their motivations, and also leaves the impression that the enemy is right.
Rall does the second -- he presents the enemy's arguments as being correct (but he takes on the persona of an Iraqi in order to avoid responsibility for what he writes). His advocacy of killing Americans is sick, and his tactics are devious.
Furthermore, it seems to me that you share Rall's outlook, but you're not willing to say so directly.
One of the tricks the Leftist press loves is to put their words in other peoples' mouths.
So you will hear things like "Some are questioning Republican X's motivations" or "Questions are being raised in response to Republican X's extremist agenda"
The questions are coming from Dan Blather and Co of course. But this gives them the screen of claiming to just be reporting someone else's comments.
This was taken to the extreme with the BBC in the Gilligan case, where Gilligan lied about who his anonymous source was and then probably made up comments and attributed them to his source. Very convient too with his death...