This paper presents replies to the comments of Paniagua and Steiner on his original article on terrorism. The author notes that several points raised by Paniagua and Steiner are insightful and help to broaden the range of factors to be considered on the staircase to terrorism. Steiner highlights the role of incitement, and this points to the importance of both research and policies for better understanding, monitoring, and combating voices for hate. Paniagua points out that a number of extremist leaders are not open to negotiation, suggesting that when attempting negotiation with individuals who have reached the final levels of the staircase to terrorism, authorities must selectively try different policies with different terrorist groups and leaders. The author also notes that a subtle but profound theme links the other major points made by the two: that Islamic terrorism is different and has to be treated as a separate phenomenon. Steiner implies this with reference to what he sees as a long history of conflict between the West and the Islamic World; Paniagua suggests this by placing terrorism by various major "terrorist organizations" in the category of political terrorism and depicting political terrorism as different from Islamic terrorism. Both of these observations are intriguing, but they should not distract psychologists from the foundational psychological processes that underlie terrorist thought and action.