[Nonsuch]

I was struck by two complementary quotes I came across in my reading today, one from a leftist, one from a conservative:

Christopher Hitchens in Slate:

I'm a single-issue person at present, and the single issue in case you are wondering is the tenacious and unapologetic defense of civilized societies against the intensifying menace of clerical barbarism. If in the smallest doubt about this, I would suggest a vote for the re-election of George Bush, precisely because he himself isn't prey to any doubt on the point. There are worse things than simple mindedness—pseudo-intellectuality, for example. Civil unions for homosexuals, or prescription-drug programs, are not even going to be in second or third place if we get this wrong.

Rod Dreher, National Review Forum:

I made my remarks [critical of Bush's performance on Meet the Press] not because I'm steamed at Bush over some other issue -- true, I'm concerned about spending, but my conservatism is primarily social, not fiscal; and despite the failings I see in Bush's social policies, he's light years better than anybody else I can think of -- but because I think it's desperately important that he win re-election. There is only one issue here: the war on terror, and I firmly believe the future of civilization is at stake. If you don't, imagine how everything would change if, one hour from now, Islamic terrorists detonated suitcase nukes simultaneously in New York and Washington. In an era when WMDs are proliferating into the hands of terrorist networks, we can take nothing for granted. That's why seeing Bush on TV yesterday scared me. I thought: We could lose this thing. There is more at stake in this election than in any I can think of in my lifetime, even the 1980 election that brought Reagan to power.

Both of these men state that the threat from terrorism is the only issue motivating them politically right now. I admit I was surprised by this, mostly I think because most people I know—hell, all the people I know—are worried about their jobs, their health care, or maybe their investments before they bother worrying about a terrorist attack, or the potential of terrorist movements to bring down American civilization.

I know we've been chewing over these issues from various angles for months now, and I'm not trying to start a redundant topic. But I wanted to ask some very precise questions and get a feel for where people are on this issue.

• Do you think the threat of terrorism is the most urgent issue facing the US right now? Are we, in a word, at war?
  
• Is the terrorist threat exaggerated? Is the President's opposition understating it?
  
• If you're planning to vote for Bush, is the terrorist threat the primary reason?
  
• If you're planning to vote against Bush, how great a threat do you think terrorism really is right now?

If anyone cares, this is my take: I reject the alarmism of Dreher and others like him. I acknowledge that the thought of NY and DC going up in nuclear flames is scary, but that's all it is: an idea, and a pretty extremem one. I frankly don't think it's reasonable to believe that something on that scale can happen "one hour from now," like lightning from a blue sky, and I don't think it's wise to base all your policies/decisions around an extreme possibility with little likelihood of coming to pass, particularly if the outcome of those decisions is to instill a permanent seige mentality in the population at large. Perhaps I'm being naîve at my peril, but building portable nuclear or biological weapons isn't something just anyone can do, and I highly doubt it's within Al-Queda's capacity; I certainly haven't read or heard anything to suggest they have this sort of potential. We are vulnerable in many ways, to be sure: I'm thinking of our woefully underdefended energy infrastructure, or the vulnerability of our aircraft to RPG attack, but sadly the administration has done little to protect us in this area. (This leaves aside the administration's disputed calculus that Iraq Invasion = War on Terrorism, of course.)

[thunderous_funker]

I think the greatest threat to civilization is the threat posed by the unholy intersection of the ease of international travel and the genetic mutations of viruses.

Viruses can exchange information on a genetic level if they are contained in the same host. A person world-hoping around the globe could be theoretically be exposed to several deadly viruses which could conceivably mutate into some super-virus.

Imagine some business traveler who hops from Asia to Africa to NYC only to deposit on the city some mutated HIV-Ebola-Influenza-Small pox strain that essentially wipes out all oxygen breathing creatues on the planet within a matter of days.

We simply can't allow that to happen. Therefore, I will throw my support behind whichever presidential candidate promises either to scrap all forms of international travel or automatically quarantine all international travellers upon arival.

Perhaps it would be cheaper to simply annihilate the more disease prone populations centers in Africa and Asia. Actually, perhaps this is the more appealing solution since the necessary weapons would be purchased from American companies thereby providing an enormous boon to our economy. Not to mention the resulting surplus in agricultural goods that could easily wipe out hunger amoung the remaining world populations. Oh, and the US would then be able to corner the market on high technology manufacturing. Oh yeah, and cheap labor would be essentially wiped out so we can secure the support of American Labor Unions...

Man, this idea keeps getting better and better!!



<this parody brought to you by the Americans Against Apocalyptic Presidents>

That should help you divine my answer to your question.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I think the greatest threat to civilization is the threat posed by the unholy intersection of the ease of international travel and the genetic mutations of viruses.

Viruses can exchange information on a genetic level if they are contained in the same host. A person world-hoping around the globe could be theoretically be exposed to several deadly viruses which could conceivably mutate into some super-virus.

Imagine some business traveler who hops from Asia to Africa to NYC only to deposit on the city some mutated HIV-Ebola-Influenza-Small pox strain that essentially wipes out all oxygen breathing creatues on the planet within a matter of days.

We simply can't allow that to happen. Therefore, I will throw my support behind whichever presidential candidate promises either to scrap all forms of international travel or automatically quarantine all international travellers upon arival.

Perhaps it would be cheaper to simply annihilate the more disease prone populations centers in Africa and Asia. Actually, perhaps this is the more appealing solution since the necessary weapons would be purchased from American companies thereby providing an enormous boon to our economy. Not to mention the resulting surplus in agricultural goods that could easily wipe out hunger amoung the remaining world populations. Oh, and the US would then be able to corner the market on high technology manufacturing. Oh yeah, and cheap labor would be essentially wiped out so we can secure the support of American Labor Unions...

Man, this idea keeps getting better and better!!



<this parody brought to you by the Americans Against Apocalyptic Presidents>

That should help you divine my answer to your question.

When is our first rally?

[voodoo]

t_f: I think your description applies more correctly to bacteria than viruses.

viruses are biologically inactive entities that do not interact. they can only function within cells and it is during that process when DNA/RNA of the virus can mutate or the virus can inherit some scrap of host DNA causing it to change.

bacterias often use so called 'pili' to transport DNA codes called 'vectors' that contain pathogenic or immunosuppressive information for the bacteria, like a System 7 extension. They replicate freely and independently of the main bacterial DNA.

[nonhuman]

I'm forced to question the logic of having one's sole political motivation be such a futile endeavor as the War on Terror.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I'm forced to question the logic of having one's sole political motivation be such a futile endeavor as the War on Terror.

Well I don't know if it is any consolation but Shrub has a few other motivations, such as but not limited to: power over the middle east, money for his friends, control over the American people, control over other people as well, to spread the word of his version of the Christian religion, to maintain and foster an imagined threat against the people of the US to maintain a constant and powerful xenophobia to isolate from pesky foreign liberals with no sense of values.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by voodoo:
t_f: I think your description applies more correctly to bacteria than viruses.

viruses are biologically inactive entities that do not interact. they can only function within cells and it is during that process when DNA/RNA of the virus can mutate or the virus can inherit some scrap of host DNA causing it to change.

bacterias often use so called 'pili' to transport DNA codes called 'vectors' that contain pathogenic or immunosuppressive information for the bacteria, like a System 7 extension. They replicate freely and independently of the main bacterial DNA.

Virus-loving appeasenik!! HIV-Ebola-Influenza-Small pox-apologist!!

I won't allow the security of this great nation to be compromised by your lack of moral clarity!!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Virus-loving appeasenik!! HIV-Ebola-Influenza-Small pox-apologist!!

I won't allow the security of this great nation to be compromised by your lack of moral clarity!!

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by voodoo:

Enough of the sci-fi BS. Hitchen's is a smart cookie. I watched him debate one of your kind, some pseudo-hippy fraud and he literally wiped the floor with his pony tail. It was pretty good.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Well I don't know if it is any consolation but Shrub has a few other motivations, such as... to maintain and foster an imagined threat against the people of the US

An imagined threat? You are pathetic and delusional. Friends and acquaintances of mine are buried in the f---ing ground because they showed up to work one day.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I'm forced to question the logic of having one's sole political motivation be such a futile endeavor as the War on Terror.

And I dismiss those whose logic concludes that the War on Terror is a futile endeavor as selfish, ignorant morons.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And I dismiss those whose logic concludes that the War on Terror is a futile endeavor as selfish, ignorant morons.

How am I being selfish when I draw the conclusion that attempting to seek out and kill people who harbor ill will towards the US for what they see as oppressive and evil policies is only going to more firmly convince "terrorists" and "potential terrorists" that they are right about the US? Especially when these people are willing to die for their cause.

It is arrogance in the extreme to think that we can destroy terrorism through violent, oppressive measures. We are merely going to encourage it.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
An imagined threat? You are pathetic and delusional. Friends and acquaintances of mine are buried in the f---ing ground because they showed up to work one day.

...and Iraqi bodies are spread across the ground because of pathetic delusionals who believe Iraq was behind 9/11.

[chabig]

I'm forced to question the logic of having one's sole political motivation be such a futile endeavor as the War on Terror.

It's a much more worthy cause that the War on Poverty.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
And I dismiss those whose logic concludes that the War on Terror is a futile endeavor as selfish, ignorant morons.

Ever played whack-a-mole? I play it all the time on these boards. Even a tenacious guy like me will recognize futile endeavors, eventually. Maybe you will someday, too.



Here's hint: whacking another mole only causes more moles to pop up. Try unplugging the machine.

BlackGriffen

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Ever played whack-a-mole? I play it all the time on these boards. Even a tenacious guy like me will recognize futile endeavors, eventually. Maybe you will someday, too.



Here's hint: whacking another mole only causes more moles to pop up. Try unplugging the machine.

BlackGriffen

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Worst. Analogy. Ever.

actually I think its apt. The WOT is essentially whack-a-mole with terrorists as the moles.
No matter how many you whack, only more will replace them. Because other moles will be recruited, incensed at the way you martyred the first set......The only way to win the game is not to play by the rules set forth by the moles.


as far as analogies go, its a fair one.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually I think its apt. The WOT is essentially whack-a-mole with terrorists as the moles.
No matter how many you whack, only more will replace them. Because other moles will be recruited, incensed at the way you martyred the first set......The only way to win the game is not to play by the rules set forth by the moles.


as far as analogies go, its a fair one.

Wot did you say?

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
as far as analogies go, its a fair one.

And a highly amusing one at that!

[voodoo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
An imagined threat? You are pathetic and delusional. Friends and acquaintances of mine are buried in the f---ing ground because they showed up to work one day.

Yes well I am sorry for your loss.

Still people die every day. Don't milk it for more than it's worth and given the supply it sure ain't much.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Worst. Analogy. Ever.

Shut up mole. I refuse to whack you!

BG

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Shut up mole. I refuse to whack you!

BG

So what happens when you stop whacking the moles? You lose.

Maybe your analogy isn't so wrong after all.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
It is arrogance in the extreme to think that we can destroy terrorism through violent, oppressive measures. We are merely going to encourage it.

The way to destroy terrorism is to dismantle the fundamental structure behind it, and by demonstrating to the terrorists that their efforts are futile because we are determined in our resolve.

That's not arrogance - that's reality. Thinking that we can eliminate terrorism by being nice to them is stupidity at it's extreme.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So what happens when you stop whacking the moles? You lose.

Maybe your analogy isn't so wrong after all.

If the goal is to eliminate moles, you lose either way by playing the game. The game itself is inherently flawed. There is no end to it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
...and Iraqi bodies are spread across the ground because of pathetic delusionals who believe Iraq was behind 9/11.

Who stated that? Try making some sense.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually I think its apt. The WOT is essentially whack-a-mole with terrorists as the moles.

Thank you for the in depth analysis Mr. Rather.

No matter how many you whack, only more will replace them. Because other moles will be recruited, incensed at the way you martyred the first set......The only way to win the game is not to play by the rules set forth by the moles.

Not if you whack faster than they can spawn.

as far as analogies go, its a fair one.

See above.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Not if you whack faster than they can spawn.

Aye....there's the rub.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If the goal is to eliminate moles, you lose either way by playing the game. The game itself is inherently flawed. There is no end to it.

So your solution is to just let the moles whack you.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Still people die every day. Don't milk it for more than it's worth and given the supply it sure ain't much.

I'm not milking anything. You're the one who ignorantly and self-servingly claimed that the threat is "imagined" and "fostered". I was simply exposing you're delusional portrayal.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The way to destroy terrorism is to dismantle the fundamental structure behind it, and by demonstrating to the terrorists that their efforts are futile because we are determined in our resolve.

That's not arrogance - that's reality. Thinking that we can eliminate terrorism by being nice to them is stupidity at it's extreme.

Hey, we agree on something. Here is what we disagree on: what is the best way to do that? Sometimes, you just gotta whack that mole (Afghanistan). At other times, it causes more trouble that it's worth, and you should just unplug the machine (i.e. take the source of energy away from what spawns them using alternative methods) (Iraq).

BG

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The way to destroy terrorism is to dismantle the fundamental structure behind it, and by demonstrating to the terrorists that their efforts are futile because we are determined in our resolve.

That's not arrogance - that's reality. Thinking that we can eliminate terrorism by being nice to them is stupidity at it's extreme.

Who said anything about eliminating terrorism by being nice to them? I never offered a different solution to the problem of terrorism, but this doesn't change the fact that I think the so-called War on Terror is an even worse idea than doing nothing.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Not if you whack faster than they can spawn.

I can whack pretty fast, but the faster I whack, the faster I... I mean they, spawn.

Sick humor aside, are you advocating genocide, man? Don't be crazy.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I never offered a different solution to the problem of terrorism, but this doesn't change the fact that I think the so-called War on Terror is an even worse idea than doing nothing.

Perfect - you've completely summed up (1) the official stance of the American left, and (2) the reason I want a liberal nowhere near the White House.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So your solution is to just let the moles whack you.

no, that's a false conclusion.

I am merely stating the flaw in the present course of action. The more we regime change the middle east, the more we recruit new terrorists. Especially when we lie to do that.

Whacking moles until they're all dead might seem an acceptable genocidal thing to do for you, but it isn't for me.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'm not milking anything. You're the one who ignorantly and self-servingly claimed that the threat is "imagined" and "fostered". I was simply exposing you're delusional portrayal.

You were talking about some friends of yours buried in rubble and I assumed you were talking about the WTC ruins. (am I wrong?)

Besides that isolated incident.. I'd say there isn't any clear threat to the USA. I don't think I am delusional when I say this, rather down to earth in fact.

If course you would think it ignorant of me to claim that there isn't any threat (and certainly it is your poinion) but there have not been any terrorist actions by foreighners since 9/11 on US soil nor in any significant time before 9/11. That is why I see no imminent threat. Because of 9/11 I do think you should keep your collective eyes out and try to prevent this or something similar from happening again by changing the arrogant foreign policy that has been the hallmark of the USA for the last 50 years.

I don't think you are exposing me by calling me names spacefreak. Chill out and discuss this in a civilized manner

[thunderous_funker]

Gee, the Bushites are back to the false dichotomy of endless war or "do nothing".

No matter how many times you kill that strawman, it still is only a strawman.

I'm unaware of any period in US history in which the united states has "done nothing" about international terrorism. Perhaps that is because for me history didn't begin 2001.

Bark all you want, no politician in America, liberal or conservative, is advocating "doiong nothing".

[itai195]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm unaware of any period in US history in which the united states has "done nothing" about international terrorism. Perhaps that is because for me history didn't being in 2001.

Bark all you want, no politician in America, liberal or conservative, is advocating "doiong nothing".

I agree, but I think there have been times when the US has not done enough.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itai195:
I agree, but I think there have been times where the US has not done enough.

And I think the occassions where we might have done too little are enormously outnumbered by the times that we did something horribly counter-productive and self-defeating to appease the hawks who insist that anything short of world war is "nothing".

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Perfect - you've completely summed up (1) the official stance of the American left, and (2) the reason I want a liberal nowhere near the White House.

There you go again. Making pointless assumptions about what I'm saying.

I do think that doing nothing would be better than the current approach. I most certainly do not think that doing nothing is the best or proper approach to the problem.

I don't know what the best approach is, and I'll freely admit that. I do know, however, that, whatever it is, it doesn't include curtailing the rights or US citizens, spreading xenophobia, and killing in large quantities people unrelated to the problem.

I, and the rest of the world, agreed with Bush's decision to attack Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks. Sometimes a violent response is justified and necessary. The more weakness we show, the bolder they will get. I very much do not, however, agree with the current policy of killing and/or imprisoning people who have committed no crimes and no acts of aggression against the United States. The more imperial and oppressive we become, the more convinced of their beliefs and desperate in their need for retribution they will become.

[itai195]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
And I think the occassions where we might have done too little are enormously outnumbered by the times that we did something horribly counter-productive and self-defeating to appease the hawks who insist that anything short of world war is "nothing".

Do you think the Clinton administration could have done more to capture OBL? We'd never know for sure, but wouldn't that have perhaps deterred 9/11? If so, I'd say that's a pretty devastating lack of action. I agree we shouldn't be going off, starting wars all over the world, but we still need policies in place that recognize terrorism as a legitimate threat and deal with it appropriately.

I think we're basically advocating the same position, except that I would not want to vote for a candidate who doesn't take terrorism seriously.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by itai195:
Do you think the Clinton administration could have done more to capture OBL? We'd never know for sure, but wouldn't that have perhaps deterred 9/11? If so, I'd say that's a pretty devastating lack of action. I agree we shouldn't be going off, starting wars all over the world, but we still need policies in place that recognize terrorism as a legitimate threat and deal with it appropriately.

I think we're basically advocating the same position, except that I would not want to vote for a candidate who doesn't take terrorism seriously.

I'm frequently amazed at the persistance of the misperception that Clinton did nothing.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm frequently amazed at the persistance of the misperception that Clinton did nothing.

I didn't say he did nothing, I said he didn't do enough.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by voodoo:
You were talking about some friends of yours buried in rubble and I assumed you were talking about the WTC ruins. (am I wrong?)

Besides that isolated incident.. I'd say there isn't any clear threat to the USA. I don't think I am delusional when I say this, rather down to earth in fact.

If course you would think it ignorant of me to claim that there isn't any threat (and certainly it is your poinion) but there have not been any terrorist actions by foreighners since 9/11 on US soil nor in any significant time before 9/11. That is why I see no imminent threat.

Perhaps the WTC bombing in 1993 was an illusion. Perhaps the arrests made at US borders of al Qaeda affiliates with explosives prior to the 1999-2000 New years Eve were an illusion. Perhaps Richard Reid's 2002 shoe bombing attempt was just an illusion.

Your claim that the threat is "imagined" is absolutely ignorant.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by itai195:
Do you think the Clinton administration could have done more to capture OBL? We'd never know for sure, but wouldn't that have perhaps deterred 9/11? If so, I'd say that's a pretty devastating lack of action.

There's blame to go around—Paul O'Neill claims the Bush admin brushed aside warnings from Clinton's departing foreign policy staff about the dangers posed by Al-Queda. The Bushies were more interested in Saddam Hussein and missile defense systems at the time of 9/11.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
I do think that doing nothing would be better than the current approach. I most certainly do not think that doing nothing is the best or proper approach to the problem.

I don't know what the best approach is, and I'll freely admit that. I do know, however, that, whatever it is, it doesn't include curtailing the rights or US citizens, spreading xenophobia, and killing in large quantities people unrelated to the problem.

You've had 2.5 years to figure out a damn solution, and you still don't have one. Sorry, champ, but your time's up. Next.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Nonsuch:
There's blame to go around—Paul O'Neill claims the Bush admin brushed aside warnings from Clinton's departing foreign policy staff about the dangers posed by Al-Queda. The Bushies were more interested in Saddam Hussein and missile defense systems at the time of 9/11.

Well okay... I didn't mean to single out Clinton, just to use him as an example. I'm not convinced the security measures Bush has enacted are appropriate or adequate either. I think the Bush administration has shown more interest in applying 'easy fixes' at home instead of actually investing in more secure infractructure and competent intelligence capabilities. Bush is a politician seeking reelection, and these projects are expensive and hidden from the public eye.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by itai195:
Well okay... I didn't mean to single out Clinton, just to use him as an example. I'm not convinced the security measures Bush has enacted are appropriate or adequate either.

What, you don't like the thought that reporters were able to smuggle a sizable amount of radioactive uranium (not weapons grade, but it would have set off alarms if they'd been looking) into the country?

Most of the security measures are big on inconvenience (and thus, public perception) but short on effect.

Did they ever get those god-damned reinforced cockpit doors installed?

BlackGriffen

[chabig]

Did they ever get those god-damned reinforced cockpit doors installed?

Yes. We have them in all of our planes.

Chris

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by chabig:
Yes. We have them in all of our planes.

Chris

Good. Last I'd heard, the airlines were stalling because it "would be too expensive."

BG

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by itai195:
Do you think the Clinton administration could have done more to capture OBL? We'd never know for sure, but wouldn't that have perhaps deterred 9/11? If so, I'd say that's a pretty devastating lack of action. I agree we shouldn't be going off, starting wars all over the world, but we still need policies in place that recognize terrorism as a legitimate threat and deal with it appropriately.

I think we're basically advocating the same position, except that I would not want to vote for a candidate who doesn't take terrorism seriously.

And I think the record on exactly how much the Clinton administration was working on the problem is grossly understated or omitted by political calculation.

According to reports I've seen, they were using the Predator drone to find OBL as late as Oct of 2000. It was to be used in conjunction with Tomahawk missles from Naval units stationed in the region. In the political wrangling that followed the post-election transfer, the Predator got grounded and never flew over Afghanistan again until the war started.

So the charge of not doing enough doesn't belong where you'd find it politically expedient to lay it.

Now, I'm not saying Bush "did nothing", but if there was ever a lapse in our anti-OBL activity, it was AFTER the transfer of power. I'm inclined to think that it was merely a matter of ill-fated timing and natural process of transition rather than negligence or incompetence, but the facts remain that we were pretty damn active on that front right up to when Bush's team took over.

As for candidates who "don't take terrorism seriously", I think we're back to the original issue. I think any candidate who actually believes that civilization is at stake is either suffering from apocalyptic delusions of grandeur or has a hopelessly inadequate understanding of history.

There is absolutely nothing that OBL and his ilk could ever do, no weapon they could ever employ and no power on earth that will ever enable them to destroy civilation or even remotely threaten to destroy civilzation.

And any candidate who callously uses "terrorist" as a blanket term without regard to the political, cultural and ideological differences between various militant factions willing to commit terrorist acts is woefully incompetent to fight against them.

And any candidate who considers the term "terrorist" to be inter-changeable with "evildoer" or "hater" is so frighteningly simple-minded and myopic that they shoudn't even be allowed to own a firearm let alone command the mightiest military force in the history of the world.

Terrorism is not a religioius sect, political faction, nor a philosophical worldview. It is a tactic. A viscious and effective tactic employed at one time or another by nearly every zealous faction on the planet against it's enemies.

The "war on terror" is almost as meaningless a fiction as declaring a "war on snipers" or a "war on people who use bombs".

In fact, modern warfare increasingly demonstrates just how blurred the distinction between "terrorist" and legal armed conflict has become. Strategies that openly embrace the intentional bombing of civilian centers to crush the capacity and will of the enemy to fight are rationalized more and more. For me, the "war on terrorism" is as hopeless a tautology as declaring a "war on war".