Terrorism and counterterrorism strategies

David Foster

David, I respectfully disagree with your premise that words are the fabric of society. I would offer that experience and action are the true foundation of a well working society. Anyone, such as myself, can endlessly pine about the problems of the world on paper, but if no action is taken, than much is lost. Your dependence on "vision" is also risky in attaining any true understanding of the subject. Too often our five senses will deceive us as they depend on our emotional state to function. If we believe everything we see, we are not being honest with ourselves. In regards to the trap, to me the emperor has no clothes and I would encourage that you revisit that fable to see if it applies to your belief system regarding the actual threat of so called terrorist actions.

John Rhodes

John it seems that your dependency on the United Nations for your usage of the word terrorism is simply un-American. The United Nations, is a failed entity that has done nothing over its existence than promote more war and struggle. It is time that we do not rely on the ideas of others as a nation when it comes to defending it. Too often the UN does not resonate with the values and ethics of America and Americans. The United Nations is too corruptible to hold any sway over domestic sovereignty and its involvement in these country's affairs should be revisited. The UN, should not therefore be used as any sort of guiding light to the way Americans should handle terrorism or assist in its definition.

Michael Devivo

Michael, I appreciate your comments and thank you for your opinion. However, I am not arguing to refuse to label things, I am simply saying that words and definitions are only just labels and representations of things, not the real things. The word "terrorist" is fluid and flexible and can be applied in many different ways and one day you may be considered a terrorist. Big deal. What is important is that we do not over react to histrionics caused by such emotionally charged words, that in reality are silly and meaningless. Language is important but it is only a single tool in our large tool bag to navigate our life. Putting so much trust in something so malleable and fragile as a word is asking for trouble, in my humble opinion.

Litchfield

I am sorry but I do not understand your argument. You claim that terrorists do not act on intent, but rather on belief and they gain nothing but causing fear. If you are trying to explain that fear has no benefit I would suggest otherwise. Fear is the greatest control mechanism of the human psyche. Fear is a weapon and can be used to seriously harm and hurt. John F. Kennedy suggested it's the greatest evil known to man and it itself should be the only thing to fear. I believe that the threat of terrorism is using fear to control and undermine the populations it targets. I also find your comments on asymmetric warfare to reveal and important idea in developing a secure defense: bigger is not always better.

Terrence Priest

Terrence I am confused about what you have written. It seems to me that you are explaining that monetary gain and profit is not related to ideology, politics or religion. In my humble experiences I have found these ideas to be significantly intermeshed. I find it impossible to find any real use in discerning between criminals, terrorists and insurgents. The argument just leads to more questions and does not address the real problem: the elusiveness of peace and stability. This is nothing more than childish name calling dressed in the obscene defense of a tyrannical empire that offers nothing to the world but war and domination. To suggest that America now subscribes to the Geneva Convention is laughable, war crimes attributed to this standard are carried out daily by American military forces and have been for the last 13 years.