I think I am missing something here about terrorism and how we deal with it as a country...

[WCGreen]

If we want to elevate every person with a political beef whether long standing or imagined or convolutely constructed into a terrorist event, doesn't that play right into the hand of the perp who wants attention?

If so, wouldn't it be better to view the "criminal" as such by not giving the special status as a terrorist and therefor defeating the purpose by giving the terrorist a win no matter the outcome.

Just a thought.

[elleng]

1. Yes. Treat them as criminals,

which they are, and end the dancing around 'terror.'

[Fumesucker]

2. Harder to stoke fear that way

I like to keep in mind that we all have a purpose, even if only as a bad example.

[Newest Reality]

3. Terrorism is a

nebulous word. It is vague and subject to the definition of those who are using it.

So far, it has been a useful term in the sense that it strikes at the core of fear and grabs people to the point that you can then get them to do what you want them to.

It is a word. It is a word that is open to interpretation. For instance, you can have a war on country and a place and a people and even a group, but you cannot have a real war on a word ever. And yet, we are.

Combine that with the obsessive projection of a need for fame and relevancy through worship of, and obsession with, celebrity figures and what do you get?

You get a the celebrity of terrorism and that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you are in a burgeoning, Fascist police state, it becomes a useful tool where one feeds the other.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Good thought.

K&R