[tk27]

Is this perplexing for you in some manner?

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

JCS Pub 1-02 defines it as follows: terrorism — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Both of these, as with all definitions of terrorism are ambiguous. I do not care for loose interpretations, I am not a liberal. Especially on matters related to Posse Comitatus. By your definition of “terrorism” being an American security problem we should have sent the Marine Corps after Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army and SEALs after The Order.
So yes, it is perplexing; I have some concern about the Constitutionality of it.

Do you not feel the need to defend your country against these seven harbingers of hostility, or are you content to throw stones and scream "anarchy" from your dorm window?

Is there any middle ground between “anarchy” and “war on terrorism”?

I happen to think other efforts where the government has declared “war on” something ill defined, like drugs and poverty, it has been A.) driven by domestic politics, and B.) a horrible failure. I think immediately after 9/11 the efforts of the Agency working in tandem with Special Forces were immensely successful. And I think since we launched our “war on terror” campaign, with the Pentagon at the helm, creation of DHS, and the pork grab of congress and industry, it has all been downhill.

I am anti big government, this makes me a conservative, not an anarchist. I read Bill Buckley not Bill Bennett, Edmund Burke not Sean Hannity, and detest what has become of the conservative movement. Again this does not make me an anarchist.

I think the authoritarian impulse to try to control everything has been the downfall of many a man and nation. I think we have walked into Osama’s trap, just like a bear swatting a flee. Our economy responded quickly to the effects of 9/11, but it has not rebounded to the effects of our response, AQ can never destroy us but our deficits and spending will. This was Osama’s intent all along.

I think we are giving common cause and meaning to otherwise disparate groups with our “war on terrorism”. I think this is a mistake, the more they have in common, the less time they have to kill each other. Our “Freedom Agenda” boggles my mind, dictatorships like Syria are fantastic at killing Salafi, Mubarak does not need elections – he needs to stay in power. I think it is nonsensical to say we are in a “war on terrorism” and do absolutely nothing with Saudi Arabia.

I imagine agency and SF unconventional warrior types need little meaning in unifying buzzwords like "global war on terrorism" and cheerleading from the public to do their jobs. Had we stuck with what was working, instead of finding meaning, "we're going to change the world", "fight terror", "spread freedom", we would have been much better off.