From security expert Bruce Schneier:
The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.
…
It’s time we calm down and fight terror with antiterror. This does not mean that we simply roll over and accept terrorism. There are things our government can and should do to fight terrorism, most of them involving intelligence and investigation — and not focusing on specific plots.
It’s a good essay on the current state of terror. Surely people can see that this makes sense. Why can’t the people “leading” us, and I use that term loosely, seem to grasp this? It’s called terrorism for reason. Blowing up or just threatening to blow up a few planes or buses is not the ends, it’s only the means. Stop making us pour our water out. Stop making us not bring hair gel. Stop with the kneekjerk reactions and use your heads for once.
Annoying as I find it, the reaction prevent’s other groups copy catting the terrorists and bringing more explosives on planes because they saw how good an idea it was.
Yeah. Terrorism is a tough animal, mostly because (I believe) both sides are looking at it all wrong. Terrorism isn’t about scaring people. Or depriving us of civil liberties. What does Osama get out of giving New Yorkers the willies? Or keeping Americans in first class from enjoying their Evian?
Nah. It’s all about the same thing our government’s all about: money and power. Osama’s a rich, powerful son of a gun who never really has to look down a scope, the same way Bush is.
Sad worldview, but I’m a sad individual.
William:
In some cases it may have been carried out with thought and care but from what I read security was making people pour out their liquids in trash receptacles. Everyone pouring out their possibly dangerous chemicals in the same container that could, once put together, create a bomb. Kneejerk.
As far as it being a good idea or plan, here’s what Bruce said about that “In truth, it’s doubtful that their plan would have succeeded; chemists have been debunking the idea since it became public.” And there are links to specific articles in the original essay.
James:
I don’t doubt that there are other motiviations for the actions of a terrorist. But again, the terror is a means to those other ends. How? Why? I don’t really know.
Yeah, but that’s what I’m saying- I don’t really think they’re trying to use fear anyway. “Terrorist” is a term we Westerners came up with to describe them. Fear of Osama in America builds resistance to Osama’s cause.
I’m not convinced yet that fear is an intentional play in their playbook.
It just seems to me that it’s another tactic of politicians to label them as the Boogiemen who are trying to scare us for some reason, and that we shouldn’t be scared. That in itself builds fear.
By that I mean no offense to you or Bruce. Great article. Very intelligent analysis of the Bush Administration & its allies’ strategies. And a lot of the points in there do make you go hmm… But I was just caught off guard by the title…”Fight Terror with AntiTerror…”? So what does that even MEAN? Haha.