the 'war on terrorism'

[Jim Lang]

It's all very well posturing and beating your chest about how the US will go to war with all terrorists and those that protect them but the obvious problem with terrorists, as with guerilla warfare, is that there is no visible enemy. And it is most probably nigh on impossible to provide the sort of proof of someone like Bin Laden's involvement that would vindicate the absolute support of countries like Pakistan. As so many other countries have had to do in the past it seems to me that angry US citizens should try to accept that being the victim of terrorism is not something that can easily be fought through the use of conventional firepower. Terrorism on US soil from a foreign quarter is not something that US citizens are accustomed to, but when grief gives rise to an immediate call for retaliation it should be tempered with the knowledge that retaliation against an unknown foe can only be a blind alley. After all it is only reasonable to respond with such devastating firepower as has been suggested by some of the members of this board if there is incontrovertible proof to support it. The apparent 'war on terrorism' is pure rhetoric and makes little sense (because the enemy is unseen) whereas to confront the causes of the hatred and terrorism makes more constructive sense.
To pronounce all-out war on particular middle eastern nations will only turn more innocent people against the west, in the long run creating another generation of potential enemies. Violence is truly a vicious circle, and condoning the inevitable targeting of more innocent people in retaliation is wrong, whatever your background or creed.
Maybe I am stating the obvious here but man's continued inhumanity to his/her fellow man never fails to amaze me. The terrible acts of terrorism perpetrated this week are awful and all those affected have my absolute sympathies. But unless the real perpetrators can be rooted out there is no point in pointing fingers at other groups (including members of this board) in what appears to me to be an unthinking kneejerk reaction.

[Jane Griscti]

Well said Jim. However, while the following:

The apparent 'war on terrorism' is pure rhetoric and makes little
sense (because the enemy is unseen) whereas to confront the causes of the hatred and terrorism makes more constructive sense.

...is nicely put, 5,000 years of recorded history indicates that the 'causes of hatred and terrorism' are rooted in human nature and I think it's time we took a realistic look at what we are.
Someone once said to me that if we split all the worlds resources evenly; so that in the morning everyone on the planet woke up with exactly the same as every other person on the planet by nightfall some would be rich and others poor. Unfortunately, I think that's true. There is always going to be someone who wants more: more money, more power, more status, more anything. And they will be willing to do whatever it takes to get it.
Utopia is a wonderful idea but given what we are and have always been I can't see it happening. Given the entrenched need people have to believe they are part of some 'special, chosen' group, be it religious, nationalist or elite, we will have hatred. There is no logic to it. Remove one 'cause' and another will take it's place .
This week we've witnessed the worst (terrorism) and the best (compassion) that humanity is capable of. It is not a battle between 'good' and 'evil' between the truth of God or Allah between the US and Afghanistan(?). It is a battle rooted in human nature, in all of us. And the realization that sometimes you need to fight fire with fire.