Words can be tricky, so I wouldn't want "symbolic" to be misconstrued as "lacking in substance". The attacks hurt! The important point is that they embodied a message that we should understand in order to respond more precisely and effectively.
But yeah, I think the absence of attacks on American territory may be an indication that the terrorists calculate that they would be counterproductive...for now. The recent attacks in the Middle East and Africa seem to have the same characteristic of focus: Westerners in Saudi Arabia, Russians in Chechnya...generally, foreign influences. The attacks in Israel would seem to have the characteristic of attacks on a general population, but I think that the old Palestinian-Israeli feud is somewhat outside my thesis, despite the determination of the Israelis to link it to America's war on terrorism.
If I'm right, then you can see why I'm skeptical of Bush Administration rhetoric about the subject. I want to understand the threat and respond appropriately, not be stampeded by fear into action we might regret someday. I want us to wield a rifle, not a shotgun.
--Robert
Current Events » in reply to Actually, all other arguments aside, I hope you're right...
Re: Actually, all other arguments aside, I hope you're right...
The whole thread (38 posts)
- On terrorism - or the lack thereof
- While you ask a very good question
- Re: On terrorism - or the lack thereof
- Re: On terrorism - or the lack thereof
- Re: On terrorism - or the lack thereof
- Re: On terrorism - or the lack thereof
- Re: On terrorism - or the lack thereof
- The gang that couldn't shoot straight
- I thought you'd never ask