My own two cents: Is an attack considered a "terror attack" if it is carried out by one person acting alone, not under a terrorist organization? Assuming it is, how would a nation combat such a string of terror? While [I believe] it is near impossible to stop a single madman acting alone before an attack, if there is an obvious pattern (in this case, devout Muslims), what should be done to attempt to stop such attacks?
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Salt Lake Terror?
(Hat tip: Pamela H) Two interesting and thought-provoking articles about the attack in a Utah mall by a Bosnian Muslim that killed 5:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
We should do the same thing we did after 9-11 -- invade a completely unrelated country. Seriously, this is why terrorism should be treated with intelligence and police-work instead of warfare.
ReplyDeleteWe should do the same thing we did after 9-11 -- invade a completely unrelated country.
ReplyDelete...not buying, though I honestly never thought the Iraq War was specific to 9/11, but rather related to the war on terror as a whole and a good, specific beginning point in terms of removing dictators and spreading democracy in the Middle East. (See the video I linked to a couple of days ago.)
Seriously, this is why terrorism should be treated with intelligence and police-work instead of warfare.
Oy - bad pre-9/11 POV. Police work is wonderful after it's too late; terrorism needs to be attacked in advance to be stopped.
Now, we can argue about whether it's better to attack the people who carry out the attacks or to try and change the world or the people in order to convince them they don't want to carry out attacks in the first place: Personally, I think it's a combination of both.