Issue 62 Should we help Syria April 24, 2013

As most of you all know, Syria is in a civil war. The Arab spring uprisings turned violent when Syria's President (dictator) Assad cracked down on the protesters and thus sparked the violent conflict. From that point on the world watched as the conflict escalated with Turkey on the brink of all out war should the conflict spill over into their country and possibly risk the Kurds taking the opportunity to succeed. And just recently, there are reports of chemical weapons being used (however these chemical weapons are most likely ones not listed in the chemical weapons ban treaty, for if they were then the international community would be allowed to go in and crush Assad). Needless to say this situation is a complete mess.

Pros of going in: One of the main reasons to go in is to remove a dictator. Assad while having the title of President is not a true elected leader. As with most countries that wish to fake a democracy they have rigged elections and systems to keep certain specific people in power. This is despite Assad trying to appease the protesters pre civil war with constitutional reform.

Another reason to go in is that if the rebels win, there is a chance that a democracy (a real one) will develop. These rebels seek the rights and privileges that are granted to people in most free countries and they are willing to fight for it. If we help them, then it allows a possible future alliance in the Middle East (America will no longer just have Israel to rely on). In addition, once Syria is changed over to a new government, old ties with countries that may be against our countries interests may cease (as in the case of America versus Iran). Syria is a puppet of Iran in the region and Iran flying in troops to help Assad is proof. Iran is a rouge nation (at the moment) and removing an ally may help suppress their ambitions.

Finally, some of the rebels are foreign fighters from other countries. Unfortunately, some of them are radical Jihadists. If we help in some way then we can surgically remove these elements from the rebellion, or even use them as cannon fodder to do the dirty work while leaving the moderates safe to later rebuild the country based on freedom and democratic principles.

Cons: Everything listed in the Pros section can back fire. The new government of Syria once the conflict is over could be worse than Assad (case in point Iran after its revolution). So world may get an even more violent and dangerous rouge nation. Ties even with Iran may even strengthen, and the country may become a training ground for future jihadists. If we aid the rebels, we may just be giving weapons to the jihadists themselves which could increase violence and blood shed throughout the entire region. On top of that, Iran and other nations may become emboldened and develop nuclear bombs faster and then follow that up by giving the bombs to their allies. All of this is a dangerous proposition.

But we also have to remember that America is war weary. The last two wars we fought and the small brush fire conflicts in Lebanon and Yemen have stretched American forces thin. America cannot be expected to win a war for its allies and neutral nations anymore (at least not at the moment). Also, our involvement may make the situation worse as some of the rebels seeing that we are backing their comrades may see those same comrades as puppets of the American government. This could result in the rebels fighting each other both during and after Assad is removed from power.

Conclusion: For now we watch. We must look at the conflict carefully and only give support on a needs based bases whether that be a show of support on television to a small arm drop so the rebels can take out enemy tanks. All support must be focused to only those rebels that we trust, and even then how they got those weapons must be kept secret so as to prevent any sort of negative influences that may destabilize the situation more than it already has. From there we have to put our faith in the rebels that we helped to set up a country that is friendly to the U.S. Also, once the civil war is over, the U.S. and other countries should offer aid in rebuilding (such as electricians, plumbers or even experts in writing constitutions). We can get involved, but it must be selective and it must be secretive. The rebels must win, but only the ones who will not want to kill us after.

 

Yes I am a libertarian and I would prefer that the U.S. stay out of the conflict. But unfortunately, libertarians are not in charge so my conclusion is based on the U.S. getting involved because it is almost certain that both the Republicans and Democrats will push us into the conflict thinking it is our moral duty to do so. Though I think they forget that it is our moral duty to avoid sending our soldiers into harms way in the first place.

Issue 61 Blades on Planes April 23, 2013

Recently the U.S. Department of Home Land Security scaled back its restrictions on edged items such as scissors, knives and the like. But is this a wise decision or inviting another terrorist attack like that of 9/11.

Pros: An argument for allowing such items back on planes most likely concerns their overall lethality and the current security procedures used. For one, the cockpit is closed off from the rest of the plane preventing the pilots from being threatened directly. This only leaves the flight attendants and passengers at the mercy of a knife wielding terrorist or psycho path. However, many of these flight attendants have been given extra training since 9/11 to protect themselves and the passengers. How good that training is though is not the clearest as we have yet to see it tested. Then there is the fact that we have Air Marshals riding in the planes now as a deterrent. These Marshals are armed and trained (much more so than your typical flight attendant) to deal with this sort of situation. And finally the passengers are not the same complacent people they used to be. No one wants to be a victim so passengers are much more aware and ready to act. For instance, think of the "underwear" bomber, passengers took him down first. Adding knives into the equation allows passengers and crew to carry a deterrent to make a terrorist think twice (a psycho will just go nuts anyway however). Not to mention blocking people from carrying nail clippers and small scissors seems a bit unnecessary. To make a fatal blow with such a tiny blade a person would have to sever their main arteries in the neck or find a way to hold the other persons wrist long enough to slice it open. Aside from that, maybe the eyes are vulnerable (though in any close up fight with or without a weapon they are subject to damage). It takes a blade of at least a full 1 inch in length being plunged into the body to make an actual almost guaranteed fatal blow. Sure no one wants to be cut, but when you consider the alternative then you would prefer the small flesh cuts to a burning wreck.

Cons: The flight attendants and pilots are most defiantly against the change in security policy. For them it is an unnecessary risk as such small blades (if you really want to bring your scissors with you) can be carried in the luggage compartment. They don't want people to have access to such potentially deadly tools in their carryons. You can't exactly not feel for them, as they will be in the line of fire first and foremost. It is their lives that are in danger first. For a terrorist, sure they may be deterred from trying to take down another plane as current security procedures will prevent that from happening, which is if everything goes well. The nightmare scenario is what these pilots and flight attendants fear the most and who can blame them. Not to mention the fact that people should not be even bringing out such items as nail clippers during the flight. No one wants to see some one cut their nails as it is plain disgusting.

Conclusion: I personally see nothing wrong with allowing blades under a specific length back, like tiny scissors and nail clippers. Also, I see nothing wrong with blades over a specific length like a sword or axe (never know what a person is going to bring home) so long as it is too unwieldy to be used in the confined space of a plane. In addition, flight attendants should be allowed to arm themselves with any weapon they see fit that will not endanger to plane such as combat knives or small fire arms that will not penetrate the hull of the plane. So for me, a balance must be made between protection and freedom. Thus a list of items that can be carried as carryon’s should be made, with the rest of the items that are not allowed to be possessed as carryon’s riding in the luggage compartment. From there it comes down to a good screening process to protect people. I feel the pros out weigh the cons on this issue, but never should the feelings of the plane crew be dismissed from this sort of decision.

Issue 60 Death to Text Books April 22, 2013

Today we separate a little from hard core politics and reform and talk about education. In this case, we talk about text books and there future in our schools.

For the developed world: Text books have long served as reference tools for many generations of school students. They even had text books prior to the United States coming into existence. But today’s text books are overtly political. For the United States, the text books to be used in schools are based off what text books are to be used in Texas and California school systems. The reason being is that their governments decide which text books are to be used in all of their schools. As such, the rest of the country is subject to them due to it being cheaper to make a text book acceptable to their school system rather than make unique ones for each individual school or State.

Political Text Books: What people probably don't know is that the content of the text book is also defined by government. If they want more Black Americans represented, or Hispanic Americans represented then the governments at the State level will debate how much representation of each group will go in. From there the governments decide which people in history from those groups will be put in. Feminist groups try to make text books less masculine by trying to have words removed like "Fathers" from the "Founding Fathers", and other little things like that. There are even rules that define what cannot be placed in a text book. Such things as a picture of a mouse or a rat are banned because people may be afraid of them. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds. Our text books are overtly subjected to politics and interest groups, and even then the text book may still get facts wrong. So what is the point in keeping them around in the age of the internet?

Digital Text Books: I advocate the complete removal of traditional text books from the class room. They have become politicized to the point that our school children (here in America at least) have lost any and all interest in them. In affect they have become boring due to the overt politicalization of the text book. What is needed is a switch to original source documents like the U.S. Constitution, the writings of Frederick Douglass and Dr. King Jr. If we want to learn hate, then we have to simply find a document expressing those feelings from the time period such as during the civil war. Children are not stupid, just impatient and thus they need something interesting to capture that interest. People regurgitating information in text books fails to due that. The traditional text book should be abolished and instead use an online data base filled to the brim with every aspect of human knowledge for students to choose from (looking at you Library of Congress). Why waste money buying a text book when a school can so much more cheaply educate their students with the original document like the Federalist Papers.

I do understand the argument that some of this information from original source documents can be a bit hard to read, but with a teachers help those more difficult parts can be made clear. Otherwise most of the documents themselves are fairly easy to grasp. I was afraid to read the Federalist Papers and my Constitutional law text book (contained actual case documents) because I feared not being able to grasp the concepts and writings. I read them though, and I understood them. When I had a question, I simply asked a question to my teacher. Learning became fun (note: I read those documents outside of regular class work as I was tired of being told what to believe with respect to politics and history).

The undeveloped world: For places without access to the internet (such places are vanishing quickly) text books in the traditional form will still be needed. For lets face it, a text book is a tool just like the internet, except that the internet has the ability to be a news source, a library and a communication device all rolled into one.

Conclusion: Math, and for the most part science (non-political parts) are non-controversial. History on the other hand is always controversial because everyone has to put their opinions in, and thus my advocating of online text books. Even work books can be online so long as the information can be sent to the teacher for checking. Publishers will however try to block this process every step of the way because it is what makes them the most money. But unfortunately for the publishers they are fighting a losing battle as budgets get tight, schools will have to look to other ways to save on cash and that may mean killing the text book as we know it today. The only way for the publishers to survive is to make online text books that schools will have to pay access to, but the traditional problems of politicalization will still be there (not to mention, why pay for information that you can access for free somewhere else). So lets hope that the government stops its protectionism soon so that our students can get the education they deserve not the political trash being shoved down their throat.

 

 

Issue 59 Did you know!? Welfare April 19, 2013

I first saw this corruption on a Fox News special hosted by Sean Hannity. The show was called Boom Town 2, and it was all about the corruption in the United States welfare system. So now I present to you some of that corruption.

Getting rich off the poor: Did you know that when the U.S. switched over to electronic food stamps that three private companies run the system on our behalf. The special mentioned two of the three and they are JP Morgan and Xerox. These companies save the taxpayers money by running the programs for us, but there is a catch. For each person on food stamps these companies make $2 per month. They are literally getting rich by having people be on food stamps. To make matters worse, these companies lobby the federal government (not just the politicians but the different departments in charge of the rules for welfare qualification) to reduce the qualifications to get food stamps. Thus, with less qualifications needed to be able to apply and receive welfare these companies can obtain more money as the number of people on welfare increase. This is corruption at its finest.

Corrupt businesses: Another little televised fact is that businesses such as super markets take a cut as well. However, their cut is illegal. Some shop keepers are ringing up groceries at twice there value to get more money. To make matters worse the welfare recipient is complicit. They let the shop keeper do this to get some spending money on the side. Investigators only inspect around 1,500 businesses per month, but the number of businesses who accept food stamps exceeds 20,000. Also, as some of you may well know, a food stamp recipient may not buy cigarettes of alcohol with food stamps, but again the corrupt business steps in. They ring up the cigarettes as an entirely different item. It is very disgusting.

Corrupt recipients: Did you know there is a cash back feature on food stamps. You probably didn't, but there is. When I used to work at a super market the food stamp recipients would buy what items they could with the card and then get cash back to buy booze. To add insult to injury, many of these people on welfare were wearing fur coats, diamond rings, expensive shoes and some even drove away in some real nice looking cars. Last I checked food stamp money is not actually a welfare recipient’s money. We gave it to them through our tax dollars to help them buy food, not get intoxicated. Hell some of these recipients use the ATMs in strip clubs, and others use the money they take out to buy drugs. It is a sick and twisted system we are in.

Conclusion: Right now about half the United States is on welfare. It has become part of the U.S.'s death spiral adding to the nation’s debt. Two States in our country, New York (my home) and California have more people on welfare than people paying into the system. This is a bi partisan issue that must be addressed, but isn't. The reason is that most people associate food stamps with black and Hispanic Americans. Yes it is true that a large percentage of each of those communities in America is on some form of welfare, but when you put all the demographics together there are way more white people on food stamps than black and Hispanic combined. Politicians and interest groups use the black and Hispanic communities as scapegoats to expand welfare in their districts to gain more votes. Thus, we have more corruption than we can shake a stick at. America's welfare system is broken. It needs a massive overhaul along with our tax code, and our government bureaucracy a whole. I don't know why countries bother posturing with America as all they have to do is wait for us to collapse from the inside (at least if we continue down this path to insolvency). To my readers from around the globe, be careful you do not end up in the same position we Americans are in now. As to my readers here in the U.S., if you want change, be prepared to be called a racist and a bigot, because no one wants their free stuff taken away. Maybe we should be like Mexico, they don't have a single form of welfare and yet no one has ever starved, because unlike some of western civilization the church and other private organizations aid the sick and needy in place of a corrupt and soulless government.

Issue 58 A Fairer Tax: The Fair Tax April 18 2013

Another alternative to the tax code.  One that creates true equality.  Hope you enjoy :)
 

What Is the Fair Tax: The Fair Tax is a tax designed to bring business back to America and turn our country from a consumer nation back into a producer nation. It eradicates all current taxes, and I mean all of them, and replace them with a sales tax that only applies at the retail level. That means you are only taxed on what you buy at say CVS, Walgreens, or your local mom and pop store. Its not just products, but services like when you hire a lawyer you are being taxed as well. So it is everything you buy that is being taxed. What is not taxed are the processes that lead up to the retail level. So when the iron is bought by the steel mill from the iron mine it is not taxed. The steel is not taxed when bought by the car manufacturer. However, when the consumer, like you and me, buy the car we are taxed. The estimated tax on all these goods and services bought at the consumer level is 23% (estimated for the American market). Some are saying that that amount is outrageous, but they are forgetting one important thing. There are no other taxes so you have more money in your pocket. You keep all of your paycheck. Not just you though, the businesses too. This leads to four possible outcomes; one, because a businesses has more money to spend it can lower its prices leading to cheaper goods, homes or even lawyers. Two, more money goes into the pockets of average working Americans. That’s right; you may get a raise, in some cases higher than the minimum wage. The third which is a combination of the first two: lower prices and larger pay. Fourth, the one that people will dread happening, is the employer becoming greedy and keeping all the savings for themselves.

Preventing Greed: People will certainly be scared of greedy employers who keep all the savings created by the fair tax, so how is such a situation prevented. Well, it comes down to competition for the money in your wallet. If they don’t lower there price in comparison to a direct competitor, then they loose business, "your business." Thus, it’s either lower the cost of the goods you sell or possibly go out of business. Also, there is another safety net against bad employers, the workers themselves. If they see a job which pays more, they will seek to acquire that job. At the same time new workers will be deterred from working for the bad employers business because they don’t pay as well as there competitors. The result is the bad employer getting less skilled and/or experienced workers who did not make the cut at the higher paying industry. So the bad employer gets the leftovers while the higher skilled/more experienced workers work for the higher paying company. An employer wants skilled workers who do not need to be trained as much, can do the job both efficiently and effectively and are most importantly professionals. If you have employees of the aforementioned ability then you will generally have a successful business. Those with the leftovers I wish them good luck.

  

 The Poor: Ok, we got the biggest worry out of the way.  With little to no taxes, businesses are free to grow and expand and you keep your whole paycheck.  So that 23% tax is now very meager in comparison to your now untouched paycheck.  Some though are probably concerned about the poor who may not see all of the benefits of this new tax system.  Well, the legislation (located at Fairtax.org) has something called a pre-bate.  This gives money to the lowest income earners so they can afford what they need most.  Best of all, they will still be paying taxes, so everyone is contributing to the system for the countries prosperity. 

My Concern:  I have a concern though.  Like Milton Freedman’s negative income tax, I worry that these “poor” people will spend the pre-bate on everything but the essentials.  Therefore I suggest we make it a voucher limiting how the pre-bate can be spent.  However, I would only recommend this change to incentivize the poor earn more money so they will no longer need the pre-bate.

Funding the pre-bate: I see the pre-bate as a form of welfare which could replace many other forms of financial assistance programs, including food stamps and unemployment.  This is only a possibility though.  This new tax code does not affect Medicare and Social Security, except how it is funded.  Since you are no longer paying the payroll tax, America’s two favorite programs will need to be funded out of the Federal Governments general revenues.  So aside from how Social Security and Medicare are funded, the programs will be generally untouched with the possibility of forcing congress to be more fiscally responsible with these programs.

 No way to two Tax codes: Some are thinking that the politicians may try to pull a fast one and keep the Federal income tax.  It can’t because in the Fair Tax legislation it has a mandate that repeals the 16^th amendment to the Constitution that gives the government the authority to tax our income.  So that goes bye-bye.  Is this new system constitutional?  Yes under article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which allows congress to implement taxes to fund the government.  To my knowledge this form of taxation falls as a combination of impost and excises taxes.  This also means that all taxes under the fair tax must be uniform as dictated by the Constitution which governs the implementation of impost and excises taxes.  So there’s no funny business of charging only certain goods and services while excluding others which is a form of corruption.

Conclusion:  This is the Fair Tax.  It taxes everything equally, provides for your keeping your wealth and everyone paying taxes ensuring fair and equal treatment under the law as dictated in the Constitution.  The poor are still looked after and creates more opportunities for businesses to grow. Sure that 23% looks nauseating, but you have more wealth in your pocket and you determine how much you pay in taxes by how much you buy as it is mandatory that on your receipt to show how much went to the Federal Government.  A "Fair Tax" for a country that loves a fair deal.   

Issue 57 Other issues: Gay Marrige?! April 17, 2013

I thought the gay marriage debate was all about people being uncomfortable with the fact that people of the same sex would marry. Something that violates religious tenants (well id violates it for most religions). But, I was wrong. There is one additional issue concerning gay marriage that I didn't even think of, but those who fear it did.

The Fear: Death of Marriage: What those against gay marriage also fear is that it will make people less inclined to marry in the first place. They feel that, in time, the idea and concept of gay marriage (along with multi person marriages to follow) will disrupt the nature of the sacrament of marriage. It is feared that once it becomes main stream that people will not care about the idea and concept of marriage and simply move from partner to partner once they tire of the person they are with.

The Fear 2: What about the kids: This is mainly an issue, not just because the religious sacrament of marriage will be eroded, but because of the traditional family unit. Every study shows that a traditional family creates happier healthier children. This is also true for some gay couples who have children who have been allowed to adopt (whether any of the studies are biased in favor of gays or of traditional marriage I don't know, so take this with a grain of salt). So to another degree they fear broken homes if marriage (the commitment it brings tying two people together) begins to degrade.

My Opinion: For both of these fears, I agree that the potential is there for both to occur. We want people to be committed to one another and more importantly to be committed to raising a family together (gay, straight, or multi). Family units provide a child with the best chance of growing up and achieving success due in part to the fact that a father and mother (or dad and dad/mom and mom) are always around to influence their child so that they are disciplined to follow the path to success more often. In other words they set them straight (not the marriage thing, the right path in life thing). However, the marriage concept is already being eroded as time goes on. It has really nothing to do with gay marriage and more to do with our associating marriage less and less with religion (gay marriage is a symptom, not a cause). Governments in the past have tried to support traditional marriage via laws and through tax relief (part of the reason gays want to marry is so that they can be recognized under the law and achieve those benefits and privileges), due to many at the time supporting the traditional marriage structure. However, this may all have to change for if it becomes re-recognized as part of faith, these benefits may change or be discarded. Worry not, as there are still ways to recognize that two people co-own property, and have a say in medical and what not. It's called a contract which can include property sharing agreements, last wills in testament and more. So even if government gets out of the business (I wish it would) there are other ways to get around the issue.

Conclusion: Our secular society has caused marriages downfall. Slowly but surely religion is failing to attract parishioners as faith has stagnated into people just moving with the motions like a robot. The anti gay marriage folks are better off arguing that marriage is a religious sacrament to stop gay marriage (however some groups within the protestant faith do marry gay couples). Do I have a problem with gay couples? No, I just have a problem when government tries to tell me or anyone who can marry who (age is an exception, no 9 year olds marring 40 year olds) like they did before the civil rights movement blocking mixed race couples. If you want to fix marriage, in my opinion, fix the faiths so that people stop acting like robots in a church and get marriage out of government’s hands. I do understand though that some pro marriage people see government as a way of supporting and enforcing traditional marriage, but like anything with government, a law can be changed when it suits the politicians needs. It is foolish to put any faith in government to support traditional marriage, let alone gay marriage. Government sees marriage as a source of revenue, not as a binding union between two people (3 or more once multi person marriages come to be recognized). Both sides are being used from my perspective and it disgusts me. Just get government out of the business; it is not there place to being taking money off the happiness of others.

I am done talking about gay marriage for now, unless something else comes up that I believe is important. If there is a particular issue concerning marriage you, my dear readers, would like me to address, write a comment here or on my face book page and I will answer it as soon as possible either in a reply or a blog post. Thanks as always for reading.

Issue 56 What is a Terrorist? April 16, 2013

As you all probably know, America has been attacked on it own soil once again. This time in Boston Massachusetts via two improvised explosive devices (IED). So before I begin I ask that you pray for the victims and there families.

Let us begin: Terrorism is a tactic. The tactic, as the name implies, is to inspire fear in order to achieve a goal. There are many definitions of terrorism, some extensive and broad, while others are narrow. Most governments have their own definition, with some having multiple due to different branches of the military and intelligence agencies each having their own. There is no international definition of what a terrorist is, mainly to provide flexibility in an attack so as to label something terrorism when it is politically suitable, or when needed to bring extra attention to a situation. For our purposes a broad definition is appropriate as terrorism is no longer limited to achieving political goals.

Terrorism: The imminent threat of violence and/or mayhem or the use of violence or act to cause mayhem in the furtherance of a goal.

This is the broadest definition I can come up with that encompasses all aspects of modern day terrorism. We no longer just deal with mass murder and assassinations, but with the instigation of riots, cyber attacks, intimidation and just about anything to inspire terror on a grand scale so that the person, group, or government can achieve there goals.

Terrorist: This is a person(s) or government that instigates the threats or creates the havoc. They will always have some sort of goal. For Islamic Terrorists in the Middle East it is a Caliphate and the removal of western influences they find damaging to their culture. For Jewish Terrorists in Israel it is hatred of Palestinians. In Darfur, it is Sudan sponsoring gangs to kill African Muslims while they themselves are Muslims too, but they claim to be Arab. The Unabomber sought a new society. In Columbine it was the two shooters lashing out against being bullied. For a government, it is the removal of an obstacle to the furtherance of power. No matter what, a terrorist has some sort of goal. If no one realizes that goal however, then their attacks and provocations have failed. Also, if there is no goal or reason behind the attacks, then the person or persons are just simple murders who wish nothing but harm to their fellow man.

Brief History: Terror was first coined during the reign of terror in France during the French Revolution. It became an actual military tactic in WWI when Germany used their zeppelins (airships) to bomb London in the hope that the peoples fear would make them put pressure on the British Government to end the war. Modern Guerilla style attacks where developed in Ireland by the IRA, copied from raiding tactics used in war. They also where one of the first to use IEDS (the Black Hand terrorist group that killed Arch Duke Ferdinand used a hand grenade and guns). Then the Tamil Tigers began using suicide bombings in their terror campaign against their government. Al Qaeda copied these techniques and evolved them further, combining classic military and guerilla style tactics with both modern and low tech weaponry to maximize fear and bloodshed. Al Qaeda is one of the first international terrorist organizations that operate on its own. A group such as Al Qaeda has never existed, to my knowledge, without first being created and used by a government.

With the advent of Al Qaeda and its copy cats, the world was sent into a frenzy. War was no longer Country against Country, but also Country against international organizations. This left a gap in how to prosecute terrorists. Originally, terrorists where treated as civilians and thus tried in a traditional court of law. However, these terrorists create their own battlefields and thus can be considered combatants and have the Geneva conventions applied to them. But this matter is not settled as terrorists fall in-between the definition of criminal and soldier.

As Terminology: The word terrorist is sometimes used as a broad term to describe an entire group. It is not intentional, but is sometimes used to demean an entire people, i.e. Muslim terrorists. However, while we all know that terrorists are in fact a minority, people still use the term. Well the reason is, because there are just too many to list. We have to think of terrorists as a term in the form of the roots of a family tree. Its branches branch out into political terrorism, religious terrorism, and social terrorism and so on. Then this tree branches out further to describe specific groups like Muslim, Jewish, anarchist, communist and the like which are then followed by the specific groups like Al Qaeda, the IRA, and the Tamil Tigers. Everyone on the family tree is a terrorist, it is not meant to look down upon a particular faith or group, it is just that it is easier to say terrorist. It is fine if you wish to be politically correct, but at least come up with a new word first.

Conclusion: Terrorism will never go away. It has existed even before the word was ever invented. At this point in our history we have to decide the best way to treat the problem so as to balance both safety and security with our freedoms. However, the best option in my opinion is learn about the terrorists and their goals and then debunk their ideology or beliefs. In short, I say know thy enemy and then defeat them by destroying every reason they have to fight in the first place. This will leave only the radicals left whose beliefs will never change. From there we can isolate them or capture and/or kill these now ostracized members if it becomes necessary. Counter and anti terrorism is not just about killing them all or putting them to justice, it is information warfare at its most basic and creative level. It will be a long battle and a hard one. So God bless the soldiers in harms way, both in my country America and abroad in this never ending war.

For more information see the U.S. Army and Marine Corps Counter Insurgency Manual.