Bloodless Coup

History does suggest that when one declares "war" on something, that something is likely to wage war right back at you.

Indeed - which is why I find the comments by politicians who say we are safer because we are taking the fight to the terrorists something between grating and moronic.

I think it's also interesting that here we have official government reports and spy chiefs dicussing the gravity of the new dangers and Blair's response seems to largely be "move along, nothing to see here ...". Not that that's new, either there, or here. But the degree to which leaders these days - in the information age - seem to think they can ignore this sort of thing and no one will be the wiser - well, it's just odd. And a little unsettling.

Indeed - which is why I find the comments by politicians who say we are safer because we are taking the fight to the terrorists something between grating and moronic.

What would be the consequences of not "taking the fight to the terrorists"? There is a school of thought that says that they started the "war", after all. I say it's systemic, and I'm all for seeing all sides of the situation (until my kids get blown up, anyway), but I don't see how that gets us to a solution.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be fighting terrorists.

I'm saying it's odd that people equate that with making us safer, particularly when there are lots of US and UK government reports that say that the fight (at least given how we are conducting it) is making a lot more terrorists than there used to be, and increasing the likelihood of attacks on our homeland(s).