>>My issue is with the concept of a declaration of war against "terrorism".
>
>What would you suggest? We are dealing with a many-faceted enemy. A collection of enemies, in fact, that sometimes cooperate across international boundaries. "War on terrorism" sounds a bit jingoistic, but how else can we label what we need to fight? This is not war between nation-states, but war between civilized society against groups that would overthrow it.

The "war on drugs" and "the war on cancer" haven't prompted any President to assume the powers that a declaration of war has the current president grabbing with the "war on terror". And we know full well that no Islamic Fundamentalist group is ever going to overthrow the U.S. government.
I would suggest calling it whatever the President wants but not choose words that he believes gives him the power to intrude into citizens' lives any more than regular law enforcement does. It's pretty clear that no one in the Congress felt that the Administration would take the 'liberties' they have with the citizens' liberty.

>
>>First, as said earlier, many other countries are in a big battle against terrorism but they haven't seen the need to declare war. They are fighting it aggressively through cooperation and enacting special laws and by restricting the 'battles' within the confines of their own borders.
>
>And that's just the problem. The US has interests all over the globe. Confining this struggle to our own country's borders does us no good. With the exception of 9/11, all of the other attacks against us have been in other countries.

The U.S. has "arrangements" with countries when it comes to the "war on drugs". Other countries are already deeply immersed in the "war on terror" and trade information freely with the U.S. Why can't the U.S. use "arrangements" for the "war on terror"?... And why isn't that enough?

>
>>The Islamic Fundamentalistshave decalred war, but their chances of winning are NIL.
>
>No, their chances of winning are, in fact, very good. All it takes is for us - collectively, not just the US - to do nothing about them. The fundamentalist Islamic vision is sharia throughout the world. They have demonstrated a ruthless willingness to do whatever it takes to spread this vision.

Their chances of winning are NIL and you very well know it. No one is 'doing nothing about it'. Suppose that 9/11 had obliterated the White House and the Capitol while every single official was inside. Do you think the Islamic Fundamentalists would have walked in and declared a Sharia state?

>
>Look at what's happened in Somalia. The fundamentalists have won control over Mogadishu, giving them a safe haven in a relatively large area to base their operations from. What happened there could potentially happen in any number of third-world countries.

Yes, it could. But Somalia was already a very special case in that it had no government for several years. From what I've heard maybe Haiti comes close, but I can't think of another.

>
>But governments don't just fall to the sword. Muslim immigrants have been flooding Europe for decades. Granted, many are not threats, but it gives radical Islam an avenue into those countries. What happened in London has the potential to happen anywhere.

Yes, and that needs aggressive addressing. As the countries affected have been doing. Here, in the aftermath of the plot involving 17+ people to blow up places, it seems that mosques have gone to extra effort to purge themselves of possible radicals. I'd guess the same is happening in the U.K. and Spain and Morrocco and elsewhere.
In other words, increased intelligence/police activity AND more involvement by the non-radicals in the Muslim community looks to be all that's required for now.
Just consider for a moment that continued abridgement of your right ultimately means that the Islamic Fundamentalists "win".

>
>>The rush, sadly, was the U.S. fundamentalists grabbing their big once-in-a-lifetime chance to take a shot at building their vision of the world.
>
>Define "U.S. fundamentalists". Christian fundamentalists?

I guess the best I could categorize is neo-con minded folk. They don't like the way either the U.S. or the world has been evolving over the last 50+ years and want to "fix" it.