By now, everyone has read about the terrorist attacks in India.  Scores of people are dead, and even more people have been injured.  What are the long-term effects?

There is no concrete definition of terrorism.  It is used as a means of coercion to obtain an objective.  It is unconventional or psychological warfare, against any person, regardless of whether or not they are a non-combatant.

The motivating factor behind terrorism is usually religious or political.  This may be somewhat controversial, but if these “terrorists” were focusing on a political or military target I would be somewhat more understanding of their concerns.  To wage war on innocent people however, turns the world against you, regardless of how noble or altruistic your goals may be.  Occupying two first class hotels and shooting the patrons will have an effect on India, especially with respect to tourism and their relationship with Pakistan.

It is difficult for any government to confront and defeat terrorism due to the fact that it is so unconventional.  A head on conflict would result in the terrorists being annihilated.  These people are also willing to die for their beliefs.  They are not interested in escape or ransom.  Like them or not, these are powerful factors that bely how difficult they are to contain.  Their only wish is to die in pursuit of their goals.  Ergo, in my opinion, the only way to engage in unconventional warfare is to be more unconventional.  A standard force can not combat terrorists.  However, it offends our values to “stoop down to their level” so to speak.  Yet, I think that is exactly what is necessary to ensure the safety of the public.  Terrorists, if captured committing an act of terrorism, do not deserve justice by way of a trial.  In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law.  Shoot them.  In the head.  One bullet.  Clean kill.  If they want to die for their cause, I have no problems facilitating a meeting between them and their maker.

The debate on the effectiveness of terrorism could write volumes.

I wonder if there would have been a way to make their voices heard peacefully as opposed to facilitating a massacre.  I’m not a peacenik or a tree-hugging liberal.  Silly protests and demonstrations are not going to work.  However, we live in a society where immediate universal communication is now possible.  The advent of the Internet, e-mail and social networking sites and cellular phones are here.  Organizing a large movement asking for change can be done.  Not to equate him to a terror network, but this example is clear with respect to how President-elect Obama used the Internet and text-messaging to build up support in his run to the Presidency.  Twenty million people he recruited electronically in just a few short months within the United States alone.  Eight percent of the total American population.  It can be done.