the outcome of the election

[Occhidiangela]

As I wrote before I find the whole concept of "war on terror" to be, well... absurd. Terrorism is not the means of someone strong and powerful. It's the way of those too weak to hurt you significantly in any other way.

Exactly, it is war. It is the use of force, or the threat of force and bloodshed to achieve a political end. What an extranational organization wages, when it uses terror as a tool, is called assymetrical warfare as it relates to conventional warfare of armies in the field: but it is warfare nonetheless. That perspective makes oatmeal out of your next point.

Waging war can achieve to break (military) strength, but how do you break weakness? Bombing them into submission can't work.

You are not breaking weakness, you are seeking to find and destroy your enemy in a war. That said, you and I agree, for completely different reasons, mine being an abhorence with US and NATO Air Force doctrine, that "bombing them into submission" does not generally work, though some will argue that the attack on the Serbs seems to have almost pulled it off.

Terrorists have no army, air force, navy, no production facilities, and pretty little infrastructure (apart from the occasional training camp). Military might does not make much sense.

Incorrect.

First of all, their foot soldiers are their army, their suicide bombers, their AK-47 and RPG weilding twits, their car bombers, their suicide bombers, their IED weilding technicals. Their financial backers are their economy. Many of these folks, the financial backers, are wealthy via any number of means, whose sympathies lie for whatever reasons with the terrorists. See my previous post.

The terrorist is fortunate in having little to protect in infrastructure, keeps costs down, other than the infamous "training camps." That they have no land to defend leaves them free to engage primarily in offensive warfare, which in this day and age of lethality, has a distinct advantage when one takes the initiative. So, how is it wrong when someone takes the initiative, as the Israelis do, and attacks a terrorist target? Payment in kind, and how the damned war has to be waged when the terrorist hides behinds his woman's skirts.

Military might in isolation makes little sense, yet that is not how this war is being waged. I forgive your misunderstanding since you are outside of the box, but when you assert that the only tool being used versus a terrorist is the military, you are expressing a profound ignorance of how national power is employed.

All you see is the bombs, the planes, and the tanks, apparently. Part of the puzzle.

Those are one of a variety of tools in use. A great deal of a war on terror is, as described by any number of commentators, carried out in the shadows. Another part is in the Information and Propaganda circles.

Intelligence sharing, body snatches, electronic data tracing. When push comes to shove, however, there are as yet few international protocols to wage unlimited multi spectrum warfare, to include financial warfare, against terrorists, since too many "legitimate" persons and organizations have filthy luchre dripping from their fingers. Another topic for another time, that last bit, a peek at the Pandora's box being the corrupt oil for food program in Iraq.

[/quote] Intelligence work, police work, and mainly politics. But all these are long-term and require patience. And might fail, too, but WAR is certain to do.
[/quote]

While I agree with the need to wage a long term, patient campaign, and not to fool one's self into thinking that a "quick little war will solve our problems" you make a gross mistake to attempt to isolate those tools from a full spectrum effort when the war, the attempt to use force to achieve a political end, has been upon us since Munich 1972.

Or don't you get that?

Your assertion that it is "mainly politics" completely ignores that war is a subset of the political spectrum. It is a political act of force. So, if you refer to politics as the mere expenditure of hot air, then you are wrong. All talk and no action is seen by the current opponent as a sign of weakness, and no one respects weakness.

War is politics, by means of force. The avenue of force has been chosen by the Islamicists. The "politics" you refer to depends on parties willing to negotiate. Per your typical European anti Israeli position, it is not negotiation to enter a discussion with "the exitstence of Israel must end" as a non negotiated point. That is a demand, an ultimatum, not a path of negotiation. Funny, we are still paying Egypt 2 billion a year in aid/extortion thanks to a successful negotiation with them in 1979. Sadat knew the difference between an ultimatum and a negotation. You will note that he was murdered by Islamicists for his troubles, for his worldliness, for his adherence to civilized behaviour.

Save some of your venom for the animals who killed two busloads of German tourists in Egypt, a few years back. (87 dead?) They are birds of the same feather that we are dealing with now.

Occhi