Reply #32: You can read a lot from their lingo [View All]

They have a quasi-religious, crusade-ish way of breaking their point of view into the public space. Our daily life is full of it.

'Coalition of the Willing'
'Shock and awe'
'Axis of evil'

As their God-like moment stands 911, the event that kicked off the crusade aganist terrorism, but in reality was as much a grab for homeland power, and later; world power.

In the difficult picture such fundamentalism creates between what's really good and what's really evil, one may put one question to oneself to solve it:
Did you lose freedom on the 11th of September 2001 or did you gain freedom on 11th of September 2001?

One might take it further:
Do we, ever, need terrorism to feel free? Do we, ever, need wars to get things done, get our politics realized? Is fear recommendable as a democratic tool, to control the population? The answer must be a clear NO, because democracy and war cannot coexist. Every nation going to war, even for a good reason such as to defend itself, will transform into a dictatorship.
Freely, as in the case of Britain during WWII. Although under a coalition government, the country was run like a dictatorship. Churchill was the dictator to meet the need to defeat Hitler, but he was no peace time politician. The Brits knew this and dumped him when the war was over and elected the mild-mannered Clement Atlee instead. This is a mirror of what happened in Norway, where the Norwegians got rid of Quisling when the war was done and elected the mild-mannered Gerhardsen - only that the Brits had freely accepted and endorsed Churchill to be their war time dictator while Quisling had grabbed power illegaly, against the will of the population. And I have to add, Churchill delivered what he was supposed to deliver and didn't resist being replaced when his term was up.
But war time needs differ from peace time needs. The 'war' on terror has moved the need for democracy to be a need for dictatorship and every thing they do brings us further down that road.