If that’s what you meant, I’d say it makes sense and I have to concede that point.

As Al-Quaida as an enemy external to the US but not external to the world, it makes sense that it made the US (and possibly Britain) unite, but not entire world, right?

The whole premise of Watchmen and ID4 is that of an external enemy to humankind, a threat that doesn’t distinguish between borders, politics, religion and perhaps is not even susceptible to our type of logic. Terrorism can not be said to fall into this category for several reasons.

I guess your point is that the great powers (btw, who is that?) will unite in seeing terrorism as a common enemy. But isn’t it wrong to say that terrorism is something definite? The act of terrorism is a method, but it says nothing of the who and why. It’s kinda like saying guns are the enemy, not the people using them.

However, one can argue that this way of looking at terrorism is actually the one prevalent. Why? Because the main effort into stopping terrorism is increased use of surveillance. Rather than stopping people from doing terror acts altogether, we intend to stop them before they actually manage to do them. We are more focused to stopping their action, than changing their intention.

On the other hand, I’m not going to go Gandhi here, and say, hey, let them do their terror. But I think its important to remember the difference. I do not like the tendency, especially in the States, that basic rights are thrown out the window in search for terrorist. You don’t have to be a genius to understand that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I’d say that the logic involved in Watchmen rules out any comparison with 9/11. Although the logic rests on a sound psychological principle, you’d be hard pressed to show that terrorism fits under the criteria. I believe its not that difficult to prove the opposite in fact, since USA reacted very different than the rest of the western world in response to 9/11.

Hi btw!