A straightforward definition of "terrorism" would be "inflicting civilian casualties in order to create fear in a populace."

Any so-called "War on Terror," then, would have to be an attempt to stop both acts of terrorism and the fear those acts engender. If we are afraid of allowing a mosque to be built near ground zero, then we are, by definition, losing the war on terror.

Furthermore, "freedom of speech" means freedom of speech even in cases where someone's feelings get hurt.

Certainly I have sympathy for the families of the victims of 9/11, but we are great because our Constitution is great. Discarding freedom of expression and freedom of religion in order to appease a handful of Americans isn't just constitutionally unacceptable, it's also ultimately anti-American, and stupid, and will backfire horribly. How?

Muslim world if we allow the mosque: "Wow, a Muslim slaughtered 3,000 innocent civilians and they still allow others to worship the same faith? They can't be as bad as the jihadists say..."

Muslim world if the mosque is blocked: "They jihadists were right! They do hate Islam!"

In short, I wish this were ironic, but it's not: The people most insistent about a "War on Terror" are the very pundits arguing most vociferously for actions that can only mean we're losing such a war.

It's not ironic because I think these sick, hateful jackasses know exactly what they're doing -- they get higher ratings when they rouse their audience, and their audience is roused when they have a whole big group to hate and fear.

So perpetuating the "War on Terror" plumps up these pundits' pocketbooks.

If you want less terrorism, America, stop the hating and the fearing. Turn off Fox "News," and don't let your friends or family fall prey to those hate merchants.

We're never going to win a "War on Terror" by being afraid.

Brian Brown

Boulder