After each terrifying murder, the media all over the world, raptured out of breath, ecstatically savors every droplet of blood. Nothing to say of the mean philistines, who flood the chats and yards with their petty specialties and opinions, silly remarks on the occasion or without cause. What for? Please, don't string me along with the mummified lie about the freedom of expression. When properly told, everybody will shut up. For those who mind, there is always something to cut off. Or, one could just set up yet another accident, and then hypocritically grieve, and be sorry to be too late... Did you ever watch the famous French comedies, with Pierre Richard?
A natural thought springs to mind, that terrorism is merely a kind of advertising. Both very efficient and remunerative: for a ridiculous price, the whole humanity would go nuts. The rest is obvious: there are those who pay, there are advertising agencies, and there is small fry, who does the dirty part. In a sense, social networks (like earlier online chats and blogs) have been invented for the same purpose, as an advertising tool, an officially approved amplifier of gossip. A kitchen tittle-tattle will hardly ever match the scale of a global promotion campaign. Of course, all that fuss cannot much disturb those who prefer being murdered in France to living in Russia. But who will listen to such outcasts? They are to be slaughtered behind the scenes, without too much noise.
Terrorism has both objective and subjective roots. Thus, in the conditions of democratic absolutism (that is, the global dominance of the only rapacious superpower), there are practically no other means to keep on; the logic is simple: if your law is against us, we have the natural right to wash that law in your blood. On the other hand, the slaves take over the manners of the boss: when an American big brother may wipe out a million of defenseless Asians, why cannot an Asian occasionally murder a few peaceful Europeans (and probably even Americans, by the matter of luck)? Violence gets publicly sanctioned as a regular problem solver; the humanity just does not care for any intelligent alternatives. Should we then wonder that any call for violence finds a quick response? It falls in a well fertilized soil. Anyway, the controls still belong to the customer, the sponsor, the organizer. Everybody knows, who it is. And nobody will tell, at the risk of falling silent forever. This is the primary objective of terrorism, to make everybody know and be afraid.
It's self-understood, that fighting individual sprouts without eliminating the root is not only a silly occupation, but also a part of the global advertising system. Terrorism won't disappear until we eliminate its economic base, the social system that allows one person to make fortune on the sufferings of the others. If, today, we rob a worker of a full-sized wage, tomorrow, with a light heart, we can unleash a war and kill all those to whom we owe; eventually, the forced killers will turn brutes and start killing left and right (at this point, they are easy to urge and to direct).
Just theoretically, among other protective measures, why not suppress any advertising? It is quite normal that, during warfare, the media get strictly filtered, and each side of the conflict will only allow publications that might result in certain operative advantage. So, declaring war to terrorism, it would be logical to stick to the same practice. Let us prohibit any bad news to the official reporters. Let us put against a wall the rumor-mongers (including the Internet gossipers). What is the worth of a gang, if all we can hear from press is the reports about exterminated gangsters? Nobody will know, nobody will appreciate. And nobody will get an extra portion of fear. What kind of terror would that then be?
A similar tactical line was once regularly followed in the Soviet Union, allowing it to efficiently fight with criminal gangs and counter-revolutionary terrorism, despite all the support on the side of the present masters of the world. They have never managed to overcome socialism; its death was a result of forsaking the principles of communism, leaving the distribution of the bulk of the public wealth at the discretion of the market and hence retaining the premises for social inequality.