Terrorism turned into intellectualism as a group of Easterns professor’s discussed, debated, and dissected various views concerning recent terrorist attacks on America, accompanied by a barrage of questions from a packed Lumpkin auditorium.

With mediation by Alan Grant, an eager audience posed a mass of questions for the remainder of the panel presentation after the group of professors brief speeches.

The beginning portion of the panel presentation began with David Carwell, political science professor, who teaches a class on terrorism. Carwell informed audience members of the mentalility of terrorists with regard to the American view.

“In their own minds they have very good reasons for these attacks,” Carwell said. “Terrorism is the actions of the weak.”

Carwell said the main reason terrorists act in such an unconventional manner is because of a lack of funds for more conventional military activity.

On the order of monetary issues, Eric Hake, professor of economics, attributed the terrorist acts to the idea of unfair economic trade.

Hake also stressed a need for awareness of America’s economic implications on poverty stricken countries. He also stressed an attempt to avoid future American trade negatively effecting those countries after America’s military responses to the attacks are implemented.

Ryan Hendrickson, professor political science, addressed the implications of war being thrown about Washington as well as the recent decision by congress to turn the war powers over to the president.

“Formally and legally, I believe, the president has empowered himself,” Hendrickson said, “and that is my deepest concern as a result of this attack.”

Hendrickson also said that as a result of the congressional decision this past week, future presidents may see increased military descision-making power.

Scott Levi, a history professor who traveled in Afghanistan in 1996 and 1997, offered a word of advice to audience members concerning their view on the terrorist attacks and our perspective on Afghanistan as a whole. He also stressed the need to remain specific when declaring who the enemies of America are.

“If we do not have sympathy with the Afghans, we should,” Levi said. “If we are going to wage a war on terrorism, we must proceed with our actions with surgical precision and a broad base of support.”

Edmund Wherle, history professor, offered advice on what America can do in the future by referring to the decisions of the political past.

“Terrorism is too complicated,” Wherle said.

He then suggested a war “modeled on the Cold War.”

Wherle believes to take on a broad-based issue like terrorism, it is more logical to do so via informational, economical, and diplomatic warfare.

After versing the audience on his position, Lt. Col. Laurence Sefren, proceeded with discretion on what the U.S. Military does concerning terrorist situations.

“When the threat goes up, security in the military tightens up massively,” he said.

Sefrens’ message, both reassuring and realistic, was that “our lifestyles are very vulnerable to attacks,” and that it is discomforting for Americans to change their lifestyle for the sake of tightened security.