I'd say whoever made this comparison has gotten the War on Terror confused with "Nick Fury; Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.". (His chief opponents were a cult-like group called "Hydra". Ah, memories.) I also believe the comparison to the Kali/Raktivari myth is a bit of a stretch. If you cut off the "head' of a terrorist group, a mid-level mamger type will step into the slot. You kill him, he'll be replaced by another. But after you've capped three or four, the lower-level types begin to realize that being a "Fearless Leader" isn't exactly healthy. At which point command and control break down. The reason is that terrorist groups are invariably divided into two types of people; the fanatics who want to kill and die for The Cause, and the leaders who have no intention of dying for anything. They want power, and you can't very well have it if you're rapidly assuming room temperature. Our problem so far has been that we've spent too much time and effort killing the foot-soldiers who are all too happy to die if they can take someone with them, and not nearly enough trying to kill the leaders. A lot of this is an inevitable result of P.C. muddle-headedness; our "elites" believe that the terrs' leadership have to be part of a "political solution to the problem"- conveniently forgetting that the problem is (A) not political- they want to kill us so they can rule the world, and (B) that they created the problem in the first place by trying to acheive (A). (And this doesn't even include the factor [C] of elitists who seek to co-opt the terrorists to acheive their own ends.) The solution to terrorism is simple; loacte, localize, and kill the leaders. Yes, this does make "martyrs" out of them, but as Tom Clancy once said, "Martyrs all have one thing in common; they're dead." Which means they are no longer planning, plotting, and scheming- unless of course you believe in spirit communications.