Kerry calls terrorism a nuisance?

[Gabu]

Posted on the Drudgereport, anybody have more details?

"In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended"

As far as I can tell, what Kerry means is not that America should regard terrorists as nothing more but a nuisance, but that Americans need to stop being scared out of their skin over terrorists and to get on with their lives.  He's saying that, while vigilance is needed, Americans need to calm down and stop letting their lives revolve around the fear of terrorism.  September 11, though the most successful terrorist attack on American soil, did not magically mark the start of terrorism as some people seem to think.

I personally see nothing wrong with this.  The whole point of terrorism is to make people scared stiff.  If we actively encourage people to be in such a state of mind, we'll essentially be doing the terrorists' work.  There's a difference between being complacent and being unafraid.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the people who continue to ignore everything I've said and continue to spout that the opinions of one or two Democrats obviously represent everybody.  Some people wonder why respectful discourse has left the board...

[opebo]

In terms of Mr. Gore.  Given his behavior since 2000, one has to be thankful he wasn't the President.  Did Nixon behave this way after losing a close election to Kennedy?  No, and Gore gets no excuse for his significant failures to show dignity and stateman's

Bush and Kerry behaved exactly alike in 2000, Bush just won the bluff - had a few more cards on his side: supreme court, media, etc.

[agcatter]

Guess one could say that the 3000 dead on 9-11 was a bit of a nuisance.

[Pollwatch99]

Posted on the Drudgereport, anybody have more details?

"In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended"

As far as I can tell, what Kerry means is not that America should regard terrorists as nothing more but a nuisance, but that Americans need to stop being scared out of their skin over terrorists and to get on with their lives.  He's saying that, while vigilance is needed, Americans need to calm down and stop letting their lives revolve around the fear of terrorism.  September 11, though the most successful terrorist attack on American soil, did not magically mark the start of terrorism as some people seem to think.

I personally see nothing wrong with this.  The whole point of terrorism is to make people scared stiff.  If we actively encourage people to be in such a state of mind, we'll essentially be doing the terrorists' work.  There's a difference between being complacent and being unafraid.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the people who continue to ignore everything I've said and continue to spout that the opinions of one or two Democrats obviously represent everybody.  Some people wonder why respectful discourse has left the board...

Is he really saying that?  Early in the election cycle Kerry talked about the way to fight terrorism is primarily as a police action.  When you equate it to other items such as prostution, you are suggesting that you use different resources (non-miltary) to address the issue.  You do not employ the military to respond to nuisance items but you certainly deploy police.  It is not this statement in isolation, it is his prior early campaign statements combined with this statement that makes this interesting and worthy of press scrunity. 

[Pollwatch99]

In terms of Mr. Gore.  Given his behavior since 2000, one has to be thankful he wasn't the President.  Did Nixon behave this way after losing a close election to Kennedy?  No, and Gore gets no excuse for his significant failures to show dignity and stateman's

Bush and Kerry behaved exactly alike in 2000, Bush just won the bluff - had a few more cards on his side: supreme court, media, etc.

Oh I agree fully Gore's behavior up until 2000 was fine, very dignified and presidental. Since 2000, it's been bad and a loss does not excuse it.

[shankbear]

What is the point of terrorism?  Can it bring a mandate?   Can it build economies?  Can it stop poverty and hunger?  Can terrorism end social ills?   Can terrorism stop the proliferation of WMD? Can you sit across a table from "it" and negotiate the peace?  Can it peacefully co-exist with anybody not of their ilk or persuasion?  Do terrorist add anything to the political dialogue?  If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are living in never never land.  

[opebo]

Posted on the Drudgereport, anybody have more details?

"In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended"

As far as I can tell, what Kerry means is not that America should regard terrorists as nothing more but a nuisance, but that Americans need to stop being scared out of their skin over terrorists and to get on with their lives.  He's saying that, while vigilance is needed, Americans need to calm down and stop letting their lives revolve around the fear of terrorism.  September 11, though the most successful terrorist attack on American soil, did not magically mark the start of terrorism as some people seem to think.

I personally see nothing wrong with this.  The whole point of terrorism is to make people scared stiff.  If we actively encourage people to be in such a state of mind, we'll essentially be doing the terrorists' work.  There's a difference between being complacent and being unafraid.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the people who continue to ignore everything I've said and continue to spout that the opinions of one or two Democrats obviously represent everybody.  Some people wonder why respectful discourse has left the board...

Is he really saying that?  Early in the election cycle Kerry talked about the way to fight terrorism is primarily as a police action.  When you equate it to other items such as prostution, you are suggesting that you use different resources (non-miltary) to address the issue.  You do not employ the military to respond to nuisance items but you certainly deploy police.  It is not this statement in isolation, it is his prior early campaign statements combined with this statement that makes this interesting and worthy of press scrunity. 

I was disappointed to see terrorism correlated with prostitution and gambling, since the later two are victimless and should be inviolable individual rights.

[opebo]

In terms of Mr. Gore.  Given his behavior since 2000, one has to be thankful he wasn't the President.  Did Nixon behave this way after losing a close election to Kennedy?  No, and Gore gets no excuse for his significant failures to show dignity and stateman's

Bush and Kerry behaved exactly alike in 2000, Bush just won the bluff - had a few more cards on his side: supreme court, media, etc.

Oh I agree fully Gore's behavior up until 2000 was fine, very dignified and presidental. Since 2000, it's been bad and a loss does not excuse it.

Actually he has consistently spoken reason more than any other national figure since 2000 - a man with nothing to loose can speak the truth.

[opebo]

What is the point of terrorism?  Can it bring a mandate?   Can it build economies?  Can it stop poverty and hunger?  Can terrorism end social ills?   Can terrorism stop the proliferation of WMD? Can you sit across a table from "it" and negotiate the peace?  Can it peacefully co-exist with anybody not of their ilk or persuasion?  Do terrorist add anything to the political dialogue?  If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are living in never never land.  

It does all these things potentially - by winning wars.  America won world war II partially due to a successful tactic of terrorism.  We mad e a consicous effor to slaughter hundreds of thousands of 'civilians' and made many more homeless or crippled, in order to win though fear.

[AuH2O]

But we could back up bombings with troops. Al-Qaeda has not such capacity. So bombings are purely terrorism rather than any kind of military tactic.

Kerry is unwilling to address the roots of terrorism, but is also unwilling to fight it. Bush at least is working the democracy angle and using aggressive tactics.

[Pollwatch99]

What is the point of terrorism?  Can it bring a mandate?   Can it build economies?  Can it stop poverty and hunger?  Can terrorism end social ills?   Can terrorism stop the proliferation of WMD? Can you sit across a table from "it" and negotiate the peace?  Can it peacefully co-exist with anybody not of their ilk or persuasion?  Do terrorist add anything to the political dialogue?  If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are living in never never land.  

It does all these things potentially - by winning wars.  America won world war II partially due to a successful tactic of terrorism.  We mad e a consicous effor to slaughter hundreds of thousands of 'civilians' and made many more homeless or crippled, in order to win though fear.

Suggesting the US employed terrorism to win WWII is really an extreme view.

[opebo]

What is the point of terrorism?  Can it bring a mandate?   Can it build economies?  Can it stop poverty and hunger?  Can terrorism end social ills?   Can terrorism stop the proliferation of WMD? Can you sit across a table from "it" and negotiate the peace?  Can it peacefully co-exist with anybody not of their ilk or persuasion?  Do terrorist add anything to the political dialogue?  If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are living in never never land.  

It does all these things potentially - by winning wars.  America won world war II partially due to a successful tactic of terrorism.  We mad e a consicous effor to slaughter hundreds of thousands of 'civilians' and made many more homeless or crippled, in order to win though fear.

Suggesting the US employed terrorism to win WWII is really an extreme view.

It was policy.

[The Duke]

What is the point of terrorism?  Can it bring a mandate?   Can it build economies?  Can it stop poverty and hunger?  Can terrorism end social ills?   Can terrorism stop the proliferation of WMD? Can you sit across a table from "it" and negotiate the peace?  Can it peacefully co-exist with anybody not of their ilk or persuasion?  Do terrorist add anything to the political dialogue?  If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are living in never never land.  

It does all these things potentially - by winning wars.  America won world war II partially due to a successful tactic of terrorism.  We mad e a consicous effor to slaughter hundreds of thousands of 'civilians' and made many more homeless or crippled, in order to win though fear.

Suggesting the US employed terrorism to win WWII is really an extreme view.

It was policy.

What exactly are you referring to?

[opebo]

What is the point of terrorism?  Can it bring a mandate?   Can it build economies?  Can it stop poverty and hunger?  Can terrorism end social ills?   Can terrorism stop the proliferation of WMD? Can you sit across a table from "it" and negotiate the peace?  Can it peacefully co-exist with anybody not of their ilk or persuasion?  Do terrorist add anything to the political dialogue?  If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are living in never never land.  

It does all these things potentially - by winning wars.  America won world war II partially due to a successful tactic of terrorism.  We mad e a consicous effor to slaughter hundreds of thousands of 'civilians' and made many more homeless or crippled, in order to win though fear.

Suggesting the US employed terrorism to win WWII is really an extreme view.

It was policy.

What exactly are you referring to?

The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, among others.  And of course who could forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Terror is a normal part of war.

[AuH2O]

Side note, it was an incredibly dumb remark to make by Kerry, regardless of his meaning or validity.

[ATFFL]

What is the point of terrorism?  Can it bring a mandate?   Can it build economies?  Can it stop poverty and hunger?  Can terrorism end social ills?   Can terrorism stop the proliferation of WMD? Can you sit across a table from "it" and negotiate the peace?  Can it peacefully co-exist with anybody not of their ilk or persuasion?  Do terrorist add anything to the political dialogue?  If you answer yes to any of those questions, you are living in never never land. 

It does all these things potentially - by winning wars.  America won world war II partially due to a successful tactic of terrorism.  We mad e a consicous effor to slaughter hundreds of thousands of 'civilians' and made many more homeless or crippled, in order to win though fear.

Suggesting the US employed terrorism to win WWII is really an extreme view.

It was policy.

What exactly are you referring to?

The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, among others.  And of course who could forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Terror is a normal part of war.

Or the rape of Nanking, or the Blitz.  Massive civillian casualties were the way WWII was fought.

[Gabu]

Posted on the Drudgereport, anybody have more details?

"In Washington, Republican Party chief Ed Gillespie criticized Kerry for saying in an interview in The New York Times Magazine that, "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." He appeared to equate terrorism to prostitution and illegal gambling, saying they can be reduced but not ended"

As far as I can tell, what Kerry means is not that America should regard terrorists as nothing more but a nuisance, but that Americans need to stop being scared out of their skin over terrorists and to get on with their lives.  He's saying that, while vigilance is needed, Americans need to calm down and stop letting their lives revolve around the fear of terrorism.  September 11, though the most successful terrorist attack on American soil, did not magically mark the start of terrorism as some people seem to think.

I personally see nothing wrong with this.  The whole point of terrorism is to make people scared stiff.  If we actively encourage people to be in such a state of mind, we'll essentially be doing the terrorists' work.  There's a difference between being complacent and being unafraid.

I'm not even going to bother to respond to the people who continue to ignore everything I've said and continue to spout that the opinions of one or two Democrats obviously represent everybody.  Some people wonder why respectful discourse has left the board...

Is he really saying that?  Early in the election cycle Kerry talked about the way to fight terrorism is primarily as a police action.  When you equate it to other items such as prostution, you are suggesting that you use different resources (non-miltary) to address the issue.  You do not employ the military to respond to nuisance items but you certainly deploy police.  It is not this statement in isolation, it is his prior early campaign statements combined with this statement that makes this interesting and worthy of press scrunity. 

Well, it all depends on what he meant by "we" in his statement.  If he meant "the American government", then yes, you would be right.  If he meant "the American people", then I'd be right.  Unless we get clarification, we'll never know.

Side note, it was an incredibly dumb remark to make by Kerry, regardless of his meaning or validity.

Yes, I won't argue with the fact that its intended meaning could have been clarified a lot better.

[Gabu]

What were we supposed to do in WW2?  Sit down in a circle and talk about self esteem issues? 

That Pearl Harbor was a total downer, guys.

[opebo]

The firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo, among others.  And of course who could forget Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Terror is a normal part of war.

Or the rape of Nanking, or the Blitz.  Massive civillian casualties were the way WWII was fought.

Nothing wrong with that. 

[opebo]

What were we supposed to do in WW2?  Sit down in a circle and talk about self esteem issues? 

No.. using terror was an effective method.  But we shouldn't pretend we've never done it, or that its something new.

If anything we should fight fire with fire.

[ElCidGOP]

Well, I did say State terrorism - not sanctioned.  In any case I think few dispute the Afghan war, since there was an actual connection between the state and al Queda.  Gore would've invaded there just as Bush did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No way Gore would have invaded Afghanistan.  The political DNA of the democrats prevents them from engaging in preemptive military action.  It is impossible to determine and I am sure the red staters will argue otherwise, but if Gore is president today, the Taliban is still in power in Afghanistan.  That is why Kerry would be such a disaster.  Maybe Kerry would want to strike preemptively at a threat, but his base, Moveon.org, the Media Fund, Hollywood libs, extreme left wingers etc., George Soros would never go for it.  Considering what he would owe them if he were elected, I think my comments are credible.  

[Gabu]

It is impossible to determine. ... If Gore is president today, the Taliban is still in power in Afghanistan.  That is why Kerry would be such a disaster.

It's impossible to determine, so you just assume something to be true and go from there?

[ElCidGOP]

Call me crazy, but I just can't see a democratic party administration invading a country and taking it over.  No way. 

[ATFFL]

What were we supposed to do in WW2?  Sit down in a circle and talk about self esteem issues? 

No.. using terror was an effective method.  But we shouldn't pretend we've never done it, or that its something new.

If anything we should fight fire with fire.

We did not and we do not.  We rebuilt Germany and Japan.  Made them both into economic power houses until they were brought down a notch for different reasons.

There was also a fundamental difference between these attacks and terrorism.  These attacks were done by people in uniform.

To equate terror attacks with modern terrorism is an error.   Just because they both use terror as a weapon against a nation's will to fight does not mean they are equal or equally valid.

[shankbear]

If opebo was saying that we were terrorists in WWII then that would be making a Hitler a VICTIM wouldn't it?  Tojo?  What a specious and shallow argument.