Kerry calls terrorism a nuisance?

[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.

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.

I see them as equal and equally valid.  I don't see what uniforms have to do with it.

[opebo]

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.

Hitler, Tojo, Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill, etc.  All used terror.  Its normal in war.

[opebo]

I guess Hitler just needed love huh.  Not war.

I never said there was anything wrong with using terror, I just made the point that everybody does it, at least every State which has gone to war.

[Democratic Hawk]

Terrorists thrive on their infamy and notoriety. The more headlines they get the more they perceive themselves as winning.

Still, it's a pretty difficult phenomenon to ignore - but my question is, should it be publicised to such a huge extent? The terrorists love nothing more!

Terrorism, which operates at a geographic (i.e. spatially-defined) level CAN (e.g. Northern Ireland) or COULD (e.g. the Basque country and Chechya) be settled by negotiation. However, global terrorism in the form of al-Qaeda has no such boundaries.

Dave

[MN-Troy]

On average more people die in gang violence than terrorism each year.

Meaning what?

I don't want to put words into your mouth and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but under the conclusion that I have gathered from reading your post is that the terrorism problem is overblown because statistically gang violence has killed more Americans than terrorism has.

The problems of terrorism and gang violence are two separate issues and both issues have to be dealt with. The issue of terrorism has gained the attention of the public more so because the impact it has on everyone. The "nuisance" of terrorism problem has more worldwide implications because the way it can disrupt the macro and micro economies of the world. Just look at the attack on the World Trade Towers or how the threat of terrorism can put a downward spin on the U.S. economy.

Gang is a societal ill and has to be dealt with, but don't compare two separate issues.

[AuH2O]

Few gangs are likely to use a nuclear weapon. It's a real downer for drug sales.

[elcorazon]

Obviously Kerry's statment was ill-advised, but it was correct.  Terrorism cannot be ended, anymore than bar-room brawls can be made impossible.

The only way to reduce the threat to secular societies would be to eliminate religious mania.  Alas, no one is willing to do that.

good post, opebo, you are quite correct.

[J. J.]

He is correct, like it or not, terrorism can never be ended. Anyone who thinks it can be universally wiped out is one naive fool.

Why don't you strike word "terrorism," and insert the word "slavery."  It hasn't been ended univerally, but we sure don't have it here.

[Bogart]

Neither using nuclear weapons against Japan nor Japan attacking Pearl Harbor were terrorist in nature, though both killed many. Military action taken during wartime (or to instigate war) with the sanctioning of a government are simply that--acts of war.

Renegade groups using similar tactics for purely political purposes is a different animal.

[opebo]

Neither using nuclear weapons against Japan nor Japan attacking Pearl Harbor were terrorist in nature, though both killed many. Military action taken during wartime (or to instigate war) with the sanctioning of a government are simply that--acts of war.

Renegade groups using similar tactics for purely political purposes is a different animal.

Not to the people terrorized.  The practical effect is the same, as well as the intention - to dominate or influence another group through force.  States just happen to be much better at it.

[Citizen James]

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

As you wish - You're crazy.

Ah, interesting that you make massive assumptions based on nothing more than an us vs. them attitude.   I could toss out a few stereotypes - republicans are all bitter racists, hate and exploit the poor, are all chickenhawks, yadda yadda yadda...  But I think you get the point here.  Do these stereotypes apply to you, or are you living in your own little partisan world?

[A18]

Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan

You're an idiot

[Mr. Fresh]

Al Gore would not have invaded Afghanistan

You're an idiot

No, no....YOU are!  TAKE THAT!

....honestly, grow up.

[MODU]

This all may have been blown out of proportion, but it is still a stupid error on Kerry's behalf.