BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?

Subject: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: GUEST,tarheel
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:32 AM

well now,ole john kerry says he wants to get terrorism in this country down to acceptable as a nusiance! OMG,is he CRAZY or what!i can only imagine any of the folks in here being killed by terrorist every month or so and kerry calling it ,acceptable nusiance!
any terrorism is UNACCEPTABLE in our country! i guess as long as none of his family, homes, mansions, other properties is not affected, then it's acceptable nusiance! so i guess terrorism is ok in this country as long as it's not 3,000 a day!(ie,9/11)what have we come to? God save us all!!!

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:44 AM

I think terrorism is a complicated subject.

The first thing I do wish to stress is that there is no way I could ever condone or agree with terrorist activities.

On the other hand, I do believe we need to pay attention to possible reasons for it. I may well get a lot of abuse for this but it is my belief that if say we have the US playing bully and people can't fight them in a conventional war, we can expect people to fight by foul means.

This in no way justifies terrorism but I do feel there is a need to look at a bigger picture.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:54 AM

Terrorism is a nuisance, on a national scale. A very unpleasant nuisance, but for all that, your chances of being killed by a terrorist are very much less than of dying in some other violent way - for example, being killed in or by a car, or, in the case of Americans, through being shot.

It's possible to change things so as to reduce all those dangers, and obviously that's what has to be done. But the idea that somehow it's possible to get rid once and for all of these unpleasant feature of modern life - that's just not realistic. Politicians who pretend that they have the power to do that are just trying to fool people, and people who choose believe such promises are simply wanting to be fooled.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: DMcG
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:57 AM

It also worth pointing out that when the IRA was bombing London and Brighton it was very much treated by the ordinary person as a nuisance. True, it was not on the scale of the Towers, but it was substantial and was repeated. It raises interesting questions about why we had a comparatively low key response when we were being blown up (though imprisonment without trial did take place), yet now when the UK has not been attacked we are in a flap.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: GUEST,An American
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 09:21 AM

It IS just a nuisance, and Bush & Co. are spending way, way too much on it.

"Those who want freedom and security deserve neither freedom or security," the man said year back. "No one said life was either fair or free of risk," said another.

The US government has known for a very long time that this country was not immune to, or could be immune to, terrorist attack. I can cite case after case of terror in US cities -- only then it's called "crime." The bombing of a church in Alabama in the Sixties where little girls were killed, the Murraugh Federal Building, the drive-by shootings, the concrete overshoes, the cross burnings, Columbine, the disappearance of Hoffa, the ambush killing of Medgar Evers, the deaths of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney (shall I go on?) -- these are, by any definition, terrorist acts in that they were intended to terrorize.

The US has not been free from terrorist attacks for a very long time. They have, however, been domestic vintages and we didn't take them for what they are.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 09:38 AM

God Almighty!

Is it just because it's a comment made by a presidential candidate who is not the incumbent: are Americans really that stupid or are they just putting an act to confuse and terrify the rest of the world??

I understand fully what Kerry meant, but you can rest assured that his words will be twisted by his moronic opponents, in exactly the same way that any flexible position taken by him as new information is received is seen as 'weakly flip-flopping' and blind arrogant stubbornness is seen a sign of a 'strong leader'!!!!.

Talk about casting pearls before swine!

The poster at 12 Oct 04 - 09:21 hit the nail on the head, and he glossed over many others, including the sort of terrorist things treated in the song Strange Fruit, let alone the terrorist acts committed during the US Civil War, the Native population, McCarthyism, and Waco - which were Government sponsored terror.

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Midchuck
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:18 AM

I think my risk of being killed or injured by an act of terrorism is real, but so slight that I should spend my worrying energy on other things - car accidents, as noted above; heart attack or stroke from eating the wrong stuff and not exercising enough; cancer from spending time in bars where people smoke, et cetera ad infinitum.

I think my risk losing the liberty and privacy that I consider my due as an American is very real and very significant. And my children's risk of losing theirs is even more so.

If the terrorists can make us turn America into a police state in order to protect ourselves from them, they win. And since Cheney and Ascroft and whatsisname that acts as their front man would like to turn America into a police state anyway, the terrorists are on their side, in a way.

Or so it seems to me from here in the boondocks.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:26 AM

1) Stop pretending that terrorism is a crime against the individual, and start accepting that it is a state-sponsored crime against humanity.

2) Stop using cops to deal with terrorists. Use counter-insurgency special-warfare troops. Find terrorists and kill them. Period.

3) Stop thinking there is something sacrosanct about the USA, Canada, England, etc. By the nature of our economic policies we have all dealt with oppressive governments around the world and contributed to the slaughter of millions of innocent men, women and children. We eat a can of corned beef from Brazil and we have helped kill a piece of rainforest, thus displacing members of the Yanomamo tribe. Anyone remember Pol Pot? We all stood by and did fuck all. Children are starving to death in the Sudan. But oil is more important. So stop with the injured innocence. The friggin' chickens are coming home to roost.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:33 AM

tarheel, you are proving yourself to be a shill for the President, or just the kind of person he is targetting with these horseshit charges. That is, the person who won't think their way through issues, and will vote for their candidate no matter what they do. You are known as "part of the base". You know damn full well what Kerry meant by that statement, it was unambigous. He has said repeatedly, as has his VP candidate, that they will hunt down these terrorists and kill them.   Period. And in doing so, he hopes to reduce the threat level to a miniscule amount.

I don't mind you debating points, but do you have to be a shill who is trying to arouse knee jerk reactions. I expected better of you, based on past postings.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: freda underhill
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:38 AM

Our governments have started a war in another country. Did they really expect it would not come home to them? To attack is to invite retribution. Another solution for avoiding the retribution is not to attack.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:51 AM

any terrorism is UNACCEPTABLE in our country

I assume you refer only to terrorism not sponsored by some government agency, tarheel -- inducing terror by asserting that we are all under imminent threat of attack all the time everywhere does not qualify?

How about the creation of a subtle river of terror created by leading the country into a polarized, non-communicative posture against 60% of the rest of the world by posturing as a Crusader? That terror doesn't count in your tally?

How about the terror caused by simply trying to travel by air -- not the fear of flyimg, but of abuse in the airport?

I'd like to see fear of the government and its follies reduced to the nuisance level -- it would be a grand improvement!


A

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 12:01 PM

Here is what he said:

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 01:03 PM

"start accepting that it is a state-sponsored crime against humanity.

Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't. I doubt if Timothy McVeigh was state sponsored. But, true enough, the main perpetrators of terror around the world have always been governments. Frequently "democratic" governments.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 01:25 PM

Well, Kerry could just use the same equations of acceptible risk/harm vs/ cost that automobile manufacturers and health insurance companies use to determine how many deaths they can get away with calling "acceptible".

For instance, how many people have to die before they will add a safety device that costs $5.00? Or how many people have to die before they decide that everyone in the US should have health coverage?

Dead is dead, tarheel, whether one is killed by terrorists, or by criminal negligence.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 01:40 PM

Terrorism is not state-sponsored. It is an independent network very much like the Weathermen of the sixties. The idea of terrorism as being a state-supported monolithic structure mainly supported by Muslims is crazy.
The only exception is perhaps Hamas which is pro-Palestinian.
Bush will never win any kind of war on terrorism because he doesn't know what it is. He can use "Cold War" mentality to define terrorism and it is as ineffective as was the "Domino Theory" in the Vietnam War. His form of combatting terrorism is not applicable to today and the nature of the gang-style terrorism that is out there. His idea of forming American military bases in Muslim countries will be greeted as it should be with derision by the rest of the world. Kerry suggests rightly (New York Times Magazine, Sunday Oct. 10) that a police action is required to deal with the network such as Al Quaeda and not to attribute it to any particular country. The mafia, organized crime, prostitution, drug dealing, and terrorism are correctly defined as nuisances. Bush's obsession has destroyed many innocent lives
Bush is a modern day Don Quixote tilting at windmills to aggrandize his power. His policy is wrong for America.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 02:50 PM

Various states around the world sponsor terrorism. States harbour terrorists, and interest groups provide money. People do not invest unless they expect to gain. Whether that is the overthrow of governments (countries) whose policies are not acceptable to OTHER countries, or business groups who would welcome governments more likely to be lenient with permits and taxes. I am using the term 'state' somewhat loosely, but not all that loosely.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 03:20 PM

"start accepting that it is a state-sponsored crime against humanity."

"Terrorism is not state-sponsored."

Why do people feel it necessary to make these sweeping generalisations? Terrorism is a technique which is used by different people in differemt circumstances. Governments, groups, individuals.

Try replacing it by a wider expression such as "killing" and it is instantly clear that such generalisations are nonsense.

As also is the absurdity of pretending that a "war on terrorism" can eliminate all terrorism, more especially when the prosecution of this war itself includes a range of terrorist activities.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 03:35 PM

"Why do people feel it necessary to make these sweeping generalisations?"

Because generalizations are part of our speech, written work and language. The statement above is a generalization.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 03:44 PM

As also is the absurdity of pretending that a "war on terrorism" can eliminate all terrorism, more especially when the prosecution of this war itself includes a range of terrorist activities.

I think that may be getting onto one of my fears. I may be wrong and stand to get called an idiot but I sort of believe there are 2 levels of terrorism. The first are people with perhaps even questionable motives, the second to put it crudely are more idiots sensing an injustice and choosing a very wrong way to go about it.

The problem I see is that while cases are made for injustices, more and more people will get sucked into this awful game. To add to that, we have cases where people probably genuinely do believe there is a special place in heaven for murder or that they are saving the world by commiting horrific acts. IMO, there will always be new recruits.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: GUEST,tarheel
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 03:47 PM

well....tell you what,Big Mick!...i had no idea that you were "grading me"!give me a break!...do you think i go around worrying about what i post here and if it's gonna suit your fancy?
like i said,give me a break and>>>>GET A LIFE!!!

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 03:47 PM

The US uses state sponsored terrorism all the time, Frank. Remember "Shock and Awe"? If that wasn't state sponsored terrorism, I don't know what is. By definition, terrorism is the use of tactics that produce fear and/or terror in people in order to get a specific result and/or to control people's behavior. This use of the word "terrorist" to categorize any people of whom certain governments dissaprove, which the Bush regime seems to have popularized, is probably what you are taking exception to.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 03:50 PM

McGrath has it right.

What country sponsored Timothy McVeigh? And his outrage is second only to 9/11.

And there's nothing wrong with Kerry's complete statement, as quoted by Ebbie.

"Find terrorists and kill them. Period." sounds good, but there are technical difficulties. I believe there is no Official Terrorist tattoo, password, or uniform. Nor a Terrorist political philosophy. It's a technique, a tactic, a device. On the other hand, the terrorists who bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors are most likely Republican sympathizers; just think what that implies.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 04:09 PM

Clint: That argument keeps getting brought back.

1) We do know who some terrorists are. Find them and kill them. It will not be done by cops because cops have a different role to play. Shooters aren't bound by that 'law' as we know it.

2) Israel went after the 'terrorists' that killed their atletes at the Olympics. Until they screwed up and killed an innocent civilian in Sweden, they were doing quite well.

States know the names and addresses of many terrorists. What's missing is the will. When the will is found so too will the terrorists, at which point they can be dealt with. IMO, that 'dealt with' should be cold, clinical and to the point. Civilized people will no doubt disagree with me. I guess that makes me uncivilized, but I won't pretend to a sense of fairness with people who haven't demonstrated a sense of fairness. I am uncivilized, not worried that someone would think me a bad person. Of course, states wouldn't want to kill all terrorists, because I think they come in handy from time to time. It has been thus for a long, long time.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 04:15 PM

OK ... tarheel .... read this slowly, and several times. You post here so people will respond. You post here to see what folks think of your opinions. You post here to get a reaction. That is my reaction.

Methinks it is you who needs a life. Now, how about answering the response with something other than the equivalent of "oh, yeah!!"

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 04:19 PM

We can't kill all terrorists unless we're willing to kill the "elected" governments of all countries that practice terrorism as well. I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating killing the heads of state of, for instance, the United States and Russia, both countries being practitioners of state sponsored terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 04:22 PM

"Until they screwed up and killed an innocent civilian in Sweden, they were doing quite well."

There are a whole a lot more innocent civilians have been killed by that kind of attitude. They are still being killed today. That's what terrorists do, whoever sponsors them. Just because they are in the pay of some Government doesn't change things.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 04:30 PM

True. So, back to you, Chet. What do you suggest?

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 04:38 PM

The US and Russia can stop waging war for oil. Israel can end the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. Those two things alone would drastically reduce both state sponsored terrorism, as well as non-state sponsored terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:13 PM

Kerry didn't say "acceptable." "Nuisance," yes. I don't think even Bush believes he can completely eliminate all terrorism from the world. I don't think there's much difference between Bush and Kerry in how they feel about terrorism in general, so the Bushites are playing the semantics game.

Or, tarheel, do you think Bush can completely eliminate all terrorism in the world, now and in the future? If you DO believe he's omnipotent, you're nuts. If you don't, then you likely believe Bush wants to reduce the terrorism, make it less widespread, stop it before it happens and make it so it doesn't affect so many people. Some might use the term 'nuisance' for that. What term would you use?

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:19 PM

And maybe the rich oil states could build an infrastructure in the mid-East. Good starts.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:23 PM

For contrast, see how Republicans deal with the threat of terrorism, by playing this video:
How do you run a convention on a record of failure?.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: GUEST,tarheel
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:28 PM

oh yea, big mick?...wonder just how big you are in person! anyone who has to go around braggin' he's big has got to be a shrimp!
so,get off my back,asshole ,and go F*** yourself!!!

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:40 PM

Of course Bush can eliminate all terrorism when no one else can. He is doing God's will! Right tarheel?


The Brits are right and they've dealt with serious terrorism a lot longer than us. While it is anything more than a nuisance the terrorist are winning.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:42 PM

Tarheel you are so far off base about Mick that's its too ridiculous to be funny.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:42 PM

Tarheel,

Take your meds.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:45 PM

tar_heel, it's probably a good thing - heaven forbid that there should be two of you- but you're no Martin Gibson.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: MZ Drifter
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM

Tarheel, just give it up as a lost cause. I normally stay away from threads of this type but some how stumbled onto this. I can't believe some of the rationalization I have read here. It smacks of the rationalizing we put up with for years which lead to the destruction of 7 buildings in New York. Doesn't anyone remember the first Trade Center attack, the USS Cole, the Saudi barracks, the two embassies too say nothing of ignoring the Mogadeshi disaster, How many of you have flown into New York the last couple years. Hopefully, none of you that think terror is a nusiance. We treated terror as a nusiance for a long time and now have a massive void in the NYC skyline to show for it. And we will just ignore the fact that NO remains were found for upwards of 2000 innocent people. Tarheel, I'll see ya in the funnies.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:03 PM

Anyone who wants to be president who doesn't have as a goal to reduce the incidents of terrorism to a level that could be considered a "nuissance" should just quit... I mean, I don't get it tarheel. Like why fight it if you don't expect to suceed and by todays standards, nuisance is as close to a victory as can be reasonably expected...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: GUEST,tarheel
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:04 PM

thank you,MZ Drifter...good advice and accepted as such,here!i just find it incredible that a few people here in mudcat.org, think that they can control other peoples lives online around the globe by telling them,what they should do or not do!
yea,it is too f**king funny that they try it!
i've never had to get anyones permission in here to post a thread and not one damn soul in here has never asked me for permission,either!so....there!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:10 PM

Year-long presidential election campaigns and commercial advertising are a f**king nuisance too. Not to mention speedboats and jetskis on quiet lakes and aggressive drivers who won't let other people in. Then there's commercial radio stations, by which I am tortured when I try to eat a quiet meal in the local restaurant. Then there are people who start threads just so they can fight with everybody else on Mudcat.

Face it, life is full of nuisances. And life is full of excuses to get people to give up their civil rights for their own "safety" too.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:17 PM

Talk about missing the point.

Let terrorism run your lives, if you want. Shit yourself every time the "terror" alert changes. Are you two posting from underneath your beds? Or are you just echoing that little bantam rooster scare monger you call a President? Actually bantam rooster implies courage. He's more like a barking toy poodle. Keep tossing his salad. When he causes his version of Armageddon maybe he'll make room for you in his bunker.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: MZ Drifter
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:21 PM

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found posting to this thread was purely voluntary. Stupid on my part perhaps, but still voluntary. My "civil" rights, among them life, liberty and the persuit of happines are a helluva' lot more insured today than they were on 9-10-01.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: MZ Drifter
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:30 PM

Dam'n, Tarheel, maybe it is just a nuisance. The firehouse I visited in NYC didn't think so. But what the hell do they know? They didn't lose eveyone in that nusiance event - nope - just 11 of 13. I fly almost every week and feel safe. I don't, however, stick my head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen.

Now, its' not a question of "the heat in the kitchen", I just have better things to do with my time so I bid you a fon.....well, so long.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:32 PM

" . . . and now have a massive void in the NYC skyline to show for it."

The same can be said of the Baghdad skyline and they didn't have a damned thing to do with New York's skyline being destroyed.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:40 PM

Guest Frank:   G. Bush and Don Quixote in the same sentence? Please!!!! Insane was Don Quixote---but on a quest for justice and fairness.   G. Bush---who knows. Other than the interests of the oil folks, his family, and, frankly, his religious fanaticism what is his quest? To lead us into a quagmire that costs innocent lives, makes generations later pay for his mistakes, protect the very wealthy while he acts like "that good ole boy choppin' down the brush on his simple spread"---worth who know how many millions.

Kerry---wealth and all at least has the intellectual capablity of seeing more than one side, listening ( a great attribute--beats bullying) to experts outside his field of expertise, and being nuanced---yes, nuanced. THe Bushies make this seem as dirty a word as "liberal"---which W is now spouting ad naseum---he is making it sound like it is offensive like the N word. It is not. Perhaps one might best look at W and say the terrible C word---what makes one think that a Caring Conservative that only cares for his own and his class interests is any better? WHat makes one think that a shoot from the hip macho attitude beats diplomacy in this new world we live in, after all the advances in communication, science, and such? After 2 World Wars---and one that we should have learned from about being wrong and arrogant. And---losing sight of what this nations stands for.

Poor W ---he still does not know that redemption from all his past errors of drink--smoke---and the rest does not make him Gary Cooper in High Noon---Hallelujah, brother. And Amen. Just the kind of thing W likes to hear.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:42 PM

Israel started the policy of state sponsored terrorism to achieve political ends - just ask the British why they - with extensive urging from the USA - left 'Palestine'...

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:49 PM

The policy of state-sponsored terrorism predates the present State of Isreal by thousands of years.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:11 PM

Does Crusader come to mind? Among others.

As to Israel in the years of the British Mandateb and its aftermath----we must get some definitions now---freedom fighter (revolutionary) vs terrorist. British policy vs fairness, Arab intransigance and teror vs legal purchase and ownership of land, UN resolutions vs war by neighbors.

I am sure you all have views---hopefully, you will recall the year 1948, the year 1967, the year 1972(that one you sports fans will know), and the year 1973.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:15 PM

When did anyone say anything about you needing peremisssin to post on this threads, tarheel? What on earth are you on about imagiuning that Big Mick, or anyoine else said anything like that?

Sometimes, too often, people flare off about stuff that just hasn't been said at all. Like complaining about Kerry saying that September 11th was "acceptable", when he said nothing of the sort.

Obviously can be lots of occasion for differences of opinion, and for disagreeing with what people said. But when it comes down to getting all hot under the collar about things people never said, and never even implied, it's just a bit ridiculous. Level that kind of crap to the professional politicians who do that all the time to distract people's attention.

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:16 PM

tarheel loses all credibility whan he claims Kerry said "acceptable nuisance," which he did not say.

Bush said "I don't think you can win it" about the war on terror, explaining that what you CAN do is make it more and more difficult to be a terrorist so you REDUCE terrorism until it is much less of a threat.

Kerry says the EXACT SAME THING in different words, and the Right Wing buttheads start screaming: "Kerry thinks terrorism is just a nuisance," or "Kerry isn't in favor of eliminating terrorism entirely!"

Kerry said he'd like to REDUCE terrorism to the point where it was just a nuisance, because you CAN'T eliminate it entirely. Just what Bush said, tarheel.