Like begging prostitution and theft, terrorism will always be with us.
The problem is that, as a technique, it's bloody effective. Forget your peaceful protests, boycotts and non-violent direct action; terrorism and the fear of terrorism is the business. Put simplistically, terrorism does what is says on the tin - it terrorises people, and terrorised people make governments uneasy.
At some point in most terrorist campaigns, those on the receiving end sit down and do an audit - call it a body-count, call it a cost-benefit analysis or whatever - and change their attitudes.
Generally that takes time - to be properly effective terrorism needs to be a nagging sore; a chronic problem rather than an acute one. But generally the change of attitude that results goes some way towards redressing the grievances aired by the terrorists.
If you doubt that, ask EOKA, the Irgun, PIRA or any number of organisations that have used terror in the past. They'll tell you that when politicians say: "We will never listen to the demands of terrorists," they have their fingers crossed behind their backs and their eyes and ears closed to history.
So if I had to make a choice in November, I'd go for the man who wants to work towards creating a society where terrorism is a mere nuisance, rather than the idiot who thinks he can declare war on it.