There's a difference between taking thigs seriously, and shooting it up all the way to the top of the priority list, above things fundamental civil liberties.

That's a terrible argument. Communism was hugely overblown. In reality, communism was used as a straw man to attack left-wing politics all over the western world, and similarly, as a distraction.and a scapegoat.

Murder also has a stronger emotional effect than someone dying of a heart attack. It's easier to get people emotionally involved in a story about murder, and people are more swayed by politicians that promise to end murder than by politicians promising to end heart disease.

I'm not talking anything about war, but at any rate, people are always more important than infrastructure. And again, it's an issue of lack of proportion. And every dollar that is spent on 'fighting terrorism' is a dollar that's not spent in infrastructure.

Terrorism isn't about killing people, or blowing up buildings. It's about causing fear and panic. The stupidest possible reaction to terrorism is to overestimate the threat and treat it as the most important problem.

Maybe according to the dictionary, but according to Hezbulah, Hammas, Iran, and Al-Qaeda, the purpose of terrorism is about Justice, proof of the authority of the Koran, proof of the weakness of charachter of the west, and an overall stratedgy of declaring ownership over everything that was once run by the Caliphate.

Ah, yeah. Dictionaries can't be trusted. All truth, no heart. *cough*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism



Your defintion is just one way of looking at the term, a way in which nobody really uses the word anymore.

Israel, North Ireland, Sri Lanka, Tibet, and I think Vietnam(not sure about that one)

Israel takes terrorism very, very seriously, and, considering the number of people right on it's doorstep, hasn't been hurt much. North Ireland similiarly takes it seriously. Sri Lanka and Tibet are not cases of terrorism, they're examples of out-right civil war, and again, it's taken seriously. Vietnam...no, not really. Current government is stable and the closest things to 'terrorists' would be the Viet Cong, who were actually just communist guerillas who wore black. So...I'm still not sure where terrorism hasn't been taken seriously.

Perhaps, but America has had very little experience with Terrorism at home, so its not really comparable. Thankfully we have been protected.

I thought we were talking about America. Anyhow, I'll concede the point. This is a danger of terrorism - terrorism is, after all, all about psychological warfare.

I think you need to listen to the tapes Al-Qaeda puts out more.

Okay, this was my bad - I was working from the wrong definition of 'subvert'. I didn't realize it could mean outright overthrow, thought it applied specifically to working within and corrupting. Yes, al-Qaeda wants to overthrow...most western governments. But are they really doing that, so far? No, they're only inducing panic, and overreaction to that panic is the surest way to let their psychological warfare succeed.

Ok good point, however, MUCH more media attention is paid to those issues than Terrorism. Infact, every hurricane that MIGHT touch land -somehwere- is given full coverage and interupts normal shows. So that sort of goes against Verithax's point of "too much attention to Terrorism"

Much more is paid to hurricanes, perhaps, but not the others (corrupt inspectors, poor construction, floods, tornados). Terrorism recieves an undue amount of attention for the amount of times it actually occurs. It's about the terror. The more we allow ourselves to be scared and to lash back, the worse we do.

How is that supporting Verithrax's point? The Random car accident was given more coverage and considered more important in the media than the terrorist attack. Infact, most people don't even know about the attack, which incidently happend on July 4th 2003 or 2004.

Okay, I can't find the incident you're talking about, but I'll take your word for what happened. But that powerline affected far more people than the murder did, if in a more impermeneant way. And it's inherently a one-off - you can't firearms very far at all at O'Hare or Reagan International, the airports I can speak the most to. Terrorism ultimately kills a small percentile number of people - real numbers always seem large until you put them in perspective. Sure, there may be thousands of al-Qaeda members and affiliates, but there's millions who are opposed to them. So why do the radical actions of this tiny minority get more attention then, say, income tax reform? There's more emotional charge. When we react to the negative charge of terrorism, we -allow- ourselves to be terrorized. If we refuse to panic, refuse to lash out or overreact, we come out ahead. Terrorists are only as important as you let them be.

That's a really good point.

I hate that in the media these days every bad person is now a 'terrorist'. And any crime is part of a 'terrorism' plot. The word is SO overused.

In essence, terrorists are trying to impose fear on society to get the changes they want. So far, at least judging by most western countries, it has been an unparalleled success. It's not about destroying them, or causing x amounts of damage, it's about changing the day-to-day lives of ordinary people who never had to worry about bombs falling on their heads or whether their six-year-old grandchild could be part of an underground militia.

Yes, people attack people. Yes, sometimes it is terrorism (hello "shock and awe"). But our society has fundamentally changed because of very minor incidents, and we are losing that perceptual sense of innocence, freedom and fairness. Which I imagine is exactly what real terrorists would want.

You people need to take a break. The post is funny, that's all.