Here’s an excellent example of how to make sure very few people will acknowledge what you are saying. David Bell concludes an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times by putting the fight against terrorism into perspective:
Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler — can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.
He virtually guarantees that few will consider this sensible argument with the title of his op-ed: Was 9/11 Really That Bad? Factually he is correct that the toll from 9/11 is trivial compared to all of World War II, but that is hardly the point of most people’s reaction to the attack. It would be far better to acknowledge the horror of the attack without any attempts at down playing it while presenting his arguments on the often bizarre reactions to 9/11 from the right. By presenting what appears to be an equally bizarre reaction his more important argument will be ignored.
Another problem, even with the paragraph I quoted, is that while he is mostly right there we must keep in mind that in the nuclear age every enemy, while perhaps not a total threat to our existence, can cause incredible harm to us.