Could we stop this racing to bottom debate? Clearly, terrorism is a symptom. Its cause is not bad people are not monitored, but they have various reason to thi

Could we stop this racing to bottom debate? Clearly, terrorism is a symptom. Its cause is not bad people are not monitored, but they have various reason to think harm innocent people is the only way to advance their objectives. Can anyone address such issues? Unlikely. History has shown that terrorism is seldom solved, they are extinguished, through escalation to war or complete annihilation of the weaker part. Do I support monitoring? Not always. But if I am not feeling safe, I am OK to sacrifice some privacy and take some risk of being harmed by the government. I am not saying you should agree with this, but that's my thoughts. > Can you - can anyone - demonstrate that "close monitoring" actually makes it possible to prevent terrorism? This way of reasoning seems fine, but really is just a way of showing me being using unfounded argument to support my claim. In reality, as I said, solving terrorism is not monitoring's job, but it makes me feel safe, because someone is doing something that can reduce the risk (not substantially).