4 ms·
As it should. Terrorists are an affront to freedom. Drugs are not.
by rottencupcakes 16y ago
As it should. Terrorists are an affront to freedom. Drugs are not.
- grandalf 16y agoTerrorism cannot be stopped (by definition). The affront to freedom is the response to terrorism.
- wan23 16y agoWhat part of the definition says that it can't be stopped?
- grandalf 16y agoDefinition: Terrorism is the creation of fear in a population intended to achieve a political end. What does it take to create fear? Certainly not successful terrorist attacks. Failed ones would work perfectly well too, as evidenced by the underwear bomber, shoe bomber, etc. Things as minor as prank phone calls, etc., will still strike fear into the hearts of the target population. So unless you can tell me that it's possible to stop failed attacks and prank phone calls, you must agree that terrorism cannot ever be stopped.
- ENOTTY 16y agoThat's just semantics. You can stop terrorists by killing them.
- prodigal_erik 16y agoOnly if the rate of killing actual terrorists is greater than the rate of motivating people to become terrorists, usually by killing their innocent loved ones.
- bl4k 16y agoI am not agreeing or disagreeing, just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.