3 ms·
So the way to deal with those outlying cases is to start wars and cause widespread violence that will generate 1000x more terrorism?
by danenania 13y ago
So the way to deal with those outlying cases is to start wars and cause widespread violence that will generate 1000x more terrorism?
- PavlovsCat 13y agoFrom the perspective of people who peddle weapons and fear to those who have to pay for the weapons and act on the fear, yes. That is exactly the correct response.
- wslh 13y agoI am not saying that and don't want to enter into an infinite discussion about terrorism. Just saying that the problem is complex. I don't live in US and my country was attacked twice, a hundred people killed, in the last 20 years.
- danenania 13y agoWell, the US has had 3k or so killed in the past 15 years. In response it killed hundreds of thousands and caused widespread devastation and misery in several foreign wars. These wars created multiple large transnational extremist anti-US movements that now have advanced military equipment, are skilled veterans of war, and are spreading their influence to neighboring countries. Not a great trade.
- wslh 13y agoMy country was not involved in attacking other countries. Imagine if a crazy guy in my country uses our nuclear capabilities as an answer? can I justify them?
- TeMPOraL 13y agoNo. But would you justify your government if it were to preemptively invade the crazy guy's homeland to stop him from potentially doing something bad?
- wslh 13y agoNever said that. The main point of the thread is if there is a simple way to reduce terrorism or not. Remember that Salman Rushdie didn't invade any country.