4 ms·
Exactly. In the real world you're always going to have disgruntled people, no matter how reasonable and fair you may be towards them. It's probably true that yo
by Maktab 17y ago
Exactly. In the real world you're always going to have disgruntled people, no matter how reasonable and fair you may be towards them. It's probably true that you could prevent some terrorism by changing your actions to stop doing whatever's causing some subset of the population to become upset, but there will always be some person or group whose demands are so crazy and far-out that no country could reasonable accede to them. Against the irrational even appeasement is an imperfect deterrent.
I don't think, for example, that it would have been realistically possible to have avoided giving Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh or even Osama Bin Laden a reason to attack their respective targets.
- randallsquared 17y agoWell, for McVeigh, apparently a large sign saying "Day Care Inside" would have worked for that particular target, but not targets in general.
- philwelch 17y agoNothing can justify what these people have done. But to be fair, neither McVeigh nor bin Laden would have reasons to commit acts of terrorism if the federal government wasn't doing things it wasn't supposed to be doing. McVeigh was motivated by Ruby Ridge and Waco (both of which were debacles the feds completely mishandled, to speak charitably), and bin Laden was motivated primarily by American intervention in the Middle East.