Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Idealogical consistency
is the hobgoblin of little minds 66%
doesn't bother me 0%
is something I seek to maintain 0%
gives me a headache 33%

Votes: 3

 Terrorism and root causes - clarification

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 29, 2001
This is a follow-up to my last diary entry. There seem to be some confusion.

More diaries by donkpunch
I am not tolerant
Libertarian geeks - patting their own pale backs
Credit Card Companies
My Stupid Shoulder (a multi-part saga)
My Stupid Shoulder (Part Two)
My Stupid Shoulder (Part Three)
Is this sexual harrassment?
Terrorism and root causes
It's all about the Benjamins.
Evolution of a Software Engineer in One Day
What Sucks About Marriage
Random Taliban Musings
In my previous entry, I suggested we consider the existence of legitimate grievances by the person or person(s) responsible for the terrorist attack. I said it is not unreasonable to assume the so-called "terrorist leader" may have valid points.

I offered this opinion on a site specifically designed for grown-up discussion of controversial ideas. While the posted replies dismissed my idea immediately, I actually received several emails from people in agreement. These people feared inciting a pointless flamewar and chose instead to offer their quiet, anonymous support.

It is unfortunate that even on Adequacy, one of the most open-minded and mature web communities available, some still fear persecution and attack.

Nevertheless, there seem to be a misconception. This misconception is shared by both my supporters and detractors. Apparently, almost everyone believes the "terrorist attack" to which I referred was the September 11, 2001 attack. Furthermore, there seems to be nearly universal confusion over which so-called "terrorist leader" I was describing. I was not talking about Osama bin Laden.

In fact, I was actually referring to terrorist leader Timothy McVeigh and his bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building.

I hope this minor misunderstanding does not cause my supporters to turn against me. After all, we are still talking about universal principles of understanding, reason, and empathy. As I said, we can separate methods from goals.

I am sure those who agreed with me when they thought I was talking about bin Laden will continue to apply the same philosophy to McVeigh. After all, what good are principles without consistency? Clearly, we must discover what drove McVeigh to his actions and correct it.

Therefore, the matter is settled. We should consider repeal of the 1994 Crime Bill (the "Brady Bill"). We should seek more stringent limitations on federal power. We may even abolish the BATF.

Thank you to all who, like me, use their reason to rise above the cries for vengeance.


self-congratulation (none / 0) (#1)
by nathan on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 04:49:33 PM PST
Thank you to all who, like me, use their reason to rise above the cries for vengeance.

You're not welcome, you unctious bastard.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

not much left to understand (none / 0) (#2)
by osm on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 05:03:09 PM PST
since he was cremated after being executed.

OK, now I'm confused (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by hauntedattics on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 05:50:44 PM PST
Tim McVeigh is dead, but the far-right hate groups in this country are apparently applauding the work of al-Quaeda in destroying the WTC and are planning to rev up their own movements again. The Aryan Nations web site apparently reads "...the time for Aryans to attack is now, not later."

Do we really need to look into these people's motives and understand why they are aggrieved? No. Because it's all bullshit. As are the motives of the Taliban and al-Quaeda.

For those afraid of inciting a needless flamewar (none / 0) (#4)
by Adam Rightmann on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 06:27:29 PM PST
Do they not know they are at the internet's premier controversial site? Perhaps you could email them back, giving them direction to, that whinging circle on Onanists.

A. Rightmann


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to