| "If Australia got nuked, it would be because we have done the wrong thing by someone else.." |
I don't see that as anything more than akin to "If a woman is raped she asked for it.". You can be hated for reasons outside your control. People are hated because of their race, their religion. The moral values of first world nations are a reason why many fundamentalists in other parts of the world hate us. Is simply existing "doing the wrong thing?".
How many nations and groups hate us with a passion and never kill thousands of people unrelated to their "beef"? Of course people have a right to have a "beef" with us, but is the "beef" the problem with terrorists, or is it the barbaric idea that targetting innocent people is a good way to make a point?
What I am seeing in obtuse opinions like this is the equation of Anger=Terrorism. You expect people to have a knee-jerk reaction to kill civilians to make a point. Ghandi was angry, Martin Luther King Jr. was angry. Only certain agry people make the leap to terrorism. We have multitudes of angry people in the US. To go a step further and say that when you make people angry your should expect to be the victims of terrorism is to validate terrorism as a means of expressing your anger. We don't tolerate that kind of behavior from our own, why should we tolerate it from anyone else, regardless of culture?
No, appeasing everyone in the world will not stop terrorism. In the first place it is impossible, the world is a competitive place. In addition, people with this kind of propensity for horror will always find an excuse. No normal human being can behead another human being. The ideology is far, far subordinate to the sickness in the soul and mind of a terrorist. You can have a beef without hating, and you can certainly be a psychopath or programmed killer without having a "beef".
Sorry for going off-topic Brad, but the kind of crap that Muggaz is spouting is very destructive, imho. It gives anyone with a "beef" the idea that terroristic acts are enevitable.