Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your first two sentences make sense individually, but not when read together. If these folks think terrorism is wrong, how can they think there is some justification for it?
And then I don't understand your last two sentences at all. Of course we want people to "expect" terrorism. MI5, MI6, etc. That doesn't mean they approve of it.
In denial of what? I suspect that these people believe that what they are urging will not only help Britain avoid terrorist acts but also is "right." If you assume that they are patriotic Brits urging what they think is best for the country, what's the problem?
|
You know perfectly well that there are differentl levels of condemning something. They condemn it but not that strongly. If you were condemnning the Allied targeting of civilian neighborhoods during bombing during WWII, there is a huge difference between saying - under absolutely no circumstances is intentionally bombing civilian targets OK. (vs.) Well, it is wrong, but what do you expect with the way the Nazi were acting and the people are partically responsible for what their government does.
And during WWII, if you were trying to get the British and American government to stop targeting Civilians, the wrong line of reasoning would be to say that they shouldn't do it because of what the Nazis might do. Such a line of reasoning would remind them that the Nazis would probably do it anyway regardless of Allied actoin, and would probably inflame people's desire for retaliation.
If you were trying to get the Allied leaders to stop bombing civilain targets, the time not to do it would be right after a major Nazi bombing campaign. You would keep your mouth shut until a time that passions diminshed a great deal.
