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.