David Hearne wrote:
>
>
> This argument has its limitations. Isn't it as simplistic as saying
> that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were merely products of the high
> school social structure? Millions of students felt the same kind of
> humiliation Klebold and Harris experienced, yet none went to such
> extemes.
You want us to explore why these particular people acted in such and such a way. That question is 1) unanswerable and 2) uninteresting. The interesting and important question is "Why is terrorism a factor in contemporary politics?"
In the case of Klebold and Harris there are no interesting questions. Adolescent violence is decreasing fairly rapidly over the last 20 years, and so we can regard any instance of it as merely a reflection of the fact that out of 280 million people, even rare actions are apt to happen once in a while. There is nothing to do about it or any reason to do anything about it.
In reference terrorism, it is not interesting why John rather than Sally commits a terrorist act. It is interesting why terrorism is an option in the world of 2001 while it wasn't particularly an option in (say) 15,000 BP. And analysis of individuals, whether ethical, psychological, or astrological does not help us with that question.
Carrol