Quote: (10-05-2017 11:23 AM)Fortis Wrote:
No, he was not right. He sent bombs to college campuses and harmed student and faculty members who had nothing to do with his rants.
The sad part about the Unabomber is that had he just published his treatise without bombing people, he could have possibly made an impact. He had/has a formidable intellect and wasted it making bombs and killing people.
No he couldn't have. There are plenty of people out there with anti-tech talking points who are being ignored.
He was a terrorist, and was terrorizing anyone connected to tech companies and colleges where tech research was being done.
It's not right, that is clear. As a strategy though, there wouldn't even be this thread if all he did was write articles.
Still not a great strategy for a lone terrorist. If he had a group of fellow eco-warriors spread out over the country secretly attacking, it might have made more sense tactically if not morally.
If you have ever engaged in political activism, you know how hard it is to get anything done just with words. The Unabomber's campaign is like the dark temptation for every activist.
We know we are ineffectual as we are, so do we keep our morals and lose, or go rogue and become more effective?
I was involved in a humanitarian group trying peacefully to send aid to a country that was being decimated and denied access to weapons to defend itself. We tried everything we could think of, and I remember the lot of us sitting there dejectedly in a room and one member says, so what do we do now? Start running guns over there?
We all looked at each other and knew our campaign was over. Ted Kaczynski wasn't just an example of the lone nut. He is an archetype of anyone who wants to get something done taking the dark option.