This paper defines itself at the intersection of two different basic questions of this Workshop: 1. How much human factors matter when talking of the acceptance of the different groups to terrorist messages for recruitment? and 2. What it is to be done by the policy makers in order to develop effective counter-terrorist measures – other than the immediate and physical force based ones? The paper is founded on the idea that effective public policy within the domain of counter-terrorism is strongly related to the idea of partnership between public authorities and the civil population. This leads to a further question, How could a counter-terrorist discourse be designed in such a way that it may go towards generating a real partnership with the civil population? This question requires empirical research so as to configure a real answer to the question, Is the public counter-terrorist message neutralizing the terrorist appeal? Firstly, the paper aims to present the theoretical definition of the phenomenon, ending in a comparative analysis of two empirical facts: the structure of the terrorist message and the structure of the counter-terrorist public discourse. Do they neutralise each other? Our hypothesis is that, at the level of outputs, only the terrorist message neutralizes the counter-terrorist message and not the other way around. Does the young generation think that a certain kind of violence is justified? Secondly, the paper is a result of empirical research we conducted in Romania and which might be replicated in other countries as well – an online research, targeting the younger generation, on the idea of justification of collective violence. Some of the questions intentionally employ the logic of the terrorist message – the ‘cause’ and its importance in accepting the terrorist appeal by the younger generation. The structure of the questionnaire is designed to relate to the structure of the terrorist message (the term ‘terrorism’ was not used in the questionnaire).