Once someone
commits a terrorist act, they get what\'s coming to them. What does \"negotiate\" mean? In general you negotiate
when you stand to get something out of it. We were willing to sort of negotiate with the Taliban when we thought
they might turn Bin Laden over. It\'s all very pragmatic, cold and calculated. Terrorists have useful information,
and are a symptom of something bigger that we need to understand. Terrorist psychology is an important source of
information. You don\'t make concessions to terrorists, per se. You try to understand where they are coming
from, as much as possible (It\'s not just, <robotic voice>\"I am evil, boom boom!\"). In general
you act with integrity regardless of what terrorists want. The \"integrity card\" trumps the \"non-concession
card\", when and if value conflicts should occur. It would be a bit immature and morally sloppy to just see what
they want first, and then do the opposite. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] If integrity means
giving understanding and justice to Muslim folk, as well as Israelis, well then it does. It would be horribly
embarrasing indeed to realize some moral duty only after a terrorist reminded you, hypothetically speaking. That
would represent a pretty big moral failure. But two wrongs would never make a right.
Freedom is freedom to do
the best thing. If we let terrorists unwittingly kill our souls, our moral freedom, what would we have left to
protect?
Bookmarks