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?