</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
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?
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
Excellent Post!
Bookmarks