🚀 go-pugleaf

"Michael A. Clem" <mclem@vigoris.net> wrote in message news:<3BD3A748.6973ACE0@vigoris.net>...
> Scott Gilbert wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > > Some might say that it's not patriotic to question the policies of one's
> > > > own government during wartime. I say that genuine patriotism involves
> > > > not a blind allegiance to one's government even in war but rather a love
> > > > of country that sometimes entails trying to move one's government in a
> > > > more positive, constructive direction.
> >
> > If terrorists can change government policy via body count, you will
> > get more terrorists, not less.  There will always be people who
> > disagree with the policy of any government.  Negotiation with
> > terrorists, caving into their demands only condemns more people to
> > death when the next lot, perceiving the success of the last lot, start
> > playing the same game.
> 
> I see.  So it's some kind of macho game of honor and respect.  We can't change our foreign policy now, no matter how flawed it is, because
> to do so would be to "appease" the terrorists?
>   BTW, Jacob Hornberger's essay had nothing in it about negotiating with the terrorists.  And, as far as I know, no demands have been made
> relating to the attack.  Even the reasons for the attack are not entirely clear, in spite of what some people have said.


Do this or we will do that to you is very clearly a "negotiation".

Changing policy in response to murder only encourages ever increasing
body counts as every little splinter group with an agenda decides to
manipulate policy via terrorist acts.  Changing policy in response to
good faith negotiation on the other hand, is a viable option.  It's
simple behavioural theory: you positively reinforce those actions of
which you approve.

Positively reinforcing mass murder is lunacy.