Leave a comment

Comments 6

(The comment has been removed)

blank0 November 17 2009, 04:45:57 UTC
By damaging the rancher's home, we encourage him to take up the snakes' side. Leave the snakes to die and they'll be gone in a generation. Kill them and they live forever.

Terrorists want to bring attention to their causes, and they don't care who dies for it (often themselves included). ANY reaction provoked is a victory for them. Turning the other cheek is probably the hardest path to choose, but it's the only one with any chance of permanent victory.

Reply

greymaiden November 17 2009, 06:21:28 UTC
In the case of terrorism, I agree. Every kid learns this in the schoolyard. Don't give the bully what he wants. End of story.

Reply


gomu_ningen November 17 2009, 01:14:26 UTC
Here here

Reply


greymaiden November 17 2009, 06:18:45 UTC
I am the last person you will ever hear justifying the current state of politics, but the naivete of people who write things like this is astounding ( ... )

Reply

blank0 November 17 2009, 16:16:29 UTC
In the case being addressed here, ignoring the terrorist will build a bigger and more friendly posse than fighting him. We could be a sympathetic victim, but instead we're just a bully fighting another bully.

Reply

greymaiden November 18 2009, 03:25:42 UTC
As stated in my other comment on this thread, I agree that meeting terrorist bullying with more bullying is moronoic and counterproductive. I do not think the current terrorist issues are a case study in the importance of non-interventionist foreign policy, which I generally support.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up