What do you think about this quote?

[Thrawn]

Force and appeasement, instead of force orappeasement.


You use force against the terrorists and appeasement with their support base.

[moot]

Don't you have those two switched around?

[Viking]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
"It surprises me that intelligent people at the dawn of the 21st century could claim that if you respond to terrorism with force, you spawn terrorism," he said. "But that if you appease them, you somehow tame them."

I agree.  Terrorism is a fanatical mindset that takes either death or several generations to overcome.

"But that if you appease them, you somehow tame them."

I have yet to hear or read someone claiming that.

[Toad]

Maybe they're not claiming that, just pretending it is so to ease their own minds.

Like the Dutch at Srebrenica.

[Viking]

Ah ... so now you know what people are thinking?

There were terrorists in Srebrenica?

[Toad]

No, there were Dutch pretending that appeasing terrorists was the way to tame them.

[Viking]

How do you figure?

[midnight Target]

Sounds like the third grade version of foreign policy.

[Toad]

I probably figure it about the same way ~8000 dead Muslim men and boys figured it.

[Viking]

And exactly how is that appeasement?

[Toad]

Well, what would you call Dutch United Nations soldiers who failed to prevent the massacre of Srebenica in July 1995 and gave the Serbs a back-slapping welcome, handing over their Dutch uniforms and even actively helped to separate Muslim men from their families if not "appeasers"?

Maybe collusion is a better word for you? Ally? Take your pick.

[Viking]

Well ... since the massacre wasn't discovered until years later and the Dutch had no way of knowing what was going to happen I find your argument unreasonable. The UN was a neutral party to that war.

Unless you consider every soldier who surrenders to an overwhelming force to be "appeasing terrorists", in which case your whole argument is laughable.

[Toad]

Perhaps you should review the case now in preparation for trial. "Srebenica Widows Sue UN, Dutch Government" reads one July 2006 headline.

Or do you think that "surrendered" soldiers commonly and correctly assist their captors with genocide against a local population?



You do highlight one good point though...it really is collusion rather than merely.

[Viking]

How did they "assist in genocide"? How could they have stopped it, even if they had known what was going to happen? They were repeatedly denied air support from NATO and had only light weapons while facing a force four times larger and with tanks.

I could post a picture of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, but that would be as irrelevant as your picture. The UN held talks with all the parties to that conflict. The UN was on a humanitarian mission, and not involved in the fighting.

And finally: What has all this got to do with appeasing terrorists?

[Viking]

Here's how a Dutch soldier experienced the whole deal:


http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,364902,00.html



No offence, but I take his word over yours