Metroyet
Veteran
- Nov 1, 2008
- 2,571
- 5,664
Right. So the group that has been proven to be correct by the courts and who are clearly the injured party in this protracted battle should stop seeking the justice that is legitimately and rightfully theirs in exchange for peace? I can’t think of any examples in history where the injured party surrendered and ceased fighting with the guilty, immoral and hedonistic party that attacked them and that such a surrender resulted in a benefit to the injured party. Please enlighten us with examples of why this is a good strategy. Did it work out for the French in WWII? Has “land for peace” ever worked in Israel? Personally I don’t recommend giving those who have a penchant for injuring the innocent more opportunities and latitude to do it again.
Yep. You don't negotiate with Terrorists.