[myegorov]

I agree that with asymmetrical warfare resorting to terrorism is rational. What seems irrational is our inability to recognize the struggle of our enemy for what it's worth and our refusal to negotiate. I can't think of an example where negotiations (as in granting that your partner in negotiations is your peer) haven't led to a net positive outcome. To take but one example close to home: The Soviet Union was founded by a terrorist group. The ultimate recognition of the state by western powers and their foreign policy of engagement -- aside from the Cold War era -- was instrumental in bringing the enemy to its knees (whatever the wider repercussions of this outcome).

[oh_sigh]

How about chamberlains negotiations with Hitler?

[myegorov]

I understand your point is that direct confrontation at times cannot be avoided. In particular, you may be provoked to defend yourself, as in the Soviet Union entering WWII upon Germany violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I'm of the opinion that only this latter case of agression justifies taking up arms. Any violence by way of preventive action lends itself too easily to abuses, as we see with the so-called war on terrorism. In the context of WWII, it's not at all clear that anything other than collective action of the allies and the Soviet Union could have stopped Germany. And for that, the events had to run their course. One can find fault with indecision on refugees, but not with appeasement efforts.