Appeasement of States vs. Terrorists

Deepak Chopra. The first I knew much of him was an interview with Glen Beck. Some what interesting but a little new agey for me. I almost gave up on saying anything on the matter but Bill O'Reilly has Deepak Chopra on tonight so.

Basically Chopra blames the attacks in India on US policies and actions. You expect some one to say it. US policies do have bad side effects but not that. It is one of those ideas I just can't get my head around. I see the logic but it is just to much of a stretch.The "hate America" comments started, fine, what else is new. There is the back and forth and over the top analysis, Hannity has him on, that goes well, then Chopra fires back from the Huffington Post? He writes for the Huffington Post, D o n e. I like when people make it easy for me to ignore them. Another wonderful political extreme on extreme attack. A complete waste of every one's time. Someone should really do something about all this extreme on extreme verbal abuse.

For the record allowing any of these groups to fester in any back water is not an option. They are after a world wide Muslim State, not tomorrow but it is on the table down the road. Any thing of interest in any of this? One comment caught my ear. I think it was a Chopra comment but I was at that moment paralyzed trying to decide if I should hurry and catch the brain cell leaving my head or dive for the remote to stop the loss. Who it was is irrelevant to the point. Someone applied the appeasement to the terrorists. Appeasement is a kind of slow walk pacifism. Arguments can be made for pacifism but not so much appeasement in general.

The terminology is usually reserved for nation states. Just the idea of it being applied to terrorists jumps what might under some sort of extreme circumstance might be reluctantly acceptable. It usually starts with allowing a military build up, a pay off of resources or allowing territory to be annexed. Not of that is possible. We go directly to the actions that make the initial appeasement so dangerous. Surrender of whole states, changing of internal laws or policies and direct weakening of national security(ie. Cuban missiles). So what exactly are we talking about when we are appeasing terrorists?

Other Links:
Deepak Blames America - WSJ.com
CNN wins, FOX loses, Deepak Chopra and other Mumbai thoughts
Mumbai Terror: CNN & 'Uncomfortable Questions'
The Mumbai Attacks - Al Qaeda, Pakistani Proxies or Hindutva Backlash? | Crooks and Liars