YOU DON'T GAIN SAFETY THROUGH APPEASEMENT

Tony Blankley nails it.

“All those critics who say we should change our foreign policies because we are causing the Islamists to attack us are—whether they use the term or not—arguing to appease aggressors by changing ourselves in conformity with the aggressor’s desires. The politically correct crowd who say we should change the way we talk, think and behave, change our surveillance of Muslims, even here in America, because it offends Islamist sensibilities—wish to gain safety by appeasing the violent and offended Islamists. These arguments are not immoral or cowardly. If we could vouchsafe America from the danger of nuclear, biological and other mass slaughters of millions of our citizens, it would be reckless not to carefully consider such appeasements. This is an issue of threat assessment. The appeasers don’t see the threat as so great. Thus they think we are overreacting and even adding to the problem... A maximum effort to extirpate the malignancy is the only and best defense for our way of life. I’m not against the appeasers because they are immoral or cowardly. I merely disagree with them because I believe that, like Neville Chamberlain, they underestimate the threat, and are thus dangerously wrong.”