You have to pick one of those options. Which one is worse in your opinion? My definition of appeasement is an attempt to pacify an enemy by granting some concessions, even at the expense of some principles. If you could avoid a war being an appeaser and save millions of lives, what would you do? If you could solve the terrorism problem being an appeaser and by doing this you could save millions of lives, what would you do? Again, appeasement doesn't mean you would let your enemy take control of your country or something. So, what is worse?
Edit: Ok, given the fact that everyone wants details on what concessions you are making, I'll present some scenarios:
A-You must call terrorism anti-Islamic activities.
B-You must remove some missiles from the border of a country far away from home.
C-You must recognize the independence of a Middle East state.
D-You must take your support to a Middle East state away.
E-You must set a bunch of terrorists free from jail.
F-You must give your liberty away.
Edit: Ok, given the fact that everyone wants details on what concessions you are making, I'll present some scenarios:
A-You must call terrorism anti-Islamic activities.
B-You must remove some missiles from the border of a country far away from home.
C-You must recognize the independence of a Middle East state.
D-You must take your support to a Middle East state away.
E-You must set a bunch of terrorists free from jail.
F-You must give your liberty away.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-01-28 04:09:28)