Clinton offers more of the same on Syria.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

maybe. but overall i believe that this approach would weaken isis. they would not have the upper hand when it comes to new recruits. plus, non violence is the only response i can personally align with.

I've always believed non violence only works if your opponent has a conscience. Gandhi could have done non violent demonstrations all day long with the Jews in WWII, it would not have kept the Nazis from shoving them into trains and shipping them off to a camp.

OK! Crazy idea since I just had to sit 40 minutes on ice covered roads I had time

Lets say we forfeit a large piece of land to the fanatics - something suitably large and valuable and in dispute... The deal "we" make is that they get this land and we will not interfere with anything that goes on within their borders, it is theirs to rule as they see fit. In exchange for this they agree not to directly interfere in the world outside their borders (no terrorist acts or inciting others in those countries)

For a defined period anyone that agrees with their ideals will be allowed to freely move to the new area/county and anyone in that area/country that wants to leave will be given free passage to a country in the west who will agree to take as many as it takes to remove anyone who does not want to live in the new paradise they are building.. Then we shut the borders and agree to leave each other alone other than say direct trade for items the other needs.

Pros: Non violent, moves anyone out to a western country that does not want to be there, should solve one large segment of the terrorist issue.

Cons: We would be forcing borders on others again, fanatics don't tend to stick to treaties if god tells them otherwise.