You said it in support of the UK's approach to terrorism. Which was to capitulate to the terrorists.
good means, good ends - no need for justification
bad means, good ends - the ends justify the means
good means, bad ends - the means justify the ends
bad means, bad ends - no possibility of justification
The disconnect is that I don't accept this assumption. I see no evidence that the US method fights terrorism better. In fact, it appears to result in far more and worse attacks than the British method.
Therefore, I am advocating for something that I believe will mitigate terrorism as it happens, and produce a better outcome. Thus falling squarely in the "no need for justification" line of your summary.
They stopped their attacks when their demands were met.
I fail to see what you are advocating other than giving in to terrorism.
Sure, the Irish didn't cease their attacks because of how the British fought them. Likewise, various anti-American terrorists haven't ceased their attacks because of how the US fights them.
Your proposal implies that killing civilians should earn you a seat at the negotiating table.
That said, the UK government certainly did a lot to piss off the Irish and it's not clearly the case that in the events leading up to the conflict all of the UK's actions were great and the Irish's were horrible.
Anyone who cooperates with an abusive power does so because they have been sufficiently terrorized by that power and they don't want to risk further abuse. That kind of cooperation is not a good outcome; it's only the acceptance of coercion, because the alternative is worse.
I was only arguing with this.
> There isn't necessarily a non-evil way to proceed, just worse and less-worse ways. I never said this was all roses and wine.
This is all I mean by bad means, bad ends. This mindset opens up the discussion to debating the pros and cons of different approaches. Anyway, take care.