Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
Concur, but that is part of the normal political dialogue within any society, the same way as "don't smoke" is part of normal health education. Part of a normal political dialogue is the denigration of violence, as part of the political process.
Of course it's part of the normal political process... not just the denigration of violence but pointing out the advantages of non-violent options for achieving the same goals (assuming any exist, though in many insurgent-affected societies they don't). Why should we remove normal parts of the political process from our toolbox?

Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
You are not aiming to furnish them with information on which to make "informed choices". You are saying "cross the line and we'll f**k you up!" - so "sell drugs and we'll lock you away." I see this as no more than simply and clearly stating a policy.
Then the insurgent slides up and whispers in their ear "see, all they can do is threaten you, we understand your problems and your grievances and we can help you snuff those arrogant threatening A-holes". Threats can be seen as a challenge, and sometimes people aren't intimidated. You might recall an old saying about how you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar...