Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
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?
I would not. As you say it's "normal." I'd just do nothing. Normal is already there.
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.
..but that assumes that the insurgent has the bones of a legitimate grievance. In the case of the UK, if some young Muslim thinks the UK should leave Afghanistan, nothing the UK Government can say will stop him opting for violence, if he wishes, except the concept of sanction and/or retribution.