>Can you provide an example of where honey worked with terrorists? Where the country is not a target of terrorism now because of that tactic? Where the country did not basically placate the terrorists (give in to them) and that country is not now an immediate target because another larger target is more important?

The UK neutralized the IRA terrorists by negotiating with them. That's a clear case.

>The problem I have with using honey is that terrorism will work. It will achieve its goal. As long as bigger more important immediate targets exist, honey may suffice. What happens when a larger more immediate target no longer exists? Won't the terrorists move on to the smaller less important targets? In the past that has been the case.

The IRA have ceased all operations as a terrorist organization.

> Afterall, if given the goal of extremists (convert the world to ISLAM and behead those who do not convert - I posted that link previously) still exists, then no one is safe.
>
>Found it:
>http://breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7H9OO0.html

I don't think that the extremist want that. One of Bin Laden's calls for the conversion of Americans to Islam was highly strategic move in that if they didn't convert then he then technically had permission attack civilians and not just military targets since he had offered conversion before attack. In otherwords it appeased some in al-Qaeda and paved the way for the 9-11 attacks on civillians.