The risk of not fighting back is completely suicidal. We might as well ask them to bend all of us over and have their way. So are you saying, that if a guy tried to mug you with a gun, and you had a gun yourself, you're not going to use it on him and instead, ask him to think it over? Although this comparison is on a WAY smaller scale, it's the same principle and concept. If they're going to threaten us, why should we need to be the 'bigger man' in hope of succeeding from the miniscule possibility of peace when the consequence could be ten times worse if we do?
I agree with your example and concept. However, your argument rests on the premisce that 'they' made the first move, which is wrong. Study the UK foreign policy from the 1800's up until now and you have over 200 years of deliberate manouvering and actions. Do the same for US policy post world war 2.

So, these individuals who killed thousands of people should be offered peace? Sorry, this isn't Batman. Revenge is pretty much what we're after right now and those terrorists deserve it. You're grabbing on to a hopless, narrow-minded idealistic view. If people are capable of causing chaos this large, they're in the category of CRAZY and words aren't gonna get through to them. Besides, it's not like it's ever going to reduce the casualties anyway.
Hmm... you know what you said could be said EXACTLY word for word by people on either side? You just proved my point that if you just look at what people do devoid of the reasons as to why they do them you aint gonna get anywhere. And just because something may be hard to do or may take a long time doesn't mean its wrong.

And excuse me for saying so but 'they won't ever listen'???? And did you learn this bit of world poltics and history form the likes of bush, rumsfeld, perle, cheney, wolfowitz and co?