Usually followed by a lot of people saying "don't bring that up again, it only stirs up shit and that stinks!"

Well, remember we're dealing with a guy who was trained to take on the Soviet Union (by the Americans... we can look back now and say that was pretty dumb of us, but that's 20/20 hindsight and at the time it was a good plan). Basically, the goal is to piss off the superpower into blowing its resources fighting against invisible targets that it can't hit. It worked great in Afganistan against the Soviets during that war, and was a major cause of the bankruptcy that caused that nation to fall apart, and it's working now too.

Frankly, I think the reason they keep hitting civilian targets is precisely because they want people pissed off... they want this war to escalate, and don't care for the civilian casualties that will mount on both sides.

It's an effective way to fight a superpower, but it means a lot of deaths for people who aren't involved and who are totally innocent of the crimes that Al-Queda and the like hate us for. It's like murdering a child to piss off the parents.

My condolences to all those wounded or killed in this attack, and to those who knew them. These people kill without caring about the consequences for those who only wanted to live their lives in peace.

JaronK

Then you'd be doing them a favor. You'd hit innocent villagers, just like they have done to Brittain today. The survivors and the families of the dead would join up. Also, you'd have spent billions of dollars on troops and planes and explosives, thereby weakening your economy, while the perpetrators have likely spent a thousand dollars if that (Bin Laden actually bragged that he was spending one dollar for every million the US spent in retaliation... considering his role in the fall of the Soviet Union, that means something).

To answer your second part... yes. Yes a lot of us wish we could blow the hell out of them and everyone around them to get our revenge. But going by that gut reaction won't help at all and will cause a heck of a lot of harm. The actions of nations cannot be motivated by vengence.

Frankly, the "give the terrorists the finger and refuse to give in to them" tactic, while crude, is a lot closer to what would help. But that's hard to see when you've lost love ones.

So again, the only thing to do right now is mourn for the dead, console those who have lost love ones or been injured, and leave it to cooler heads to decide what to do.

That's a bit extreme, isn't it?
I see no foot soldiers and the CIA is hardly in your living room.

In many ways its harder. Different jurisdictions and law codes, different languages, different political situations, different ethnic groups with different sympathies.

Imagine if the Canadian or Mexican border were within a few hours drive from any point in the USA. How easy would it be to chase perps then, as you so quaintly put it...

Hardly. Any problem can be solved through judicious application of sufficient violence. Provided that you make some preparations beforehand and have the ability and a complete lack of concern for the continued existence of the species, it is indeed viable to solve all problems via bombing essentially everyone else out of existence.

There are a number of reasons why this isn't done, but practicality isn't really one of them.

~J

Examples?

I agree. Attacking Britain or London doesn't achieve anything. A terrorist attack is supposed to spread terror. The worst thing for Al Qaeda(if it is proven to be their handiwork) happened, some people died, but now the security services in Britain have gone through a live field test and (I think) have not been found wanting. Add that to the "Meh?" reaction from the British public, this is not a victory, this is a defeat for terror.

This is very true, we have not been found wanting. Though there are exceptions, the response of the public is pretty much as you said. Meh. Nothing new at all.

The thing i am conserned about is boozed up thugs seeing a middle eastern and kicking ten tons of shite out of them. The middle eastern's know it as well. When i walked to town today through the estate, not a single middle eastern in sight, and i usually see a couple of kids playing or couple of middle aged men chatting. Not one to be seen.

Since America didn't give in to terrorist attacks, and Spain, a European country, did, this whole rant seems a little hypocritical. Maybe we're a little worried about Europe's resolve, as it hasn't been very stable, with the noted exception of Britain, of course. Maybe we're afraid we'll have to bail Europe out again.

And you know what is tragic? Spain is the country where the Spanish Inquisition came out from, never thought they would be the ones to fold. Evidently they don't make Spaniards like they used to.

Yes, but no more than saying we should nuke them back to the stone age. I was not saying that was how life is, I was pointing out that mass bombing on people is just stupid. Just like having the army work as a police force or revoking civil liberties.

Did you consider for a second, that, what you describe is exactly the tactic the terrorists use?