The Bandit said:
Player Two said:
One wonders if it'll actually make a clod of difference. Yes, he is (was?) their leader; Do you think that his dying will really stop terrorism? Do you think conflict in the Middle East is just going to vanish overnight?
No, not really. This is a boost to morale and perhaps a minor disruption of their operations - I have no doubt that they have a line-up of second-in-commands who are just waiting to take his place. Then... what? We spend another decade trying to destroy his replacement?
You're right. We should just not try and ignore every terrorist attack.
You people confuse the hell out of me.
Nice straw man argument, as they clearly suggested that. Terrorism can't be fought like a normal war, but that doesn't mean you do nothing. Starting wars against full countries when its only select individuals from multiple different places (which were places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE mostly, not Afghanistan or Iraq).
And searching for their leader clearly isn't the greatest use of resources as it took almost 10 years and is would be foolish to think this will end everything. Counter-terrorism has to be done a lot differently than when dealing with criminals within communities, or wars between countries.