You're mistaken. The victims of terrorism are not going to be ignored by their own government, nor should they. Further, countries that have adopted the approach you mention, such as the UK, eventually ended up negotiating with their antagonists as part of a managed settlement. While I certainly do not think there is much value in running about with one's hair on fire (so to speak) the notion that any country could or would ignore an event like 9-11 as you suggest is just laughably unrealistic. It seems not to have occurred o you that the Us had repeatedly been the target of lower level terrorism from the same source over the previous decade and made minimal responses to it, yet Al Qaeda actually escalated the intensity of its attacks instead. According to you, they should have given up in frustration and chosen another way to pursue their goals, so I'd say your theory doesn't match up very well with events in the real world.
> You're mistaken. The victims of terrorism are not going to be ignored by their own government, nor should they.
No one said ignore the victims. The point is don't make everyone a victim by a cure worse than the attacks. 9-11 killed a few thousand. We've lost thousands by entering Iraq and Afghanistan.
We've spent a trillion dollars that if spent on heart disease treatment and research, or cancer research, or even just reducing the number of automobile related fatalities, would have saved more lives each year than we lost in 9-11.
> so I'd say your theory doesn't match up very well with events in the real world.
How can you say it doesn't match up? The terrorists changed US politics. They've made our country less free and they've drained us of a TRILLION dollars (1,000 Billion). Our country is turning into a hollywood caricature of the U.S.S.R circa 1985 -- secret police spying on citizens. These are self-inflicted wounds. We have shown there are huge rewards for terrorist action.
