[lmm]

> Should the terror attacks in the US or France not have had a military response?

Probably, yes. Military responses to terrorism are almost always counterproductive. I don't know which specific attacks you're talking about, but the ones I can think of the US did far more damage to itself with the blowback than the original attack ever achieved.

[enugu]

Note that I am not referring to the prolonged occupation of Afghanistan, much less of Iraq here. Rather, something like a strike which targets bin Laden and other organizers of the terrorist attack.

[lmm]

So it doesn't matter that military responses that have actually been tried in the real world have been counterproductive, because you can imagine other kinds of military responses and you imagine that those kinds of military responses would have gone better?

[enugu]

The French air strikes after the Paris attacks was not an occupation of Syria. There is no inevitable logic for a prolonged occupation.

[lmm]

So maybe say which specific military responses you want to talk about in the first place rather than just saying "the terror attacks in the US or France" and expecting everyone to read your mind.

[ashoeafoot]

we wenr green and attacked oil revenues that financed terror.