I did strongly suggest that ending those tactics would slow the growth of revenge fueled further conflict by reducing the radicalization of civilians caused by terrorizing and killing them.
When did I claim it was THE simple answer to ending conflict? I was clearly discussing a first step that would slow the addition of newly created terrorists and nothing more
"killing civilians for whatever purpose, be it by "shock and awe" tactics or double tap and signature strikes significantly amplifies radicalization and justifies to civilian populations almost anything done in the name of revenge" ..."The end of a cycle of violence must begin somewhere no matter how long that road is, the US doesn't get to decide what terrorists will do, the US does get to decide if it uses terrorist tactics that throw huge amounts of gasoline around an inferno tho, a good start would be for us to stop using tactics that kill and terrorize civilian populations, a start we could begin tomorrow."
I also clearly agreed "that we must combine it with a radical rethink of 50 years of destructive foreign policy"
Where I am finding the sense of your "comfort" about drone tactics is in statements like this
Everything we do to oppose terrorists arguably creates more of them. Drones were not flying in the ME before 9/11. My reading indicates that Al-Queda got its start during the USS Missouri (a WWII destroyer with 16" guns) bombardment of Lebanon. They reportedly organized around blowing up the Marine barracks there in opposition to this plain old 1940's style attack.
You may think one tactic is more proficient at "creating" terrorists than another. The simple facts are that to the extent we "create" terrorists, we were quite good at it decades before the first drone flew.
I inferred from those statements and others that you appear to think that tactics which terrorize and kill civilians on a regular basis, including, but not limited to, one made famous by hamas are no more harmful than tactics that do not employ terrorist techniques.
It just looks like you are as comfortable with them as you are with conventional tactics, I find them repugnant as using them makes us no better than terrorists ourselves. I suppose it could be that you find all conventional tactics just as repugnant as terrorism, but that thought just didn't make any sense to me, I apologize if I misinterpreted those statements and others like them.
Terrorist tactics appear far more effective at rallying civilians against one, as should be evident by our reaction towards terrorist tactics that are used against us.
It seems we will have to agree to disagree regarding those tactics relative equality to other tactics and factors.
= new reply since forum marked as read
