But that begs the question, does the homicide bomber recruit more supporters by;
1-us killing him,
2-him successfully killing others?

If the return from both courses of action (averaged across many homicide bombers) is more than 1.0 new recruits, we're losing.
One way to get that rate of regeneration down is by keeping impressionable youngsters out of reach of persuasive extremists. That means providing secular schools in important areas - not just Pakistan and Afghanistan, but eg Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Indonesia; and putting pressure on to close down the most extreme madrassas.
Men-In-Black-types still have a role to play, not in preemptively killing bombers, but in neutralising those who recruit the bombers, build the bombs, provide the money.

. . . or by killing ALL of them.

Just kidding

Why?:D

Yes, the most effective strategy will be polarizing the extremist minority from the moderate majority. If a separation can occur, then citizens will start blaming the extremists instead of, or along with, the west. If a separation is not there, most, if not all, blame will be shown towards the west.

Itdoesn't take much.
Remember Salman Rushdie? Indian (or was it Pakistani) born British citizen, British publishing company, but whose flags got burned in the whacky protests?
One thing I learned in my student days is that protests and especially the slogans are very rarely well thought through.

Actually, no. And in any case, what of it? They die too -- two more well directed bullets, two fascists made into good fascists. And everyone around them says of them, "Those guys were complete idiots." Fundamentally simple, is it not? Particularly if you assume the supply of fascists is finite, which is my supposition and I've not seen much to contradict it, if anything at all. What needs to happen is that those who decide to assail the Leviathan get dealt a short lifespan, with no profit and no chance to breed others like themselves.

Insurgencies get ground down by holistic measures -- I'd like you to stop thinking I don't understand that. We who fight the insurgents also work on their societies, to undermine any feelings of grievance or any improper understanding of globalization's progress. Agitators, representatives of undemocratic social orders, try to stir their youth up to attack us. Yet their success is limited, and much of the blowing up is of coreligionist Muslims -- getting blown up for the offense of not subscribing to the terr's brand of thinking.

Cultures are tough things; they are not broken nor wiped away by widened trade, nor the freest flow of finances, security, people, goods, and ideas. The agitators generally couch their rabblerousings in terms of defending the purity of their culture, but this "defense" is not of the culture but of the privileges of the élite. Political liberty and highly secure property rights are essential building blocks -- our troubles come from places lacking in one or both, not from other parts of the world that have figured these out.

Education of girls and women will be important in this -- so important that anybody attacking a girls' school should be hunted down and dismembered in public, perhaps by insertion of a rectumful of Semtex (250 grammes ought to do; a kilo is overkill and bad for surrounding plate glass) and a blasting cap. We should show the anticivilized, anti-wealth, antidemocracy opposition that the world will no longer indulge their illegitimacy, but will move not to merely kill, but to vaporize it.

Hanging from a lamppost is just as public, just as effective, and less noisy too. Or borrow a gas station and string 'em up by the heels there, as was done with Mussolini.

Your problem, Zen, is that your present position is one of moral cowardice in the face of terroristic antiglobalist fanatical factions, and insufficient belief in the inherent worth of the liberal democracy those factions attack. I don't have that problem, and I'm here to tell you you don't need it, but can live a better life without it. Take a life-lesson, and review your values and your soul. It is not itself evil to battle to destroy evil.

So, how'd that work for you in Nam?

Sectarianism is on the rise again in Ireland.
Apologists say that it's because the process of creating a united Ireland is too slow, and because the economy is in recession.

No.
Sorry.
Really. NO.

Some people like to kill.
They will wear a religion in order to do so.
Bullied? Jobless? Feel undermined? Part of a minority?
KILL EVERYONE!

I suppose we're supposed to be grateful that so far only those in the Armed Forces or Police are being targeted. Unlike at the height of the Troubles, when they were blowing up English shopping streets. And had American funding.

Fort Hood was a tragedy. And shame on him for not realising it fed the flames of Islamophobia. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Except he wouldn't feel that now, would he?
But it had as much to do with the Koran as IRA attacks had to do with the Bible.
I believe in neither, but I do recognise that without organised religion, human beings would find another reason to hate and maim and kill.

Money from Irish living in the US, money from Irish-Americans, and likely from Irish living in Europe. American funding, no.:headshake

Your compatriots were there too, may I remind you. The First Australian Task Force, SAS, some arty, armour, and support units.

Now didn't they amount to some improvement over yourself? Shall I need to continue being so blunt?

Hey, Communism is dead in Vietnam except as a sort of state religion, and is there no reason to hope this too will go the way of the Sumerian pantheon also? (That's the way I want it.) Should this be counted as failure on America's part and the West's?

Democracy and liberty keep getting vindicated, even among the schlubs who fight for slavery. Yes, it's damned fortunate these guys figured it out for themselves after busily wasting all those lives for all that time -- but it would have been even more fortunate had they been denied the opportunity to waste people for not wanting to be enslaved, right?

You should notice that the decline of communism had nothing to do with being bombed to buggery, but rather has followed 30-odd years of relative peace.

You should also be aware that the point about killing bad guys simply creating more bad guys is iterative.

And if your barbaric proposal of anally raping terrorists with explosive devices were adopted, that would swing damn near every human, decent or otherwise, into strong anti-Americanism. Remember Abu Graib?

Don't lecture me about goals. I don't want the talleban or anyone like them in charge of anything any more than you do. It is just that your methods of achieving the goals are hopeless; futile and counterproductive.

I just thought it'd be the right time to point out that Australia still wins as far as the most people killed in one sitting by a loony with a gun.

Which is why the latest plans for a troop surge, ala Iraq, will not work IMHO.

I think the US is thinking much more long-term then we realize. The Middle East and Central Asia is going to be a very large battleground in the future because it is the vacuum between China, India, Russia, the EU, and US. China is already making strategic long term moves in Central Asia (old Soviet -stans) and parts of Pakistan. Holding Afghanistan and even Iraq would be very strategic move for the US and I am leaning more towards that as the reasons we are currently occupying these countries.

Your argument still holds though. But I am more and more curious on whether our long term goal is to completely pacify Afghanistan or just pacify them enough to be able to set up our bases there.