Are the terrorists winning?

[Lifelongontractor]

It's all to do with intent.

Is it now?!

So if I go in, armed with dubious intelligence, to prevent a bomb going off over London by blowing a civilian airliner out of the sky before it reaches mainland UK and succeed only in killing 350 innocent civilians on the plane because there was no bomb on-board, that's OK is it?

The threshold has to be set pretty high for killing (or causing to be killed) collateral damage.

What's sad is some people don't seem to see intentional ethnic cleansing masquerading as collateral damage.

Happens all over the world, but we're too apathetic and far-removed to care. Lets not forget who funded and supplied Al-Qaeda / ISIS in Syria in their haste to buy into the "Free Syria Army" and introduce "democracy" way back when.

[DimPrawn]

Well they are well funded and protected by UK and EU law, so yes, they are winning.

Hani al-Sibai who inspired Tunisia gunman lives in West London home | Daily Mail Online

[shaunbhoy]

Yoda you are?

Or Welsh you are?

There's tidy!!

[original PM]

Yoda you are?

Or Welsh you are?

maybe both?

[xoggoth]

Take off & nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure

Sure you've said that before Z, when was it? One of those tedious royal births I expect.

[original PM]

Killing civilians isn't, per se, terrorism. I believe the term is "collateral damage". It's all to do with intent. That's why Hamas put kids in harms way, so that gullible/anti-semitic fools can believe that Israel targets civilians and so can call it terrorism.

Yeah this in a nutshell - every terrorist regime headed by a Looney toons dictator has surrounded themselves with innocent women and kids to make them a harder target.

Whilst simultaneously launching indiscriminate terror attacks against innocent women and kids to try and prove what super powers they are.

The bleeding heart liberals who trot this bull out about Western forces should be shipped to Syria and left there - soon see the reality of life they would.

[NotAllThere]

Killing civilians isn't, per se, terrorism. I believe the term is "collateral damage". It's all to do with intent. That's why Hamas put kids in harms way, so that gullible/anti-semitic fools can believe that Israel targets civilians and so can call it terrorism.

[tarbera]

Not sure which terrorist you mean the ones that have drones and kill civilians

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.co...drones-graphs/

Or the ones that don't have drones and kill civilians

[NotAllThere]

The terrorists want to destabilise governments - not spoil tea parties.

[tomtomagain]

What are they trying to "win"? What does "win" mean to them?

They are certainly causing disruption but that does not equate to them winning.

[darmstadt]

For example: Independence Day event at UK military base cancelled over security fears | UK news | The Guardian

Although they say:

“We cancelled our picnic – we haven’t cancelled a single combat sortie. We haven’t taken our foot off the throat of the enemy – none of that has changed.

“So if the terrorists consider us cancelling a picnic as a victory, I think they should readdress their calculus.”

Well it is some kind of victory isn't it otherwise you wouldn't have cancelled it? Its ruined a day out for many people so although a hollow victory its still causing a problem. Instead of politicians having crisis meeting after crisis meeting, ******* do something...or are they still trotting out that the pen (in this case words written down) is mightier than the sword?