How should massive terrorist attacks be responded to?

[Yelnoc]

It's only a matter of time until the next massive terrorist attack in the west. Which approach do you think your government should follow in response to the next attack? Just to get your blood pumping, assume 1,000 civilians died in said attack.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Shoot a random Brazilian person (metropolitan police)

[Sumner 1868]

Option 3.

[Oak Hills]

Preferably option three, but whatever is necessary to bring the perpetrators to justice, or failing that, neutralize the threat the organization that carried it out (if any).

[H. Ross Peron]

Depends upon the context. For example in the case of Afghanistan we had not just an area in chaos or anarchy that allowed it to be a safe haven for terrorists, but a government actively sheltering them. In cases such as Yemen or Somalia, the problem is more one of lack of control rather than government collusion with the terrorists.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ideally option 3. Option 2 might be useful as a palliative until local conditions permit option 3. Option 1 in rare instances, but I can't think of any place such an attack might come from today where an invasion would be the appropriate response.

[Lief 🗽]

All options should be on the table.

[TNF]

Option 3 + Remove all U.S. troops from foreign countries, withdraw from NATO and other 'collective security' agreements/organizations, require that all military action (except in cases of direct attack on the U.S.) be approved in a public referendum

[Ban my account ffs!]

Option 3.

[DemPGH]

We're pretty much either past the point or else we're dealing with an enemy that would render option 1 ineffective and ultimately far more harmful than anything else, as W. proved.

I can understand option 2, and would prefer some combination of options 2 and 3. Masterminds of these things cannot be allowed to get away and need to be made an example of, but invasions and supplying counter groups with weapons would be off the table for me.

I would also support a drastic reduction in our presence overseas, but I would not want to eliminate it altogether.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Massively.

[The Dowager Mod]

Obviously we should make sh**t up and invade the wrong country.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

All three. If we can catch them, they should be tried in a federal court and given the death penalty. If they're abroad and can't be apprehended easily, drone the hell out of them. If this was state terror rather than freelance terror, or if a country harbors a high level terrorist like Bin Laden did, then they'll pay the price for aiding and abetting the murder of Americans.

[Samantha]

Terrorism is a crime, so terrorists should be treated like any other homocidal criminal—arrested, fairly tried, and jailed if found guilty.

[Del Tachi]

Depends upon the context. For example in the case of Afghanistan we had not just an area in chaos or anarchy that allowed it to be a safe haven for terrorists, but a government actively sheltering them. In cases such as Yemen or Somalia, the problem is more one of lack of control rather than government collusion with the terrorists.

Obviously this is the correct answer.  The invasion of Afghanistan was the appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks, but large-scale terrorist attack =/= invade random Middle Eastern country. 

[Blair]

Shoot a random Brazilian person (metropolitan police)

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

All options should be on the table.

I don't agree with Lief often, but how is this not the only answer?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Option 3 of course. The 20th hijacker was arrested pre 9/11. One FBI investigator wrote that he seemed to want to fly a plane into the WTC. Higher ups blocked expanding the investigation. The FBI simply wasn't interested in doing anything about terrorism.

[Blair]

Obviously we should make sh**t up and invade the wrong country.

[Torie]

It depends on the specific facts. Whatever will effectively put a stop to them with the least collateral damage, and expenditure of lives and treasure, is the way to go.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Option 1 or 3 depending on the situation.

[Famous Mortimer]

It depends. If the terrorist group controls territory, of course target that territory.

If they don't, you literally have no choice but to go after them with regular law enforcement.

[All Along The Watchtower]

These options are depressingly limited.

[TJ in Oregon]

These options are depressingly limited.

That pretty much sums up the effort to fight terrorism--and foreign policy in general.