If what upsets you is the murder of an innocent human being, then you cannot advocate a reaction that would lead to the murder of innocent human beings. Bombing campaigns are the single most effective means of killing innocent people. Shrapnel is indiscriminate and imprecise, and any means of making a bombing campaign more effective at killing terrorists necessarily makes the campaign more effective at killing innocents as well.
To put it bluntly, this will simply be a case of one terrorist organization – ISIS – taking the life of a single innocent person, and as a response, another terrorist organization – the United States government – will take the lives of possibly thousands of innocent people. This is not justice; this is “my gang is bigger and badder than your gang.”
You either must acknowledge that if we take action that costs the lives of innocent people in other countries, we are at least no better than ISIS (except we are the more civilized killers ..), or you should acknowledge that absolute annihilation of every person within a certain geographic region is a justified cost to prevent the deaths of even a single American citizen.
We have to stop killing. That burden is on us. Because we are more civilized, by most people’s standards – and most importantly, by the standards of the people who are advocating genocide , we are the more civilized people. But if we commit genocide in reaction to murder, then we are certainly not the more civilized people.
.. The answer is to cease the killing, and to cease the funding of people who will help with the killing.
Terrorism will not dissolve over night if we do. The dangerous organizations and third-world despots will not fall out of power just because we pull out. But if we continue the same policies that we’ve pursued in the past (and you can rest assured that we will), we will see a continuation of the same pattern that has created this cycle.
And for some reason, I suspect that the continuation of this costly pattern is exactly what the government wants.