You are completely full of ****.
You going to actually refute my explanation of why? No? Okay, you're completely full of **** too. That's the level you want to argue on.
and you're arrogant as possible in the process.
To quote Battuta, maslo's only contribution to most of these topics is that by his ignorance other people might learn something when it's explained to him. I dunno man where were you when he was talking about doing exactly what ISIS wants us to do so that we can beat ISIS? When he could never engage with a point, only slide the goalposts?
The panicked flailing of arms the US did after 9/11 did nothing to stop terrorism, the biggest thing we did was give every jihadi on earth a huge flashing bullseye in iraq to go after, THAT is the only reason there were not that many major events in the western world (none in the US iirc) for 8ish years.
Like, I hate to be the guy to tell you this, but Osama bin-Laden doesn't agree with your analysis. The papers picked up in the raid that killed him and have been declassified are pretty clear about his frustration with his compatriots. He urged them to go global, they went local, he urged them to go big, they went small, he urged them to coordinate, they decentralized (because gathering together exposed them to elimination by drone strike, natch).
Of course, you're also not actually engaging with what I said really did change after 9/11, which was that resources were applied on the intelligence side via NSA and the drone campaign started disrupting leadership and coordination. Rather than argue about what I actually said, you're moving the goalposts to airport security because that makes a more convenient argument for you.
To borrow your own phraseology, you're full of ****. You don't even have the courtesy to pretend otherwise.
ISIS has the same Wahabi/Salafi ideology behind it the 9/11 attacks had.
Actually it doesn't. Remember al-Qaeda still exists and considers ISIS an enemy to the point blood has been shed between the two. ISIS' ideology and theology has crossed a line in al-Qaeda's eyes, taken on apocalyptic nonsense and a disturbing willingness to accuse other Muslims of apostasy on what even al-Qaeda would regard as flimsy pretexts.
I've pointed this out in previous threads.
A shift in tactics does not denote a completely different war.
Go back and read the posts again. I never argued for a completely different war. I argued for a break in methodology, effectiveness as a social and political tool, and in organization and skill level. Eras and wars are not the same thing.
The current strategy of large numbers of small attacks is arguably more effective because it keeps the terror in people's minds constantly at a lower operational cost and with a lower requirement of complexity. complex plans requiring resources are inherently vulnerable, if you can get the same result with something simpler that is less likely to fail due to some of the many complexities going awry, you have a better plan.
This is all true insofar as it goes, but you're making some assumptions that aren't warranted. Europe's going through a sequence right now, but there was no way to know beforehand that it would become a series, or to ensure it did so. America's experience with the lone-wolf ISIS method has been distinctly less continuous, with months elapsing between attacks; global media doesn't make for local experience of fear. Europe is thousands of miles away and they're not particularly
real to the average person in front of a television. Leaderless resistance lacks a guiding force to sustain or start it, as the white supremacists (coming full circle now) have learned to their frustration.