I'd better qualify that earlier statement cause it looks like I'm saying that removing grass roots support is the only thing that needs to be done. What I'm saying is that every time a victory can be claimed against terrorism removing that support has been a major part of the equation. If not the biggest part. The only other way terrorists stop is if they achieve their goal.
Kara, I'm really going to have to call BS, because that's never happened. That's not how the major terrorist groups of the '60s and '70s got done in. The IRA defanged itself; the rest were forcibly dismantled by having their members locked up, killed, or too scared to resurface. Either you can get rid of them by force or wait for them to run out of steam.
Let me point out that locking people up does not count as military means right here and now as that's probably what's thrown you. Locked up (generally) means a fair trial and incarceration through the civilian justice system. Life in a prison cell usually prevents the terrorists from using that person as a rallying point in a way that simply killing him doesn't.
The IRA for instance defanged themselves because of talks with the British and Irish governments but for a while it looked like the Real IRA were going to keep fighting. Why did they stop? Was it cause of assassinations and British soldiers knocking down their houses with tanks? Or was it cause with on-going talks they no longer had support from the population who simply wanted an end to the violence?
Why do you think ETA quit? Cause the military wiped out their entire leadership? Or cause after the Madrid bombings everyone was sick of terrorists and no one wanted to support them?
Feel free to point out a single case where military attacks has been the major contributor to the end of a terrorist organisation and removing grass roots support hasn't been one. Cause I can't think of one off the top of my head.
