If terror is a tactic or an idea, how can a war be won against it?

[elocs]

Good or bad, how can a physical war be won against a tactic or an idea? Terror really is an idea employed as a battle tactic usually used by a small group against a militarily superior force.
Who is a terrorist is in the eyes of the beholder. I bet the British in 1776 considered Washington and well as the "Swamp Fox", Francis Marion, to be terrorists. Your guy is a sniper while ours is a sharpshooter. But you can't kill an idea with the weapons of war.

[TahitiNut]

1. It's a "war" to enfore a MONOPOLY on terror.

Nation-states, particularly those embarking on oppression, insist upon monopoly powers in several areas, one of which is military force. While this was understood 230 years ago (second amendment), it's only vaguely comprehended today in terms of the excesses of power and monstrously oppressive power of nation-states with weaponry not even dreamt of 230 years ago.

Governments are JEALOUS of their powers - the more authoritarian, the more jealous.

[HereSince1628]

2. My general belief is tactics are abandoned when they don't work

You don't win a war against them, but you develop tactics or technology that makes the other tactic obsolete.

How do you make terror ineffective? Well, you can't kill everyone who might employ it. And terror attacks are certainly adaptable making terror tactics ever increasingly sophisticated.

What we need to concentrate on is the effect of terror on our nation. If we no longer "get terrorized" then terror becomes ineffective and it will become less and less used. We can learn to live with it like we live with murder as a part of our society. We hate it. We'd like to eliminate it, but have never successfully done that, and really haven't a clue how to do it. BUT, murder doesn't much interfere with the nation's daily existance. It's a part of society, it's a risk. We live with it.

[AnneD]

3. It can be won...

by not playing or replacing one idea with another.