Interesting comment.<p>It would be ironic if future videos claiming responsibility for violent attacks start using the exact same terms and language as the US politicians, such as &quot;Shock &amp; Awe&quot;.<p>When a major component of allowing a conflict to proceed is support or merely just apathy from the populace that has elected the leaders that are targeting your people, it would seem that the most effective way to highlight the hypocrisy of the elected leaders of your enemies would be to mirror their tactics as precisely as possible as opposed to escalation. Mirroring puts it in people&#x27;s mind that they need to oppose further violence from their side to stop future attacks against themselves.<p>Sadly, the other side adopting a strict eye for an eye approach to retaliation (tit for tat) might be the only way that either side can actually avoid making the whole world blind, since it would at least promote dialogue where people on both sides at least ask themselves &quot;When we commit X against them, they commit X against us. Maybe we should try to stop committing X and see if they will too&quot;. The current approach of planning out attacks that escalate the conflict just makes things worse.<p>I&#x27;m curious if there has been any solid game theory research into the impact of tit-for-tat retaliation versus escalating retaliation.