You&#x27;re doing a lot of sophistry rather than addressing the points. Lots of side points and vague counters rather than any facts. So, let me help you focus your mind so it might product something of substance that&#x27;s actionable.<p>The point of the discussion is U.S. government and a chunk of America wants to stop foreign terrorists from trying to blow us up. The foreigners doing that have exclusively done it due to interference, often violent and imperialistic, in the Middle East. So, many of us draw the logical connection that this was the cause of <i>actual attacks against us</i> rather than terrorism in general which we don&#x27;t care about. So, to reduce number of attacks, we must stop doing what caused them and modify our strategy of dealing with the mess we&#x27;re in to account for this. Otherwise, our actions over there, esp collateral murder (err damage) &amp; weapons distribution, will likely just create the next wave of terrorists like Bush&#x2F;Cheney Administration just did with ISIS.<p>That&#x27;s my claims. Now, do you have any counter to those specific points or would you like to add to them? To be extra clear, given your sophistry, I&#x27;ve claimed the following:<p>1. The U.S. takes overt and covert action against Middle Eastern countries for financial and political reasons rather than for survival. So, it shouldn&#x27;t have taken that action and should reconsider future behavior like that.<p>2. Disruptive U.S. actions in the Middle East creates opponents, including the organizations that attacked us. So, they should stop doing that and fewer terrorists that <i>attack us</i> would be created.<p>3. Previous handling of opponents equipped and trained likely long-term foes before abandoning them. They consistently ended up turning into problems: Taliban; Saddam; ISIS. The U.S. needs to stop doing that. Throw their best minds on fresh strategy before doing any major interventions and with much focus on long-term effects with regard to terrorism blowback.