It's not the nation at fault, it's just those individual, filthy rich Saudi princes.

ISIS seems strong and well-funded. I saw videos online where they used car-mounted artillery pieces to storm a settlement. Although this conventional mode of warfare also means that they are playing on a field where the US is absolutely number 1. Al-Queda was hard to beat because they didn't operate out in the open, so ISIS should be a walk in the park in this regard. After their conventional forces are broken, I also suspect that they'll lose their appeal and popular support.

Most of those ork vehicles have been around for 20 years and are pieces of shit to be honest.

I wouldn't say they are well funded.

I am pretty scepticle that sending in troops will every stop terrorist groups or ideologies because, as people have said, it is not a physical thing you can destroy and all you are fighting against is the future possibilities of terrorist action.

I am tempted to say that anyone can become a terrorist but this would be taken out of context by people who disagree with me. However, there is a very inconvenient number of people who can pick up or begin to support terrorist ideologies. These people can usually only be stopped while preparing or attempting terrorist activities because after this it is too late and you can't easily prove that they are terrorists of they are not doing terrorist stuff. This gives quite a small time window for anyone trying to stop it and often requires heavily trained individuals (maybe it isn't as much like "Homeland" as I think but whatever) to do it.

Because of this I feel like this sort of defensive action can only reduce the threat of terrorism but never stopping it entirely or at least conclusively (I mean that
the job must be almost constantly ongoing to maintain a stable level of security). This means (if my judgement of these things is correct) that we can't stop terrorism by simply destroying things; we need to reduce the possibility of people becoming supporters of terrorism. For some of you this conclusion was probably predictable by the second paragraph just from my phraseology but I like to display my justification before the conclusion.

There are many ways to do this (stopping people from turning into filthy terrorists) but a lot of them are prejudicial (since you often need to make assumptions of groups of people without specific evidence). I do not mean we should ban Muslims or arrest anyone who visits extremist websites because that would breach people rights and be illogical. I mean that we should try to improve or at least change some areas so that inhabitants if them are more likely to just live their life without extremism.

This leads to a whole pile of new problems though. This might be seen as a sort of racial categorisation process fueled by hillbilly prejudices and government corruption through excessive power. Therefore I think a system which focusses on dangerous but innocent people would not be a good idea. I think that making the Internet less extremist by moderating anything with terrorist ideology (I know this already happens but it is seen as less important than sending troops). Efforts to firstly make Western civilisation seem less evil and also to make it seem like something too irrelevant to fight for.

Sorry for rambling. Please tell if this post is too useless and long. I am happy to edit it to a much shorter version if it is.

Thank you for reading.

P.s. I have recently stopped doing all the school subjects with opinions and essays in them and specialised to just maths and all three sciences so I had a lot of opinions bottled up which I needed to disperse somehow, thus the length of this post.