The Answer to Terrorism Is Resilience

The primary problem with this approach is "suffering accountability". When 85,000 people die of car accidents, there's typically no singular group or individual to blame for all the accidents, in total.

With a terrorist act, there is a singular group or individual who is responsible for the suffering of multiple individuals, plus all the suffering of those who view the news around the attack and become fearful as a result.

If we collectively perceive this group or individual could have reasonably been stopped, might we be likely tend to underestimate the costs of stopping them completely? When we underestimate the costs of "perfect" crime prevention, perhaps our expectations in those who need to stop crimes goes up.

And maybe, just maybe, when law enforcement has high expectations placed on them, and their budget is limited, they might be more susceptible to fall into cognitive dissonance - literally believing they must stop all crime on a tight budget.

I'd say, if these assumptions are true, mass surveillance becomes an option at that point.

Yes, resilience if it is a fringe group. What if they are products of the state sponsorship?

For instance, Pakistan uses terrorism as a state policy; the end result is, terrorists end up blowing the very hands that feed them.

What if the terrorism is a result of the indirect state sponsorship? For instance, Saudi and the US have played a role in Sunni Terrorism. ISIL, Taliban and Al queda are sunni terorism groups. Some or another have sponsored them in the past.

Even Hamas is a sunni group, but their main sponsor is Shiites of Iran.

What should India, Iraq, Afghanistan do answer terrorism, become more resilient? How do they do that? What have they failed to do?