Its a threat, but in terms of a real threat to national security, stability of the nation and the British way of life its fairly minimal. Its a serious matter, and one we need to remain focused on, but if we keep wetting our knickers in any conflict when the enemy causes casualties, civilian or military, we're only going to end up losing.

We're in a war, and its inevitable that people will die, that cannot be avoided. Acting as if its 1939, the Army is in retreat and the Germans are at the door, every time we suffer an attack ultimately will end up feeding into a defeat. Turning every casualty into a media story hampered the long term ambitions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the same will apply to the war on terror.

We need to eliminate the threat, definitely, but in doing so, we will also have to accept that threat will now exist for at least another generation. The successes against Al-Qaeda groups has produced groups like IS, that have effectively formed a 'second generation' of Islamist terrorists aimed at the west.

Terrorist groups invariably see themselves as a vanguard movement, their aim is to create reprisals and repression of those they claim to represent, marginalizing those people, and drawing them onto their side of the fence (ultimately radicalizing them).

Its a long war situation, there isn't an easy way out, because even if we crushed IS militarily in Syria and Iraq, their affilates and ideological supporters have essentially become the new Al-Qaeda franchise.

Eventually IS will likely end up destroyed, and its survivors will form a new organization that will declare war on the west and so on.

Usually these kinds of conflicts run to 20-30 years before either petering out, negotiated settlements or being overtaken by social changes (or a combination of all these).

Each generation of terrorist group becomes more efficient and effective than its predecessor, as it learns from its failures.

I think you both make good points.

Jamie's point about media outcries over casualties speaks of a cultural mindset of western democracies which have avoided large scale conflicts for over fifty years.

There is a touch of the demise of the Roman empire about it, where the longer Rome went without a real external threat the more distant it became from even recognizing when it needed to fight to protect its interests.

To sum it up simplistically, in the end Rome fell because it forgot what it took to remain a superpower......Essentially this has been repeated throughout history since.

I see the way the western media deal with conflict as a small reminder of this......They see it through the eyes of people who have forgotten that all they have....All the privilege they take for granted....Was ultimately won by people who died violently in the dirt.

Ultimately, it always comes down to that.....As is the nature of cellular life.....As is the nature of man.

Not really, I like to understand how things work and operate. I think its vital to understand an enemy, who it is, what it wants, how it functions etc if you want to defeat it. This isn't a conflict that can be won purely on a militarily basis.