If you're not trying to stir the pot, you need to go back and read more carefully, please.
If you are trying to stir the pot, knock it off.
The subject is provocative enough without deliberate equivocation to muddy the waters.
I'm open to suggestions. What is hard to understand about "killing terrorists does not stop terrorist attacks"? In order to kill him the attack must have already occurred, and killing him has not stopped his fellow terrorists from going on the next terrorist attack. Killing the terrorists at Beslan did not stop the terrorist attack on the Beslan school, the attack occurred.
We may be talking past each other, it may be semantics, but I really don't understand why some are arguing over this. As I pointed out earlier, eric, slopemeno, troy mclure, carguy2244, mannlicher, ramius, and some others have all basically posted along the same lines, so I'm assuming they understood the issue.