Of the two methods currently being used to deal with the militant Islamic fanatics, the 'War On Terror' has only really achieved in causing mass terror amongst our own people and imprison hundreds of innocent people because our government's criteria for 'wrong place and wrong time' were basically Afghanistan and post-invasion.<p>However the allegedly Israeli approach causes virtually no terror to our own people (in fact it appears to instill the exact opposite of terror), it has no collateral damage and only a minor amount of innocents get caught in the cross hairs.<p>What I'm wondering is if the 'Israeli' approach to militant Islamiscs the better approach? IE is it getting the job done at a better tax-payer cost and a better ethical cost (less young soldiers dead, less innocents wrongly imprisoned and less collateral damage vs. a wrong target).