The attacks in Paris shocked and horrified me.

I wasn't in NYC on 9/11, but what happened in Paris recalls that feeling, even in New Jersey, of helplessness, watching a disaster unfolding that you can't predict or control. It was that uncertainty that another plane could be hijacked, it is suspecting another site could explode, and there's a massive lack of information as to how disastrous the outcome will be until after the dust has settled.

I'm not intending to bolster conspiracy theories, but there could have been hijackers on other planes that did not go through with it for various reasons. Perhaps in this situation, some of the gunmen escaped, or maybe there was a suicide bomber who changed their mind at the last minute. It is almost a certainty, however, that the leaders who organized these and other terrorist assaults are still out there, despite ostensibly killing Al Qaeda/ISIS #1 every month, and that is a profoundly disturbing notion.

Currently it seems our policy is that we can bomb and assassinate where and who we deem necessary, or otherwise antagonize extremist leaders with little knowledge of where, if, and when a retaliation might happen. But ultimately how can you fight an ideology? For some past conflicts there has been a country or alliance to fight, more delineated battlegrounds, and a framework of "traditional" war no matter how terribly destructive it was. There was a beginning, the suffering, and in the end a treaty, or some kind of official agreement that the violence between these nations are done for at least some time.

The major change is the increasing trend to primarily target the civilian population. They have become the perfect victims in attacks to bring attention, rather than those who try to save them (EMTs, police, fire department, etc). I know there are precedents of major civilian deaths but in these they were part of a larger military scheme, not the primary outcome.

In WWII we fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo, dropped nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, while Germany blitzed London and Coventry. Even the IRA/British conflict had the same disregard for civilian lives, yet as the casualties mounted they eventually came to an agreement and realized the futility and human cost of a campaign that would cost more than it was worth.

Now we seem to have conflicts where "terrorism" is so nebulous that you can't set terms or "worth." It strikes when and where it can make the most impact, and leaves very few options to suppress it for future encounters

History has come a long way, but we haven't. The question now is how to prevent the attacks from terrorist cells who have planned for months or years to cause these sudden sieges. Since any militant, ISIS, or other group is so secretive from the start, it is a challenge that doesn't have many answers. I just hope that the casualties are fewer than expected, and that extreme reactions won't rule the headlines and the actions that may follow.