My position was explicit in my comment.
I think you mean "implicit" not "explicit."
Short version: Yes
Ok, and what's your evidence in favor of the Sipursky Rage hypothesis?
Yes, to respond to violence with more violence is counterproductive, to create more enemies is a stupid idea, and the aftermath of 9/11 gives ample evidence of it.
Can you be specific about the evidence? And are you saying that it's always a bad idea for a state to respond violently to a violent attack?
Can you be specific about the evidence?
In this branch of the thread I have already elaborated on the 9/11 example and why should we take it as a warning of what not to do about ISIS.
And are you saying that it's always a bad idea for a state to respond violently to a violent attack?
Yes, I'm a pacifist.
Here's my op-ed that uses long-term orientation, probabilistic thinking, numeracy, consider the alternative, reaching our actual goals, avoiding intuitive emotional reactions and attention bias, and other rationality techniques to suggest more rational responses to the Paris attacks and the ISIS threat. It's published in the Sunday edition of The Plain Dealer, a major newspaper (16th in the US). This is part of my broader project, Intentional Insights, of conveying rational thinking, including about politics, to a broad audience to raise the sanity waterline.