You are comparing a single hostage event to a phenomenon of Islamic radicalism/terrorism, while I am comparing a single hostage event to a single instance of Islamist occupation, and the phenomenon of hostage taking to the phenomenon of Middle East instability.

Yes, as mentioned, you failed to address the problem itself and instead addressed a specific manifestation of the problem.

I am comparing Islamic fundamentalism (A) to a Hydra (B). YOU said that analogy was off, and then compared a single hostage event (C) to a single instance of Islamic terrorism (D), which, as I pointed out, fails to grasp the point of the analogy. The point being, resolving a particular manifestation of the problem (the head of the hydra, so to speak) fails to resolve the source of the problem itself (the body of the hydra.) The fact that you took the analogy back to specific instances shows you didn't understand.

The question is, would you, as commander in chief, authorize military intervention to solve an imminent humanitarian crisis caused by Islamist violence, at all, ever.

If you truly, genuinely read what I wrote, and still don't know my answer to that, then I suggest you improve your reading comprehension skills. I stated it very explitly several times, and even re-quoted it for you in my last post. In fact, it's so ridiculous that you're still bringing this up, I'm beginning to assume you're a troll.

You didn't actually read what I wrote, though, did you? Because if you did, and still took from that that I was unequivocally against the U.S. of the military, then I am simply at a loss for words. I don't know how much more clearly I could word it for you. Offshore balancing is the most optimal military solution to resolve immediate humanitarian dillemas. That being said, it is far from a sufficient solution for resolving the problem of Islamic fundamentalism, which is what OP was getting at in the first place (not merely a specific instance of terrorism.) This is literally my fourth time stating this same point.