[Spliffdaddy]

I was just wondering why so many folks turn to terrorism as a means to promote their agenda.

Off the top of my head I can't think of an instance where terrorists successfully met their goals through the use of terror.

I'm thinking a well-aimed email would probably yield better results than blowing up people. That is, at least I've witnessed emails achieving their goals - something I can't say about terrorists.

Anyone know of an instance where terrorism aided its stated cause?

[icruise]

Depending on what you think their goal was, I think the 9-11 terrorists were probably pretty "successful."

[RooneyX]

Terrorism has always been a waste of time and given others an excuse to wage war against them.

The only time it is successful is when the terrorists are working for those who want to wage war. Like Count Dooku.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Icruise:
Depending on what you think their goal was, I think the 9-11 terrorists were probably pretty "successful."

I think their goal was to promote their organization.

Their organization got hammered pretty good - not quite the outcome they expected, I'm sure.

You hafta remember that before 9/11 there were lots of terrorist bombings that targeted US citizens and their interests - yet there was almost never any 'penalty' for them having done so. That's why I suggest that that Al Quaeda did not expect to be 'reprimanded' by the US to the extent they were after 9/11. In that respect, the terrorists' goal (to promote Al Quaeda) was not successful - while their 'mission' (killing Westerners) may have been.

[nonhuman]

The American revolutionaries were considered terrorists by the British, and they used many terrorist tactics, especially given the state of warfare at the time. I would say they were pretty successful.

Most successful revolutions have involved the use of terrorism. Funny that, terrorism historically leads to freedom.

[Wiskedjak]

I can only think of one case where terrorism (depending on how you define terrorism) has been effective. The Contra movement can be considered as instrumental in the eventual unseating of the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. Of course, they had some help ...

Otherwise, I can't think of any other examples of successful application of terrorism. On the other hand, I can understand the desperation that may lead some towards terrorism.

[thunderous_funker]

Has ruthless violence ever worked to achieve a political end?

Hmmmm, lemmme think about that....

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
The American revolutionaries were considered terrorists by the British, and they used many terrorist tactics, especially given the state of warfare at the time. I would say they were pretty successful.

They could have achieved that through debate and economy. India had a population that hardly spoke English in most places and did it. So why not the descendents of many English who settled in America?

If they had done so perhaps the violence Americans inflicted on each other, and still do, would never have happened.

[Spliffdaddy]

I'm starting to get the impression that "terrorism" (however you define it) is a first-cousin of war. Very much related, at least.

Perhaps terrorism the only means available to folks whose agenda is bigger than their ability to implement it. Small numbers of people wishing to make big changes to a majority of others.

Terrorism is essentially an act of war committed by the side who is greatly outnumbered.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
Funny that, terrorism historically leads to freedom.

Freedom perhaps, but isolation and turning the guns on themselves.

[Spliffdaddy]

War leads to freedom.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think their goal was to promote their organization.

Their goal was to have US troops out of Saudi Arabia. Quite a success.

[petehammer]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
War leads to freedom.

Tell that to the many African nations engaged in "civil" wars.

Tell it to Chechnya.

Tell it to Vietnam.

Or, tell it to yourself:

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:Terrorism is essentially an act of war committed by the side who is greatly outnumbered.

So, terrorism does lead to freedom?

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Anyone know of an instance where terrorism aided its stated cause?

• Stalins group (I forgot the name) in the 1910s
• The Irgun, etc. in the 1940s
• The Contras in the 1980s

etc. etc. etc.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'm starting to get the impression that "terrorism" (however you define it) is a first-cousin of war. Very much related, at least.

Perhaps terrorism the only means available to folks whose agenda is bigger than their ability to implement it. Small numbers of people wishing to make big changes to a majority of others.

Terrorism is essentially an act of war committed by the side who is greatly outnumbered.

I think that is too narrow a view. The majority is pretty damn good at using violence to secure it's political interests.

What you may have noticed (and I would probably agree) is that the smaller the minority dedicated to using violence to further their cause, the more ruthless they tend to become.

Many states enjoy the luxory of using high-tech, push-button terrorism. That doesn't quite pack the same viceral media impact of the low-tech suicide bomber on a crowded bus or cafe.

The more "powerless" or marginalized the violent minority, the more indescriminant and ruthless they often become.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
War leads to freedom.

Yeah, that's why we have the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. Because the people of the Confederacy won their freedom through war.

War sometimes leads to freedom and sometimes doesn't. Sometimes people gain their freedom without war (India, Australia, any number of others). Sometimes war leads to people who were free before becoming oppressed (Dutch conquering South Africa). Sometimes war has very ambiguous results in regards to freedom (British vs. Scottish), and sometimes it leads to sustained fighting with no real end in sight leaving both sides less free than they would otherwise be (Ireland, Palestine, Israel).

[BlackGriffen]

If you accept Clauswitz's definition of war ("the continuation of politics by other means"), then terrorism is very much war's little brother. The big difference, though, is that terrorists don't generally have control of a state.

BG

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think their goal was to promote their organization.

Their organization got hammered pretty good - not quite the outcome they expected, I'm sure.

You hafta remember that before 9/11 there were lots of terrorist bombings that targeted US citizens and their interests - yet there was almost never any 'penalty' for them having done so. That's why I suggest that that Al Quaeda did not expect to be 'reprimanded' by the US to the extent they were after 9/11. In that respect, the terrorists' goal (to promote Al Quaeda) was not successful - while their 'mission' (killing Westerners) may have been.

No, as was stated by Bin Ladin at the time and repeatedly since, the goal of 9/11 was to pit the muslim world in its entirety against the West in preparation for a jihad that would eliminate the West. The intention was to goad the US into committing an act so anathematic to the muslims to galvanize them and bring them together as one against the West.

hmm... *looks around*.....I'd say that goal was acheived at least partially, for the miniscule cost of some flight training, box cutters and some loyal adherents.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'm starting to get the impression that "terrorism" (however you define it) is a first-cousin of war. Very much related, at least.

Perhaps terrorism the only means available to folks whose agenda is bigger than their ability to implement it. Small numbers of people wishing to make big changes to a majority of others.

Terrorism is essentially an act of war committed by the side who is greatly outnumbered.

I agree with you there. Someone said: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

[christ]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Terrorism is essentially an act of war committed by the side who is greatly outnumbered.

Yup.

And throughout history terrorists (freedom fighters) have been successful, including, as noted above, the American colonists. This category also includes Israel, as they were deemed to be terrorists by the Brits. And in South Africa, the ANC were terrorists before they became the ruling party.

In fact, offhand, it is difficult to think of an unsuccessful terrorist group, as the ones that don't succeed just keep trying.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by christ:
Yup.

And throughout history terrorists (freedom fighters) have been successful, including, as noted above, the American colonists.

They didn't give the native Americans much choice though. Those were the real freedom fighters. The guys you mention were taking over.

[benign]

Terrorist's are not very creative,
or cannot spread terror very
effectively for a long period of time.

It is the act of desperate men.

[christ]

Originally posted by benign:
Terrorist's are not very creative, or cannot spread terror very effectively for a long period of time.

Where do you get your news?

Terrorists are consistently more creative than the folk that they are fighting (note the twin towers - evil certainly, but also creative). terrorists have also been terrorising for as long as there have been people to terrorise.

As an example - how long have the IRA been going? ETA? The ANC? The Palestinians?

It is the act of desperate men.

On this. at least, we can agree.

[benign]

Originally posted by christ:
Where do you get your news?

Terrorists are consistently more creative than the folk that they are fighting (note the twin towers - evil certainly, but also creative). terrorists have also been terrorising for as long as there have been people to terrorise.

As an example - how long have the IRA been going? ETA? The ANC? The Palestinians?



On this. at least, we can agree.

I am speaking hypothetically about the nature
of terror here, not the pain and misery faced
daily by countless numbers. A terrorist who
strikes at the defenseless can only be
described as inhuman cannibals feeding off
fear they produce.

A real terror is ever present, 9/11 may have
been cinematically frightening as a one off
event but where is follow up. The fear has
dissipated, been diluted by time.

Maybe not the level of destruction but how
much a group scare the population of a city
or nation may define terror.
But no terrorist organization has ever been
unstoppable. The level of attacks are always
small and unimaginative. It shows all terrorist
groups as desperate men with no long term
plan.

A real 21st century terror would be a constant
ingenious assault on our liberty. For the terror
to be a daily war not just an inconvenience.

Only unimaginative desperate men are terrorists.

[macvillage.net]

My theory (well, it's many people's, but I follow it) on state terrorism is that it fits hand and hand with Democracy. Think about it. Remember the War on Iraq Debates? People went nuts on the idea of going to war. Others wanted to do it. How do you keep your people happy, yet achieve your military goals?

Plan A
Send in troops (knowing some are going to die), create controversy, and a neverending reminder that we are at war. Creates economic issues, and draws fire from your opponents politically.

Plan B
Send a group of CIA officers to the region to train Guerilla fighters on terrorist tactics.


What's the advantage of Plan B? No military deaths, no controversy, quiet, can be effective.

Unethical? Absolutely. But is it the ideal solution for Democracies? Of course. If Bush used terrorism to take out Sadam, he would have put perhaps a few hundred in Iraq to train fighters. Low risk, low international crisis risk. Could keep the whole thing under wraps.

Plan B wasn't an option for Bush this time around, because he accused Saddam for using Terrorism. Would be to much of a push to so.

Bush didn't get Plan B. But other presidents have. And used it. Not many Americans knew until recently that the US was in South America in the midst of wars. But we were. Just now the documents the surface (thanks to FOIA).

Imagine what fire the president would have been under if the US send large numbers of troops to accomplish the same goals. Instead, we just created a few terrorist training camps. Quiet, and were rather successful. With minimal political disturbance.

That's why Ameria Keeps Terrorism as a weapon in it's arsonal. Because it achieves the goals.

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think their goal was to promote their organization.

Their organization got hammered pretty good - not quite the outcome they expected, I'm sure.

You hafta remember that before 9/11 there were lots of terrorist bombings that targeted US citizens and their interests - yet there was almost never any 'penalty' for them having done so. That's why I suggest that that Al Quaeda did not expect to be 'reprimanded' by the US to the extent they were after 9/11. In that respect, the terrorists' goal (to promote Al Quaeda) was not successful - while their 'mission' (killing Westerners) may have been.

Bush said "no" to the idea of a Palestinian State just weeks before the 9/11 attacks. Less than a month later he hinted at a "roadmap".

I think that's some evidence that it works.

The US used Terrorism to destabalize many governments, with mixed success. It's kept some countries for decades. Columbia comes to mind. Still years later the government is to chaiotic to do any harm. Success? Well they achieved their goal. The US feared Columbia for years. Nothing to fear now but the drug exports.

"terrorism" technically was used against the US in Somalia... we pulled out.

Lebanon... we retreated a bit.

Lybia... we used it on them to create chaios and keep the government from adding to middleast tensions. Combined with a bombing.. All they were ever able to accomplish after was PanAm... much less than being that giant danger that the US claimed they were becoming. That was pretty effective.

Israel has been using terrorism with relative success. Palestinians are still alive, and we know about them... so it's working for them too.


There are maybe a handful of people who think terrorism is unsuccessful. It's extremely successful. Think about it. If terrorism isn't successful, why would the US be against signing any policy forbiding terrorism? Even post 9/11 rejecting the idea. Wouldn't the US be leading the campaign? The US and Israel have been fighting it for years. Why? Because it's been a valuable tool for them.

It's an extreme tactic. Question is if there are any conditions which it's ethical? How do we *prevent* it from happening? Many say it's not worth preventing.... only acting on. Some (myself in particular) believe a better tactic is to prevent.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Plan B
Send a group of CIA officers to the region to train Guerilla fighters on terrorist tactics.

Plan B wasn't an option for Bush this time around, because he accused Saddam for using Terrorism. Would be to much of a push to so.

Slightly off-topic but somewhat relevant to these paragraphs:

I have it on very good authority that we've had people in Iraq trying to pop Saddam since the first Gulf War. We had the best in there but nobody could get near him. Thus, second war.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Slightly off-topic but somewhat relevant to these paragraphs:

I have it on very good authority that we've had people in Iraq trying to pop Saddam since the first Gulf War. We had the best in there but nobody could get near him. Thus, second war.

That would make little sense in light of every other decision to "box him in" rather than overthrow him because they didn't like any of the alternatives that might emerge in a post-Saddam Iraq.

[dgs212]

MIght I just remind you all that terrorism is not defined by its targets (e.g. civilians), but rather its intentions. That is, terrorism is the use or the threat of the use of force as coersion or intimidation, most usually for political or ideological ends. Terrorism can be perpetrated by one person, isolated groups of a few people, a community, a nation, a government, a class, etc. and it can be targeted towards any kind of property or person or group of persons (e.g. Starbuck's franchises, american civilians, my upstairs neighbor, left-handed folks, CEOs of international corporations, etc.)

Virtually every ideologically or politically motivated act of violence (and lots of other types of violence besides) are, in fact terrorism. War and terrorism are not cousins; they are the same thing.

(this definition of terrorism, by the way, comes from the state department).

As for the original question, I think its safe to say that, to date, 50% of terrorist campaigns have been effective and 50% have not, for obvious reasons (excluding multi-party conflicts, that is).

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dgs212:
MIght I just remind you all that terrorism is not defined by its targets (e.g. civilians), but rather its intentions. That is, terrorism is the use or the threat of the use of force as coersion or intimidation, most usually for political or ideological ends. Terrorism can be perpetrated by one person, isolated groups of a few people, a community, a nation, a government, a class, etc. and it can be targeted towards any kind of property or person or group of persons (e.g. Starbuck's franchises, american civilians, my upstairs neighbor, left-handed folks, CEOs of international corporations, etc.)

Virtually every ideologically or politically motivated act of violence (and lots of other types of violence besides) are, in fact terrorism. War and terrorism are not cousins; they are the same thing.

(this definition of terrorism, by the way, comes from the state department).

As for the original question, I think its safe to say that, to date, 50% of terrorist campaigns have been effective and 50% have not, for obvious reasons (excluding multi-party conflicts, that is).

well said, except that I don't think only one side in a conflict succeeds at terror. Both sides can acheive that objective...I think Isreal/Palestine is a good example...as long as we view the objective of terrorism as intimidation via terror, in that narrow confine both sides succeed, unfortunately.

[Spliffdaddy]

hmm. wait a minute.

It's becoming clear.

Terrorism is an act of war that lacks the intent to disable the enemy's effort at retaliation.



Somebody re-word that for me.

They don't place a high value on strategic 'military' targets. Either because it would be less effective than 'civilian' targets - or because they lack the ability to successfully attack defended positions.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
That would make little sense in light of every other decision to "box him in" rather than overthrow him because they didn't like any of the alternatives that might emerge in a post-Saddam Iraq.

Since when has a government ever made any real sense? Believe me, we had guys in there trying to pop him until at least 1996.

[theolein]

I have some theories of my own about Terrorism™ and the War On Terrorism™.

Terrorism has been around for as long as life has been around on this planet. Example: If anyone saw the BBC documentary "After the donsaurs" one would have seen the section on the big sabre toothed cats of South America. As in modern lion prides, a single male is usually the macho leader of the group. In the section two young male cub siblings, each alone unable to unseat the male leader or gain acceptance by the female, together defeat the male leader. You have have here the beginnings of organised usurping of power by alienated elements of a standing social group. And I'm pretty sure it probably started with the first creatures to form social groups.

Almost every country on this planet has been plagued by terrorism at some time or another, it didn't start with 9/11. The romans probably though the jews rebeliing in Palestine were terrorists, and the Bosnian Serbs who killed Arch Duke Ferdinand in 1914 were certainly regarded as terrorists by the Austrians. The Minutemen in the American war of Indepandance were rerarded as terrorists by the British as were the Boers who fought for Independance against England. The ANC were long regarded as terrorists even though they are now the elected government of South Africa.

Even in the modern USA there have been some pretty spectacular acts of terrorism, just as modern Europe, Israel, India etc all have had long periods of extended terrorist attacks. (I remember someone here on these boards say Euope was soft on terrorism in the run up to the war in Afghanistan as a justification for that war, but they neglected that the Taleban are still very active and that israel has never been soft on Terrorism yet never seems to be able to stop the threat). Think about the WTC bombing in 1993, or the Oklahoma bombing. Both were spectacular and resulted in large loss of life. 9/11 was simply the largest single terror attack in modern history. What I found strange is that terrorism only seemed to become important to the US public at large once 9/11 happened and the Bush administration milked it for everything it could.

And what amazed me is that the whole WTC 9/11 episode could have come directly from Hollywood. Hollywood has been making lierally dozens of films on huge terrorist attacks, often starring Bruce Willis ("Die Hard series", "The Siege" etc). If I wanted to make some attack I would have all the blue prints in a select choice of movies. Those movies basically, IMO, showed them how to do it or at least gave them the idea. Did Osama have a VCR and a local Video rental place?

In short, I don't think there are any hard and fast truths in terrorism. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Usually they win when they have enough popular support, but not always, as the Turks showed in 1918 by killing off the entire Armenian poulation after some Armenians started to rebel against Turkish rule. Usually terrorism is best combated by understanding and tackling the grievances which caused the unrest, but sometimes only armed combat will work, as against the Sendero Luminoso in Peru. And finally a terrorist is usually only a terrorist from the viewpoint of his enemy. To someone else that terrorist might be a freedom fighter.

[christ]

Originally posted by benign:
<blah>

Do you know catsank?

You do know that the page stretches all the way over to the right hand margin, don't you?

<blah>

A real terror is ever present, 9/11 may have been cinematically frightening as a one off event but where is follow up. The fear has dissipated, been diluted by time.

Maybe not the level of destruction but how much a group scare the population of a city or nation may define terror. But no terrorist organization has ever been unstoppable. The level of attacks are always small and unimaginative. It shows all terrorist groups as desperate men with no long term plan.

A real 21st century terror would be a constant ingenious assault on our liberty. For the terror to be a daily war not just an inconvenience.

Only unimaginative desperate men are terrorists.

By this logic, Dubya is the terrorist. Having been elected, he is 'ever-present'.

He is maintaining the fear of the US population by constant references to the war on terror, and by acts such as creating the Department of Homeland Security.

He scares a good chunk of the US population, to justify his continuing foreign policy antics.

He leads 'a constant ingenious assault on your liberty' (The DHS takes a degree of ingenuity and doublethink)

Desperate men may become terrorists - I don't understand your obsession with, and need to redefine, 'imaginative'.

[DBursey]

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It all depends on circumstances and perspective. History is full of successful causes led or begun by such means.

Perhaps terrorism in the modern age is best defined as an armed attack on a civilian target (such as a suicide bomber striking a cafe). If the target is military, the aggression becomes a guerilla action (such as a roadside bomb being detonated as tanks or troop carriers pass by).

Terror is far more useful as a political tool than as a means of furthering a military agenda. It brings attention to the cause. It galvanizes and sometimes polarizes public opinion. Love them or hate them; the IRA kept the political plight of Northern Ireland's catholic population squarely in the British eye for decades. Whether they are to be considered freedom fighters or murderous devils depends in large part on where you live (and under what circumstances)and where your politics lie.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
hmm. wait a minute.

It's becoming clear.

Terrorism is an act of war that lacks the intent to disable the enemy's effort at retaliation.



Somebody re-word that for me.

They don't place a high value on strategic 'military' targets. Either because it would be less effective than 'civilian' targets - or because they lack the ability to successfully attack defended positions.

It's an indirect attack... kind of.

It's an attack at the enemies "will power " (see Clausewitz).

It's undoubtfully a method of warfare, regardless of ethics (just like bioweapons, scorched earth, and all the other crap history has brought).

It's an unethical method.


Regardless, it's a method that's favored for it's effectiveness, cost, and political usefullness (goes hand in hand with democracy, sadly, see above).


Terrorism isn't ethical. I don't think *anyone* ever said it was... but pretty much every nation has done it some point in modern history. And will most likely do it again.

It's unethical when it hits home. But when it's done for our own political/military (as if there is a difference) gains... then it's ok.... or is it?

[quandarry]

if you're on the side of the righteous they are called resistance fighters, if your on the other side you're a terrorist.

in the colonies would the boston tea partiers have been considered terrorists?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by benign:
Terrorist's are not very creative,
or cannot spread terror very
effectively for a long period of time.

It is the act of desperate men.

The last point is definitely correct, the second is debatable and on the third I would have to say that flying jet liners loaded with fuel into the WTC was pretty damn creative.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'm starting to get the impression that "terrorism" (however you define it) is a first-cousin of war. Very much related, at least.

Perhaps terrorism the only means available to folks whose agenda is bigger than their ability to implement it. Small numbers of people wishing to make big changes to a majority of others.

Terrorism is essentially an act of war committed by the side who is greatly outnumbered.

Wow ... that statement seemed very un-Spliff-like

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
hmm. wait a minute.

It's becoming clear.

Terrorism is an act of war that lacks the intent to disable the enemy's effort at retaliation.



Somebody re-word that for me.

They don't place a high value on strategic 'military' targets. Either because it would be less effective than 'civilian' targets - or because they lack the ability to successfully attack defended positions.

Ask Macvillage said, terrorism is an attack at the enemy's will power. In many ways, terrorism is a product of democracy. It attacks the real decision makers; not the President, not the military, but the voters. In theory, the President is merely a representative of the citizenship and therefore represents their desires. The ONLY way to elicit change in a democracy is to get the voters to demand it. As such, terrorism targets the voter.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
....In many ways, terrorism is a product of democracy. It attacks the real decision makers; not the President, not the military, but the voters. In theory, the President is merely a representative of the citizenship and therefore represents their desires. The ONLY way to elicit change in a democracy is to get the voters to demand it. As such, terrorism targets the voter.

(Score:5, Insightful)

[Sven G]

... So terrorism is needed to target the voters?!? Maybe - but only for desperate men (not saying that desperation is "bad" - sometimes it is really the very infortunate result of circumstances, etc.), as previously noted. Desperation, of course, can be - in different ways (see, mainly, different forms of helplessness) - on both sides: both with the "terrorists" and the "terrorized".

Anyway, there are plenty of other, much more constructive (and human, and pleasurable, and so on) ways to influence these more or less alienated "voters" (of what? of the least oppressive evil?) to make some better decisions - and certainly not only on the classical delegated "democracy" voting front!

Terrorism is, probably, one of the unavoidable consequences of a corrupted system of concentrated (unbalanced, too unevenly distributed, etc.) power...

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by quandarry:
if you're on the side of the righteous they are called resistance fighters, if your on the other side you're a terrorist.

in the colonies would the boston tea partiers have been considered terrorists?

Sacking some ships loaded with tea and goods (0 deaths) is a far cry from killing innocent civilians.

Yeah, terrorism is a kind of military tactic. It will however make the (usually much larger) adversary being attacked less compassionate in the future when they go after said terrorists. It's just a part of it, and why I feel little compassion for such militaries.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sacking some ships loaded with tea and goods (0 deaths) is a far cry from killing innocent civilians.

Yeah, terrorism is a kind of military tactic. It will however make the (usually much larger) adversary being attacked less compassionate in the future when they go after said terrorists. It's just a part of it, and why I feel little compassion for such militaries.

ROTFLMAO!

yes, the american educational system has maimed many people's understanding of actual history.

If you think throwing tea overboard was the extent of the colonist's resistance...man.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... So terrorism is needed to target the voters?!? Maybe - but only for desperate men (not saying that desperation is "bad" - sometimes it is really the very infortunate result of circumstances, etc.), as previously noted. Desperation, of course, can be - in different ways (see, mainly, different forms of helplessness) - on both sides: both with the "terrorists" and the "terrorized".

Anyway, there are plenty of other, much more constructive (and human, and pleasurable, and so on) ways to influence these more or less alienated "voters" (of what? of the least oppressive evil?) to make some better decisions - and certainly not only on the classical delegated "democracy" voting front!

Terrorism is, probably, one of the unavoidable consequences of a corrupted system of concentrated (unbalanced, too unevenly distributed, etc.) power...

See below

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Ask Macvillage said, terrorism is an attack at the enemy's will power. In many ways, terrorism is a product of democracy. It attacks the real decision makers; not the President, not the military, but the voters. In theory, the President is merely a representative of the citizenship and therefore represents their desires. The ONLY way to elicit change in a democracy is to get the voters to demand it. As such, terrorism targets the voter.

Also true. But it's a a tool of democracy.


When the president intends to invade/attack... you see a rift form. People for the war, and people against the war. The war itself becomes a political issue, regardless of the need/reasons for the war.

Many presidents have lost elections over decisions to/not go to war. War is an enemy of democracy, because it creates turmoil like nothing else can.


Terrorism is Democracies friend. It allows a democracy to perform a war, and often achieve goals with a relatively high success rate without a declaration of war, sending soldiers, or even firing a gun. It's simply training others that it's a cause worth dying for, and providing materials (rocket launches, explosives etc.)

Terrorism allows an elected leader to conduct a "war" without going to "war". Achieving the goal the leaders wants. Without creating that turmoil.

So it's very useful. If every modern president sent troops rather than used these techniques in South America, Middle East, Afganistan (when the Solviets were in there)... the death tolls of US soldiers would undoubtfully be hundreds of thousands higher over all theses situations. Instead, we perhaps lost a special agent or two. And nobody will ever know for sure.

It allows a leader to conduct a war, without the political ramifactions that a war brings (such as the opposition Bush is facing right now). If he were to have trained some idiots to conduct a terrorist war... it would have taken longer... but done correctly, could have achieved the same goal (just with more civilian casualties). Bush wouldn't have to deal with mouting critism. Same with Blair. Both would have much higher ratings right now, and less opposition.

Bush didn't get this option because his pretense for war was "aiding terrorism" he would have desecrated his name even worse if he used terrorism against them. Besides, Israel proved that Terrorism doesn't fight terrorism. It just makes it worse.

So Bush took the better approach to the sitation by using our military in a more formal military conflict..though you can still debate the ethics (humanitarian and legal) of no formal declaration of war)...

Bush's approach took some morals, because of it's political ramifications. But it's much less costly on civilian lives... and is much more ethical, since it tends to target military/political (like there's a difference) targets, rather than Civilian soft targets.


That doesn't justify the war. But the method of the war. To debate the justificatoin, make a new thread, or use on the of the 1000000 there already are... don't litter this one

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Sacking some ships loaded with tea and goods (0 deaths) is a far cry from killing innocent civilians.

Yeah, terrorism is a kind of military tactic. It will however make the (usually much larger) adversary being attacked less compassionate in the future when they go after said terrorists. It's just a part of it, and why I feel little compassion for such militaries.

Actually Colonists pillaged and raped those who disagreed with protesting against the King. Many loyalists fled America with their families fearing for their lives. Tarred and feathered tax collectors (just doing their job). Burnt homes of loyalists.

That's colonial terrorism. Just because they didn't use belt bombs, or dirty bombs doesn't mean it isn't terrorism.

Terrorism doesn't even need to involve death.

Terrorism is any agressive means that insighes fear (often fear of death, or wellbeing) against civilians and/or 3rd parties. Though it could be used against a military. With rare exception.


9/11 attacks were a hybrid of Declaration of War/Terrorism. More Declaration of War than Terrorism. But "Terrorism" is a better catch word. 9/11 wasn't quite terrorism because the goal wasn't really to ensight fear, but to kick-off a campaign of attacks.

Technically, it's barely terrorism. It's a declaration of war by an unrecognized party... that involved civilian targets... extremely unethical.

But the media ran with the T word... so we stuck to it.

There is some terrorism... but it's not pure terrorism as the media plays it.

That doesn't make it more ethical, or justify it. It's a formality. Bin Laden was kicking off his new offensive on the US. He wasn't trying to intimidate the US. His prior acts (the first WTC bombing, among others) were terrorist acts.

IMHO that makes it more unethical, because he used civilians in place of a military target... making no distinction between civilian/military.

Formal War attacks are against military
Terrorist attacks are primarally against civilians/humanitarian (though can be military)

Launching a campaign on the US government with a civilian target... nuff said above.

The attack on the Red Cross in Iraq is 100% pure terrorism. An attack on a humanitarian organization who has a history of providing aid regardless of any background (political, religious, geographic).. and uses volunteers/employees of the area (many were Iraqi in this case). It's possibly the purest recent case of true terrorism.

Terrorism isn't a point, it's a long line made of infinate points. it can be anywhere on that line. From barely terrorism, to pure terrorism.


Regardless, Terrorism is unethical. Civilians should be respected by all parties involved in conflict.

But effective? Yes. It brings civilians to their knees, and ruins the willpower of the people, who in turn fuel the willpower of the military.


Note: In Somalia, the terrorism wasn't the downing of the Blackhawk. that was more a war act (though we didn't recognize the enemy formally, hence calling it terrorism). The terrorism is the aftermath. That is also what upset the US Public... ultimately leading the US to backout of Somalia.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ROTFLMAO!

yes, the american educational system has maimed many people's understanding of actual history.

If you think throwing tea overboard was the extent of the colonist's resistance...man.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I was talking in terms of the one instance, the Boston Tea Party. Yes, much bloodier "terrorist" attacks soon followed. However, neither side was completely clean regarding such tactics. That's what happens when you have taxation without representation. Today's equivalant would us trying to govern colonies on Mars, not possible. What England should have done when the Colonialists revolted was to find everyone involved with such actions and kill them. Sure many innocents would die, but it depends on how far a country wants to go to promote it's agenda. Case in point: There's only two solutions involving the terrorist cells in the M.E.

1.) We leave and try to handle things diplomatically. (That's worked so well before. )

2.) We escalate to full war with countries harboring these individuals and crush them completely. Then hand over what's left to the UN (to maintain better neutrality envolving that former country's assets).

No, it's not nice. Yes, it's vicious. I'm not talking in terms of "humanitarianism". I'm just saying it's the only way to completely counter terrorism.

Know why very few people try to hijack Iraeli commercial airliners?

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Know why very few people try to hijack Iraeli commercial airliners?

'cause check-in is 4 hours in advance, unless you are Israeli...

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
'cause check-in is 4 hours in advance, unless you are Israeli...

NAAAHH! Wrong! It's 2 hours. Keep playing though!

[christ]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
...Know why very few people try to hijack Iraeli commercial airliners?

Why is that 'very few' - if these tactics are so successful, why isn't it 'none'?

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
NAAAHH! Wrong! It's 2 hours. Keep playing though!

Really? It was 4 hours for my flight...

Passengers checking in for El Al and other airline departures at Ben Gurion are requested to arrive three hours before their flight.
and
while most Israeli Jews quickly pass through security inspection, Arabs and certain foreigners are singled out for intense grilling.

http://www.israelinsider.com/channel...s/sec_0108.htm

[theolein]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Now you're putting words in my mouth. I was talking in terms of the one instance, the Boston Tea Party. Yes, much bloodier "terrorist" attacks soon followed. However, neither side was completely clean regarding such tactics. That's what happens when you have taxation without representation. Today's equivalant would us trying to govern colonies on Mars, not possible. What England should have done when the Colonialists revolted was to find everyone involved with such actions and kill them. Sure many innocents would die, but it depends on how far a country wants to go to promote it's agenda. Case in point: There's only two solutions involving the terrorist cells in the M.E.

1.) We leave and try to handle things diplomatically. (That's worked so well before. )

2.) We escalate to full war with countries harboring these individuals and crush them completely. Then hand over what's left to the UN (to maintain better neutrality envolving that former country's assets).

No, it's not nice. Yes, it's vicious. I'm not talking in terms of "humanitarianism". I'm just saying it's the only way to completely counter terrorism.

Know why very few people try to hijack Iraeli commercial airliners?

So you're basically advocating a limited version of what the Turks did to the Armenians and what the Germans did to villages all over Europe (example would be the killing of Reinhard Heidrich in Czeckoslovakia and the subsequent destruction and killing of an entire village) as a form of reprisal for the killings of German soldiers. This is what Israel does, very ironically considering the history of the Jews. Does it work? No, there hasn't been that much of a reduction in the number of Palestinians willing to blow themselves up, has there?

It might work sometimes, but it is very rare that brute force alone has ever solved a terrorist insurgency, and I sincerely doubt that this one, in Iraq, will be any different. Giving the Iraqi's "representation for their taxes" would be more effective as it would give them something to lose, which is not really what they have now.