Is terrorism effective?
Discussion
Broad question which will have a few angles on it, but is terrorism effective?
My opinion is a definite NO.
Reasons being that on the grand scale of things terrorism acts on a 'small' scale, and usually acts upon random members of the public.
I don't think I can recall any act of terrorism (be that ISIS, IRA, Al Queada etc), that that doesn't go to rally the majority against the terrorist group itself. Which, as a tactic, doesn't seem to further their cause at all.
Harming random members of the public serves next to feck all purpose on the political scale other than bolstering up of security and a stronger political will to not pander to terrorist requests or desires.
Your opinions?
My opinion is a definite NO.
Reasons being that on the grand scale of things terrorism acts on a 'small' scale, and usually acts upon random members of the public.
I don't think I can recall any act of terrorism (be that ISIS, IRA, Al Queada etc), that that doesn't go to rally the majority against the terrorist group itself. Which, as a tactic, doesn't seem to further their cause at all.
Harming random members of the public serves next to feck all purpose on the political scale other than bolstering up of security and a stronger political will to not pander to terrorist requests or desires.
Your opinions?
It would be nice if that were true.
If there had been no violence in Northern Ireland we would not have a situation where a simple referendum can unite Northern Ireland with the Republic. If we had not had the attacks on the World Trade Centre then political Islam would not be anywhere near the top of the political agenda, we most likely would not have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. We also wouldn't have the 'religion of peace' apologists and the self-flagellation over western foreign policy.
So I think it's a very blunt instrument and often sets back the terrorists stated cause as you say, but it's very effective at drawing attention to a certain issue and driving that up the political agenda.
If there had been no violence in Northern Ireland we would not have a situation where a simple referendum can unite Northern Ireland with the Republic. If we had not had the attacks on the World Trade Centre then political Islam would not be anywhere near the top of the political agenda, we most likely would not have invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. We also wouldn't have the 'religion of peace' apologists and the self-flagellation over western foreign policy.
So I think it's a very blunt instrument and often sets back the terrorists stated cause as you say, but it's very effective at drawing attention to a certain issue and driving that up the political agenda.
It depends what the objectives of the terrorism are really though.
We often don't know the real objectives. Take the attack on the British tourists last year in Tunisia, what was the objective of the action? do we know?
If it was to scare British holiday makers into never leaving the UK again then it didn't work.
if it was to punish Britain for involvement in ME affairs then it didn't work.
If it was to help bring down Tunisia's government by effectively ruining one of its main industries, then it was probably effective.
Problem is we often don't know what they want. The guy with the gun might think he knows why he's doing it, but the truth is that he's probably being manipulated by someone with a much wider strategic objective.
So who knows? Probably not the victims or their government.
We often don't know the real objectives. Take the attack on the British tourists last year in Tunisia, what was the objective of the action? do we know?
If it was to scare British holiday makers into never leaving the UK again then it didn't work.
if it was to punish Britain for involvement in ME affairs then it didn't work.
If it was to help bring down Tunisia's government by effectively ruining one of its main industries, then it was probably effective.
Problem is we often don't know what they want. The guy with the gun might think he knows why he's doing it, but the truth is that he's probably being manipulated by someone with a much wider strategic objective.
So who knows? Probably not the victims or their government.
Yes. Play Command and Conquer Red Alert, you'll see how useful terrorism can be. There is no doubt it's an effective tactical tool in any particular armed conflict, the state of Israel wouldn't exist without it and they're not averse to a bit of state sponsored terror now and again to reinforce the message, the current French Republic or indeed our own nation were bourne from what you might consider radical and terrorist acts, the US certainly also.
Whether or not you can achieve long term strategic goals through terrorism alone that's another question, probably not, but it depends really on what those goals are.
Whether or not you can achieve long term strategic goals through terrorism alone that's another question, probably not, but it depends really on what those goals are.
Terrorism is effective in the short term, isn't it?
Eventually people get thoroughly bored with living life 'on the edge' and want some calm stability in their lives, unless they have pathological tendencies.
I'm not sure what legacy the Red Brigade, Bader Meinhoff, Black September, Red Army Faction, Weathermen, left behind. Perhaps the Israelis and ANC are a better examples of concrete outcomes, although the current status may not reflect the full extent of their aims...
Eventually people get thoroughly bored with living life 'on the edge' and want some calm stability in their lives, unless they have pathological tendencies.
I'm not sure what legacy the Red Brigade, Bader Meinhoff, Black September, Red Army Faction, Weathermen, left behind. Perhaps the Israelis and ANC are a better examples of concrete outcomes, although the current status may not reflect the full extent of their aims...
If the object of terrorism is to make people change their behaviours and lives, then yes, I think it is.
The Mrs and I do a trip to London every Christmas for a bit of shopping and a wander round Harrods etc, but not this year.
In the days of the IRA, I would be quite happy going, but Isis are a different ball game.
The Mrs and I do a trip to London every Christmas for a bit of shopping and a wander round Harrods etc, but not this year.
In the days of the IRA, I would be quite happy going, but Isis are a different ball game.
Yes it is.
The 2004 Al-Q Spanish train bombings changed the course of the general election that year and ultimately led to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Afghanistan.
The reaction to the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark (and then again with Charlie Hebdo) worked because the mainstream western media refused to reprint the cartoons. Some media outlets (Ch4 for one) refuse to even publish normal images of Mohammed.
The September 11 attacks were a spectacular success from Al-Q's pov - America spent the next 10+ years involved in wars which killed thousands of Americans and cost trillions of $s. The Americans also, 'in order to stop putting American lives in danger', pulled out their troops from Saudi Arabia - this was one of the primary aims of OBL.
Terrorism helped Gerry Adams and Martin Adams get to where they are today, it helped the Zionists end British rule in Palestine, it helped Hezbollah get imprisoned terrorists back from Israel, it helped Taliban plane hijackers get imprisoned terrorists back from India, ISIS's beheading of James Foley helped to drag American back into Iraq again - the list is endless.
It also helps to divide communities which is exactly what the perpetrators of terrorist acts want.
The 2004 Al-Q Spanish train bombings changed the course of the general election that year and ultimately led to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Afghanistan.
The reaction to the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark (and then again with Charlie Hebdo) worked because the mainstream western media refused to reprint the cartoons. Some media outlets (Ch4 for one) refuse to even publish normal images of Mohammed.
The September 11 attacks were a spectacular success from Al-Q's pov - America spent the next 10+ years involved in wars which killed thousands of Americans and cost trillions of $s. The Americans also, 'in order to stop putting American lives in danger', pulled out their troops from Saudi Arabia - this was one of the primary aims of OBL.
Terrorism helped Gerry Adams and Martin Adams get to where they are today, it helped the Zionists end British rule in Palestine, it helped Hezbollah get imprisoned terrorists back from Israel, it helped Taliban plane hijackers get imprisoned terrorists back from India, ISIS's beheading of James Foley helped to drag American back into Iraq again - the list is endless.
It also helps to divide communities which is exactly what the perpetrators of terrorist acts want.
Edited by BlackLabel on Tuesday 8th December 20:53
BlackLabel said:
Yes it is.
The 2004 Al-Q Spanish train bombings changed the course of the general election that year and ultimately led to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Afghanistan.
The reaction to the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark (and then again with Charlie Hebdo) worked because the mainstream western media refused to reprint the cartoons. Some media outlets (Ch4 for one) refuse to even publish normal images of Mohammed.
The September 11 attacks were a spectacular success from Al-Q's pov - America spent the next 10+ years involved in wars which killed thousands of Americans and cost trillions of $s. The Americans also, 'in order to stop putting American lives in danger', pulled out their troops from Saudi Arabia - this was one of the primary aims of OBL.
Terrorism helped Gerry Adams and Martin Adams get to where they are today, it helped the Zionists end British rule in Palestine, it helped Hezbollah get imprisoned terrorists back from Israel, it helped Taliban plane hijackers get imprisoned terrorists back from India, ISIS's beheading of James Foley helped to drag American back into Iraq again - the list is endless.
It also helps to divide communities which is exactly what the perpetrators of terrorist acts want.
Good post.The 2004 Al-Q Spanish train bombings changed the course of the general election that year and ultimately led to the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Afghanistan.
The reaction to the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark (and then again with Charlie Hebdo) worked because the mainstream western media refused to reprint the cartoons. Some media outlets (Ch4 for one) refuse to even publish normal images of Mohammed.
The September 11 attacks were a spectacular success from Al-Q's pov - America spent the next 10+ years involved in wars which killed thousands of Americans and cost trillions of $s. The Americans also, 'in order to stop putting American lives in danger', pulled out their troops from Saudi Arabia - this was one of the primary aims of OBL.
Terrorism helped Gerry Adams and Martin Adams get to where they are today, it helped the Zionists end British rule in Palestine, it helped Hezbollah get imprisoned terrorists back from Israel, it helped Taliban plane hijackers get imprisoned terrorists back from India, ISIS's beheading of James Foley helped to drag American back into Iraq again - the list is endless.
It also helps to divide communities which is exactly what the perpetrators of terrorist acts want.
Edited by BlackLabel on Tuesday 8th December 20:53
You can only decide whether terrorism is effective if you know its intent.
Mention has been made of the PIRA in NI. Was terrorism successful there?
The argument depends on every aspect of the PIRA pushing in the same direction, presumably a united Ireland, but that is far from the only target and certainly not the main of some sections of the PIRA.
Ireland is not unified so we can say that after concentrated effort of 45+ years the result has been mixed at best.
Some wanted political power and to an extent they have achieved that. So they were successful.
Another way of looking at it is that a great deal of time, effort, money, lives and more has been invested in the attempt at unification. In the meantime, Wales and Scotland have had devolved powers to an extent and the latter was offered the opportunity to split with the rest of the UK. I'd suggest that if all that money the PIRA blew on blowing people up was put to political ends, NI would be further down the road to unification than it is at the moment.
So perhaps the PIRA terrorists have failed utterly. That is if they wanted to gain unification by the largess of the rest of the UK rather than them being able to claim victory by violence. let's admit it, the British governments would gladly have given away NI if they could have done so without losing power.
Many other countries have had terrorists overthrow governments only to be overthrown themselves by coups or betrayal from inside. Does that make them successful?
I sat in on a lecture from some SB bods and someone put a question where the answer was that the terrorists enjoy killing. They enjoy the authority the guns and bombs give them. They are part of a mafia but some sing their praises. They feel godlike. So in that respect, the PIRA terrorists achieved their target. They enjoyed what they were doing and it became an end in its own right.
Mention has been made of the PIRA in NI. Was terrorism successful there?
The argument depends on every aspect of the PIRA pushing in the same direction, presumably a united Ireland, but that is far from the only target and certainly not the main of some sections of the PIRA.
Ireland is not unified so we can say that after concentrated effort of 45+ years the result has been mixed at best.
Some wanted political power and to an extent they have achieved that. So they were successful.
Another way of looking at it is that a great deal of time, effort, money, lives and more has been invested in the attempt at unification. In the meantime, Wales and Scotland have had devolved powers to an extent and the latter was offered the opportunity to split with the rest of the UK. I'd suggest that if all that money the PIRA blew on blowing people up was put to political ends, NI would be further down the road to unification than it is at the moment.
So perhaps the PIRA terrorists have failed utterly. That is if they wanted to gain unification by the largess of the rest of the UK rather than them being able to claim victory by violence. let's admit it, the British governments would gladly have given away NI if they could have done so without losing power.
Many other countries have had terrorists overthrow governments only to be overthrown themselves by coups or betrayal from inside. Does that make them successful?
I sat in on a lecture from some SB bods and someone put a question where the answer was that the terrorists enjoy killing. They enjoy the authority the guns and bombs give them. They are part of a mafia but some sing their praises. They feel godlike. So in that respect, the PIRA terrorists achieved their target. They enjoyed what they were doing and it became an end in its own right.
I would say yes
If we take the most extreme example, ISIS/ISIL then its hard to argue that they have failed. Worth an estimated 2 billion USD, around 60,000 active fighters from every corner of the globe, control of large parts of Syria and Iraq which means the dream of creating an 'islamic state' is something that can not be ruled out, active in war zones in Yemen, Libya and Egypt and an arsenal of weapons so large and in some cases modern that the are proving to be very hard to defeat
They have also been effective in crushing the tourism industry in Egypt and Tunisia killing 284 tourists in the 2 countries this year alone putting thousands out of work (some for good) and wiping millions off the countries economy. Fast forward a few years when the cost of living has gone up and many thousands are poorer due to lack of tourism and you have the perfect setting for the next round of uprising's, random terrorist attacks will help the countries head in this direction
Most terrorist organisations will not come remotely close to the size and dare i say it success of ISIS/ISIL, but they still have the ability to cause panic and terror, divide communities and in extreme cases spark a civil war
If we take the most extreme example, ISIS/ISIL then its hard to argue that they have failed. Worth an estimated 2 billion USD, around 60,000 active fighters from every corner of the globe, control of large parts of Syria and Iraq which means the dream of creating an 'islamic state' is something that can not be ruled out, active in war zones in Yemen, Libya and Egypt and an arsenal of weapons so large and in some cases modern that the are proving to be very hard to defeat
They have also been effective in crushing the tourism industry in Egypt and Tunisia killing 284 tourists in the 2 countries this year alone putting thousands out of work (some for good) and wiping millions off the countries economy. Fast forward a few years when the cost of living has gone up and many thousands are poorer due to lack of tourism and you have the perfect setting for the next round of uprising's, random terrorist attacks will help the countries head in this direction
Most terrorist organisations will not come remotely close to the size and dare i say it success of ISIS/ISIL, but they still have the ability to cause panic and terror, divide communities and in extreme cases spark a civil war
MarshPhantom said:
Isis want us to get involved in Syria, so yes, terrorism is effective. The IRA at times wanted to show what they were capable of rather than just killing maximum numbers of people.
Isis say that but is it just guff?Remember saddam in gw1 said 'come if you dare for the mother of all wars!'. then got spanked in a fairly one sided affair. he didn't really mean it.
equally he said 'don't you look for my wmd, i'll keep them a secret!'. then we had gw2. he was lying then too.
I read once that were the terrorist objectives were supported by a significant proportion of the population then it was effective, but if not then it was ineffective they sighted the IRA who had significant support for a United Island, and the failure of radical groups like Red Brigade, Barda Myeinhof etc.
Note support of the objectives not the methods of the terrorists.
Note support of the objectives not the methods of the terrorists.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Sticking to NI, it has severely damaged the lives of two generations, perhaps more. But the PIRA, looking across the water to the Scottish referendum, might have thought that it could have been them. With catholicism under attack in the south to an extent, the EU being the guardian of human rights, unification would have been possible, although difficult, with a degree of salting the battlefield.
Not so sure now with the financial collapse.
Derek Smith said:
Sticking to NI, it has severely damaged the lives of two generations, perhaps more. But the PIRA, looking across the water to the Scottish referendum, might have thought that it could have been them.
With 20/20 hindsight perhaps.The difficulty with this topic is the word "terrorist" is usually used by governments to describe organisations that are opposing them with violence. In practice, history is he judge of whether or not terrorism has been successful, and in may cases it has been.
The state of Israel was created after the activities of David Ben Gurion and a number of others who were described as terrorists prior to them succeeding.
Apartheid in South Africa was ended after the activities of Nelson Mandela and a number of others who were described as terrorists prior to them succeeding.
The Republic of Ireland was created after the activities of Eamon De Valera and a number of others who were described as terrorists prior to them succeeding.
These, presumably, are OK because they are terrorists that we now agree with (or most people do, anyway)
Now for a different list.
President Assad describes opposition fighters in Syria as terrorists
Turkey describes the Kurdish resistance in that country as terrorists
ISIS/ Al Qaeda are currently being describes as terrorists
President Putin considers many people fighting in former Soviet satellite states as terrorists
The Israelis describe the Palestinians as terrorists
The Palestinians describe the Israelis as terrorists
Some of these we might agree are terrorists, or we might not. The difference between the two lsts is that history has not yet made its judgement on which of these groups are terrorists, and which are freedom fighters
rs1952 said:
Derek Smith said:
Sticking to NI, it has severely damaged the lives of two generations, perhaps more. But the PIRA, looking across the water to the Scottish referendum, might have thought that it could have been them.
With 20/20 hindsight perhaps.The difficulty with this topic is the word "terrorist" is usually used by governments to describe organisations that are opposing them with violence. In practice, history is he judge of whether or not terrorism has been successful, and in may cases it has been.
The state of Israel was created after the activities of David Ben Gurion and a number of others who were described as terrorists prior to them succeeding.
Apartheid in South Africa was ended after the activities of Nelson Mandela and a number of others who were described as terrorists prior to them succeeding.
The Republic of Ireland was created after the activities of Eamon De Valera and a number of others who were described as terrorists prior to them succeeding.
These, presumably, are OK because they are terrorists that we now agree with (or most people do, anyway)
Now for a different list.
President Assad describes opposition fighters in Syria as terrorists
Turkey describes the Kurdish resistance in that country as terrorists
ISIS/ Al Qaeda are currently being describes as terrorists
President Putin considers many people fighting in former Soviet satellite states as terrorists
The Israelis describe the Palestinians as terrorists
The Palestinians describe the Israelis as terrorists
Some of these we might agree are terrorists, or we might not. The difference between the two lsts is that history has not yet made its judgement on which of these groups are terrorists, and which are freedom fighters
As for Israel, there is no argument that Ben Gurion was part of a terrorist group. Whether the killing of a number of the staff of the david hotel and some of those working for the peace keepers speeded up the establishment of a separate Jewish state is open to discussion. Given that the British were, via the various Balfour Declarations, a major force in establishing the state in Palestine, the bombing, intending to kill those in the hotel who had information of other terrorists, is a bit off the wall.
One of my father's army colleagues was killed by the jewish terrorists and found wrapped in barbed wire, a common offensive practice. He'd gone all the way through the war, joining up to rid the world of fascism.
As for the definition of terrorism, there's various thoughts on the matter.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff