Does Terrorism Work?

[beagle]

Does blowing other people up/killing innocents actually achieve the goals of the killers?

If the goal is to eliminate particular people (such as the IRA attack on Mrs Thatcher) then it can.

If the goal is to provoke a change of policy then it can.  e.g. Britain not thinking trying to run Palestine was worth the effort.

If the goal is to air a grievance then it might get it talked about. However, as Pachyderm implied, if the act is out of proportion to the grievance, then the cause gets bracketed in the psycho-nutter department.

If the goal is to destabilize a region for some ulterior motive, then it can.

If the goal is to polarise the population into particular groups then it can.

If the goals are irrational in the first place, e.g. killing through religious fervour, then it can.

When someone tells me they won't come to London I get this strange disconnected feeling. What are they actually saying to me, when they know I live there?

I'll be honest rather than tactful (at least you get one...).
If they won't visit short term, they're saying they don't understand the probability and statistics of minor terrorist incidents. 

If they don't want to live there they might just be more pessimistic about bigger threats like nuclear proliferation.  Let's face it, no mad terrorist is likely to try and blow up a ten mile radius of Exmoor.

I think people old enough to remember WWII (when every gasworks and water works needed guarding), or people who work in computer security (where everything is under attack continuously) feel far less confident about the security of infrastructure than other people.  Most of society is built on a cooperative model that is easily disrupted.

[Griffin NoName]

Let's face it, no mad terrorist is likely to try and blow up a ten mile radius of Exmoor.

I'll give you Exmoor. At least, I am not aware of a particular risk there. But localised risks exist in other places than London - East Anglia for example.   Ok - relative risks.

I think people old enough to remember WWII (when every gasworks and water works needed guarding), or people who work in computer security (where everything is under attack continuously) feel far less confident about the security of infrastructure than other people.  Most of society is built on a cooperative model that is easily disrupted.

Agreed.

I was really considering extremity of risk avoidance behaviour which has the risk of over-emphasising the risk in a way that is exactly what terrorists want to achieve.

As for honesty or tact..... probably unnecessary..... the people I was thinking of certainly do not understand probability or statistics or they wouldn't also have a tendency to lose thousands of pounds in pyramid marketing schemes......

Goat, armed robberyism would work if everyone lived in constant fear of it. Hmmmm, I think many shopkeepers, bankers etc do.

oh, .. I think lots of what's been said is right = good analysis. I am just being nit-picky.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

There's still the question of the strategic level: morality aside (since it seems you're looking strictly at efficacy, right, Kanaloa?), does terrorism further the larger goals of those who employ it?

You are indeed right, Lambi. That's what I am looking for.

Does blowing other people up/killing innocents actually achieve the goals of the killers?

If the goal is to eliminate particular people (such as the IRA attack on Mrs Thatcher) then it can.

On this, I tend to actually agree with Alan Dershowitz, who said that a targeted assassination is not terrorism. Still murder, but not terrorism. Nor am I supporting the attempted take-out.

Goatie, I would note that the 3/11 bombings worked--convinced the Spanish that involvement with a foolish war was not wort their while.
But other than that, I tend to agree.

I just sorted the quote markers out for you Kanaloa - haven't changed the text ~Griffin

[Griffin NoName]

Leaving all my  aside, I agree with Goat too.

[Aggie]

If the goal is to eliminate particular people (such as the IRA attack on Mrs Thatcher) then it can.

On this, I tend to actually agree with Alan Dershowitz, who said that a targeted assassination is not terrorism. Still murder, but not terrorism. Nor am I supporting the attempted take-out.

Depends on if they are targeting the personality, or the position IMO.  Taking out a head-of-state can be destabilizing in itself, regardless of who is filling the shoes at the time (not the case with Maggie, I suspect), and could be interpreted as action against the country, not just the person. 

[beagle]

Genius though he may be, Dershowitz's views on collective punishment, ID cards and torture mean he's not normally my first point of call for legal guidance.
Also, given his background, he couldn't really say otherwise without it being picked up as "Leading Jewish lawyer accuses Israeli government of terrorism".

What is the correct term for when France blows up a GreenPeace boat or Mossad bumps someone off?  Practical diplomacy?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

So much water under the bridge...

But you're forgetting the aims, Zono. That's an important part. Are they doing to force conversation, withdrawal from a war, to obliterate another state or to being about the end of times?

With the possible exception of the nuttiest religious groups (Shoko Asahara comes to mind) all so-called 'terrorist organizations', and states that use so-called 'state terrorism' practices, have stated lofty goals and reasons for their actions. But again the real goals may differ from the stated ones. In Colombia the leftist guerrillas claim to fight for the long abused poor, but in reality are running a business that gives their leaders millions. Their opponents' -the paramilitary- goal is to defend themselves from the guerrillas but their real goal is to evict poor farmers from their lands and/or protect coca fields. There may have been a point in which their stated goals were legitimate but in time it became a game of power and vengeance. I dare to say that the same applies to most actors using asymmetrical tactics, or indiscriminate bombing/collective punishment/etc.

[Griffin NoName]

......................so-called 'terrorist organizations', and states that use so-called 'state terrorism' practices, have stated lofty goals and reasons for their actions. But again the real goals may differ from the stated ones.

That caveat is important IMO as the stated goals of some states is to spread democracy*.

* and who judges the loftiness of democracy as better than other forms of socio/politcal organisation?

Sorry I am wandering again.

[Opsa]

Forgive my dimness, but this great discussion is making me see something that I've not given enough thought to before- namely that terrorism is an attack upon civilians to try to get a reaction from the government. It is an indirect attack on the government. It is trying to outrage the citizens enough to put pressure on their government. But does the the government necessarily have to bend to this pressure?

[Sibling Chatty]

Depends on the government, I'd say. In a system where the government could be changed by the opposition challenging it, maybe... In a system where, once elected, the nutter in charge (and his Darth Vaderesque VP) would have to be removed by impeachment--no, they'll wait out the end of their term.

At present, the US government is probably the largest terrorist group active in the world. Our paramilitary mercenaries (and our military, to a lesser extent) actively persecute and even kill citizens of another country on a daily basis. The objective? To force them to accept our form of government, although that is not their wish, nor is it practical for the region. We have effectively fomented a barely-controlled civil war in their country, and destabilized it, so that the larger region is also unstable.

Eventually, terrorism causes change, but the effect may NOT be the one desired at the outset. Much as in torture, the human element is not predictable, and the effect can be the reverse of the original goal.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

So it can fail on a praxelogical level. That makes sense.

On this, I tend to actually agree with Alan Dershowitz, who said that a targeted assassination is not terrorism. Still murder, but not terrorism. Nor am I supporting the attempted take-out.

Depends on if they are targeting the personality, or the position IMO.  Taking out a head-of-state can be destabilizing in itself, regardless of who is filling the shoes at the time (not the case with Maggie, I suspect), and could be interpreted as action against the country, not just the person. 

Genius though he may be, Dershowitz's views on collective punishment, ID cards and torture mean he's not normally my first point of call for legal guidance.
Also, given his background, he couldn't really say otherwise without it being picked up as "Leading Jewish lawyer accuses Israeli government of terrorism".

I tend to agree with you there, given what I've read about him, but occasionally he has a point.

If the goal is to eliminate particular people (such as the IRA attack on Mrs Thatcher) then it can.

True. More things I hadn't thought about.


I just sorted the quote markers out for you Kanaloa - haven't changed the text ~Griffin