Does Terrorism Work?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

So, won't lie, doing a paper on this. Thought I'd pick your brains clean for info. 

And it's an interesting question.

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

[Darlica]

I think that depends very much on three things:

1) How do you define the act of terrorism?

2) Who is a terrorist? A desperate man trying to hijack a plane with a knife, a network of like-minded, a state?
For example can a state be guilty of terrorism? If so, only towards other states or also towards it's own people?

3) What is the context, the goal of the terror act?


It is a very complicated subject (and a inflamed one) and the answers depends very heavily on how you choose to formulate your questions and your definitions.

I suggest you start of with making a definition of what an act of terrorism is. Then make a definition of who could be called a terrorist and why.

Check your definitions against others, a couple of dictionary's would probably do as reference source you can also depending on how advanced you would like to be use us here as a focus group and interview us about how we define terror. I suppose real first name and nationality and printouts of the interviews and a URL to the monastery would be required to make it an acceptable source.

However when you have your definition, you choose a couple of cases that fits your definition study them and see if they were successful. 
 

Good Luck!

[Swatopluk]

I second Darlica.
I'd say that terrorism (applies to most definitions used) can work but the results are rather unpredictable and highly dependent on the conditions. One could say that the mere threat of (state) terror stabilized several countries (Iraq, Soviet Union) until either an external force removed the wielders of terror or the "terrorists" lost the willingness to rule by it. Terrorists have become heads of state by it (e.g. several founders of modern Israel, who effectively terrorized the Brits out of the country).
Often terrorism only works by "judo" technics, i.e. letting the victim doing most of the work (RAF, IRA, Al Qaeda made their victim countries less free and caused an erosion of civil liberties).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Many independence campaigns were waged in what we would call today terrorism (including the US of A's one). What is technically known as an assimetrical war can be effectively (and has been) used in many circumstances. AFAIK it is indeed more a war that involves the patience of the public and the ability to take losses for a long period of time. Still the chances of success are related to events and attitudes that may well be outside of the 'terrorist' effort itself.

Personally I would be more interested in a historical research to find if there were any other practical alternatives to 'terrorism' to achieve the basic goals of such efforts.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I should have explain that I was interested in the actual discussion. I wanted to pick your brains, yes, but more over, I wanted to see discussion.

I've written a paper in this before--http://dorkanese.deviantart.com/art/Logical-Critique-of-Terrorism-62939698

Def: violent acts with a political, social or religious aim. Therefore, any group (including a state) can commit terrorism against anyone.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Def: violent acts with a political, social or religious aim. Therefore, any group (including a state) can commit terrorism against anyone.

In fact under such definition any war equates with terrorism, which in itself sounds accurate.

[Griffin NoName]

Def: violent acts with a political, social or religious aim. Therefore, any group (including a state) can commit terrorism against anyone.

In fact under such definition any war equates with terrorism, which in itself sounds accurate.

Too simple. Take a benevalent humanely-governed small island - where every citizens views are taken into account and agreement on all issues is fully mutual - with it's own forces, army, navy, airforce representing the united people and government. Invasion is threatened by non-islanders with own agendas to alter and control the island. Invaders are repelled. Inadvers prevented from landing on island soil. I don't see that as terrorism, more like an attempt at aggravated burglary and threats with menace and force.

Personal view - way to go on defining terrorism.

We need a diagnostic approach:

1. test for desire to force and/or persuade others to change their belief system
2. test for attitude to murder
3. test for attitude to indiscrimate murder
4. test for ability to tolerate views other than own
5. test for liking of violence or supporting/incenting others to violence.
6. test for levels of anger and testosterone
7. acquisition of last known address (cave, rental, abandoned car)

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I agree with the defense of the island in principle, but the moment any foreigner in the island is rounded up and detained simply because he is a foreigner or he looks like a foreigner or he espouses the beliefs of foreigners, etc, it becomes in my mind state terrorism.

OTOH, didn't the IRA warn of many of their bombs to prevent civilian deaths? More so, stated attitudes toward murder rarely translate themselves to the field. In principle the US does not want to kill civilians in Iraq but the IBC has reported ~80K deaths since the war started.

A better definition (although quite strict) is any use of force that results in the detention, displacement or death of civilians.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

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?
The Weathermen also warned about bombings, from what I read online.

[Aggie]

If the aim is to create terror* among the target populations, I'd say terrorism in general works very well.

As far as achieving other goals, I'm intuitively leaning towards splitting this up into coercive and repulsive goals...   IMHO, extremist actions in general are not good ways to gain support for your cause, so coercive terrorism (we stop doing X if you do Y) doesn't seem to be as successful, especially because there is the fear that giving into such demands will encourage further terrorism.

OTOH, repulsive terrorism (we stop doing X if you leave/stop doing Y) can put the onus for the cessation of violence on the 'victim' population, and may be more successful.  I think that it's worth noting the difference between 'offensive' and 'defensive' terrorist actions, but that may be purely a matter of perspective in many cases.


*fear, panic, distrust, paranoia and ultimately disruption of 'normal' society are probably better terms than "terror".

[Pachyderm]

Some of the IRA did call in coded warnings, but not always. And sometimes there was no device, just the code word or phrase. Gets them in the news. Yes, it did help save lives, but crying wolf just gets ignored after a while. Then when a bomb does go off, more people get killed or injured as no-one takes it seriously any more. Double edged sword.

No, I don't think terrorist acts help the cause of whomever is perpetrating them, as decent folks just think they are a bunch of pyscho nutters, and are less likely to support them.

[Griffin NoName]

It's hard to not go !!

Strictly, if terrorism works, it creates terror.

ie. once the population is terrorised, it has worked. 

(Seems a bit daft really)

One interesting aspect of terrorism is the way it does and doesn't terrorise people.

For example, I have several friends in the provinces who will not come to London because they are scared of terrorism. This is for real. They really won't. One could say they are truly terrorised. Only that doesn't really make much sense.

The fact that Londoners go about their daily lives every day with the risk that those friends of mine believe in and won't consider for even just a visit is sort of weird.

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?

When I travellled regularly on the underground, and was constantly disrupted by terror alerts, I wasn't scared. It wasn't that it seemed unlikely. It seemed only too likely. But a sort of fatalism takes over. And anyway one is trapped in the system so there's little one can do about it and you don't know if you are walking towards the risk or away from it when they tell you to move. I believe most Londoners feel like this. The ones that weren't in the actual bomb blasts.

If you are in the middle of Baghdad, then feelings of terror must be much higher (!!). And yet, people also get on with the daily things they have to do. Or at least some of them do.

So, how do we get to a definition of a population being terrorised?

Sorry if this is slightly off topic.

[Swatopluk]

Maybe one has to make a distinction between terrorism and terror/terrorist means. Dictators use terror (or terrorist means) for the purpose of control but it is "predictable". Terrorists in the narrower sense rely on their attacks being unpredictable.
If car bombs would follow a strict time-table available to everyone ("If they haven't got stuck in traffic again, the next explosion is scheduled for 11:54 in Hiram Square"), the terrorist effect would be practically nonexistent. But a dictator could instill fear with the threat that dissidents would be forced to visit those places on the scheduled time (or making them designated drivers  )).

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Strictly, if terrorism works, it creates terror.

ie. once the population is terrorised, it has worked. 

(Seems a bit daft really)

One interesting aspect of terrorism is the way it does and doesn't terrorise people.

At a tactical level, I agree with you: terrorism works when the population is in terror.

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?

Does the premise "I want to accomplish 'X', therefore I will blow up civilians" - where 'X' is "getting the occupiers out of my country", "getting the defenders out of their country", "getting political recognition for my side", or some other overarching goal that terrorists strive for - does it actually ever work that way?

[goat starer]

i dont really accept the idea that

Strictly, if terrorism works, it creates terror.

because i dont believe that the goal of terrorism is the creation of terror. terror is the weapon of choice but not the objective any more than the objective of armed robbery is armed robbery. It isn't - the objective of armed robbery is the aquisition of oodles of cash to spend on spanish villas, ferraris, booze and loose women!

The goal of terrorism tends to be to see some change in the status quo. Removal of the occupying forces (France 1940, Boudicea, Iraq, PLO, etc), change of political system (ANC, red Army Faction etc) or change in belief and behaviour (animal lib, pro life etc). Is it ever successful in this?

Well yes for case one. The Mudjahadin chucked the russians out of Afghanistan, by sheer force of arms. terrorism can escalate to civil war (and sometimes depose the status quo).

sort of for point two. It can provide the impetus for negotiation (ANC and the IRA spring to mind - although i am sure republicans would put themselves in category 1) although you have to stop using terror to make negotiation work.

i doubt if it ever works for point three.