NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading something this morning and this jumped out at me...It was a quote of a column at Wired.com, reviewing a paper (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.42)by Max Abrahms on Terrorism...

Because terrorism often results in the horrific deaths of innocents, we mistakenly infer that the horrific deaths of innocents is the primary motivation of the terrorist, and not the means to a different end. . . .

[Abrahms] analyzes the political motivations of 28 terrorist groups: the complete list of "foreign terrorist organizations" designated by the U.S. Department of State since 2001. He lists 42 policy objectives of those groups, and found that they only achieved them 7 percent of the time. . . . Terrorism is a pretty ineffective means of influencing policy. . . .

It goes on to say that by creating catastrophes like the WTC collapse, etc, the focus on the terrorists objectives is shifted onto their tactics.

The guy at Wired.com gets it wrong because he asserts that we should "understand" the terrorists motivation and their demands -- presumably meeting those demands at times. Wouldn't that improve the success rate of terrorism and necessarily lead to more appeasement?

What do y'all think? Can terrorist bring change about by causing death and mayhem, or does that only entrench civilized society deeper against them?

Sometimes. The Communists and their radical allies unleashed a reign of terror in Russia in the 1880s that never really ended. Look at where they ended up.

I think it would have more to do with how terrorists see their own work. If they see it as successful, they will continue, even if they are wrong about it being successful. What I am trying to say is that the perception of success is more important than real success in this context.

Can Terrorism Successfully Bring Change?
you should have asked the Soviets if Terrorism was a factor.. when they were leaving Afghanistan.

or you can ask the Marines when they leave Iraq.

Every revolution in history was an act of terrorism. Yes, terrorism can bring change.

Every revolution in history was an act of terrorism. Yes, terrorism can bring change.

The Glorious Revolution had no terrorism in it.

Sure it can. The atom bombs terrified the crap out of Hirohito, and look at Japan now.

Every revolution in history was an act of terrorism.I really doubt that. As for the OP: Yes, terrorism can successfully bring change. It doesn't happen very often, apparently.

Every revolution in history was an act of terrorism. Yes, terrorism can bring change.

Hmm, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that acts of terrorism occurred as part of every revolution in history?

you should have asked the Soviets if Terrorism was a factor.. when they were leaving Afghanistan.

or you can ask the Marines when they leave Iraq.

I'd call those guerilla war, rather than terrorism, and that certainly CAN succeed. Can terroristic strikes against civilians bring change? Maybe, but it could just as easily blow up in the terrorists faces.

I'd call those guerilla war, rather than terrorism, and that certainly CAN succeed. Can terroristic strikes against civilians bring change? Maybe, but it could just as easily blow up in the terrorists faces.

Indeedy. Like carpet bombing, it can be a two-edged sword.

getting back to terrorism...

it has proven itself to be an extremely effective tactic to get the grievances of ignored groups heard.

who would give a fuck what happened to the palestinians if they hadnt started blowing people up?

pretty much no one.

who would give a fuck about northern ireland?

pretty much no one.

when a group cannot get its problems addressed by whatever power controlls them they can get the general populace and/or the world to notice by killing random people.

there will never be a time when no one asks "why did they do that?"

IF (big if) the grievances of the group are considered to be legitimate, the world will put pressure on the controlling power to settle it by negotiation. if the grievances are considered to be illegitimate, the world will put pressure on the controlling power to fight back.

getting back to terrorism...

it has proven itself to be an extremely effective tactic to get the grievances of ignored groups heard.

who would give a fuck what happened to the palestinians if they hadnt started blowing people up?

pretty much no one.

who would give a fuck about northern ireland?

pretty much no one.

when a group cannot get its problems addressed by whatever power controlls them they can get the general populace and/or the world to notice by killing random people.

there will never be a time when no one asks "why did they do that?"

IF (big if) the grievances of the group are considered to be legitimate, the world will put pressure on the controlling power to settle it by negotiation. if the grievances are considered to be illegitimate, the world will put pressure on the controlling power to fight back.

OR, the world will put pressure on the controlling power to fight back if it is more economically/strategically beneficial to the more powerful nations of the world to maintain the status quo.

can and has


"He lists 42 policy objectives of those groups, and found that they only achieved them 7 percent of the time. . . . Terrorism is a pretty ineffective means of influencing policy. . . ."

of course, in my personal experience, voting has had a 0% success rate of achieving my policy objectives. hmm, perhaps we need to look not at the tactic, but at the strength of the group and the reasonable possibility of the goals themselves...

though an overarching look at the effectiveness of various tactics across the board for everybody might be interesting.

Yes.

Doesn't mean that it brings good change. But it does.

OR, the world will put pressure on the controlling power to fight back if it is more economically/strategically beneficial to the more powerful nations of the world to maintain the status quo.

so true

but look at the case of the palestinians.

even though the US government would be happy if they all woke up dead tomorrow, there are quite a few citizens of the US who advocate the rights of palestinians and exert some amount of pressure for us to at least put forth potentially fair solutions to the israel/palestinian problem.

not to mention the rest of the world where israel is less popular where they put pressure on their governments to put pressure on israel and the US.

if the palestinians hadnt forced themselves into the news by killing random civilians, only those with an actual connection to the palestinians would care.

Sure it can. The atom bombs terrified the crap out of Hirohito, and look at Japan now.

I think you mean Tojo. Hirohito already wanted to surrender.

Anyway, sure terrorism can be successful. Just because it doesn't achieve its stated goals doesn't mean it doesn't do something positive for those committing it.

Every revolution in history was an act of terrorism.
Seeing as how terrorism is a tactic and revolution is not generally a tactic, I fail to understand how.

Every revolution in history was an act of terrorism. The industrial revolution was specifically terrifying. And, no, your claim doesn't hold water even if you tried to define the word 'revolution' to suit your purpose.

The industrial revolution was specifically terrifying. And, no, your claim doesn't hold water even if you tried to define the word 'revolution' to suit your purpose.

It certainly scared the crap out of John Ludd.

The guy at Wired.com gets it wrong because he asserts that we should "understand" the terrorists motivation and their demands -- presumably meeting those demands at times. Wouldn't that improve the success rate of terrorism and necessarily lead to more appeasement?

It never fails to put a smile on my face when people like you harp on about how "understanding" is so foolish. Knowledge is power, didn't they teach you that at caveman school?

What do y'all think? Can terrorist bring change about by causing death and mayhem, or does that only entrench civilized society deeper against them?

Why would death and mayhem by terrorism be unable to affect change, when death and mayhem by "civilized" war obviously can? Do you think your moral posturing translates to a difference in effectiveness in the real world?

revolution is not generally a tactic

:confused:

Terrorism can bring about change, just look at Spain's withdrawal from Iraq. At the same time, these instances are often rare.

What do y'all think? Can terrorist bring change about by causing death and mayhem, or does that only entrench civilized society deeper against them?
depends on your definition of terrorism. In the broadest possible sense, India did pretty well out their 'terrorist' activities.

The problem lies not with the terrorist activities, but with the terrorists themselves. Unless they (and the govt they fighting against) have specific aims and a willingness (and understanding) to compromise, their terrorist activities becomes the sole purpose for their being.
The main reason the IRA was successful was because they were willing to negotiate and compromise. Most groups aren't.

Also, you have many terrorist groups who, when it comes right down to it, have no real reason/need for the current situation to change. They're just petty thugs and crims and as long as there's no peace settlement reached, can continue to make money and continue to have an improportionate amount of power over the locals.

Other groups might get so far into their set ways that in order to justify the brutality of their actions, nothing less than total overthrow of the opposing govt will do. Of course this goes both ways, with the govt/military being just as set in it's ways and just as brutal, with neither side willing to say 'enough' because that makes it look like they've 'lost'. Each brutal action from one side is further justification for an even more brutal retaliatory action.

Didn't successful terrorism play a part in the creation of the state of Israel?

Well, as much as I hate them, I have to say that the IRA's terrorist campaign has brought change to Northern Ireland.

So, yes, depending on the goals of the terrorist organisation, it can bring change.

who would give a fuck about northern ireland?

pretty much no one.

I, and 1.7m other people, would :p

I was reading something this morning and this jumped out at me...It was a quote of a column at Wired.com, reviewing a paper (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.42)by Max Abrahms on Terrorism...

It goes on to say that by creating catastrophes like the WTC collapse, etc, the focus on the terrorists objectives is shifted onto their tactics.

The guy at Wired.com gets it wrong because he asserts that we should "understand" the terrorists motivation and their demands -- presumably meeting those demands at times. Wouldn't that improve the success rate of terrorism and necessarily lead to more appeasement?

What do y'all think? Can terrorist bring change about by causing death and mayhem, or does that only entrench civilized society deeper against them?

i think it can in the aspect that it can draw attention to their cause or grievance.
i think guerilla warfare is a more appropriate tactic when it is directed towards the opposing government or it's military.
directed at civilians,while more stunning and therefore more attention,can and often does backfire.
it can,in the case of 911 and with isreal,galvanize not only the government but also the citizens against whatever worthy cause they have(terrorists)
which as we see played out everyday,and then the inevitable endless cycle of senseless violence that further entrenches and polarizes peoples attitudes.
for instance,does anyone actualy think the west will ever concede to the demands of alquida?it is not going to resolve thru compromise,it is impossible.they want the west out of the middle east,the destruction of isreal,and a fundamental version of islam to rule.
the west will never acquiesce to that,and they will stop no shorter then that goal.
ireland and even the palistinian issues had goals that could be realistically compromised on,and while they commited acts against the civilian population,they also attacked or tried to,gov and mil targets,this gives them a semblance of fighting for a reason and against a specific entity or oppressor.
and when a truce was called for,their was dialogue and compromises were made.
i think that differs these causes from terrorism and more in line with guerilla warfare for a cause.
al quida has set impossible to achieve goals,and it's only hope for success is to create so much terror by attacking innocents to have their adversary,capitulate to their demands,which will not happen,so it becomes violence for the sake of violence,and endless cycle of it as well.
this differs them from freedom fighters,freedom fighters have a realistic goal and can compromise to achieve their ends,alquida types have an unattainable goal and no willingness to compromise,which makes them basically narrow minded,fanatics,and eventually so desensitised to violence they know no other way but to kill for a "cause"that is unattainable.
this does create opportunities for their leadership though,as it is beneficial to them to have an unending struggle.for many reasons,financial not the least.

Sometimes. The Communists and their radical allies unleashed a reign of terror in Russia in the 1880s that never really ended. Look at where they ended up.

Look at the history of US terrorism, especially in Latin America by the CIA.

We seem to have a lack of distinction between state-sponsored warfare and semi-sponsored terrorism. Clearly, state sponsored warfare is going to achieve it's goals, or not, but the goals aren't going to be clouded by the violence.

Just as clearly non-sponsored, or semi-sponsored terrorism isn't likely to achieve any goals because their tactics preclude discussion of any motivation and goals.

I, and 1.7m other people, would :p

and some americans of irish descent, i suppose. mostly on the catholic side.

Pretty much all of the answers so far have showed how terrorism HAS reached its objective, but there's one group which (in my opinion) slowed down the pace of change.

Suffragettes in the UK around the turn of the century, they wern't exactly hardcore terrorists. But they vandalised public buildings, 'assualted' police men chained themselves to railings etc. This enforced and allowed Parliament to dismiss votes for women as they were deemed irresponsible and emotional. Which their protests only helped to enforce.

Then during WW1, they stopped their campaigning, and women formed an increasingly large part of the workforce. Immediatly after WW1 they were given the vote, due to their contribution to the war effort.

Their 'terrorist' actions almost certainly delayed their objectives from being achieved.

Pretty much all of the answers so far have showed how terrorism HAS reached its objective, but there's one group which (in my opinion) slowed down the pace of change.

Suffragettes in the UK around the turn of the century, they wern't exactly hardcore terrorists. But they vandalised public buildings, 'assualted' police men chained themselves to railings etc. This enforced and allowed Parliament to dismiss votes for women as they were deemed irresponsible and emotional. Which their protests only helped to enforce.

Then during WW1, they stopped their campaigning, and women formed an increasingly large part of the workforce. Immediatly after WW1 they were given the vote, due to their contribution to the war effort.

Their 'terrorist' actions almost certainly delayed their objectives from being achieved.

yes but

if they hadnt been such violent pains in the ass would the issue of women's suffrage even have gotten on the radar?

"Can terrorism successfully bring about change?"

Well, that all depends on what you mean by "terrorism," "successfully," and "change."

1) TERRORISM: A lot of people seem to have a problem understanding what this is or isn't. For the record, "terrorism" is typically defined as any tactic the sole or primary purpose of which is to create public fear in order to destabilize a society/community, especially actions directed against civilian targets. This definition applies, whether or not there is a social or political agenda behind the terroristic attacks, because it refers to the acts, not the motives. There can be overlap and thus confusion about actions against government or military targets, but in such cases, the motives of the attackers do tend to matter more in deciding whether it is "terrorism."

"Terrorism" is generally considered an unacceptable tactic under national and international laws, regardless of whether the motives of the attackers is legitimate or not. So, therefore, the political cause of separatists like ETA may be perfectly legitimate, but their tactic of planting bombs in public, civilian places is not.

For the record, "terrorism" =/= revolution, insurrection, war, or civil disobedience/protest. Terroristic acts may be committed within the context or under the rubric of those actitivties, but they themselves are not terrorism. So, no matter what was/is said by the people who did not like uppity women, suffragists chaining themselves to the gates of government buildings was not terrorism.

2) SUCCESSFULLY: Success is a highly subjective factor. It all depends on what the goal is, and I believe there is always an open question about what the true goals of terrorists are.

For instance, al-qaida: If their goal is to remove the American/Western infidel from Arabia, they are doing a piss poor job of it, no? In fact, the more attacks they and their supporters launch, the more infidels they have to deal with. However, if their goal is to make themselves the center of the world's attention, then they are enjoying some success. The first goal could be reached, and then all motive for terrorism from them would be gone. The second goal, however, has no end-date and, thus, there is no motivation for them to stop fomenting conflict, no matter what you give them.

People with legitimate beefs or goals (such as political independence fighters) need to consider carefully whether attacking civilian populations will promote or harm their cause. People who just want to jerk the world around to their whims will always opt for terrorism as their first choice.

3) CHANGE: In a dynamic universe, change is the only constant, so yes, obviously, terrorism can cause change. So can rain. But what kind of change? That is less obvious. Will the infidel be driven from Arabia, or will al-qaida be crushed? Either one would be a change. Anything that happens because of the actions of terrorists that would not have happened anyway, is a change brought about terrorism, whether the change is that they get their way, or they get killed or imprisoned, or they blow themselves up in their own bomb-labs (like the Weather Underground), or their targets become accustomed to dealing with them and rearrange social/legal systems to minimize their damage.

Terrorism can bring about change, just look at Spain's withdrawal from Iraq. At the same time, these instances are often rare.

Ehhh, It was the electorate who overwhlemingly voted in a party that promised to as a central plank of their manefesto to immediatly withdraw that brought about that change....

the answer to this is , duh, yes.

'terrorism' just gets renamed if it wins/becomes accepted in the mainstream, like the ANC, the French Resistance etc.

Ehhh, It was the electorate who overwhlemingly voted in a party that promised to as a central plank of their manefesto to immediatly withdraw that brought about that change....

And as I recall, that electorate wanted that change of policy long before the Madrid bombings occurred. In fact, there was public outcry against Spain's commitment of troops to Iraq from the moment the idea was floated.

The constant suggestion that the Spaniards were sent running scared by those bombs is not only false, but insulting to the Spanish people.

Hmm, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that acts of terrorism occurred as part of every revolution in history?

Nope. If one were to claim revolution in America today, and attempt to overthrow the government, he would be labeled a terrorist.

I'd call those guerilla war, rather than terrorism, and that certainly CAN succeed. Can terroristic strikes against civilians bring change? Maybe, but it could just as easily blow up in the terrorists faces.

Guerilla warfare is the same thing as terrorism, really, to the government that's being attacked. Look at Iraq.

The industrial revolution was specifically terrifying. And, no, your claim doesn't hold water even if you tried to define the word 'revolution' to suit your purpose.

Industrial revolution is a metaphor. There was no actual revolution.

History is written by the victors, and the victors of a revolution will not label themselves as terrorists, but if they lose, the opposition just might.

Industrial revolution is a metaphor. There was no actual revolution.
Really?

Since somebody else actually got it, I don't intend to start using smileys.

"Terrorism is a pretty ineffective means of influencing policy"What is lacking in the article is the effectiveness of the most common alternative means, to compare it with. (And of course the preconditions to have access to those means)
As someone mentioned, I get 0% effectiveness from voting.

The guy at Wired.com gets it wrong because he asserts that we should "understand" the terrorists motivation and their demands -- presumably meeting those demands at times.I would think preempting those demands. You shouldn't give in to terrorism, but you should prevent people from wanting to become terrorists; and for that you need to know what drives them there.

Nope. If one were to claim revolution in America today, and attempt to overthrow the government, he would be labeled a terrorist.You're no more a terrorist solely for scaring the government than you are for scaring your kid sister.
If you attempt to overthrow the government without violence or threat thereof you don't fit the definition of a terrorist; no matter what labeling they may want to do.

You're no more a terrorist solely for scaring the government than you are for scaring your kid sister.
If you attempt to overthrow the government without violence or threat thereof you don't fit the definition of a terrorist; no matter what labeling they may want to do.

Right but again, if I were to plan a revolution for overtaking the government of the USA, as nonviolent as it wants to be, and was thrown into Guantanamo Bay no questions asked, I would be labeled a terrorist, regardless of whether or not I actually was one.


That's my point, it's all perspective and spin.

The guy who assassinated Franz Ferdinand certainly achieved his objective.

I was reading something this morning and this jumped out at me...It was a quote of a column at Wired.com, reviewing a paper (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.2006.31.2.42)by Max Abrahms on Terrorism...

It goes on to say that by creating catastrophes like the WTC collapse, etc, the focus on the terrorists objectives is shifted onto their tactics.

The guy at Wired.com gets it wrong because he asserts that we should "understand" the terrorists motivation and their demands -- presumably meeting those demands at times. Wouldn't that improve the success rate of terrorism and necessarily lead to more appeasement?

What do y'all think? Can terrorist bring change about by causing death and mayhem, or does that only entrench civilized society deeper against them?

Off the top of my head, and without desire to delve into any deeper analysis of the topic at the moment, I must argue that terrorism worked for Israel--in establishing its state from British-mandated Palestine in the twentieth century.

An exception to the rule? I think the important thing to consider is that modern terrorism, in the form of Al-Qaeda and other prominent groups that continue to harangue Western democracies lack a cohesive, definite and, above all, attainable goal.

"Can terrorism successfully bring about change?"

Well, that all depends on what you mean by "terrorism," "successfully," and "change."Did you -yes or no- have sex with an ugly chick @ the oval office? :D

According to this, the Madrid bombings had an influence in the 2004 elections.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_general_election%2C_2004

I guess that means the terrorists won there.

Of course terrorism brings change. They wouldn't do it if it didn't. Rather, terrorism is by far the most efficient way to effect change. That is, it may not work every time, but if anything is going to work, terrorism will (and if terrorism doesn't, nothing will).

It is really a fantastic way to enslave the masses. For this reason, it is an ideal weapon against countries full of people, particularly when those people have some kind of handle of the reigns of government.