Work in what sense? If the perpetrators are killed in the process, i would argue they failed
If they get to survive for a decade like bin laden, cutting videos every friday, and they induce their 'enemy' to commit $1 trillion and thousands of lives in a war of futility, and to create huge bureaucracies that spy on their own citizens, i would say that terrorism works yeah.
It is not so much winning direct sympathy to their 'cause' that matters. On a liberal campus, i've heard enough apologism for 9/11 that it makes me want to throw up but of course, none of these spoiled brats would ever join al qaeda. What matters to the terrorists is to get their enemy to commit an absurd amount of resources hunting down goat ****ers on the other side of the world, to the point it becomes weakened and disrespected.
Yes, the obligatory liberals <3 terrorism comment. :roll: Oh and by the way, it was the conservatives who wanted us to get into the war and keep fighting no matter the cost. And it was the liberals who wanted us out, and who were called anti-American, treasonous, pro-terrorist, etc. for doing so. You do remember this, right, or have you allowed the Right-Wing media to rewrite history for you?
Bonus question: Is it ever acceptable?
Bonus question: Is it ever acceptable?
Of course it works, if it didn't, they wouldn't use it. That doesn't make it acceptable though.
Yes terrorism works but as it gets wider and larger, it suffers diminishing returns.
Is it ever acceptable? One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Partisans fighting German occupation in France and Poland would, in Germany's view at the time and using today's terminology, been characterized as terrorists. Probably an unfair way to frame that comparison using past and present... but also probably true. To answer the question I'd have to be wishy-washy and say: Possibly.
Sorry dude, but if you kill a bunch of non combatants you are NOT a freedom fighter and you should be hanged by your balls