• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does terrorism work?

Does terrorism work?

  • Total voters
    18
Amadeus

Amadeus

Chews the Cud
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
6,081
Reaction score
3,216
Location
Benghazi
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Bonus question: Is it ever acceptable?

 
It works, better than it should. It wouldn't so much if everyone was quick to condemn it unconditionally, rather than justify it or create false moral equivalencies to seem "fair". Terrorists don't need people to like them. Using Hamas as an example, they've already won when they get people to willingly advance their agenda by saying that Israel or the US or whoever is just exactly the same or worse (which I've actually seen). They don't care if you call them a cowardly bunch of murderers just so long as you make the same claim about the country they attacked. Actually calling then "freedom fighters" or something is just a bonus.

It's also interesting that very often, it's the angered reaction to the results of terrorism that will be more roundly condemned than the terrorism itself. It's also interesting that often the country suffering terrorism will be blamed for creating it, yet there's often no similar understanding or even attempt to be understanding of the backlash that terrorist acts creates.
 
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.
 
chromium said:
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.
Click to expand...

100% agree with this. The OP needs to clarify what "work" means.

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
It works because humans are really intrinsically bad at comprehending likelihood. Combine that with a tendency towards tribalism, and terrorism is a very effective technique.
 
Of course it works, though maybe not as originally intended. One need only look at what has happened to the US since 9-11. Curtailing freedoms and spending several trillion dollars squandering all the goodwill we had in the days following 9-11.
 
Yes, it achieves what the terrorist(s) intends it to.
 
Phys251 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes? I'm criticizing both sides here - liberals who continue to make comments like "we brought this on ourselves" and warhawks like you describe. It seems to me that very few americans in 2002-2003 opposed the invasion on strictly a cost vs benefits consideration and offered a sensible alternative.
 
Of course it works, if it didn't, they wouldn't use it. That doesn't make it acceptable though.
 
Amadeus said:
Bonus question: Is it ever acceptable?

Click to expand...


It sure does.

As for acceptable, it depends on who's doing the terrorizing... and of course we all know that.
 
Where there's any doubt as to its success, you're not looking beyond the victims. If you question the morality, you're probably not one of the perpetrators. It may be that, for some, there's all the leeway in the world where terrorism is state-sanctioned. Of course, in the latter case these aren't non-state actors and we call it policy.
 
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.
 
Amadeus said:
Bonus question: Is it ever acceptable?

Click to expand...


The obvious answer to this is: sometimes. On the whole relatively few terrorist campaigns have actually effected their objectives in any meaningful way but some certainly have. As a mechanism for raising attention for a cause or issue it is clearly effective. As a tactic utilized by belligerents to further their goals (the Islamic State, North Vietnam, Iraq's sponsorship of terrorists in Iran during the war and vice versa, etc) it's certainly been effective at times.
 
Cephus said:
Of course it works, if it didn't, they wouldn't use it. That doesn't make it acceptable though.
Click to expand...

It only works if the target capitulates, which I always thought was very rare. They use it because they have no alternative, it's an act of desperation when you can't hope to achieve your goal directly. But lately I've come to realize that some of these countries are actually paying kidnappers, and people here actually let 9/11 change their behavior and world view. So my answer now is that it doesn't work on smart people, but it seems to work on some of you.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
There is a smarter way than terrorism and it's happening right now and has been for some time and the reason it is smarter than terrorism, is because so many people don't recognise it. What is smarter than terrorism?......migration, illegal or otherwise. Migrate, bide your time, then demand cultural and religious rights, breed, appear to have assimilated and bingo. No one needs to blow things up, that is just counterproductive. Invasion through Immigration is working in Europe, Britain, Australia, and, I imagine, the United States. When one doesn't migrate but remains in their own country, terrorism is also counterproductive...be smart, learn how to play the population, get the right people where you want them, appear to be all sweetness and light and cooperative, working together to have peace and harmony and then, pounce. Then wait for it to begin all over again.

Yeah, I already know what the majority of responses will be, and that folks is why it works!
 
Terrorism 'works' because people respond to the terror acts and not the terrorists. Terrorist groups tend to play on the the nature of their victims. The most effective response for their purpose is to get their victims to fight against each other and blame each other for their actions.

Does it work? Hell yes.
 
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom said:

By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.

Yeah, it works.
 
Sabanist said:
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
Click to expand...

I agree, but that's because you and I share a frame of reference. This doesn't apply to everyone. And I'm sorry to say, even back in the 40's, partisan's fighting Germany had no problem killing people who gave comfort or cooperated with the Germans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom