And that backfired, too; it just takes longer when it's the state terrorizing its own citizens.
What, exactly, is a terrorist?
- Thread starter ThankQ
- Start date
That was Caleb Carr's position in his book The Lessons of Terror: terrorism, he argued, always blows back on the terrorists; as they have sown, so shall they reap.
I would like to believe that's true. It certainly has been true in many cases. But I'm not convinced that it's true in every case.
A terrorist is anyone who doesn't want America to come into their country and change their government and way of life... duh!
Human nature being what it is, I believe terrorism is always unworkable; I can't think of any instance where terrorism has been successful.
I can think of a few. The Irish War of Independence, for example. The Algerian War of Independence, for another.
But I guess it all depends on how you define "success."
On a long enough timeline, nothing is successful, because nothing lasts forever.
But on the other hand, the Terror arguably saved revolutionary France from its internal and external enemies in 1792-94, though the Terrorists themselves were ultimately overthrown.
Dzerzhinsky's Red Terror made a crucial contribution to the Bolshevik victory in the Russian Civil War. And terrorism kept Stalin in power until his death.
Sure, the Soviet Union ultimately collapsed. But so will every country.
The Soviet Union's collapse was due to economic warfare at its best. They were financially suffocated to death, which in itself might be considered a form of Western terrorism, given the number of civilian casualties that resulted during the period following the power shift.
But anyway, there was no "overthrow." And state-sponsored terrorism ended in the Soviet Union a long long time before the end -- at least it did in the RSSR (what is, today, the Russian Federation).
Terrorists specifically commit acts of violence against members of some identifiable group (national, racial, religious, etc) with the goal of causing other members of that group to change their behavior (usually, political behavior) in ways the terrorists want, under the threat that if they do not do so, they will be next. This means that the usual target for terrorists are civilians.
Terrorists are not the same as guerrilla fighters or insurgents. Some insurgents might use terrroristic tactics, but stuff like using IEDs to blow up soliders is a military tactic. Nobody is trying to change anyone's political beliefs or behavior - they are trying to kill enemy soldiers in a military campaign - so that doesn't count as terrorism.
There is some grey area overlap here. If the insurgents are trying to prevent others from volunteering for the military, then to attack soldiers for that purpose does qualify as terrorism.
The bombing of German civilians in WWII might qualify as terrorism, since the intent was to reduce their effectiveness as workers in the German war machine. That's not striking at their political behavior, but I guess if you're making bombs for the Nazi war effort, or even baking bread, that's inherently a political act.
Like torture, terrorism does work. History is a big, messy place and if you just look, you can find examples of a lot of stuff working, under certain circumstances, to a certain extent.
Terrorism and torture helped the Soviet regime gain and hold power, even if it didn't last forever. No tactic works forever, but those tactics worked for a while, which made them worthwhile for their practitioners, who had opted for a system of government that ruled out "nicer" behavior as a means to power.
Terrorists are not the same as guerrilla fighters or insurgents. Some insurgents might use terrroristic tactics, but stuff like using IEDs to blow up soliders is a military tactic. Nobody is trying to change anyone's political beliefs or behavior - they are trying to kill enemy soldiers in a military campaign - so that doesn't count as terrorism.
There is some grey area overlap here. If the insurgents are trying to prevent others from volunteering for the military, then to attack soldiers for that purpose does qualify as terrorism.
Were those deliberate acts to get the survivors to change their political behavior under threat that they will be next if they don't comply? If so, it's terrorism. If not, it's military action. Maybe it's sloppy or unnecessary military action but that's a question of competence. Terrorism is about intent.
The bombing of German civilians in WWII might qualify as terrorism, since the intent was to reduce their effectiveness as workers in the German war machine. That's not striking at their political behavior, but I guess if you're making bombs for the Nazi war effort, or even baking bread, that's inherently a political act.
That's a good point to remind people of. Terrorism isn't a tactic that people resort to because they are weak. It's a tactic that people use if they think it will work (and are not ideologically bound to using traditional forms of persuasion from a liberal democratic perspective.)
Like torture, terrorism does work. History is a big, messy place and if you just look, you can find examples of a lot of stuff working, under certain circumstances, to a certain extent.
Terrorism and torture helped the Soviet regime gain and hold power, even if it didn't last forever. No tactic works forever, but those tactics worked for a while, which made them worthwhile for their practitioners, who had opted for a system of government that ruled out "nicer" behavior as a means to power.
Last edited:
A terrorist is a person or group of people that work to instill terror in the minds of a population and are not affiliated with any government. Striking the World Trade Center on 9/11 terrorized the citizens of the United States, particularly those in New York.
I don't think you can classify anything done in war (actual declared wars, WWII was the last war to officially be declared by the US Congress I believe) as an act of terrorism. Dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was meant to instill fear but war had been declared by both sides and they were fighting for several years already. If you want to say that is terrorism, then what about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Was that an act of terrorism or was it a declaration of war?
A freedom fighter is a person or group of people fighting for their freedom. Their acts are consistent, typically aimed at a final goal of overthrowing a repressive government. Unlike terrorists, who attack periodically to keep the people terrorized, freedom fighters will attack on a regular basis.
I don't think you can classify anything done in war (actual declared wars, WWII was the last war to officially be declared by the US Congress I believe) as an act of terrorism. Dropping nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was meant to instill fear but war had been declared by both sides and they were fighting for several years already. If you want to say that is terrorism, then what about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Was that an act of terrorism or was it a declaration of war?
A freedom fighter is a person or group of people fighting for their freedom. Their acts are consistent, typically aimed at a final goal of overthrowing a repressive government. Unlike terrorists, who attack periodically to keep the people terrorized, freedom fighters will attack on a regular basis.
Why not? No, seriously, why not?
The only reason I can think of is that it makes you uncomfortable, but that's hardly an actual reason.
So? How does that matter?
The point of terrorism is to force the population to stop supporting their leaders. Hiroshima and Nagasakiu were not only terrorism, it was textbook terrorism that worked exactly the way terrorism is supposed to work.
It scared the Japanese population to the point that their leaders knew they wouldn't have their support in continuing the war. That's terrorism.
I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
If the Japanese thought that the one attack would scare us and we'd just give up the Pacific, then yes, it was terrorism. But I don't know if that was their plan. If they expected to fight back then it wasn't terrorism.
I don't know the answer to that one.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
Those who deny the golden light of freedom shall be sunburnt by the rays of justice.
Terrorism is just a continuation of policy by other means.
Or actually, most terrorists just skip other means and go straight to terrorism. You know like on VOLTRON...they'd have the 5 lions fight the robeasts and always fail, and then they'd have to form VOLTRON. The terrorists skip right to VOLTRON and the blazing sword.
Not expecting retaliation -- does that mean its intending to meet its objective with less casualties in the long term?
Well, so will the Universe, probably.
Terrorism is successful the way a hostage situation is successful-- tensely and temporarily.
They "the infamous 'they'" feel that the newest form of art is to scare (terrorize) the viewer or person experiencing said newest art creation. Is this what art has come to: shock jocks and terrorism? I feel it is a sad day when making art has to be scary and terrorize to be the newest thing.
Ok, on the lighter side of things Mars is sending help to solve the Earth's problems in return for our young and helpless populations.
Yeah. The 9/11 terrorists were hoping the U.S. would lesson our involvement in the Middle East...stop giving money to Israel...stuff like that.
Obviously, it didn't work, but if it had worked they would have done it with very few losses on their side. That's where terrorism comes from: When someone sees a chance to achieve their goal with relatively little loss on their own part.
Judging by some of the bumper stickers I see in my state, apparently the U.S. military are terrorists.
You seem surprised. Well, look at this very thread. I saw some comments that said terrorist are people who kill innocent civilians. By that definition, the U.S. military fits the bill!
Now, I don't believe that definition, but my point is that you can't be too surprised to see bumper stickers saying that when a simple Trek BBS thread brings out the same idea fairly quickly.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
Terrorists- the people who don't analyze what a "terrorist" is because they are too busy plotting murder and chaos against those people who are debating what a terrorist is.
WE SLEEP, THEY LIVE!!
WE SLEEP, THEY LIVE!!
Similar threads
