10 ms·

Terrorism is usually a rational act. It is terrible, but it has political goals. This, for instance, may be aimed at ending the European involvement in Syria an

by rquantz 11y ago

Terrorism is usually a rational act. It is terrible, but it has political goals. This, for instance, may be aimed at ending the European involvement in Syria and their taking in refugees.

Fluid_Mechanics 11y ago
Well, this one reeks of "revenge killing". The airstrikes must be taking their toll.
charlesdm 11y ago
> aimed at ending the European involvement in Syria I would be quite surprised if the EU decided against further intervention by this. If anything, I would expect them to intervene more.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  They should do neither and simply carry on with the plans they had to date. Any reaction beyond police action to find out what the chain of command is and then targeting those individuals specifically is playing into their hands.
  - pistle 11y ago
    This presumes that playing into their hands would actually bring forth enough support to rebuff the reaction. If forces overwhelmingly squash the terrorist organization, then it doesn't matter if it plays into said organization's hands. This isn't a game won by winning a debate. When one side can be essentially removed from the field, that is an option, even if the side being removed wanted that line of strategy to unfold. Controlling the plays doesn't mean you win the game. Unbeknownst to me, I have a proclivity for alcoholism. I am libertarian during a prohibition and work to remove limitations on what, when, where, and how I imbibe. I am successful in deregulating alcohol... then I become alcoholic and die from liver failure... I WIN!
    - ordinary 11y ago
      > This presumes that playing into their hands would actually bring forth enough support to rebuff the reaction. If forces overwhelmingly squash the terrorist organization, then it doesn't matter if it plays into said organization's hands. That is true as far as it goes, but the fundamental problem is not IS, nor Al-Qaeda, nor any single terrorist group out there, nor even all terrorist groups taken together. It's the extremist ideology that appeals to young, angry men across the Muslim world. Taking out Al-Qaeda in 2001 didn't have any effect in the long term. Going to war with Iraq in 2003 actively made the problem worse. Killing bin Laden in 2011 didn't really do anything one way or the other. If the West goes in now, and (figuratively) nukes Syria, then why would we think that will solve the problem, when it never has before? If you want to win this like you win a war, by killing your way to victory, then you have to kill not just everyone who's currently carrying a gun, but everyone who may pick up a gun as a reaction to that killing, and everyone who may pick one up as a reaction to killing them, and so forth. That kind of total war is immoral, in my view. Our approach to defusing this threat should not be focused on killing individuals, but on removing the motivations they have for fighting us in the first place, without judging whether, in our view, they are valid or not. The fact that they have them, right or wrong, is all that matters. I don't know what will achieve that, but after responding to over 30 years of Islamic violence with force and force alone, and failing to really have much impact, we should recognize that a change in strategy is required.
- tormeh 11y ago
  The EU does not have a common defense policy. A conventional union always has a common defense policy, but may have internally divergent economic policies, so the "U" in EU is misleading in that regard. Currently France and Britain are the only EU countries engaged in the conflict, with Turkey being a loose EU affiliate also in the conflict.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    NL is involved as well but on a smaller scale.
bedhead 11y ago
It is only "rational" within an irrational construct, such as extreme religious devotion.
- lazaroclapp 11y ago
  No. It can be rational in the context of anti-colonialism and sovereignist ideology and historical revanchism, as well as many other not at all irrational ideologies. It might or might not be effective, depending on the specific political goals in question. It is not, in general, about religion per se, except in so much as religion is part of group identity (in a similar vein as say, nationalism). But that is not the point. Targeting civilians for political purposes is not an act of insanity, but it is an unacceptable means, no matter the ends. (Not saying that the ends are good in this case, nor the opposite. It just really doesn't matter.)
  - jules 11y ago
    You really think that the sincere belief that you will spend an eternity in heaven and secure a place in heaven for 70 family members of your choosing and earn the love of God has nothing to do with it? It's hard for people who are not religious fundamentalists to understand that some people really believe this with as much certainty as you and I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. This belief is precisely why so many of these attacks are suicide attacks. Ask yourself why so many suicide bombers? Why blow yourself up when you can make a bomb and then another and another? Mohamed Merah answers this question: "We love death more than the infidel loves life". To these people death is not death. This life is just a test, a test that you can ace by blowing yourself up, death is not the end but the beginning of the real and infinitely long life. No doubt there are other factors involved, but to deny this key enabling factor which makes suicide terrorism an eminently rational thing to do is laughable and makes you blind to an important and maybe even the most important strategy against religious terrorism: education that sheds doubt on the literal interpretation of holy books. When you have even 1% of doubt that this is what God wants you to do, you may not be so inclined to blow yourself up. I'm fully aware that this is a very unpopular observation to make, but ask yourself not whether it would be nice if this were false, but whether it is actually true or false. Wishful thinking does not get us anywhere.
ArekDymalski 11y ago
It might be not about political goals: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective
- plonh 11y ago
  Gwern's analysis looks hopelessly naive in the face of modern ISIS-related acts; and ignores the difference between USA, where poison Tylenol causes a huge response, and China where people expect bad fake drugs with a certain frequency. And he ignores that over-complicated (in gwern's view) cost over a trillion dollars in US response, from NSA to TSA to Afghan and Iraq war.
- gozo 11y ago
  I've tried to take that analysis seriously when people have linked it before, but to me it just doesn't seem very relevant to the real world. I'm curious what you mean when you say that it's not about political goals and how that is supported? Terrorists are by definition extremists. They want to upset the status quo to force people to take sides and create a situation where they feel they, who are righteous, have a better chance of being successful or at least relevant. Whether that is a race war, holy war or revolution. The killing itself isn't particularly relevant until your fighting over land and then normally in form of ethnic cleansing. The analysis you linked misses a the point of e.g. the terrorist plot in Norway. It's wasn't just about killing people, he deliberately tried to effect politics by killing a generation of people he disagreed with. He also believed that it was part of and going to lead to a larger conflict.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  That link gets way too much airtime. As much as I usually like Gwerns analysis this one seems in spite of the mountain of citations to miss the point entirely.
dlss 11y ago
> Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no.” http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armag...
tomphoolery 11y ago
A lot of the time, terrorism is carried out by irrational people, but orchestrated by slightly more rational people. The people willing to risk their lives are not the same people that are convincing others to risk their lives. After all, if people like Sayyid Qutb actually risked his life, he wouldn't be able to convince other idiots to die.
- gotchange 11y ago
  Egyptian here, actually Qutb risked his life and lost it for his "cause" and there's a lot of controversy surrounding this issue and it's a recurrent hot topic in political discussions here that his unlawful detention by the military authorities and the subsequent execution might have resulted in his radicalization and him espousing more extremist views of jihadism and political violence to effect social change in the nation because he was very aware of the fact at the time that he would be executed at any point so he had maybe a "fuck it" moment and decided to screw the world he would depart involuntarily by leaving his vile and despicable writing behind as a vendetta
  - astronautjones 11y ago
    thanks for the insight - is there good further reading on this topic? I'm really only familiar with it from Adam Curtis' docs
n0us 11y ago
The data on terrorist attacks does not support this conclusion. Terrorism is rarely effective in its political goals and studies have concluded that it is not a rational or cost effective strategy.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  That depends on what the goal is. My personal belief is that terrorist acts like these are a recruiting tool and a way to split society further enhancing opportunities to recruit and as such they can be effective if the counterparty reacts as they are supposed to do.
  - Abraln 11y ago
    Agreed, reputation is critical for a terrorist organization, just like how gang members brag about how "hardcore" they are because the shot someone.
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  Citation needed. The US and Israel are 2 rather successful examples of countries born out of terrorism.
  - plonh 11y ago
    Terrorism (attackif civilians to upset people) or asymmetric warfare against a ruling power apparatus?
  - mc32 11y ago
    An insurrection might include some terrorism but they also include a swell and majority of guerrilla foot soldiers whose purpose is to bring their agenda to a close. They don't just go about rampaging and killing without strategy.
  - YZF 11y ago
    If you're referring to attacks against Britain I don't recall any cases of Americans or Israelis randomly killing civilians in the UK. I don't see any parallel whatsoever to the events of today. No one can predict the outcome of today's events so by definition they are irrational. I would bet that no good would come out of this to anyone.
clock_tower 11y ago
It used to be rational, rather. The classic terrorists of the '70s wanted "a lot of people talking but not a lot of people dead" -- and also wanted to survive the experience. The new breed of terrorism in the '80s and '90s was different from those; the IRA, the PLO, and various state-sponsored terrorists in that period had/have more in common with each other, despite their obvious differences, than any have with al-Qaida and ISIS, which aim for suicide missions with high body counts. This particular operation is either ISIS-conducted or ISIS-oriented vigilanteism; whichever it is, backing down in Syria will only embolden them. (Or rather, embolden those like them; I don't imagine that very many of the specific attackers here are going to have particularly many opportunities to do this again in the future.) ISIS is specifically out for either world empire or apocalyptic defeat (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ); tactical concessions will work about as well as they did with the Nazis and the Communists -- or even less well than that, since neither Naziism nor Communism believed that success was a sign that Divine Providence was smiling on them.
- asasasasasas 11y ago
  > ISIS is specifically out for either world empire or apocalyptic defeat Which is why (in my understanding) ISIS does not do attacks on foreign soil. Their idea is to re-establish a caliphate (ei Islamic empire, which existed from around the time of Mohamed for centuries). ISIS would probably be okay with those that cannot join the jihad in Syria conducting a terrorist attack on their home turf, but would not actively plan one. All I'm saying is I would not be surprised if this isn't specifically ISIS.
  - clock_tower 11y ago
    They've inspired a lot of lone-wolf and copycat attacks, though, and I think they endorse the idea that if you can't get to Syria, you can at least kill people at home. I doubt that ISIS' actual government had anything to do with this, but the attackers were clearly thinking of ISIS -- "For Syria!" and all that.
  - mercurial 11y ago
cm2187 11y ago
I think it is actually the opposite. They are trying to provoke a christian involvement in Syria so that they can claim it is a cruisade and recruit more fighters in the muslim world. It is usually how terrorism work. IRA or ETA were doing exactly the same.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I think you are correct. And any kind of extra reaction is bonus and will help to further split the French society indirectly enabling further recruitment as well.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  If they're trying to provoke Christian involvement in Syria, they've succeeded; Pope Francis has called on the community of nations to restore order in Syria and suppress ISIS, and has stopped just this side of explicitly calling a crusade...
- rquantz 11y ago
  I actually think you're probably right as well – my original post was done before I'd had much time to reflect. Terrorism is usually done to provoke some kind of hardening response, and today in practice that seems to mean trying to further embroil western countries in military conflict in the Middle East.
VMG 11y ago
It has had a 0% success rate of achieving political goals http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
- toast0 11y ago
  How much of that is because when terrorists achieve their political goals, we call them revolutionaries, resistance, freedom fighters, and sometimes insurgents. Only unsuccessful terrorists keep that label.
  - mc32 11y ago
    Sometimes, sometimes. Insurrections typically have an obvious oppression they are trying to overcome. Some insurrections have a terrorist arm, but purely terrorist organizations don't have a direct aim other than cause instability. They don't have an end game. So, I think purely terrorist groups tend to not win as terrorists, sometimes they transform in the process to garner more support and subsequently win but not as pure terrorist organizations but will have become more mainstream.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- plonh 11y ago
  Gwern had a very limited view of "political goals".
VMG 11y ago
It has had a 0% success rate of achieving political goals http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
orthoganol 11y ago
Having a logic is not the same as being rational. All madness has its own logic. I want a raise so I terrorize my boss until he gives me one is a logic, but it is not a rational approach.
- calebm 11y ago
  Typically the irrationality is in the axioms, not the reasoning abilities.

by rquantz 11y ago

Terrorism is usually a rational act. It is terrible, but it has political goals. This, for instance, may be aimed at ending the European involvement in Syria and their taking in refugees.

Fluid_Mechanics 11y ago

Well, this one reeks of "revenge killing". The airstrikes must be taking their toll.

charlesdm 11y ago

> aimed at ending the European involvement in Syria I would be quite surprised if the EU decided against further intervention by this. If anything, I would expect them to intervene more.

jacquesm 11y ago
They should do neither and simply carry on with the plans they had to date. Any reaction beyond police action to find out what the chain of command is and then targeting those individuals specifically is playing into their hands.
- pistle 11y ago
  This presumes that playing into their hands would actually bring forth enough support to rebuff the reaction. If forces overwhelmingly squash the terrorist organization, then it doesn't matter if it plays into said organization's hands. This isn't a game won by winning a debate. When one side can be essentially removed from the field, that is an option, even if the side being removed wanted that line of strategy to unfold. Controlling the plays doesn't mean you win the game. Unbeknownst to me, I have a proclivity for alcoholism. I am libertarian during a prohibition and work to remove limitations on what, when, where, and how I imbibe. I am successful in deregulating alcohol... then I become alcoholic and die from liver failure... I WIN!
  - ordinary 11y ago
    > This presumes that playing into their hands would actually bring forth enough support to rebuff the reaction. If forces overwhelmingly squash the terrorist organization, then it doesn't matter if it plays into said organization's hands. That is true as far as it goes, but the fundamental problem is not IS, nor Al-Qaeda, nor any single terrorist group out there, nor even all terrorist groups taken together. It's the extremist ideology that appeals to young, angry men across the Muslim world. Taking out Al-Qaeda in 2001 didn't have any effect in the long term. Going to war with Iraq in 2003 actively made the problem worse. Killing bin Laden in 2011 didn't really do anything one way or the other. If the West goes in now, and (figuratively) nukes Syria, then why would we think that will solve the problem, when it never has before? If you want to win this like you win a war, by killing your way to victory, then you have to kill not just everyone who's currently carrying a gun, but everyone who may pick up a gun as a reaction to that killing, and everyone who may pick one up as a reaction to killing them, and so forth. That kind of total war is immoral, in my view. Our approach to defusing this threat should not be focused on killing individuals, but on removing the motivations they have for fighting us in the first place, without judging whether, in our view, they are valid or not. The fact that they have them, right or wrong, is all that matters. I don't know what will achieve that, but after responding to over 30 years of Islamic violence with force and force alone, and failing to really have much impact, we should recognize that a change in strategy is required.
tormeh 11y ago
The EU does not have a common defense policy. A conventional union always has a common defense policy, but may have internally divergent economic policies, so the "U" in EU is misleading in that regard. Currently France and Britain are the only EU countries engaged in the conflict, with Turkey being a loose EU affiliate also in the conflict.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  NL is involved as well but on a smaller scale.

bedhead 11y ago

It is only "rational" within an irrational construct, such as extreme religious devotion.

lazaroclapp 11y ago
No. It can be rational in the context of anti-colonialism and sovereignist ideology and historical revanchism, as well as many other not at all irrational ideologies. It might or might not be effective, depending on the specific political goals in question. It is not, in general, about religion per se, except in so much as religion is part of group identity (in a similar vein as say, nationalism). But that is not the point. Targeting civilians for political purposes is not an act of insanity, but it is an unacceptable means, no matter the ends. (Not saying that the ends are good in this case, nor the opposite. It just really doesn't matter.)
- jules 11y ago
  You really think that the sincere belief that you will spend an eternity in heaven and secure a place in heaven for 70 family members of your choosing and earn the love of God has nothing to do with it? It's hard for people who are not religious fundamentalists to understand that some people really believe this with as much certainty as you and I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow. This belief is precisely why so many of these attacks are suicide attacks. Ask yourself why so many suicide bombers? Why blow yourself up when you can make a bomb and then another and another? Mohamed Merah answers this question: "We love death more than the infidel loves life". To these people death is not death. This life is just a test, a test that you can ace by blowing yourself up, death is not the end but the beginning of the real and infinitely long life. No doubt there are other factors involved, but to deny this key enabling factor which makes suicide terrorism an eminently rational thing to do is laughable and makes you blind to an important and maybe even the most important strategy against religious terrorism: education that sheds doubt on the literal interpretation of holy books. When you have even 1% of doubt that this is what God wants you to do, you may not be so inclined to blow yourself up. I'm fully aware that this is a very unpopular observation to make, but ask yourself not whether it would be nice if this were false, but whether it is actually true or false. Wishful thinking does not get us anywhere.

ArekDymalski 11y ago

It might be not about political goals: http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective

plonh 11y ago
Gwern's analysis looks hopelessly naive in the face of modern ISIS-related acts; and ignores the difference between USA, where poison Tylenol causes a huge response, and China where people expect bad fake drugs with a certain frequency. And he ignores that over-complicated (in gwern's view) cost over a trillion dollars in US response, from NSA to TSA to Afghan and Iraq war.
gozo 11y ago
I've tried to take that analysis seriously when people have linked it before, but to me it just doesn't seem very relevant to the real world. I'm curious what you mean when you say that it's not about political goals and how that is supported? Terrorists are by definition extremists. They want to upset the status quo to force people to take sides and create a situation where they feel they, who are righteous, have a better chance of being successful or at least relevant. Whether that is a race war, holy war or revolution. The killing itself isn't particularly relevant until your fighting over land and then normally in form of ethnic cleansing. The analysis you linked misses a the point of e.g. the terrorist plot in Norway. It's wasn't just about killing people, he deliberately tried to effect politics by killing a generation of people he disagreed with. He also believed that it was part of and going to lead to a larger conflict.
jacquesm 11y ago
That link gets way too much airtime. As much as I usually like Gwerns analysis this one seems in spite of the mountain of citations to miss the point entirely.

dlss 11y ago

> Which will come first, flying cars and vacations to Mars, or a simple acknowledgment that beliefs guide behavior and that certain religious ideas—jihad, martyrdom, blasphemy, apostasy—reliably lead to oppression and murder? It may be true that no faith teaches people to massacre innocents exactly—but innocence, as the President surely knows, is in the eye of the beholder. Are apostates “innocent”? Blasphemers? Polytheists? Islam has the answer, and the answer is “no.” http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armageddon http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/sleepwalking-toward-armag...

tomphoolery 11y ago

A lot of the time, terrorism is carried out by irrational people, but orchestrated by slightly more rational people. The people willing to risk their lives are not the same people that are convincing others to risk their lives. After all, if people like Sayyid Qutb actually risked his life, he wouldn't be able to convince other idiots to die.

gotchange 11y ago
Egyptian here, actually Qutb risked his life and lost it for his "cause" and there's a lot of controversy surrounding this issue and it's a recurrent hot topic in political discussions here that his unlawful detention by the military authorities and the subsequent execution might have resulted in his radicalization and him espousing more extremist views of jihadism and political violence to effect social change in the nation because he was very aware of the fact at the time that he would be executed at any point so he had maybe a "fuck it" moment and decided to screw the world he would depart involuntarily by leaving his vile and despicable writing behind as a vendetta
- astronautjones 11y ago
  thanks for the insight - is there good further reading on this topic? I'm really only familiar with it from Adam Curtis' docs

n0us 11y ago

The data on terrorist attacks does not support this conclusion. Terrorism is rarely effective in its political goals and studies have concluded that it is not a rational or cost effective strategy.

jacquesm 11y ago
That depends on what the goal is. My personal belief is that terrorist acts like these are a recruiting tool and a way to split society further enhancing opportunities to recruit and as such they can be effective if the counterparty reacts as they are supposed to do.
- Abraln 11y ago
  Agreed, reputation is critical for a terrorist organization, just like how gang members brag about how "hardcore" they are because the shot someone.
ojbyrne 11y ago
Citation needed. The US and Israel are 2 rather successful examples of countries born out of terrorism.
- plonh 11y ago
  Terrorism (attackif civilians to upset people) or asymmetric warfare against a ruling power apparatus?
- mc32 11y ago
  An insurrection might include some terrorism but they also include a swell and majority of guerrilla foot soldiers whose purpose is to bring their agenda to a close. They don't just go about rampaging and killing without strategy.
- YZF 11y ago
  If you're referring to attacks against Britain I don't recall any cases of Americans or Israelis randomly killing civilians in the UK. I don't see any parallel whatsoever to the events of today. No one can predict the outcome of today's events so by definition they are irrational. I would bet that no good would come out of this to anyone.

clock_tower 11y ago

It used to be rational, rather. The classic terrorists of the '70s wanted "a lot of people talking but not a lot of people dead" -- and also wanted to survive the experience. The new breed of terrorism in the '80s and '90s was different from those; the IRA, the PLO, and various state-sponsored terrorists in that period had/have more in common with each other, despite their obvious differences, than any have with al-Qaida and ISIS, which aim for suicide missions with high body counts. This particular operation is either ISIS-conducted or ISIS-oriented vigilanteism; whichever it is, backing down in Syria will only embolden them. (Or rather, embolden those like them; I don't imagine that very many of the specific attackers here are going to have particularly many opportunities to do this again in the future.) ISIS is specifically out for either world empire or apocalyptic defeat (see http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ); tactical concessions will work about as well as they did with the Nazis and the Communists -- or even less well than that, since neither Naziism nor Communism believed that success was a sign that Divine Providence was smiling on them.

asasasasasas 11y ago
> ISIS is specifically out for either world empire or apocalyptic defeat Which is why (in my understanding) ISIS does not do attacks on foreign soil. Their idea is to re-establish a caliphate (ei Islamic empire, which existed from around the time of Mohamed for centuries). ISIS would probably be okay with those that cannot join the jihad in Syria conducting a terrorist attack on their home turf, but would not actively plan one. All I'm saying is I would not be surprised if this isn't specifically ISIS.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  They've inspired a lot of lone-wolf and copycat attacks, though, and I think they endorse the idea that if you can't get to Syria, you can at least kill people at home. I doubt that ISIS' actual government had anything to do with this, but the attackers were clearly thinking of ISIS -- "For Syria!" and all that.
- mercurial 11y ago

cm2187 11y ago

I think it is actually the opposite. They are trying to provoke a christian involvement in Syria so that they can claim it is a cruisade and recruit more fighters in the muslim world. It is usually how terrorism work. IRA or ETA were doing exactly the same.

jacquesm 11y ago
I think you are correct. And any kind of extra reaction is bonus and will help to further split the French society indirectly enabling further recruitment as well.
clock_tower 11y ago
If they're trying to provoke Christian involvement in Syria, they've succeeded; Pope Francis has called on the community of nations to restore order in Syria and suppress ISIS, and has stopped just this side of explicitly calling a crusade...
rquantz 11y ago
I actually think you're probably right as well – my original post was done before I'd had much time to reflect. Terrorism is usually done to provoke some kind of hardening response, and today in practice that seems to mean trying to further embroil western countries in military conflict in the Middle East.

VMG 11y ago

It has had a 0% success rate of achieving political goals http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror

toast0 11y ago
How much of that is because when terrorists achieve their political goals, we call them revolutionaries, resistance, freedom fighters, and sometimes insurgents. Only unsuccessful terrorists keep that label.
- mc32 11y ago
  Sometimes, sometimes. Insurrections typically have an obvious oppression they are trying to overcome. Some insurrections have a terrorist arm, but purely terrorist organizations don't have a direct aim other than cause instability. They don't have an end game. So, I think purely terrorist groups tend to not win as terrorists, sometimes they transform in the process to garner more support and subsequently win but not as pure terrorist organizations but will have become more mainstream.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
plonh 11y ago
Gwern had a very limited view of "political goals".

VMG 11y ago

It has had a 0% success rate of achieving political goals http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror

orthoganol 11y ago

Having a logic is not the same as being rational. All madness has its own logic. I want a raise so I terrorize my boss until he gives me one is a logic, but it is not a rational approach.

calebm 11y ago
Typically the irrationality is in the axioms, not the reasoning abilities.