3 ms·

This assumes that these groups believe their actions will lead to a direct outcome. What if these groups are acting in order to force their adversary to change

by cup 10y ago

This assumes that these groups believe their actions will lead to a direct outcome. What if these groups are acting in order to force their adversary to change via dealing with less violent but equally reactionary forces. For instance would the Irish people have their independence from the UK if there was no IRA? If there was no violence why would the UK give them something they;re not willing to take, especially when states typically only respond to violence.

mamadrood 10y ago
The independance war's IRA has nothing to do with the terrorist IRA, the second one accomplished virtually nothing.
notahacker 10y ago
> For instance would the Irish people have their independence from the UK if there was no IRA? Depends which movement called the IRA we're talking about and (more generally) what's meant by "terrorism". There's a degree of a difference between the tactical approach of IRA that won the independence of the Irish Free State in the early twentieth century through classic guerrilla warfare tactics aimed at weakening British security forces and making Ireland ungovernable and and some of the more stereotypical terrorist activities carried out by the Provisional IRA in the late twentieth century involving the high profile bombing of city centres with the (wholly unsuccessful) aim of weakening the British public's resolve to continue to support the Union in Northern Ireland.
- nailer 10y ago
  Didn't the provisional IRA force the government's hand in the Good Friday Agreement? There's a fairly good chance the Catholic portion of Northern Ireland, which generally favors independence, will overtake the Protestant population which generally favors union with Great Britain. The GFA allows a popular vote on the matter. So by securing a vote, NI will likely go back to Ireland in a generation or two. There were also immediate wins, particularly dismantling the RUC which performed attacks against civilians and colluded with unionist terror groups. (disclaimer: I believe attacking civilians is awful and god isn't real)
  - notahacker 10y ago
    The basic principle of self-determination by popular vote was supported by the UK Government and opposed by the paramilitaries and hardline politicians (both the IRA and hardline loyalists) throughout the 1980s. They could have had something similar to the Good Friday Agreement much earlier had they been willing to pursue that type of settlement by political means earlier.
    - nailer 10y ago
      You're right: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/newsid_2516000/2516477.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/new...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
anexprogrammer 10y ago
Which IRA? Because there was the old IRA in the run-up to the formation of Ireland, then there was the anti-treaty IRA from '20s to early '70s that didn't recognise Ireland or Northern Ireland either. Or the Official IRA, mainly marxist, from the '70s? Or the Provisionals who were the IRA of the peace process.
7Z7 10y ago
I came to make a similar comment, but more focussed on the diversity of Northern Ireland's current political landscape, as a direct result of the Troubles.
a1011 10y ago
Another possible goal of terrorists could be to bring about an atmosphere or force a narrative. For example, by attacking a country, it might make it easier to recruit when the inevitable cultural backlash results in increased hate-crimes and racism toward the minority. I imagine that this wasn't one of the goals of the IRA, but it looks to be a major motivator for ISIS, which is trying to recruit from the vast majority of peaceful Muslims in the world with a narrative of West-vs-Islam. If even a very small number of Muslims are radicalised because their mosque was burned down or their mother assaulted, for example, that's still a win for the terrorists. Due to the asymmetric nature of terrorism, which after all is the whole motivation behind using terrorism in the first place, I think it's useful to apply some of the same thinking we do when considering the payout for spam email - if one in 100,000 buys the product / falls for the scam, it's a success.
throwsincenotpc 10y ago
> This assumes that these groups believe their actions will lead to a direct outcome. Daesh believes the ends of times are coming and the final battle against "evil" is near so they are just doing Allah's bidding, they believe nothing has changed since the 8th century and they are fighting "the armies of Rome". Do you really think it is rational thinking ? do you really think their can be some kind of political solution in that case ? Daesh is forcing no change upon the enemy, they want to exterminate them like Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews.

by cup 10y ago

mamadrood 10y ago

The independance war's IRA has nothing to do with the terrorist IRA, the second one accomplished virtually nothing.

notahacker 10y ago

> For instance would the Irish people have their independence from the UK if there was no IRA? Depends which movement called the IRA we're talking about and (more generally) what's meant by "terrorism". There's a degree of a difference between the tactical approach of IRA that won the independence of the Irish Free State in the early twentieth century through classic guerrilla warfare tactics aimed at weakening British security forces and making Ireland ungovernable and and some of the more stereotypical terrorist activities carried out by the Provisional IRA in the late twentieth century involving the high profile bombing of city centres with the (wholly unsuccessful) aim of weakening the British public's resolve to continue to support the Union in Northern Ireland.

nailer 10y ago
Didn't the provisional IRA force the government's hand in the Good Friday Agreement? There's a fairly good chance the Catholic portion of Northern Ireland, which generally favors independence, will overtake the Protestant population which generally favors union with Great Britain. The GFA allows a popular vote on the matter. So by securing a vote, NI will likely go back to Ireland in a generation or two. There were also immediate wins, particularly dismantling the RUC which performed attacks against civilians and colluded with unionist terror groups. (disclaimer: I believe attacking civilians is awful and god isn't real)
- notahacker 10y ago
  The basic principle of self-determination by popular vote was supported by the UK Government and opposed by the paramilitaries and hardline politicians (both the IRA and hardline loyalists) throughout the 1980s. They could have had something similar to the Good Friday Agreement much earlier had they been willing to pursue that type of settlement by political means earlier.
  - nailer 10y ago
    You're right: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/newsid_2516000/2516477.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/new...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

anexprogrammer 10y ago

Which IRA? Because there was the old IRA in the run-up to the formation of Ireland, then there was the anti-treaty IRA from '20s to early '70s that didn't recognise Ireland or Northern Ireland either. Or the Official IRA, mainly marxist, from the '70s? Or the Provisionals who were the IRA of the peace process.

7Z7 10y ago

I came to make a similar comment, but more focussed on the diversity of Northern Ireland's current political landscape, as a direct result of the Troubles.

a1011 10y ago

Another possible goal of terrorists could be to bring about an atmosphere or force a narrative. For example, by attacking a country, it might make it easier to recruit when the inevitable cultural backlash results in increased hate-crimes and racism toward the minority. I imagine that this wasn't one of the goals of the IRA, but it looks to be a major motivator for ISIS, which is trying to recruit from the vast majority of peaceful Muslims in the world with a narrative of West-vs-Islam. If even a very small number of Muslims are radicalised because their mosque was burned down or their mother assaulted, for example, that's still a win for the terrorists. Due to the asymmetric nature of terrorism, which after all is the whole motivation behind using terrorism in the first place, I think it's useful to apply some of the same thinking we do when considering the payout for spam email - if one in 100,000 buys the product / falls for the scam, it's a success.

throwsincenotpc 10y ago

> This assumes that these groups believe their actions will lead to a direct outcome. Daesh believes the ends of times are coming and the final battle against "evil" is near so they are just doing Allah's bidding, they believe nothing has changed since the 8th century and they are fighting "the armies of Rome". Do you really think it is rational thinking ? do you really think their can be some kind of political solution in that case ? Daesh is forcing no change upon the enemy, they want to exterminate them like Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews.