3 ms·
>Note that this is very different than terrorism by an occupied population: the IRA in Northern Ireland, Iraqis in Iraq, Palestinians in Israel. Setting aside t
by metamemetics 16y ago
>Note that this is very different than terrorism by an occupied population: the IRA in Northern Ireland, Iraqis in Iraq, Palestinians in Israel. Setting aside the actual politics, all of these terrorists believe they are repelling foreign invaders. That's not the situation here in the U.S.
Not so sure about that point, Osama's stated reason was US military bases in Saudi Arabia (viewing it as a foreign invasion) and support for Israel (viewing it as a foreign invasion).
- roc 16y agoI think that those situations are different from Al Qaeda striking the west, though I agree that Schneier's imprecise on the distinction. The big difference is that those acts are local rebellion. The actions by locals, against an "other" (or its agents/totems) within the locality, have little to fear from other civilians who might happen upon them plotting, training, preparing or delivering terror against the "other". And for the attack to be successful, it merely has to be "news" within the locality. You don't need to inspire/impress a command/support structure half-a-world-away. You just need to keep the support of others in the locality. An "other" operating within a foreign country, however, risks exposure at every turn. Particularly within a country "alert" to the risk and when the "other" is trivially identifiable as such. And his attacks must be more about style, as he needs to inspire/impress people with no local context for a precise or less spectacular attack.