3 ms·
The goal of terrorism isn't to scare people it is to scare the other side into doing what they want. The terrorists themselves are little more than foot soldier
by yardie 10y ago
The goal of terrorism isn't to scare people it is to scare the other side into doing what they want. The terrorists themselves are little more than foot soldiers in guerrilla warfare. There job is to have maximum impact with minimal force. Example, the LTTE in Sri Lanka, with a much smaller force 30k vs 150k, was able to inflict an equally high loss to the Sri Lankan Army 27k vs 23k casualties. They were the originators of suicide attacks and use it devastatingly. There goal was an independent, Tamil state.
You won't find "scare" as the objective for any terrorist. After 9/11 OBL made a statement on their attacks and what he hoped would happen. He also included his long, rambling list of objectives AQ was after.
- logicallee 10y agoBut if this is calculated surely it doesn't work at all? Why would any country say, "Oh hey so those 12 civilians your foot soldiers just killed with that truck attack in Berlin really got us thinking. So anyhoo what do you want we'll gift you whatever. We know you don't celebrate it but consider it our Christmas gift. Merry Christmas. :)" I mean who reacts that way? It seems the stupidest possible way to accomplish anyone's goals of any kind. It just seems like a much worse form of pointless trolling, except with real casualties. It just gets a rise out of people. So I essentially don't get the cause and effect that you seem to describe. It just seems like a bunch of trolls, not actual people meeting actual political goals. It seems stupid and unconstructive. We know there are stupid and unconstructive Internet places (thankfully Hacker News isn't one of them) - so isn't it just the same thing on a much larger level? Just toxic stuff?
- 0xCMP 10y agoIs it logical to give in? No, especially not if you're a capable government. Is it illogical that someone would react that way though? Not at all. Here is the logic: "Someone killed people in my country. I like people in my country. I happen to be a leader for my country. I'm responsible for their protection. I should prevent more people dying. Why are they dying? People are killing them. How do I make them stop? Give them what they want? What is it they want (now listening to them)?" etc. This is why there is a "we will not negotiate with terrorists" rule. If not for that rule I think it'd work pretty well.
- yardie 10y agoIt worked against the French in the Algerian war. It worked against the British in the creation of modern Israel. The US is out of Iraq because of sustained terrorists attacks after "Missions Accomplished" The point of those attacks in western countries is to force their hand and make them withdraw their occupying forces. To rethink their foreign policy and make sure they don't see it as worth it anymore. The biggest hawks were for the Iraq War before they were against. Then the troop body count was getting higher from sniper and IED attacks. A few years later a new president and electorate doesn't see the cost as worth staying and the withdrawal occurs. Terrorists mission accomplished!
- chillacy 10y agoI'll add that under the current definition of terrorism, the Sons of Liberty would be classified as a terrorist organization as well, given some of their violent acts / economic terrorism. The colonial forces largely employed guerrilla tactics as well, out of necessity when facing a larger, better financed and trained British army. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#American_Revolutionary_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#American_Re...