3 ms·

Remember what Timothy McVeigh though. His POV was that you could kill him, do whatever to him, and he's still up 168 to 1. Timothy McVeigh was a failure, in ev

Remember what Timothy McVeigh though. His POV was that you could kill him, do whatever to him, and he's still up 168 to 1. Timothy McVeigh was a failure, in every sense of the word. He accomplished none of his political goals. He had hoped to start a revolution. Which didn't happen. Because even people who were sympathetic with his goals were repulsed at the barbarity of murdering small children. McVeigh was far more effective at annihilating public support for his preferred policies than the government could ever be. You have to outlast your enemy, and make it clear that they have not won, and can not win. What do you mean when you say "win"? How does a terrorist "win" exactly? It seems like you're describing the politics of spite and I don't see how this analysis allows you to make any useful predictions. They don't have to be effective and kill a lot of people to wage a campaign of terror. I'm not sure why we should care about terrorists that only manage to kill a few people every year. Those terrorists are about as dangerous as bathtub drownings or golf course lightning strikes: they kill a tiny number of random people. So what? What if you threw a terror campaign and nobody cared? What does "effective" mean anyway? Do you really think that Al Queda will achieve its policy goals if it continues small scale terrorist attacks for the next few years? Really?

knowtheory 16y ago
Al Qaeda's policy goals are the bankruptcy and disruption of western civilization. The Taliban on the other hand is waging a fairly standard insurgency to try and get what they view as their occupiers to leave. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are actually, by and large, succeeding at their goals. NATO can't ensure peace in Afghanistan, and regardless of what is built, the political establishment in Afghanistan must contend with the Taliban. Al Qaeda at this point is an exemplar to aspire to for the incompetent schlubs trying to set their underwear on fire. It doesn't matter if the likelihood that you're going to be blown up by a terrorist is extremely unlikely. It's that someone out there means you harm, and will strike when you do not expect it. There was an earlier post to hacker news which had an interesting discussion of the Assassins' tactics which fall into this general modus, although their motivations were totally distinct: http://www.historynet.com/holy-terror-the-rise-of-the-order-of-assassins.htm/1 http://www.historynet.com/holy-terror-the-rise-of-the-order-...
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  It doesn't matter if the likelihood that you're going to be blown up by a terrorist is extremely unlikely. It's that someone out there means you harm, and will strike when you do not expect it. But that's a lie. No terrorist is ever going to kill me. Or you. Statistically speaking, that statement is as true as saying "you are not going to drown in a bathtub". Look, I can die by accident in any of a billion ways. An accidental death is much much more likely than being killed by terrorists. So again, why should I care about people who are far far less dangerous to me than traffic accidents? Al Qaeda's policy goals are the bankruptcy and disruption of western civilization....Al Qaeda and the Taliban are actually, by and large, succeeding at their goals. I see a contradiction here. Also, I don't think you're correct in describing Al Queda's goals at all; do you have a source? Also, I'm still unclear on what point you were trying to make about McVeigh....

knowtheory 16y ago

Al Qaeda's policy goals are the bankruptcy and disruption of western civilization. The Taliban on the other hand is waging a fairly standard insurgency to try and get what they view as their occupiers to leave. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are actually, by and large, succeeding at their goals. NATO can't ensure peace in Afghanistan, and regardless of what is built, the political establishment in Afghanistan must contend with the Taliban. Al Qaeda at this point is an exemplar to aspire to for the incompetent schlubs trying to set their underwear on fire. It doesn't matter if the likelihood that you're going to be blown up by a terrorist is extremely unlikely. It's that someone out there means you harm, and will strike when you do not expect it. There was an earlier post to hacker news which had an interesting discussion of the Assassins' tactics which fall into this general modus, although their motivations were totally distinct: http://www.historynet.com/holy-terror-the-rise-of-the-order-of-assassins.htm/1 http://www.historynet.com/holy-terror-the-rise-of-the-order-...

MichaelSalib 16y ago
It doesn't matter if the likelihood that you're going to be blown up by a terrorist is extremely unlikely. It's that someone out there means you harm, and will strike when you do not expect it. But that's a lie. No terrorist is ever going to kill me. Or you. Statistically speaking, that statement is as true as saying "you are not going to drown in a bathtub". Look, I can die by accident in any of a billion ways. An accidental death is much much more likely than being killed by terrorists. So again, why should I care about people who are far far less dangerous to me than traffic accidents? Al Qaeda's policy goals are the bankruptcy and disruption of western civilization....Al Qaeda and the Taliban are actually, by and large, succeeding at their goals. I see a contradiction here. Also, I don't think you're correct in describing Al Queda's goals at all; do you have a source? Also, I'm still unclear on what point you were trying to make about McVeigh....