3 ms·

A point from Enlightenment Now that I wish was better understood. Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. This should not surprise us.

by btilly 7y ago

A point from Enlightenment Now that I wish was better understood. Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. This should not surprise us. Terrorism is the last available option for a weak interest group that has no better way to make their will felt. Therefore as scary as it is to face, the fact that they are resorting to it is evidence that they are underdogs and we should not be surprised that they later fail. Given that fact, the extreme efforts that we take to drive the nail even farther into terrorism is overkill.

linuxftw 7y ago
> Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. Totally untrue. When the US used atomic bombs to level cities in Japan, that was terrorism. The goal was to strike fear into the regime and the people for an unconditional surrender. It was not an attack against the military or government, it was an act of terrorism. When the US uses drone strikes to blow up weddings, that's terrorism. They are not actively engaged in a military conflict, even if there is allegedly some 'terrorist' they are trying to kill. The communist revolutions in various places heavily employed terrorism.
- salawat 7y ago
  I actually think there may be a legitimate criticism here if you define demonstrating nuclear weapon/asymmetric warfare capability as employing terror toward political ends and stop there. I'd tread carefully there though. That's a lot of sensitive history you're coloring with a rather unattractive brush. There is a lot that prevents that particular viewpoint from being convincing without dragging down a lot of the framework of Western political discourse, however, to the point you may find astonishingly few people willing to entertain it. In the West, it is generally accepted that application of violence is justifiable. Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously, and in the latter case, it fit enough for majority buy in, but with significant controversy as well. Point being, the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature. I'm curious on your view of the Civil War. Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States (or by the Union retaking them) also qualify as terrorism?
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    > Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously I don't think this is true at all. Maybe if we define the West as America, but even then I think that's a stretch. I can say anecdotally in my circles that the trading of unwitting Japanese civilian lives en masse in exchange for American military lives is looked on with disgust.
    - Floegipoky 7y ago
      I also think it's important to be aware that much of the available intelligence at that time and reasoning behind it was classified, allowing the perpetrators to establish a narrative that went unchallenged for decades. For instance most Americans are completely unaware that the Japanese were actively trying to negotiate a surrender before Hiroshima was bombed. Most Americans are unaware that a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland was not being seriously considered, this ignorance let the government establish the false narrative you allude to. And most Americans aren't aware that American leadership intercepted communications indicating that the Japanese intended to surrender unconditionally if the Soviets entered the war, which happened on the day that Nagasaki was bombed.
      - linuxftw 7y ago
        We had to murder them is still what's being taught in schools today. In the USA, the ends always justify the means. CIA Black Sites? Indefinite detention? Extrajudicial assassination of citizens? Torture? It's okay, these people are terrorists and don't deserve any rights.
        salawat 7y ago
        I'm sympathetic toward your reasoning; and Floegipoky also makes a good point as well. I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the power that classification confers to the executive branch to shape the national discourse; but I don't know as that will realistically change without an unprecedented shift in Congressional and Executive sentiment. As to the narrative still being taught in schools; I certainly don't have a great answer for that one either. We have to teach them something, and you certainly don't have the most room within a child's worldview for being able to address the type of nuance the historically correct narrative creates without difficulty. At least that is the assumption I'm led to by assuming that there is a compelling reason the "System" has converged on the solution it has (locking the knowledge outside of normal curricula, and requiring extra independent digging to get at the truth of it, notionally done on the student's own initiative once they get older). You run into the indoctrination outcome more often than not; but you should have an eventual consistency effect over the timescale of generations. That doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable to me. Pain in the ass? Yes. Fraught with hazard to the stability of the national identity? Assuredly. However, if we respect that we the Citizenry represent the standard bearers of national truth, then we must be the ones to change the history books; just as those who came before us did. Keeping society moving along is a lot of work.
- btilly 7y ago
  It is a question of how you define terrorism. What I meant was asymmetric use of violence where a much weaker force uses their ability to show up unexpectedly and cause damage to cause fear and terror far out of proportion with the true damage that they are capable of inflicting. Those are the defined underdogs. This is as opposed to war where a force capable of large sustained violence actually engages in sustained violence (though often by following certain rules of conduct - see the Geneva conventions) to force an enemy to capitulate. This use of force may indeed cause terror but does not indicate an inherent weakness in the force using the tactic.
softwaredoug 7y ago
I thought for many terrorist groups, exciting such “extreme efforts” was exactly the goal. Al-qaeda hopes the US would abandon its principles and be provoked into making bad decisions, leading to its downfall. They had a multigenerational view of the effort. Seems by the state of things, they are winning?
- btilly 7y ago
  There is a popular narrative along that line, but no. It is quite clear that this wasn't their goal. Their plan was to lead the USA into a war in the Middle East. There they would demonstrate that we could hit hard but had no staying power, and so could be beaten. Once that was demonstrated, they would be able to create a religious caliphate that could sweep away the corrupt secular rulers that were oppressing Muslims and recreate the religious empire that used to exist. We in fact gave them the war that they wanted in Iraq. We did hit hard. We were then sucked into a protracted operation. And as we looked to exit they created the caliphate and named it ISIS. It has since been defeated. Even if things are not going as we hoped in the Middle East, they are more dramatically not going as they hoped either. For an explanation of how we know that this was their goal all along, read https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-War-Worldwide-Struggle/dp/0767917855 https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-War-Worldwide-Struggl....
faceblob2 7y ago
State-sponsored false-flag terrorism works. Kill a few of your own, raise a flag, shed a tear, and observe the hordes sign up to decimate the one you say is responsible.
dowmruxirh 7y ago
What about false-flag terrorism? Creating a highly-public tragedy, announcing the culprit, and ruthlessly pursuing offensive action justified by that initial event?

by btilly 7y ago

linuxftw 7y ago

> Groups that use terrorism to get their way almost always fail. Totally untrue. When the US used atomic bombs to level cities in Japan, that was terrorism. The goal was to strike fear into the regime and the people for an unconditional surrender. It was not an attack against the military or government, it was an act of terrorism. When the US uses drone strikes to blow up weddings, that's terrorism. They are not actively engaged in a military conflict, even if there is allegedly some 'terrorist' they are trying to kill. The communist revolutions in various places heavily employed terrorism.

salawat 7y ago
I actually think there may be a legitimate criticism here if you define demonstrating nuclear weapon/asymmetric warfare capability as employing terror toward political ends and stop there. I'd tread carefully there though. That's a lot of sensitive history you're coloring with a rather unattractive brush. There is a lot that prevents that particular viewpoint from being convincing without dragging down a lot of the framework of Western political discourse, however, to the point you may find astonishingly few people willing to entertain it. In the West, it is generally accepted that application of violence is justifiable. Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously, and in the latter case, it fit enough for majority buy in, but with significant controversy as well. Point being, the label of terrorism in the eyes of Western political discourse necessarily connotes violence of an unjustifiable or unsanctioned by the majority nature. I'm curious on your view of the Civil War. Would the secession and war waged by the Southern States (or by the Union retaking them) also qualify as terrorism?
- streb-lo 7y ago
  > Those examples you called up fit within that justifiable envelope, in the first case, near unanumously I don't think this is true at all. Maybe if we define the West as America, but even then I think that's a stretch. I can say anecdotally in my circles that the trading of unwitting Japanese civilian lives en masse in exchange for American military lives is looked on with disgust.
  - Floegipoky 7y ago
    I also think it's important to be aware that much of the available intelligence at that time and reasoning behind it was classified, allowing the perpetrators to establish a narrative that went unchallenged for decades. For instance most Americans are completely unaware that the Japanese were actively trying to negotiate a surrender before Hiroshima was bombed. Most Americans are unaware that a ground invasion of the Japanese mainland was not being seriously considered, this ignorance let the government establish the false narrative you allude to. And most Americans aren't aware that American leadership intercepted communications indicating that the Japanese intended to surrender unconditionally if the Soviets entered the war, which happened on the day that Nagasaki was bombed.
    - linuxftw 7y ago
      We had to murder them is still what's being taught in schools today. In the USA, the ends always justify the means. CIA Black Sites? Indefinite detention? Extrajudicial assassination of citizens? Torture? It's okay, these people are terrorists and don't deserve any rights.
      - salawat 7y ago
        I'm sympathetic toward your reasoning; and Floegipoky also makes a good point as well. I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the power that classification confers to the executive branch to shape the national discourse; but I don't know as that will realistically change without an unprecedented shift in Congressional and Executive sentiment. As to the narrative still being taught in schools; I certainly don't have a great answer for that one either. We have to teach them something, and you certainly don't have the most room within a child's worldview for being able to address the type of nuance the historically correct narrative creates without difficulty. At least that is the assumption I'm led to by assuming that there is a compelling reason the "System" has converged on the solution it has (locking the knowledge outside of normal curricula, and requiring extra independent digging to get at the truth of it, notionally done on the student's own initiative once they get older). You run into the indoctrination outcome more often than not; but you should have an eventual consistency effect over the timescale of generations. That doesn't seem fundamentally unreasonable to me. Pain in the ass? Yes. Fraught with hazard to the stability of the national identity? Assuredly. However, if we respect that we the Citizenry represent the standard bearers of national truth, then we must be the ones to change the history books; just as those who came before us did. Keeping society moving along is a lot of work.
btilly 7y ago
It is a question of how you define terrorism. What I meant was asymmetric use of violence where a much weaker force uses their ability to show up unexpectedly and cause damage to cause fear and terror far out of proportion with the true damage that they are capable of inflicting. Those are the defined underdogs. This is as opposed to war where a force capable of large sustained violence actually engages in sustained violence (though often by following certain rules of conduct - see the Geneva conventions) to force an enemy to capitulate. This use of force may indeed cause terror but does not indicate an inherent weakness in the force using the tactic.

softwaredoug 7y ago

I thought for many terrorist groups, exciting such “extreme efforts” was exactly the goal. Al-qaeda hopes the US would abandon its principles and be provoked into making bad decisions, leading to its downfall. They had a multigenerational view of the effort. Seems by the state of things, they are winning?

btilly 7y ago
There is a popular narrative along that line, but no. It is quite clear that this wasn't their goal. Their plan was to lead the USA into a war in the Middle East. There they would demonstrate that we could hit hard but had no staying power, and so could be beaten. Once that was demonstrated, they would be able to create a religious caliphate that could sweep away the corrupt secular rulers that were oppressing Muslims and recreate the religious empire that used to exist. We in fact gave them the war that they wanted in Iraq. We did hit hard. We were then sucked into a protracted operation. And as we looked to exit they created the caliphate and named it ISIS. It has since been defeated. Even if things are not going as we hoped in the Middle East, they are more dramatically not going as they hoped either. For an explanation of how we know that this was their goal all along, read https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-War-Worldwide-Struggle/dp/0767917855 https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Secret-War-Worldwide-Struggl....

faceblob2 7y ago

State-sponsored false-flag terrorism works. Kill a few of your own, raise a flag, shed a tear, and observe the hordes sign up to decimate the one you say is responsible.

dowmruxirh 7y ago

What about false-flag terrorism? Creating a highly-public tragedy, announcing the culprit, and ruthlessly pursuing offensive action justified by that initial event?