5 ms·

well, this is indeed a tricky subject. 1., we don't know if it is terrorism (well, is a loner like breivik a terrorist or "just" running amok?) 2., it might n

well, this is indeed a tricky subject. 1., we don't know if it is terrorism (well, is a loner like breivik a terrorist or "just" running amok?) 2., it might not be over yet. mumbai took 60hours. 3., lots of people nowadays have someone there, a friend, an aquaintance. maybe just an online friend or simple source of joy but yeah, terror spreads through news.

Udo 14y ago
Used to be that a terrorist was defined as someone who likes to further their agenda by means of spreading terror. Explosions, destruction, loss of life - that's all completely incidental to the actual terror. A person running amok, in contrast, may be a terrorist (and people like Breivik certainly fit the bill in some aspects) but their main goal is committing mass murder, usually culminating in suicide. A convincing argument could be made that in some respects suicide bombers are also running amok, but we tend to reserve the term terrorist for a more organized type of crime that is supported by an entire network. > but yeah, terror spreads through news. Absolutely.
- pekk 14y ago
  Breivik was someone pursuing a political agenda by means of spreading terror.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    He wasn't trying to spread terror. He was trying to literally kill the next generation of people who fundamentally disagreed with him politically.
- podperson 14y ago
  I don't think anything much has changed. It's interesting to look at Joseph Conrad's "The Secret Agent" -- published in 1907 -- which is based on a true story (of an anarchist attack on the Greenwich Observatory in 1894). All the elements of modern "terrorism" are there back then: a half-wit dupe bomber, nutjobs with a crazy ideology (anarchism in this case), and national actors manipulating them from behind the scenes.
  - paganel 14y ago
    > All the elements of modern "terrorism" are there back then: a half-wit dupe bomber, nutjobs with a crazy ideology (anarchism in this case), and national actors manipulating them from behind the scenes. And before that there were of course the Russians, where I think everything started (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Russia#19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Russia#19th_centu...): > Nechaev argued that the purpose of revolutionary terror is not to gain a support of masses, but to the contrary, inflict misery and fear on the common population. According to Nechayev, a revolutionary must terrorize civilians to incite rebellions. Fact is, I also believe that the Tsarist secret police Okhrana was much better at actually fighting the "terrorists" using classic methods like "infiltrating and influencing revolutionary groups, rather than merely identifying and arresting their members", compared to what the US secret agencies are doing right now. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana) It's crazy that I was just reading a couple of days ago about how the CIA had almost turned into a military unit because of its control over the drone war, instead of doing actual information agency work.
    - harshreality 14y ago
      Another view of terrorism, in some ways similar to Nechayev's (in that the goal is revolution), is that it is an amplification attack. By committing acts of terror, a group forces the government to respond with stricter laws and more aggressive enforcement. Eventually, citizens who were not affected or inconvenienced very much under the original regime become significantly affected, and so they begin to oppose the government and support revolutionary causes, even if they are normally in favor of law and order and opposed to violence. I believe this is the functional element of all terrorism, whether it is explicitly acknowledged or not. However, if that's true, not all terrorists recognize it; their goals might not be aligned with the ultimate consequences of popular revolution.
    - podperson 14y ago
      The Russians are in fact behind everything in Conrad's novel.
    - pyre 14y ago
- ameen 14y ago
  Only Breivik never planned on suicide. I simply identify terrorists as those who spread terror, either with or without a government mandate.

Udo 14y ago

Used to be that a terrorist was defined as someone who likes to further their agenda by means of spreading terror. Explosions, destruction, loss of life - that's all completely incidental to the actual terror. A person running amok, in contrast, may be a terrorist (and people like Breivik certainly fit the bill in some aspects) but their main goal is committing mass murder, usually culminating in suicide. A convincing argument could be made that in some respects suicide bombers are also running amok, but we tend to reserve the term terrorist for a more organized type of crime that is supported by an entire network. > but yeah, terror spreads through news. Absolutely.

pekk 14y ago
Breivik was someone pursuing a political agenda by means of spreading terror.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  He wasn't trying to spread terror. He was trying to literally kill the next generation of people who fundamentally disagreed with him politically.
podperson 14y ago
I don't think anything much has changed. It's interesting to look at Joseph Conrad's "The Secret Agent" -- published in 1907 -- which is based on a true story (of an anarchist attack on the Greenwich Observatory in 1894). All the elements of modern "terrorism" are there back then: a half-wit dupe bomber, nutjobs with a crazy ideology (anarchism in this case), and national actors manipulating them from behind the scenes.
- paganel 14y ago
  > All the elements of modern "terrorism" are there back then: a half-wit dupe bomber, nutjobs with a crazy ideology (anarchism in this case), and national actors manipulating them from behind the scenes. And before that there were of course the Russians, where I think everything started (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Russia#19th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Russia#19th_centu...): > Nechaev argued that the purpose of revolutionary terror is not to gain a support of masses, but to the contrary, inflict misery and fear on the common population. According to Nechayev, a revolutionary must terrorize civilians to incite rebellions. Fact is, I also believe that the Tsarist secret police Okhrana was much better at actually fighting the "terrorists" using classic methods like "infiltrating and influencing revolutionary groups, rather than merely identifying and arresting their members", compared to what the US secret agencies are doing right now. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okhrana) It's crazy that I was just reading a couple of days ago about how the CIA had almost turned into a military unit because of its control over the drone war, instead of doing actual information agency work.
  - harshreality 14y ago
    Another view of terrorism, in some ways similar to Nechayev's (in that the goal is revolution), is that it is an amplification attack. By committing acts of terror, a group forces the government to respond with stricter laws and more aggressive enforcement. Eventually, citizens who were not affected or inconvenienced very much under the original regime become significantly affected, and so they begin to oppose the government and support revolutionary causes, even if they are normally in favor of law and order and opposed to violence. I believe this is the functional element of all terrorism, whether it is explicitly acknowledged or not. However, if that's true, not all terrorists recognize it; their goals might not be aligned with the ultimate consequences of popular revolution.
  - podperson 14y ago
    The Russians are in fact behind everything in Conrad's novel.
  - pyre 14y ago
ameen 14y ago
Only Breivik never planned on suicide. I simply identify terrorists as those who spread terror, either with or without a government mandate.