4 ms·

Terrorists do absolutely NOT "just want to terrorize". They have goals. If they achieve their goals through the acts of terror, directly or indirectly, they win

by brazzy 12y ago

Terrorists do absolutely NOT "just want to terrorize". They have goals. If they achieve their goals through the acts of terror, directly or indirectly, they win.

mc32 12y ago
Has there been a movement which has won in substance through terrorism? Movements don't win through terrorism. The movements (or however you want to characterize it) have to actually come out and put up a fight if they want to win. Terrorism tends to have the opposite effect --it alienates people from a cause they might actually see some commonality with. Using the boxing analogy, someone is fighting Muhammad Ali, Ali is up in points, the opponent throws an illegal punch. With that strike is the opponent now winning? No. He is still losing. Further lets say he lands a couple of jabs, is he winning because he got a point? No, he's far from winning. Further lets say he manages to get Ali to change up, change behavior adapt, is he winning? Again no not till he has more points or knocks him out.
- EliRivers 12y ago
  Has there been a movement which has won in substance through terrorism? The republican terrorists in Northern Ireland didn't get everything they wanted, but they certainly ended up with more political power than they had when they started.
  - mc32 12y ago
    I'll give you that --but you must admit it worked because they had a legitimate political arm. It wasn't because they terrorized Londoners. ETA as well they have learned that terrorism is counter productive and seem to have gone legit pursuing political avenues.
    - EliRivers 12y ago
      I admit that it worked because they had a legitimate political arm as well as blowing things up. The legitimate political arm gave the UK government someone to negotiate with without having to outright obviously negotiate with terrorists. They did negotiate with terrorists, some of whom went on to hold elected office, but were only able to do so because there was a legitimate political arm.

by brazzy 12y ago

Terrorists do absolutely NOT "just want to terrorize". They have goals. If they achieve their goals through the acts of terror, directly or indirectly, they win.

mc32 12y ago

Has there been a movement which has won in substance through terrorism? Movements don't win through terrorism. The movements (or however you want to characterize it) have to actually come out and put up a fight if they want to win. Terrorism tends to have the opposite effect --it alienates people from a cause they might actually see some commonality with. Using the boxing analogy, someone is fighting Muhammad Ali, Ali is up in points, the opponent throws an illegal punch. With that strike is the opponent now winning? No. He is still losing. Further lets say he lands a couple of jabs, is he winning because he got a point? No, he's far from winning. Further lets say he manages to get Ali to change up, change behavior adapt, is he winning? Again no not till he has more points or knocks him out.

EliRivers 12y ago
Has there been a movement which has won in substance through terrorism? The republican terrorists in Northern Ireland didn't get everything they wanted, but they certainly ended up with more political power than they had when they started.
- mc32 12y ago
  I'll give you that --but you must admit it worked because they had a legitimate political arm. It wasn't because they terrorized Londoners. ETA as well they have learned that terrorism is counter productive and seem to have gone legit pursuing political avenues.
  - EliRivers 12y ago
    I admit that it worked because they had a legitimate political arm as well as blowing things up. The legitimate political arm gave the UK government someone to negotiate with without having to outright obviously negotiate with terrorists. They did negotiate with terrorists, some of whom went on to hold elected office, but were only able to do so because there was a legitimate political arm.