Terrorism is an Effective Strategy

Kernel

I've recently been thinking about this, and from observations of current events and world news, I have come to the conclusion that terrorism is an effective 'political' strategy that works to achieve one's political objectives.

Look at the coverage that even minor terrorist acts such as small bombings, religious attacks etc. get in world media. Even a small terrorist act can instantly garner full worldwide news coverage and highlight your political agenda.

It also seems to me that terrorist acts increase your political leverage, which can be seen by the time and energy now devoted to highlighting the muslim religion, way of life, and respecting muslim rights etc. all over Europe. Look how many programmes are given towards muslim issues on BBC, UTV and C4, would so much coverage and information on Islam have been presented if not for Al Qaeda attacks? Look at the money being spent by the West, and the foreign relations tippy-toeing that is going on in the Middle East or other Islamic regions of the world. Would the muslims of the UK and other European countries be given so much thought and sensitivity if not for militant or terrorist acts? I doubt it.

A further example could be given to the Palestinian issue. The Israelis have long kept a hard line against Palestinian militants and terrorists, but now the US steps in (after many long years of completely ignoring the issue, and staunchly supporting the Israelis) and puts pressure on Sharon to give concessions to Palestinians such as the Gaza strip withdrawals and lately the opening of free movement of Palestinians to Israel. Would such things have been achieved by the Palestinians if the Americans weren't affected by terrorism to the extent that they now want to sort out the problems with the Middle East to try to stem the rise of Islamic terrorist attacks against themselves? I don't think so. So, terrorism has worked (partly at least) for Al-Qaeda and for the Palestinians, and many other minority groups who have achieved or at least highlighted their political agenda.

One could even say that Chirac is giving in to 'terrorism' by promising to cave into the demands of a rioting mob in France - although I concede that violent protestors are a little different to normal politically driven terrorist groups. Nevertheless, rioting and destroying people's private property has gained French immigrants a higher status on the French political agenda, and money and help has now been promised.

1 million people marched against the Iraq war, and many other huge protests are largely ignored in today's world, is militancy and terrorism the way to make our political masters sit up and pay attention to our views???

Zombrex

Kernel wrote:

Even a small terrorist act can instantly garner full worldwide news coverage and highlight your political agenda.

That's true, terrorism is the new cold war and generates a huge amount of media coverage, even if the level coverage is not warrented by the actual events.

Kernel wrote:

It also seems to me that terrorist acts increase your political leverage, which can be seen by the time and energy now devoted to highlighting the muslim religion, way of life, and respecting muslim rights etc. all over Europe.

Well that isn't the purpose of Al Queda, in fact it is the opposite, they want tension between muslims and non-muslim, that is the purpose of their campaign. They want a war because they believe western style democracies are an afront to God. They don't want the west to welcome or respect muslims and they don't want muslims to intergrate within western countries.

The reason there has been an increase in media coverage of the Islamic religion is two fold - To counter the negative perceptions of Muslims following 9/11 (religious attacks on Muslims increased greatly in Europe and America). Secondly to give people a better understanding of what drives someone to suicide bombs and attacks with the Muslim world.

Kernel wrote:

Look how many programmes are given towards muslim issues on BBC, UTV and C4, would so much coverage and information on Islam have been presented if not for Al Qaeda attacks?

Probably not, but it is certainly not what Al Qaeda wants.

Kernel wrote:

Look at the money being spent by the West, and the foreign relations tippy-toeing that is going on in the Middle East or other Islamic regions of the world.

One world - oil Very little to do with pressure from terrorism. In fact terrorism has worsen relations with a lot of Middle Eastern countries, rather than strengthen them.

Kernel wrote:

Would the muslims of the UK and other European countries be given so much thought and sensitivity if not for militant or terrorist acts? I doubt it.

"Thought and sensitivity" ?? ... despite the wealth of programs in the media to increase understanding and awareness about Muslim life in the west, to show the vast majority are not interested in terrorism, attacks against Muslims continue to rise in the U.S, UK and Europe. This is exactly what the terrorists want to happen of course, to be the spark that ignites a religious war against non-muslims eventually leading to a Muslim victory and world governed by Islamic law.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=Racist+attacks+muslims+rise&btnG=Search&meta=

Kernel wrote:

A further example could be given to the Palestinian issue. The Israelis have long kept a hard line against Palestinian militants and terrorists, but now the US steps in (after many long years of completely ignoring the issue, and staunchly supporting the Israelis) and puts pressure on Sharon to give concessions to Palestinians such as the Gaza strip withdrawals and lately the opening of free movement of Palestinians to Israel.

That has more to do with the promises Blair made at the start of the Iraq war. As part of the justification the war as necessary and not just bomb-the-a-rabs, and an attempt to appease the Arab world during the inital preperations, Blair promised that his government (and Bush's) carried about the Arab world, and would make effort to end the conflicts and bring stablity in the middle east. they couldn't really do without tackling the issue of Israel.

Kernel wrote:

Would such things have been achieved by the Palestinians if the Americans weren't affected by terrorism to the extent that they now want to sort out the problems with the Middle East to try to stem the rise of Islamic terrorist attacks against themselves? I don't think so.

That is a great over simplification of the events leading up to the withdrawl of Gaza. Also the people who would benefit least with peace in Israel would be Al Queda. That was never their objective, and they would be very against the idea.

Kernel wrote:

So, terrorism has worked (partly at least) for Al-Qaeda and for the Palestinians, and many other minority groups who have achieved or at least highlighted their political agenda.

Only if the main objectives of the terrorists are meet. And they haven't been

Kernel wrote:

Nevertheless, rioting and destroying people's private property has gained French immigrants a higher status on the French political agenda, and money and help has now been promised.

There isn't much of a link between the riots in France and international Islamic terrorism appart from the fact they are all Muslims.

maccor

warfare is terrorism, and warfare (and its included terrorism) has been going on for centuries. I dont think anything new is happening, its just that its getting much more previlent

Zebra3

Well said, Maccor.

If people actually understood the definition of terrorism. It's another word that's been abused by those in positions of power to legitimise their own awful deeds.

Sure weren't Collins et al terrorists at one stage? :rolleyes:

ratboy

it's not the terrorist acts that win them things, it's the way states act in retaliation.

kenny11

I cannot believe what is being said here. terrorism is the greatest threat to our way from life since the height of the cold war. Countries like the US, UK and Australia must be applauded for standing up and fighting to preserve our way of life. I wonder what people will say if Dublin was bombed, something I hope will never happen.

A Dub in Glasgo

kenny11 wrote:

I wonder what people will say if Dublin was bombed, something I hope will never happen.

Has happened and a lot of people were killed. The people in power did not have a lot to say about it though and it was swept under the carpet.

Hydroquinone

If terrorism was so effective, why has the IRA disbanded?

If what they did was effective, why has it taken them X years to do it?
If what they did wasn't effective, why did it take them X years to disband?

I'm not saying terrorism is or isn't effective, but it startles me to see terrorism defined anywhere outside America as an Al Queda initiative, or something that happens in other countries. It's been going on here on this island for as long as most if us can remember. Has it been effective here? Or do we define the IRA/INLA and the UDA/UVF as being outside today's Americanocentric definition of terrorism?

Kernel

Zebra3 wrote:

Well said, Maccor.

If people actually understood the definition of terrorism. It's another word that's been abused by those in positions of power to legitimise their own awful deeds.

Sure weren't Collins et al terrorists at one stage? :rolleyes:

Terrorism is:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

War is when a sovereign state declares war on another sovereign state (apart from civil war of course).

Yes, Collins was a terrorist.

Zombrex

kenny11 wrote:

terrorism is the greatest threat to our way from life since the height of the cold war.

Not really ... i think it you look at the number of deaths from terrorism since the end of the cold war it would be less than a bad few weeks fighting in Africa. It is terrible when even one person dies, but claiming that terrorism is on a level of threat of nuclear war (or even conventional war) is stretching it abit

The real threat to our way of lives comes not from terrorism but from the dreconian laws and clamp down on civil liberties introduced by western governments rushing through panic laws to "deal" with terrorism.

HelterSkelter

Hydroquinone wrote:

If terrorism was so effective, why has the IRA disbanded?

As much as I disagree with the actions of the IRA I still believe the republician movement would not be where it was today if not for the IRA. It's the only thing the Brits understand.

RagShagBill

It's true that terrorism is an effective - abhorous - tool, that's why it's used. In relation to the IRA questions up there; a lot of it has to do with the manner in which oridnary people feel. When Catholics were being completely oppressed up North, IRA terrorism was fairly effective because, even if people didn't agree, they sympathised. Equally, when Catholics started getting more human and democratic rights, IRA terrorism ceased to be effective because ordinary people en mass hadn't - that much - beef with the authorities up there.

The real threat to our way of lives comes not from terrorism but from the dreconian laws and clamp down on civil liberties introduced by western governments rushing through panic laws to "deal" with terrorism.

Eg. "our way of life"

I cannot believe what is being said here.

I think you're picking it up as if people - in saying it's effective - are condoning it. That - I hope - is not the case.

Countries like the US, UK and Australia must be applauded

To a large extent, yes.

HelterSkelter

kenny11 wrote:

I cannot believe what is being said here. terrorism is the greatest threat to our way from life since the height of the cold war. Countries like the US, UK and Australia must be applauded for standing up and fighting to preserve our way of life. I wonder what people will say if Dublin was bombed, something I hope will never happen.

I am totally against terrorism but you've got to realise the reasons for these terrorist attacks. If the US & UK government were not stealing all the oil from Iraq and killing the people these attacks would not be happening. In fact I believe the actions of the US & UK army are terrorism also.

RagShagBill

I am totally against terrorism but you've got to realise the reasons for these terrorist attacks. If the US & UK government were not stealing all the oil from Iraq and killing the people these attacks would not be happening. In fact I believe the actions of the US & UK army are terrorism also.

What have al-Qaeda bombs in Bali got to do with oil, imperialism et al. American attrocities - such as Abu Ghraib - are an excuse that al-Qaeda point to when they try justify their aims. The teachers of Sayyid Qutb go back way before Gulf Wars, terrorism - while perhaps using US actions as pseduo-catalysts for it exists - is actually shown to be born out of totalitatian states and takes years to breed.

Memnoch

terrorism is wrong and pointless and doesn't achieve anything.

however a lot of people label rebels, freedom fighters and guerilla fighters as terrorists to illegitimise their actions, such as what happens in iraq.

As far as I'm concerned, terrorism is deliberate targetting of innocent civillians.

Definitions used by western governments are bogus and irrelevant because they make the rules to suit themselves. All this state sponsered warfare stuff is more semantical nonsense created for the purpose of allowing them to do whatever they want.

If a state drops bombs in an area that they know civillians are present and will definately be killed, that is also terrorism as far as I'm concerned.

to clarify, things like 9/11, july 7th london bombings are terrorist acts and as such are pointless and do not solve or help anything.
Attacks on the US and British forces by iraqi's fighing for their freedom are not terrorism.

Zebra3

Kernel wrote:

Yes, Collins was a terrorist.

And the French resistance? The Jews that fought back in the Warsaw Ghetto? :rolleyes:

Kernel

Zebra3 wrote:

And the French resistance? The Jews that fought back in the Warsaw Ghetto? :rolleyes:

Who did the French resistance terrorise? A German occupation force? Remember that the French head of state was in exile and still proclaimed a sovereign French nation. That's rebellion, if the resistance started planting bombs in cafes in Berlin, to terrorise the German people and the Reich, then yes, they would have been terrorists.

Likewise, who did the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto terrorise, their captors? What political ideology were they trying to enforce on the Germans? Read the definition of terrorism again. :rolleyes:

Terrorism has given Sinn Fein political leverage (ceasefire, arms decommissioning etc) to achieve their political means, terrorism by Islamic militants in Palestine and elsewhere have helped the Palestinian people at least get recognition and effort to resolve their political dilemma, which otherwise would have gone unnoticed. This whole thread is basically saying that the usual line about governments not giving in to terrorism is bull, and it is now an effective political strategy, which means it will be utilised by more and more nutbags in the future to enforce their ideologies on us. Bad news for all.