Do terrorism works?

[NEVER LURK]

I was reading about the Oklahoma city bombing and how it increased the membership of the national alliance eleven folds instantly.

Or about how meir kahane terrorist action did drastically improve the living condition of Soviet jews .

October 7th also stand out as an example of terrorism working (in some sense) as it ended the Embargo on antisemitism and gave rise to the "Jewish nazis" hyperstition.


So in your opinion does terrorism actually work?

 

[NEVER LURK]

I define terrorism as any violent action that is intended to terrorize and strike fear in the target of the attack.

 

[CallmeCicada]

People who send pictures of food while I am on a diet/fasting are terrorists.

 

[herefortheactualthreads]

terrorists terrorize, they dont work.

 

[Nero Fiddled]

Terrorists are just trainee activists.

 

[blackshirt]

It's a short term illusion. Scaring those in power just hands them the propaganda to justify crushing you later with even heavier coercion and control. Sure, this provocation is classic accelerationism: push the state to overreact in hopes of radicalizing the normalfaggots. But it's a massive gamble that almost always fails.

Frankly, if a genuinely effective campaign ever occurred, the media would just bury it. They only broadcast obvious ops and demoralizing failures. Never a victory that might actually invigorate dissent or inspire copycats. I assume some interesting things have happened and we just never hear about them.

Targeting civilians also kills your own cause. It's exactly why American History X follows Derek Vinyard's most articulate, compelling speech with a scene of his gang mindlessly trashing a supermarket and harassing hapless employees. It instantly degrades the message into petty thuggery.

 

[User names must be unique]

Against people/individuals? No. they typically harden the public against the terrorists goals.
Against governments? Yes, depending on the terrorists agenda. they will not stand by while the public is hardened against certain groups or agendas as it makes the government agenda harder to carry out.

(Note: this is not an endorsement of terrorism merely an observation.)

 

[Beelzebub's Lawyer]

It do works, indeed.
People wouldntn't use it if it dudn't.

 

[Chilson]

It hardens your opponents against you so they hit back even more fiercely, which creates more terrorists from the inevitable civilian casualties. The goal of terrorism isn't really to terrify your enemy, its to have them retaliate so hard and wildly that it creates more terrorists for your organization.

But that only works against an incompetent opponent, and US political and military leadership has been the whole fucking circus for the last 60+ years. Once someone component comes along to blow your shit out with either minimal civilian casualties or leaving no one left to become terrorists, the game is over.

Terrorism is also great if your opposing it though. Makes a great distraction from domestic problems, rallies a whole new generation of recruits, justifies ever greater centralized power and violating personal liberties. Which is why false flag terrorist attacks have become a common tool of most governments.

So in all, it does work (depending on which side is doing it) but requires specific conditions.

 

[We Are The Witches]

People who send pictures of food while I am on a diet/fasting are terrorists.

---

---

The concept of terrorism, in theory, can work. How it's handled by the government and authorities is the real question and deciding factor.

 

[libRT]

Yes, peaceful protest doesn't work, unless its backed by the threat of violence.

 

[Gay Sex Enjoyer]

Or an intense smell

see; India

 

[NEVER LURK]

It's a short term illusion. Scaring those in power just hands them the propaganda to justify crushing you later with even heavier coercion and control. Sure, this provocation is classic accelerationism: push the state to overreact in hopes of radicalizing the normalfaggots. But it's a massive gamble that almost always fails.

Terrorism can be used to attract attention and put the media focus on your cause(think of thr Minnesota insurgency)

Its also useful to intimidate the media class who are necessarily cowardish

It hardens your opponents against you so they hit back even more fiercely, which creates more terrorists from the inevitable civilian casualties. The goal of terrorism isn't really to terrify your enemy, its to have them retaliate so hard and wildly that it creates more terrorists for your organization.

The opponents are trying to kill us softly, Harding them and making them seem more violent might be a strategic mive worth considering.

The goal of terrorism is to intimidate the enemy and to foce attention on your cause.

Terrorism is also great if your opposing it though. Makes a great distraction from domestic problems, rallies a whole new generation of recruits, justifies ever greater centralized power and violating personal liberties. Which is why false flag terrorist attacks have become a common tool of most governments.

No
The point is to shine the light on the specific problem not to distract.

False flags work if the terrorists is an outsider (the infamous example of Russia making false flag Chechen attacks to invade Chechenia) but if the attack made the government more violent towards the majority it might useful

But that only works against an incompetent opponent, and US political and military leadership has been the whole fucking circus for the last 60+ years. Once someone component comes along to blow your shit out with either minimal civilian casualties or leaving no one left to become terrorists, the game is over.

Terrorist Attacks are most effective as Collaborative effort with the media (think of October 7th and the media defamatory onslaught against Israel)

 

[NEVER LURK]

It must be noted that im against terrorism but i trying to understand it to combat ot effectively

 

[Atton Risk]

From the history uMkhonto we Sizwe, yes much the same for the IRA. Properly organized and structured terrorists have almost always won objectively. The deal on that was sealed on 9/11 when the United States took a dump on the consitution and entered into endless wars of adventure. Trillions spent yet AL-Qaeda remains and so to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden the war on terror after 19 years by provoking the US into a mindless rampage. Likewise Governments like the United Kingdom or Canada can be forced to rampage upon its own people as they did with the trucker protests. The state is strong but not agasin't sustained internal guerrilla warfare that kills the economy and destroys governability. This among other things is why you see attemped clamp downs on civil liberty, firearms ect. They fail because the people whom control the levers of power are the same that produce the incentive for terror out of incompetence.

 

[NEVER LURK]

The deal on that was sealed on 9/11 when the United States took a dump on the consitution and entered into endless wars of adventure. Trillions spent yet AL-Qaeda remains and so to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden the war on terror after 19 years by provoking the US into a mindless rampage.

This is an exception.
Bin laden wasn't anticipating any mass invasion or a massive response (he thought they gon just drop bombs here and there)

9/11 failed miserably as it made the US go from an ally to islamist to an enemy (now its an ally again (look at Syria for example))

Evey success that 9/11 made was entirely on the incompetence of the American government.

 

[Harvey Danger]

It's too broad a question. Sometimes it "works", sometimes it doesn't, often it has unintended consequences that may or may not benefit the cause. The tactics and parties vary wildly between each situation. There's no overall answer.

Terrorism broadly has two aims: one is to change official policy, and the other to literally terrorize a civilian populace into demanding policy changes. Terrorism can often achieve one of these, but disconnects between the populace and the government means you don't always get both. And sometimes there's no connection and the aims are murky, like with ISIS terrorizing Iraqis to change the US government policy.

The "raise awareness" types of terrorism usually aren't sustained, and their results are more chaotic. The Oklahoma City bombing is an example, it targeted a federal civilian building and wasn't really trying to terrorize the populace. The federal response had nothing to do with whatever McVeigh (supposedly) wanted.

 

[NEVER LURK]

It's too broad a question. Sometimes it "works", sometimes it doesn't, often it has unintended consequences that may or may not benefit the cause. The tactics and parties vary wildly between each situation. There's no overall answer.

The question is simple:
Is Terrorizing a populace and intimidating their government a sound strategic move.

9/11 and Islamic terrorist attacks did 3 things that were extremely important for their cause:

1- intimidating Europeans into making laws that prohibit mocking islam anf its symbols(Sweden has imprisoned an iraqi Christian for burning the Quran for example) and inspiring fear in the cowardly media and the middle class(western media will never mock Islam).
Practically turning the European population into Dhimmis

2- destroying the sense of security that allows western population to thrive (after 9/11 American birthrates dropped blew replacement and haven't recovered since).
Western European capitals are dens of low trust society)

3-destroying the trust between civilians and the government.
The Patriot act and its consequences had completely destroyed the trust between civilians and the government but if it wasn't implemented terrorists attacks will happen and will still destroy the trust between civilians and government.


Terrorism works as a tool to destroy the social fabric of its target society.

 

[Retrodogkiller]

The Patriot act and its consequences had completely destroyed the trust between civilians and the government but if it wasn't implemented terrorists attacks will happen and will still destroy the trust between civilians and government.

The patriot act and FISA have been catastrophic failures and haven't really prevented terror attacks in the United States. Can't even stop troons and incels in unencrypted discord servers from planning and carrying out mass shootings and assassinations.

 

[NEVER LURK]

The patriot act and FISA have been catastrophic failures and haven't really prevented terror attacks in the United States. Can't even stop troons and incels in unencrypted discord servers from planning and carrying out mass shootings and assassinations.

This is some faggot myth.

The Patriot act and the numerous similar laws in Europe have been used effectively at stopping terrorists and most importantly persecuting them(the communist terrorists weren't jailed in thr 70s due to the fact that collecting their information was technically illegal)

This is a great example of how twisting the law work