Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

agner.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#51

Post by ejlo »

tristanj wrote: post #37
ejlo wrote: post #13

He seems to have completely missed the reason for 9/11, which is not strange since it was not until the 2004 speech ( http://worldpress.org/Americas/1964.cfm ) that bin Laden explained the reason for the attacks, namely "bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy". In this light it must be regarded as a great success, not a failure, especially since the self bleeding politics continued without much opposition long a…

No, he only started saying that after the US occupied Iraq. Before the invasion his justification against America had strong religious basis. It's especially clear from his earlier writings. http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

It would have been quite stupid, though, to reveal the plan too early.

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#52

Post by Joeboy »

finid wrote: post #46
Joeboy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same happened, so some extent, to Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams, Yasser Arafat and probably many others.

You put Nelson Mandela in that group! While you're at it, why not add Mahatma Gandhi

Because Gandhi was a pacifist and Mandela advocated armed struggle, and led an organisation that bombed civilians. Mandela's reputation as a man of peace is based on the fact he pivoted from a violent strategy to a political one, not on his being a pacifist.

Edit: The fact that you and others are outraged by the idea Mandela was a terrorist sort of proves the point. The path to respect, statesmanship, Nobel Peace Prizes and sainthood often starts with violence.

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#53

Post by notahacker »

finid wrote: post #46
Joeboy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same happened, so some extent, to Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams, Yasser Arafat and probably many others.

You put Nelson Mandela in that group! While you're at it, why not add Mahatma Gandhi

Nelson Mandela cofounded and chaired the ANC's paramilitary wing. He might have proved to be a superb statesman and the ANC might have had no practical alternative to violent action, but he definitely belongs more in that company than Gandhi's. If anything it's Adams, who has always denied direct involvement with the IRA even if those claims aren't widely believed, that might have cause for complaint at not being considered merely a politician.

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#54

Post by nailer »

bjourne wrote: post #19
nailer wrote: post #15

> the intentional use of, or threat to use violence against civilians or against civilian targets, in order to attain political aims Yes. So tired of this word being used to describe attacks on soldiers. It might be bad (depending on what side you're on), but it's certainly not terrorism.

Modern warfare makes the distinction tricky. Suppose you have a person sitting in a computer center in California controlling drones dropping bombs in Afghanistan. Is he a civilian or soldier? If not, does he become one when he goes home from his shift for the day? What about all the computer programmers writing drone software making his job possible?

> Suppose you have a person sitting in a computer center in California controlling drones dropping bombs in Afghanistan. Is he a civilian or soldier?

They are a soldier, attacking an enemy. I genuinely don't understand how being further away makes that unclear.

Or any different from a soldier calling in an airstrike being further away than a soldier with a rifle being further away than a soldier with a sword.

> If not, does he become one when he goes home from his shift for the day?

They are an off duty soldier.

> What about all the computer programmers writing drone software making his job possible?

They are weapons manufacturers.

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#55

Post by tristanj »

ejlo wrote: post #51
tristanj wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he only started saying that after the US occupied Iraq. Before the invasion his justification against America had strong religious basis. It's especially clear from his earlier writings. http://www.mideastweb.org/osamabinladen1.htm

It would have been quite stupid, though, to reveal the plan too early.

The thesis "Bin Laden destroyed the 9/11 towers to bankrupt America" makes very little sense when you dig into it. It would mean Bin Laden planned to:

- destroy the twin towers so

- the U.S. would justify an invasion of Iraq and

- actually invade Iraq

- and occupy Iraq for a prolonged period of time (and not quickly pull out)

- so America would devote resources here

- thus bankrupting itself

Steps 2 and 3 (and possible 4) are huge leaps of faith. It's absurd to believe he planned all that out. It clearly fails Occam's Razor. Plus, it doesn't fit with the historical context of what he said and wrote at the time.

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#56

Post by nailer »

notahacker wrote: post #40
nailer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't the provisional IRA force the government's hand in the Good Friday Agreement? There's a fairly good chance the Catholic portion of Northern Ireland, which generally favors independence, will overtake the Protestant population which generally favors union with Great Britain. The GFA allows a popular vote on the matter. So by securing a vote, NI will likely go back to Ireland in a generation or two. There were a…

The basic principle of self-determination by popular vote was supported by the UK Government and opposed by the paramilitaries and hardline politicians (both the IRA and hardline loyalists) throughout the 1980s. They could have had something similar to the Good Friday Agreement much earlier had they been willing to pursue that type of settlement by political means earlier.

You're right: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/9/new...

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#57

Post by DominikR »

madshiva wrote: post #30
DominikR wrote: post #17

Well I disagree, it did work amazingly well for almost a thousand years when Muslim pirates and raiders constantly attacked ships and cities in the Mediterranean sea which effectively suppressed most sea based trade and economic development in Europe for a very long time. There were even cases where English and Irish cities were plundered and all inhabitants forcefully taken as slaves. People from this culture always…

There was not only Muslim pirates, there was a lot of people from different too. Should we continue to blame Vikings? fore these action? Or can we just live the present? I agree that figthing terrorism only increase more violance. We need to find a way to teach only present and not past, for stopping the wheel of deadlock.

What does this even mean? Should we just roll over and let them kill us whenever they feel like we hurt their feelings in some way?

Anytime someone disrespects their religious teachings in a public way many of them feel the urge to slaughter dozens of people just to show how upset they are about us.

And it just never stops, there's just too many radical people in these countries.

As I see it the only way to stop this is to show them militarily who's boss until they learn the lesson to back off and mind their own business.

The mere fact that they can't resist killing people when they hear some Westener say something bad about them shows that they really just want to submit us to follow their ways.

If that wasn't the case they'd just stop listening like any normal person would do.

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#58

Post by DominikR »

skrebbel wrote: post #28

Modern-day terrorism is a recruitment scheme. Any attack has the effect of increasing hostilities between groups. Imagine being a teenager with an identity crisis who happens to be part of a minority that the less intelligent half of your home country hates and despises. What group are you most likely to join? And what caused said hate and despise to grow? Right, terrorism. More generally put: Virtually any organizat…

Your "correct response" to terrorism has been tried now for 8 years and it doesn't work, instead everything got worse.

The only way is to try to insulate oneself from these radicals by not letting them immigrate, or if it doesn't help pick an area controlled by the most vicious of these radicals (ISIS territory comes to mind) and give them a taste of what armageddon could look like so they'll learn an important lesson.

This has worked very well in the Chechen wars. The Russians tried negotiating, then they tried having a series of smaller military operations in order to take out their leaders. Then the Russians even conceded and gave them defacto independence, but It all didn't work. They instead went on to attack neighbouring Russian states and then even killed hundreds of Russian children in the Beslan terror attacks.

What did help though was Putins response completely levelling the Chechen capital Grozny. And I mean that literally because that's what they did. After that 99.99% of them became cooperative, in fact today most Chechens in Chechnya consider themselves fierce Russian patriots. I wonder why!

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#59

Post by skrebbel »

DominikR wrote: post #58
skrebbel wrote: post #28

Modern-day terrorism is a recruitment scheme. Any attack has the effect of increasing hostilities between groups. Imagine being a teenager with an identity crisis who happens to be part of a minority that the less intelligent half of your home country hates and despises. What group are you most likely to join? And what caused said hate and despise to grow? Right, terrorism. More generally put: Virtually any organizat…

Your "correct response" to terrorism has been tried now for 8 years and it doesn't work, instead everything got worse. The only way is to try to insulate oneself from these radicals by not letting them immigrate, or if it doesn't help pick an area controlled by the most vicious of these radicals (ISIS territory comes to mind) and give them a taste of what armageddon could look like so they'll learn an important lesso…

Are you one of those paid Russian propaganda commenters people gossip about? Pretty cool to see this sort of stuff up close. I like how you slowly build up from some pretty widespread opinions to Chechens being "fierce Russian patriots".

Re: Why terrorism doesn’t work (2002) [pdf]

#60

Post by whoops1122 »

skrebbel wrote: post #48
whoops1122 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I m not sure why you bring Trump into this, he has nothing to do with Terrorist organization, unless you are trying to say that American Govt is a form of terrorist groups, but in that case, Bush and Obama has been the head of that group for the past 16 years.

I'm not sure I explained my comment right in that case. I bring Trump into this because he represents an anti-Muslim voice in the global media and this i significant for the point I'm trying to me. He simply a nice and current example of my little theory here. Notably I do not mean to get involved in the American election debate. The more power and attention Trump gets, the more Muslim youths in the West feel repress…

no this wasnt a election debate, thats why i failed to see why brought Trump into the conversation. the Hatred between Christian and Muslims can go back all the way to Crusaders. Regardless of how much Anti-Muslims comment Trump made, Radicals wont hate him more. The more neutral and logical comment Obama made, wont make Radicals like him better.

911 happened during Bush administration, but i m sure Bin Laden spent years during Clinton administration to plan. Point here being, who leads the supposed free world doesnt matter, Radicals will hate you. Its in their blood, flow though their veins though generations of unfair treatments from western world.

Look back how western world treated them, ever wonder why there are so many countries in mid east, and wonder why there are so many conflicts happens there every year?

I guess my points are that at this point, your simple existence is enough to provoke the radicals, regardless who is head of govt. Bangazhi didnt happen cause whole world like Obama better and Bush less. Hands of Jesus Christ are just as bloody, he sent just as much people to meet their maker.

Post reply on HN