TERROR-ism
 

The primary goal of terrorists is to instill fear and terror. In this respect they have been somewhat successful.

The recent warnings come to mind. They only need make threats and drop hints of an attack. Actually they have people in country. There is no need to "import" material. There are plenty of radio-active materials available in hospitals and labs. We need to be vigilant but not become slaves to threats.

As for the warnings: Damned if you do and damned if you don't".

They are smart not to attack here. If they do, it will strengthen our resolve to complete the GWOT. Staying away from here strengthens the hand of the anti-war crowd because idiots will perceive that we'll only be attacked if we take the fight to the enemy.

Re: TERROR-ism
 

Not always true. Our current opponent uses terror as a means of achieving their goals.

Re: TERROR-ism
 

And this is why, Sir, that I Thank Each and Every American Soldier, b/c I know, with folks like You, QRQ 30, I can sleep at night, without giving in to Fear... (and I was in the Oklahoma CIty bombing, and my Firm in the 9/11 attacks.)

I have full faith and confidence that You, the SF, are Ready, and Able to wipe Terrorists from the face! :mad:

For that, You All will have my on-going Support, and Thanks. Even if I am just one person.

Respectfully,
Holly

Re: Re: TERROR-ism
 

Explain yourself please Jimbo.

Re: Re: Re: TERROR-ism
 

He can speak for himself, but I think his point is that instilling fear and terror is not the end, but a means to a political end. Getting us out of the ME, for example.

One of the things I don't like, that bothers me, is the big question of why are they in our Country? Why are they allowed to be here? It's a hard pill to swallow to accept that we are completely helpless to stop them from coming in and once they are here, we cannot seem to locate them.

I've heard for sometime that sleeper cells are in 40 cities, that Hamas and Hezbollah, among others, operate here in our Country and frankly, I find that disgusting.

Jennifer Martinez sends

Re: Re: Re: Re: TERROR-ism
 

With the exception of nihilists, that's always the case.

Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d):

—The term “terrorism� means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

I think RL and You have pretty much covered it. I guess you just have to define what kind of goal you're talking about. The primary goal on the tactical level may be to instill fear and terror, but that is usually in support of a strategic goal.

Re: Re: TERROR-ism
 

Make that two people. Popping smoke,back to lurking.

To take QRQ30 's point on the primary goal of terrorists and go one step further, QRQ 30's point is well-taken as to the effect of their actions against their 'targets.'

But don't they also use their actions to rally their own in support of their cause ? Along that train of thought, I find this to be more succinct than my words could be:

" The terrorists are cruel, but they are not aimless. Their actions have a purpose. They are trying to rally the Muslim world to jihad against the planet's only superpower and the principal and most visible obstacle to their ambitions. They committ terror to persuade their potential followers that their cause is not hopeless, that jihad can destroy American power. (my emphasis) Random killings - shootings in shopping malls, bombs in trash cans - may be emotionally satisfying to the terrorists', but they are strategically useless: Two kids at Columbine did as much, and the Republic did not totter. Only truly spectacular acts of mass murder provides the propaganda the terrorists' cause requires. They will try again - they have to."

An End to Evil by David Frum and Richard Perle


Roycroft201

That's the point that many, many people seem to miss (not on these boards, but IRL). Terrorists gain nothing from simply killing people (well, I suppose a trivialist argument could be made that they gain every time our superpower loses a citizen, but that's just not realistic). If we had roving bands of secret serial-killer terrorist cells that tampered with peoples' brakes, caused heart attacks, and 'accidentally' hit people with buses, nothing would happen. Why? Because the deaths would just be written off as just 'what happens;' terrorists, by definition, need spectacle to create fear. Which is why they are successful against the United States: combine a movement that creates its own power through violent, lethal spectacle, with a nation that has a 24-hour news cycle, 3 (major) cable news networks, each trying to 'outscoop' the others with the most amazing, graphic pictures and headlines, all the other news media (print, radio, and internet), and very strong free speech rules? It's a terrorist's dream.

Of course, images such as of the Towers falling are very powerful for us, as well, serving to rally the nation, recognize the seriousness of the situation, and all that, but, we wouldn't need to if they hadn't fallen. A strong argument can be made, IMO, that the best way to stop terrorism would be simply to not televise their actions. Deprive them of television coverage, and they go from being terrorists to being simple insurgents, buried by the mass of US law enforcement. However, that isn't very workable, and even if it were, it may well be a worse cure than the disease. The solution, IMO, happens one green-tip at a time.