What's the use of terrorism? (as a military tactic)

[tomp]

Hi.

I'd like to start up a discussion about what the use of terrorism is, as it seems to only awaken and anger the proverbial dragon ((western) governments).

It seems so futile...

 

[CardSharp]

Asymmetrical response to weakness in conventional arms. Takes advantage of societal, political and psychological factors to achieve an end

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Think about it this way

Before 9/11 the USA had no Department of homeland security responsible for stopping terrorists.

The Department of homeland securities budget is 43.6 billion a year and it was created after 9/11 in order to prevent incidents like 9/11 from repeating.

Add in the revenue lost from 3,000 lives, the world trade center itself only costs 1.5 billion.

The terrorists hate the USA, they know that their lives are worth pennies their goal is to hit the USA hard in the wallet.

And what the western government cannot do is FIGHT BACK, because they don't really know where the terrorists are located.

 

[Tractor]

In my opinion terrorism or terrorist was set up by western countries themselves for it gives them excuses to interfere other regions.

 

[no_name]

The main purpose of terrorism is to cause destruction and trouble, terrorism is about using weapon to inflict loss. Terrorist groups don't form constructive organisations.

Taliban before war in afghanistan still resembles a form of government with some of its institutions, although it supports Al Queda, a terrorist group. Now taliban resorts to terrorism.

 

[CardSharp]

The main purpose of terrorism is to cause destruction and trouble, terrorism is about using weapon to inflict loss. Terrorist groups don't form constructive organisations.

Taliban before war in afghanistan still resembles a form of government with some of its institutions, although it supports Al Queda, a terrorist group. Now taliban resorts to terrorism.

But the trend can go the other way. Those who resort to terrorist activity are becoming multi-faceted and thus more dangerous. They are building local support by providing welfare, schools, and hospital.

Classic case of Hamas. They had a terrorist beginnings and with their social programs in areas where Fatah was negligent, they rose to an election victory.

 

[no_name]

^^^I tend to put them more in the assymetrical category. Hamas I don't really define as a terrorist group. I tend to define terrorists as those who are out to cause mainly mayhem only. For example, Mao's communist forces do constructive work as well during their early fights with KMT, they also use unconventional tactics.

Although I think I'm going to get alot of flak for this...

 

[CardSharp]

^^^I tend to put them more in the assymetrical category. Hamas I don't really define as a terrorist group. I tend to define terrorists as those who are out to cause mainly mayhem only. For example, Mao's communist forces do constructive work as well during their early fights with KMT, they also use unconventional tactics.

Although I think I'm going to get alot of flak for this...

Yeah my knee jerk reaction was to list Mao and the CCP in this example instead of Hamas with their guerrilla tactics and land reform, but it just raises the age of old adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

It is probably better to confine the study of terrorism as a tactic (as inadequate as that would be)

 

[no_name]

I think so too.

Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology, and my view is that terrorists should be used to refer to individuals and not a whole organisation because that is too simplistic.

 

[CardSharp]

I think so too.

Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology, and my view is that terrorists should be used to refer to individuals and not a whole organisation because that is too simplistic.

But when Fox news report everyone killed in Afghanistan and Iraq as "terrorists" the definition runs fluid.

 

[no_name]

^^^I think they refer to them as insurgents. Maybe in chinese news they were translated as terrorists?

 

[CardSharp]

^^^I think they refer to them as insurgents. Maybe in chinese news they were translated as terrorists?

Depends on your source. Most use insurgents but the more patriotic the media source the more likely they use terrorist

 

[SMC]

Asymmetrical response to weakness in conventional arms. Takes advantage of societal, political and psychological factors to achieve an end

Not necessarily true about the first part. For instance, US was equal to or greater than Soviet Union in strength yet they chose to support the Afghan Mujhaideen. India was stronger than Pakistan but they supported Mukhti Bahni.

I believe the idea is to not get directly involved in the conflict, but rather support a proxy that has the same/similar interests and goals as you. They do the fighting for you - you just provide them weapons and funding. It's cheaper, your state doesn't get involved and face losses, and if your proxy loses then it's not necessarily as big a deal as it would have been if you lost.

 

[CardSharp]

Not necessarily true about the first part. For instance, US was equal to or greater than Soviet Union in strength yet they chose to support the Afghan Mujhaideen. India was stronger than Pakistan but they supported Mukhti Bahni.

I believe the idea is to not get directly involved in the conflict, but rather support a proxy that has the same/similar interests and goals as you. They do the fighting for you - you just provide them weapons and funding. It's cheaper, your state doesn't get involved and face losses, and if your proxy loses then it's not necessarily as big a deal as it would have been if you lost.

You're confusing terrorism with a war by proxy. The Mujhaideen could not have ever fought the USSR in a conventional war with or without US weapons. Besides they are more an insurgency than a terrorist group.

 

[MilesTogo]

In current times, terror as a military tactic is not very effective.