This accurately puts forth the purpose of terrorist acts as explained in writings attributed to Che, Mao and other revolutionary writers of the 60ās. Our leadership has consistently acted as trained puppets of the terrorists. They have gotten all they desire from their acts. Having a war on terror is like F**king for abstinenceā¦
ā¦Except that, in āGuerrilla Warfareā Che specifically stated that terrorist acts did not help them to meet their goals and advised against them.
In the wider sense, it would be fair to say that the goal of focismo was to provoke an irrationally aggressive response from the enemy government - but this can clearly be achieved through acts of war against military targets rather than attacks upon civilians.
The real difficulty I have is that the governments of the world have had decades to understand this approach, and that their enemies have written books laying out how they operate, and yet governments seem to be completely unable to contemplate a course of action that defies the narrative that their enemy is trying to create.
Thats mainly because the narrative is of use to them. Just see Hollandeās speech.
The terrorist provide the excuse, you get to do all that wonderful removal of Constitutional rights that you could not have any other way. And people will applaud.
Because government, even more acutely in the age of the cable news cycle, is merely a question of which screeching monkey can fling his poo the furthest. The most simple-minded and childish male insecurity syndrome is the baseline against which all political discourse must be evaluated.
Posted by Atrios this morning:
Oh please, terrorists, donāt throw me in that briar patch!
- Western governments
Terrorismās goal is to commit frightening, high-profile crimes that
scare people into making rash, expensive decisions that make the world
look like the terrorists would like to see it.
Citation please. Iād think that most terrorist acts are for revenge, acts of desperation due to the inability to strike harder targets or shows of strength for morale/recruitment/attention.
The idea that there are deep thinkers who decided the primary motivation was to force the West to kill more Muslims seems like giving a hell of a lot of credit to the terrorists than should be given. None of the statements made by any of the groups taking credit indicate anything beyond the simplistic.
Hell, is anyone actually even afraid from terrorist attacks? My reaction is rage, not fear.
You say that as if those are two unrelated things.
Right now there are a lot of people who are essentially saying we should abandon the thousands of Syrian refugees because one or two might be plotting another attack. Thatās partly rage from people using nationality to equate victims of violence with its perpetrators, but thereās a strong note of fear in that too.
Yes - I cross posted. Sue me:
On the way into work I heard In Living Colorās āCult of Personalityā and was reminded of FDRās quote, āā¦the only thing we have to fear is fear itselfā¦ā
Thereās no trick, itās just how it works.
So, what would be better? What if the govenments werenāt ātrickedā. They would go to the night club, get the criminals. Then start a murder investigation and clean up the bodies? Carry on like itās just a crime that needs to be procecuted. People would be screaming for justice and protection, and the government would be like āmove along, nothing to see hereā, case closed. They would try to assure the citizens that itās all under control and they are all safe. Iām pretty sure that wouldnāt fly for 1 second and whatever politition thought it was a good idea would be ousted immediately.
Governmentās are made of people too, ones with emotions, ones that can be afraid, for themselves, their family and friends, their contrymen. They want to do everything they can to protect them. Often, this can be overreaction, rash decisions, things that many would disagree with. Things that humans do to secure a fundemental need: safety.
Countries go to war and their armies fight for their country. Murderers kill specific victims.
Terrorists arenāt just attacking the victims. They are specifically attacking the government and country at itās most vulnerable part. This is where the difference is.
You can say āstay calm and cary onā and āā¦fear itselfā all you want, but it is a lie.
Pretty much sums up government IMHO
The difference is in the nature of the perpetrators, not of the victims. Terrorism is a form of war in which the terrorists are too weak to hold and organized territory (a state) and even too weak to have bases (a guerrilla force). Therefore large military operations are an inappropriate response and as widely noted often increase the effects of the original terrorism. We have now seen the result of the various stupid wars which the US and its satellites have carried on in the Middle East ā more terrorism, which was widely and repeatedly predicted. The predictions were ignored, the wars were proposed and carried out. Dare I hope that at some point someone might ask what our great leaders are looking for? Probably not.
You can say āstay calm and cary onā and āā¦fear itselfā all you want, but it is a lie.
Do you go into a panic every time you enter any vehicle? Far more people will brutally die in anguish via automobile accidents this year.
In other words, speak for yourself. I would rather risk my life living in a free country than cowering in fear with people like you within an authoritarian state.
On top of that, living like enraged, frightened, senseless cowards in America and elsewhere is what vastly helped to create and empower extremists like ISIS in the first place.
Running around like cowardly, headless chickens is fucking pathetic in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Iām not giving terrorists what they want. Fuck them.
Fucking for abstinence sounds like a lot more fun than helping terrorists
What I wonder is whether that whole ācultural warā spin that ISIS puts on these attacks is actually a relevant point to them, or more of a faƧade. Do they really care whether Paris is āthe capital of immoralityā, or is this just an ideological accessory? Iām not convinced that this is not a direct response to France starting military attacks on ISIS earlier this year. From what Iāve heard, the military position of ISIS has been continually deteriorating. And when we think back to the 2004 Madrid bombings, Al quaeda has shown that a āwellā-placed terror attack can withdraw a whole nation from a war. And they couldnāt very well admit if this was a ādesparateā (in military terms) counter-attack, could they. In ideological terms, I have some doubts how this act would benefit them - when I try to put myself into a young, radicalised Muslim living in France witnessing this, letās say someone at a point of his life where he considers whether to join a militant group or not, I would imagine that this random violence does not so much come across as a ājust causeā, but might rather repel sympathisers than attract them.
Back in high school I read a book or maybe a document - I canāt remember but maybe it was a manifesto from the Baader-Meinhof gang. It stated explicitly their goal was to provoke an authoritarian overreaction so the people would rise up in revolution. The only difference today is Islam vs. Marx.
If only I could remember where I read it, @Aloisius, thereās your citation.
Let me translate:
Or are the turrists happily playing into the security services hands? Big budgets need big baddies.
When Bush and Blair can make the patently false and disingenuous arguments they made and just deflect all of the questions and criticism, then shrug their shoulders after being proven wrong whilst STILL miring us in wars, who is really playing into whose hands? Huh?
