 |
| |
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:30
|
|
The subject line really says it. For almost two years I've been wondering how many times terrorism - the term is vague, I know - can actually be said to have accomplished actual things in developed or semi-developed areas (guerilla warfare in some obscure African nation doesn't interest me that much).
9-11 was huge and succesful in terms of casualties and fear promoting, but politically and long-term I reckon the masterminds didn't really get that much out of it. The nationalists in Palestine, Ireland, the Basque region etc. don't seem to be accomplishing their goals and the RAF and the Red Brigades never came close to socialist wonderland either.
So I'm calling on the Apolytoners with knowledge of military and/or political history to enlighten me if and when terrorism or pseudo-terrorism actually worked. I realize somebody might say something about the Middle East, but please don't get into a huge debate about Israeli-Palestinian affairs as there are a gazillion other threads for that purpose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
C0ckney
|
|
Big Up The Macedonian Massive
Apr 2000
time: 05:30
|
|
i would say (and i may get flamed for this) that it worked in ireland in 1916 and again in 1919-21.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:30
|
|
Summing up - they did not achieve their original objective but unknowingly created an environment where that objective was achieved 1-2 generations later.
I understand that, and I realize my question is really way more complex than it looks at first sight. But the way you portray the situation in Lithuenia it doesn't seem like there was a clear line from the violent acts to your decleration of independence.
Basically, I guess the situation I'm looking for is where a violent, unlawful fraction either wins enough popular support or gets enough power to force the ruling powers to step down, grant some land or something like that. I figure that case could be made for the U.S back then but given the choice I'd prefer to learn something about events in recent times.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:30
|
|
Poet - We must have cross-posted (see the last paragraph). I'm more interested in recent times because I think there can't have been much distinction between soldiers and civillian targets back in the days of my Viking ancestors. But really, I wouldn't know.
What I'm hoping is that somebody - right now, I'm sacrificing a goat to summon the spirits of MtG, Ramo, Chegitz and others - could come along and provide some basic information about, say, the Ireland thing that C0ckney is talking about, or something similar to that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:30
|
|
The first Intifada convinced Israel to enter the Oslo process. A Palestinian State was no longer a taboo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Cyprus - expulsion of the Brits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
The first point is that there are different applications of terrorism.
Terrorist actions for publicity or short term instability usually achieves some success, and some backlash and rejection of the perpertrators. The Palestinian terrorism since the early '70's is an example. It served to keep the Palestinian situation in the news but made the Palestinian cause unpopular in some quarters. The intifada is as much civil disobedience as terrorism and is making the cost of the occupied territories to Israel very high. Whether the cost is too high remains to be seen.
Terrorism as a means of advancing a political movement which has popular support is more successful if the movement behind it spreads. The French problems in Indo-China, culminating in conventional military defeat are an example of success in this type, the defeat of the communist terrorists in Malaya an example of failure.
The Easter Rising and the eventual establishment of the Irish Republic is part terrorism, part civil disobedience. It also serves as an example that terrorism and insurgency needs favourable external circumstances to succeed. Without WW1 and subsequent war weariness on the part of the British the outcome may well have been different.
Mandated Palestine is another example of external circumstances. Without widespread sympathy, particularly in the USA, for a Jewish homeland after the Holocaust the British could have severely restricted Jewish immigration and made things more difficult for the terror groups. The fact that the occupying power basically wanted out of the problem made it easier for the terrorists. Also the main objective for the Jewish terrorists was to encourage the arab population to flee, in which they were successful once it became clear the area was to become a battleground.
If the objective is simply fear and panic, and a backlash, then terrorism is usually successful, as with 9/11.
To bring about political change terrorism on its own isn't enough, it needs to be applied as a means to advance an organised political movement and to be carefully controlled. Examples are rare. Rhodesia is possibly one. Only where the cost of opposing the pressure for political change is too high can terrorism achieve "success".
The current problems in Iraq are an interesting test as to whether Western governments have learnt the lessons of the last 50 years about how terrorism succeeds or fails. They probably have but the correct responses take time to have effect.
Terrorism isn't new. Historical records of atrocities committed by groups opposed to the leaders and governments of the day go back several thousand years. It is something that is likely to be with us for a long time to come, regardless of how relatively successful or otherwise it actually is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The Algeria "War" of independence was largely a terrorist war against the French. They succeeded in making the French leave a place they considered to be part of their country. |
Interesting example. The French actually achieved military defeat of the terrorists. They smashed the "internal" FLN and reduced the flow of terrorists and arms into the country to a trickle. However they incurred a cost in terms of adverse world and domestic opinion. After a change of governemnt in France, De Gaulle wasn't prepared to pay that cost so the French left. A president who was prepared to ride it out could possibly have done so and France retained Algeria, at least for some considerable time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
Cyprus - expulsion of the Brits. |
Some success for a terror campaign - yes, but not entirely.
In the end the Brits kept what mattered to them, military bases in the eastern mediterranean. EOKA didn't get what it wanted, unification with Greece. The stage was set for the subsequent Turkish invasion, not what the terrorists ever wanted. Verdict - partial success.
It is worth noting the difference between terrorism aimed at ousting a colonial or occupying power, which usually has a degree of support amongst the local population and often has some degree of success, and terrorism against a reasonably popular and competent government, which usuall persists at a low level without any real achievement for years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
9/11 worked in terms of creating fear panic that has thus far never really gone away.. in nearly 2 years.
It created a political/social backlash that resulted in knee jerk wars, making it easier for OBL to justify a jihad. Thus far, its working. Ultimately of course it will fail, but as a short term means to that end it has been quite successful. 
Terrorism does not work tactically. Its more of a mind game. If you consider success in terms of mere material/collateral/tactical damage, then its pathetic. If you mean in terms of morale, its about the most successful crime one can commit... and ultimately of course, it is a crime.
Still, lets not get into this... too many terrorist threads this week!  |
9-11 was a failure. In its execution, it was almost flawless (remember the plane that hit in Pennsylvania because the passengers defeated the terrorists), in fact brilliant. Yes it has succeeded in creating fear, and getting many in the Arab world to dislike the US. But it also got the US's MAJOR attention. Just like Pearl Harbor, it was successful in execution and helped the Japanese at the start, but it set the stage for their defeat. What was it the Japanese admiral said? "I fear we have awakened a sleeping dragon" or something like that. That's what 9-11 did, and it will be the terrorists undoing. Already the US is in a position from which it can cut off terrorism. With Iraq, we are no longer dependent on the Saudis for oil or bases in the ME, for one example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CerberusIV
Some success for a terror campaign - yes, but not entirely.
In the end the Brits kept what mattered to them, military bases in the eastern mediterranean. |
It is true that the bases have stayed but the aim was for the colonial power to leave. Also said bases are now inside a sovereigner state which means that their presence can be evaluated and negotiated for the freed state advantage as well. The rampant economic growth of CYprus after the British Empire left is notesworthy.
quote:
EOKA didn't get what it wanted, unification with Greece. |
This is very true. But not all Cypriotes wanted the unification. Remember that there was a coup by the then military Athens in CYprus to "conveince them".
quote:
The stage was set for the subsequent Turkish invasion, not what the terrorists ever wanted. |
That was actually a corelation of an imposed by Britain two community constitution that was not viable and Greece junta's also criminal mistakes. Assuming we attribute to the Turks only the limited responsibility of a vicious beast not to be counted amongst the sapients... Somehow this is not true and they bear the major burden of the massacre.
quote:
It is worth noting the difference between terrorism aimed at ousting a colonial or occupying power, which usually has a degree of support amongst the local population and often has some degree of success, and terrorism against a reasonably popular and competent government, which usuall persists at a low level without any real achievement for years. |
The first is called, atleast by The cypriotes, National Liberation Struggle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
Also said bases are now inside a sovereigner state which means that their presence can be evaluated and negotiated for the freed state advantage as well. |
Read the small print on the deal. The two base areas are sovereign British territory. They are not part of the Cypriot state at all. They are not leased and there is no expiry date on British occupation of the bases.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Hence, the word" negotiation" which also applies for the future. If Cyprus deemed that their presence did not serve its interests as well, it would simply confiscate the territory. I doubt Britain would launch an invasion to reclaim them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Oerdin
The Argentines thought similiarly. |
I thought the Malvidas hadn't achieved independence from the British Empire in the first place.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-08-2003 15:20
|