
Terrorism is not about terror - Artistry121
http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
======
nabla9
Biggest problem with analyzing terrorism is in the definition.

Classifying both Hezbollah and al-Qaeda as terrorist groups means that you
have spread the definition for any group that may have bombed civilians at
some time or another. I would claim that Hezbollah is much more than terrorist
group. Their success or failure does not depend on terrorism.

Second bias might be exclusion of successful terrorism that is later
legitimized. For example, are IZL and Stern Gang included? I would say that
they were highly successful. How about Stalin and early communists in Russia?
If terrorists have enough support and are successful early, terrorism turns
into ethnic cleansing and/or revolution and it is taken out from the list.

Third problem is that terrorism seems by definition be the underdog because
official or state terrorism is excluded. Many dictators use terrors
successfully as tactics (kidnapping, torturing and killing civilians or
relatives of their opponents) but this does not fit under terrorism. Taiwans
White Terror or Augusto Pinochet used terror as tactics but it's not
classified as that.

~~~
meric
The original definition of terrorism is "government by intimidation"[1]. i.e.
If a government uses terror to control it's populace, it's terrorism, e.g.,
U.S. government intimidating it's workers not to whistle-blow is one example.
Somewhere along history it flipped to "intimidation of governments". Whichever
way you read the word, however, the U.S. is a state sponsor of terrorism[2],
having provided support to Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden when they were fighting in
Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, amongst many others[3][4], not
withstanding the acts causing terror such as the bombing of a Doctors Without
Borders hospital[5], and in 2013 giving weapons to Syrian Rebels[6], which we
know ISIS & Al-Qaeda[7] are the biggest factions.

To answer your question, Pinochet, Taiwan government in 70's, Stalin, would
all be terrorists, according to the original definition of terrorism, as in
"intimidation by governments". Somewhere along the way propaganda completely
reversed the meaning of the word to "intimidation of governments by non-
government actors". Either way, the word "terrorism" used in propaganda
everywhere, it is a loaded word used carefully with craft to manipulate the
people's perception of nefarious activities performed by governments from all
around the world, the biggest of which is the U.S. government.

 _Terrorism_ , the word itself, is the weapon.

Terrorism are certain activities performed by one's enemies, when one wishes
to use the word _terrorism_ to intimidate the populace to allow the government
to implement draconian policies.

1\.
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/may/07/terrorism](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/may/07/terrorism)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden)

3\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-
sponso...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-
sponsored_terrorism)

4\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Allen_Davis_incident)

5\. [http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/05/us-bombs-doctors-
without...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/05/us-bombs-doctors-without-
borders-hospital-in-kunduz-merkel-in-new-delhi-isis-claims-killing-in-
bangladesh-pakistan-prepares-punjab-operation/)

6\. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/cia-b...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-
begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-
rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html)

7\.
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-
trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-
affiliate-in-Syria.html)

 _U.S. claims to only supply weapons to "moderate" rebels, and U.S. describes
Al-Qaeda as "moderate"._

~~~
varjag
> Somewhere along the way propaganda completely reversed the meaning of the
> word to "intimidation of governments by non-government actors".

It's a bit more nuanced than that. For the first 100 or so years "terrorism"
was self proclaimed policy by revolutionaries of all sorts, for example the
first French Republic or a number of Russian 19th century anarchist factions.
The term did not originate as propaganda or a political slur, it was proud
banner of the activists at the time. Perhaps only by 1920s the extreme
political left felt compelled to distance from the term, and the term was
subsequently extended to any government or non-government intimidation
activity.

------
Artistry121
Terrorism is about finding an "in" group. How do you combat this?

My favorite quote about how the internet impacts terrorism:

"If we see terrorism as more of a tribal or gang activity than political
activism or warfare, then online connections become especially important to
our analysis, otherwise we will be fooled by so-called lone wolves. Earlier
‘lone wolves’ like bombers Timothy McVeigh or Eric Robert Rudolph turn out on
closer inspection to have ties, social & otherwise, to like-minded people;
McVeigh lived with several other extremists and was taught his bomb-making
skills by the Nichols, who also built the final bomb with him, while Rudolph
remained on the run for several years in a community that wrote songs and sold
t-shirts to praise him and was ultimately caught clean-shaven & wearing new
sneakers. Lone wolves who genuinely had no contact with their confreres, such
as Ted Kaczynski, are vanishingly rare exceptions among the dozens of
thousands of terrorist attacks in the 20th century, and as rare exceptions,
otherwise implausible explanations like mental disease account for them
without trouble."

~~~
jacquesm
There's also Breivik.

Terrorism is as much about media as it is about anything else and by giving
these suckers as much airtime as they get the media are more than just a
little bit complicit in providing them with a platform for their idiocy.

~~~
kwhitefoot
So stop doing it. That name turns up much more often in English language media
that it does here in Norway. Here he was to a quite large extent treated as a
common criminal, a murderer.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
True. But the typical Norwegian words for he-who-shall-not-be-named may not
carry the same connotations in an international context: "the terrorist", "the
perpetrator", "the murderer", etc. So it may not be that simple to translate
it. Plus, journalists in general aren't the most eloquent and precise of
wordsmiths.

~~~
kwhitefoot
No, that's not how it works here. When the event is mentioned in the media it
is usually in neutral terms that do not mention the perpetrator. The emphasis
is almost always on how we support those who were injured and the families of
those who were injured or killed and on how to move on. When the camp at Utøya
was formally reopened in the summer the opening speech was about the future
not the past.

------
jessaustin
Let's not spend any more time arguing about the style and cut of the emperor's
new clothes. Terrorism constitutes a tiny fraction of the threat to life,
health, and property that numerous widely-accepted institutions in Western
societies constitute. For some reason, though, it's the only topic that folks
in DC find fit for discussion. Could there be a reason for that?

~~~
ryanx435
the reason is that the a large portion of policy makers still believe that the
american economy runs on a military industrial complex.

The military industrial complex works great when there is an enemy to fight
that requires the production of military equipment. examples of this enemy, in
the past, were the Axis powers and the USSR during WWII and the cold war. It
doesn't work so well when there is no enemy to fight.

after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, there was an
"enemy vacuum": who would be the next enemy that the US could use to drive the
military industrial complex? Russia wasn't worth fighting indirectly any more
because they were too weak, and there really wasn't a competitor that was
strong enough or threatening enough for the US to parade around as the enemy.

enter terrorism: it provides a target that fulfills a number of very crucial
aspects:

1) non state actors: the US can go to war with terrorists without going to war
against the officially recognized government. This is key to global security
because conducting war within a nation's borders no longer constitutes an
assault on that nation. This prevents WWI type wars that start as a series of
cascading mutual protection treaties or similar.

2) difficult to define the enemy: who are terrorists? whoever the ruling party
deems terrorists. everyone else is a freedom fighter. This makes it convenient
to come up with a new enemy group of terrorists when the current batch has
been "defeated" or the american public becomes war weary.

3)easy for the government to drum up support for new military action by
creating and appealing to a sense of fear within the populace and a desire for
"safety".

4) oil: the majority of terrorist groups that are in the focus of the american
public's attention are primarily located within countries that have large oil
interests. Other terrorist groups located in other areas, such as the
philippines or south america, are largely ignored.

5) percieved threat of terrorists: it is easy to believe that terrorists are a
significant threat to US citizens precisely because of their ability to strike
on american soil. This greatly adds to their value as a enemy for the military
industrial compelex because the general us population sees the threat as
legitimate. (a converse example of this would be if the new enemy would have
been, say, brazil: they're not really a threat to the US because they wouldn't
really be able to directly threaten the american mainland.)

there are other reasons, i'm sure.

~~~
danbruc
The whole thing still doesn't make sense to me. You keep the people in the
military industrial complex in labor but you are not generating any wealth for
the nation. You collect taxes from people producing real wealth for the
country to feed weapons producers and an army only to then throw those
expensive bombs into some random dessert village at the other end of the
world. Why not use all that money and manpower to build things useful to the
nation? So what am I missing? How is war an economical effective way of using
those resources? Some would probably say it is the access to oil and other
resources but whenever I looked at that it seemed to me that no exceptionally
profitable deals or other outcomes were reached.

~~~
ryanx435
the problem is that you are only looking at the surface level, and thats why
it doesn't make sense to you. bombing a shitty dessert country doesn't provide
any single large benefit, but it does provide many smaller benefits that add
up to be worth it (if viewed in a certain light):

the government pays the soldiers/airmen/marines/sailors a wage for their
services. Those service members and their families then use that money to
purchase other services. This helps bolster the overall american economy.

the government pays contractors to provide all the
food/water/clothing/bullets/office equipment/communication equipment/whatever
needed to conduct war. This creates jobs, which helps the american economy.

the government contracts flights from airlines to transport troops to and from
warzones. this creates more jobs and helps bolster the airline industry.

the government purchased those bombs from a manufacturer using tax dollars:
also could be phrased as the government creating jobs in the bomb
manufacturing industry. Those people working in the bomb manufacturing
industry then go and spend their wages on other things, like food, clothing,
apps, computers, etc. That is useful to the nation.

another benefit: intimidating other countries. Don't go to war with america,
we'll bomb the shit out of you and you will die. to use a common phrase, "an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." this is beneficial to the
nation.

another benefit: the military gains experience in war, which will be a large
benefit if the US ends up going to war against a real country. veteran armies
historically have a large advantage against rookie armies.

another benefit: the threat of force (or protection against other forces) can
be used to enter into treaties with other states that are not directly
involved. Look at NATO: literally a treaty between nations in order to gain
protection from America against the Soviets. NATO has provided a large benefit
to the nation. Pax Americana is a real thing.

another benefit: technological development. DARPA is a government program that
is designed to fund new technologies. Its overall goal is to keep the US
military at the technological forefront, but its side effects are greatly
beneficial to the populace at large: GPS (a single example among many) is a
direct result of DARPA. this provides a huge benefit to the american (and the
world's) people.

so yes, you are right that the purchase of that single bomb at whatever cost
probably wasn't worth it. but the overall system of purchasing and using bombs
and the logistics of delivering those bombs to a warzone and the entire
network of individuals that are needed to invent, manufacture, deliver, load,
use, and whatever else is needed, is what really benefits the american people.

~~~
danbruc
I disagree with most of your points insofar that there always seems another
option to gain similar or even more benefits.

Military and military industry for economic benefits. Just pay them to build
highways, bridges or whatever, they will still spend the wages on food, houses
and cars. And you can keep the highways and bridges.

Attacking the USA? Geographically almost impossible, no need to intimidate
someone.

Veteran army, well maybe, but given all the technological and financial
superiority of the US forces compared to their past war opponents the track
record doesn't really reflect that as far as I can tell.

Pax Americana, I think is a thing of the past. It may be a bit to early to
conclude that humanity left it aggressive youth behind but I think it is
pretty unlikely that we will see something like a third world war or even
larger international wars, it just isn't worth it.

And finally you can also spend the same amount of money for research without
military technology advances as driving force.

------
munificent
I think we need to get better at looking at groups from a natural selection
perspective. Any given individual has a finite amount of time to contribute to
the social groups they belong to. That means groups are always competing for
members. You can think of a group as a single organism competing with other
group-organisms in an environment where members are "food".

The group may have overt goals that are not about the group's own survival,
but groups that do not devote significant effort to their continued
existence—whether deliberately or inadvertently—simply can't compete and die
out.

The Shakers[1] are a good example of this. They religion requires celibacy
which means the only way the group survives is through adoption and conversion
of new members. That makes it very hard for them to compete with other faiths,
and the religion is almost totally gone today.

What I find fascinating is that in many groups, survival forces directly
oppose the group's own overt goals. The classic example is the NAACP. It's
goal is the elimination of racism, but if we ever pull that off, there's no
need to have an NAACP anymore either.

From this angle terrorist organizations make a lot more sense. Random
terrorist attacks are highly visible and increase the public profile of the
group. They make the group appear relatively strong compared to other
competing extremist groups.

Being inflexible and dogmatic makes them less effective, but satisfies members
who join the group specifically because of its extreme views.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers)

~~~
saint_fiasco
> What I find fascinating is that in many groups, survival forces directly
> oppose the group's own overt goals. The classic example is the NAACP.

Anohter very relevant example are the organizations that are supposed to
protect people from terrorists. What happens to them when terrorists stop
terrorizing?

~~~
NumberCruncher
The same applies to psychologists. What happens to them if they heal their
patients so they don't need the therapy anymore...

~~~
saint_fiasco
That maybe true for psychologists as a group, I don't know.

But for the individual psychologist, it's still better for _his_ patients to
do OK so they will tell other potential patients that he is a good
psychologist.

The members of terrorist and anti-terrorist organizations don't really get
that sort of feedback.

------
grandalf
In the pre-internet world, the hardest thing for terrorist groups was to
propagandize to their local supporters, for fundraising, etc. They used to
have to have elaborate networks for distributing audio tapes, video tapes,
etc.

These days, with the internet, it's not only easy/affordable to reach the
local constituents, but also to reach foreign audiences.

ISIS is the first modern terrorist group, in this sense. Much of its
propaganda is designed specifically to intimidate westerners watching from
home.

Modern terrorism capitalizes on the free PR that the recipient group provides.
Mainstream TV networks have giving ISIS tens of millions of dollars worth of
free publicity.

Terrorist groups are "big tent" groups, much like western political parties.
Donors may think they are donating for food and infrastructure, but some of
that money may go to fund bombings, etc.

The goal of war is to break the will of the enemy. Terrorism is a useful
tactic, which is why it is used by the West via drone strikes and fear
campaigns.

If you have a small budget, terrorism is a far cheaper way to attempt to break
the will of the enemy than conventional warfare, and its successes and
failures play out over a longer period of time.

The US, while it doesn't have a small budget, has very little tolerance for
aspects of war that appear to the public as messy or gruesome, which is why we
choose drone strikes and other low-budget ways to attempt to break the will of
our enemies.

Terrorism is not guerrilla warfare, as the article claims, but propaganda
warfare. The symbolic strike is everything. The more fear created by strikes,
the more effective they are.

~~~
Animats
" _ISIS is the first modern terrorist group_ "

ISIS is an insurgency movement which attempts to take and hold territory. It
uses terror as a weapon, as preliminary intimidation against groups it wants
to conquer outright, or exterminate.

That sort of thing goes back to at least the Mongols.

~~~
grandalf
My point was intending to emphasize that ISIS has done a far better job of
adapting its approach to modern PR realities than other groups that use
terrorism as a tactic.

------
obrero
> terrorist organizations never use terrorism as a last resort and seldom
> seize opportunities to become productive nonviolent political parties

If you look at Colombia, the Colombian establishment, and US government, have
never respected the will of the average Colombian, or Colombia's sovereignty
for that matter. Obama's guards going off to sleep with prostitutes (and stiff
them at that) is a great symbol for the US/Colombian relationship.

Jorge Eliécer Gaitán looked like he was going to become president of Colombia
in 1948, so he was murdered by someone supporting the Colombian establishment.
This led over time to a series of events (and US intervention) which caused
FARC to arise. In 1984, FARC desired to stop its armed campaign, which had
wide support among southern Colombian peasants, and enter politics. This was
not something desired by Colombia's establishment or Reagan, and thousands of
left-wingers were murdered in Colombia, including all left wing presidential
candidates. In 1987, FARC picked up the armed struggle. The Colombian elite
and US response to leftists in Colombia entering politics is to murder them.
Just like when leftists in Chile were murdered like Salvador Allende on
September 11, 1973. The Chilean establishment and US answer even elected
government's like Allende's with violence and murder.

The mujahideen is another example. Sylvester Stallone dedicated Rambo III to
the mujahideen in a movie glorifying them as freedom fighters, as did the US
political establishment and almost all of the pundits, outside of maybe The
Nation. Now Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda and the Taliban are supposed to be
awful people, whereas the Taliban used to make friendly visits to the White
House. It's complete hypocrisy.

~~~
joyeuse6701
If you strip any situation of context it can be called hypocrisy. 'The U.S.
used to war with Japan and were the greatest of enemies... Now the U.S.
guarantees their safety! What hypocrisy'. Time is a factor, interests are a
factor. U.S. hypocrisy is best highlighted by the propaganda pushing for
democratic republics while simultaneously undermining the democratic process.
Of course the real aim of the U.S. or any nation that has the power to
influence is to back those they find favorable to themselves by whatever
means, natural democracy be damned.

------
rorykoehler
Terrorism is a convenient term that has been so over- and mis-used that it
means nothing anymore. As far as I understand it was supposed to mean the
unofficial use of violence to achieve political aims. Now the establishment
uses it for anyone it doesn't like. When I hear it all I can think is that the
person using it has an agenda and is trying to mislead me (through the use of
propaganda).

------
6t6t6
The word terrorism now belongs to the "Newspeak".

A guy who infiltrates into an enemy army base in order to kill __soldiers
__from a foreign country cannot be terrorist.

And a country that drops a bomb from a drone into a wedding party because
someone suspects that there may be some enemies among the guests, is obviously
practicing terrorism.

------
leroy_masochist
Money quote:

"the preponderance of evidence is that people participate in terrorist
organizations for the social solidarity, not for their political return."

Reminds me a bit of an article from earlier this year [0] which argues that
young men who leave Europe to join ISIS do so largely out of a desire to
belong to something important.

[0]: [http://aeon.co/magazine/culture/the-appeal-of-isis-isnt-
so-f...](http://aeon.co/magazine/culture/the-appeal-of-isis-isnt-so-far-from-
that-of-tolkien/)

------
tedks
I get that you can get upvotes just for the (gwern.net), but come on, this is
one of his worst.

>There is a commonly-believed “strategic model” of terrorism which we could
describe as follows: terrorists are people who are ideologically motivated to
pursue specific unvarying political goals; to do so, they join together in
long-lasting organizations and after the failure of ordinary political
tactics, rationally decide to efficiently & competently engage in violent
attacks on (usually) civilian targets to get as much attention as possible and
publicity for their movement, and inspire fear & terror in the civilian
population, which will pressure its leaders to solve the problem one way or
another, providing support for the terrorists’ favored laws and/or their
negotiations with involved governments, which then often succeed in gaining
many of the original goals, and the organization dissolves.

{{who}}? Come on. Not even a single source on this.

It's easy to burn your enemies if they're straw men.

~~~
readymade
I agree, it's rather appalling scholarship and it’s disappointing that this is
being taken seriously here. A novice writes a paper with no citations, an
amateur writes one with practically nothing but them. Any one of the academic
articles he links to would shed more light on the topic, on its own, than this
essay does in its entirety.

The observation that terrorism is somewhat socially driven is interesting but
should be backed by a deeper frame of reference, and one that the authors of
those papers surely understood: the larger goals of an organization like Al
Qaeda don’t align at all with traditional political demands. The long term
strategy involves attacking the US to draw them into open war with a muslim
country, spreading the conflict to neighboring regions, mobilizing local
resistance to the invaders (as in Afghanistan) and drawing the west into a war
of attrition. In this sense they’ve been startlingly successful, and a focus
on social capital and “branding”, as opposed to concrete demands of existing
governments, is actually quite strategic. Whatever commonality this has with
the IRA, the FARC, or even Hezbollah and Hamas is superficial at best.

------
cm2187
I think the few times where terrorism had a political agenda, it was not about
getting the adhesion of the population through terror. It is more of a
provocation, which is meant to provoke a reaction, hoping that the target
population will be hostile to that reaction.

Think about IRA. Most of their bombings and assassinations were designed to
make the UK install a police state in Northern Ireland, with the intention
that the population will become increasingly hostile to the UK in reaction.

Terrorism targeted at american troops in Iraq was following pretty much the
same pattern, like Indian terrorism before the independance or the french
resistance during ww2.

ISIS is the same thing. They are desperate to grab attention by destroying
historic sites and staging horrific executions. I believe their true goal is
to provoke a western coalition against them so they can recruit fighters in
the muslim world arguing it is a crusade.

That being said, I believe that individual terrorists have historically little
real political agenda. Even in wealthy democracies there will always be a
bunch of violent thugs who want to kill, blow things up. The ideology is more
of a pretext and they might have gone for a criminal career anyway. I don't
think there are many differences between the assassins of the Baader Meinhof
gang, the home grown al quaeda terrorists, IRA terrorists, or the ZAD
militants throwing acid on policemen to protest against the construction of an
airport in France.

Fundamentally terrorism is just another category in common crime. Neither new
or particularly worse today, and not by any mean the most problematic form of
crime by body count. The current hysteria about terrorism not only isn't
achieving anything, but in some cases it is actually falling into the
terrorists trap. We should react to terrorism like we do to rape, gang
violence, drug related crime, etc. Not ignore the problem, be tough enough but
not make the problem bigger than it is.

------
Synaesthesia
What I want to know is what's the definition of terrorism? That's very
important. Let's define terrorism as the use or threat of force for political
gain.(a US military definition) Then the biggest terrorist of the last 15
years is the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

~~~
meapix
I'll start, terrorism is a violence of any kind.

~~~
klez
That's an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism.

Following that definition, these acts can be considered terrorism:

\- Pub brawl

\- Running someone over with a car

\- Punching someone who is attacking you

\- Police hitting protestors

------
acqq
The term is simply used to name "the others" while inducing the emotional
response among "our" population. The terrorists are always those who are
against "us" and "we" can never do the "terrorism" even when "we" do "the
calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are
political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation,
coercion, or instilling fear."

The religions would call these "others" "the unbelievers," of course. Even
though everybody in the world doesn't believe in most of the gods of the
world. The "terrorists" is used as something like "the evil others."

A case study: The start of the WWII (in Europe) with Germany attacking Poland:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland)

"The invasion was referred to by Germany as the 1939 Defensive War since
Hitler proclaimed that Poland had attacked Germany and that "Germans in Poland
are persecuted with a _bloody terror_ and are driven from their homes. The
series of border violations, which are unbearable to a great power, prove that
the Poles no longer are willing to respect the German frontier.""

It's always "them."

Even as internationally "agreed":

[http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/terrorism-
defined](http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/terrorism-defined)

"Although the longest, the United Nations' definition is arguably the broadest
and mostly serves to individualize the act, which, like the State Department,
disregards nations as possible agents of terrorism. At the time the
declaration was registered in April 2002, 132 of the 180 parties had signed
the resolution. What is most interesting about the United Nations Declaration
made by the General Assembly, is not necessarily the definition itself, but
the 'declarations', 'reservations', 'understandings', and subsequent
'objections' made by the parties (See Appendix). Take notice how Yemen did not
sign the declaration on the basis that, as a nation, it did not want to relay
the impression that it was recognizing Israel's existence. Many of the
countries signed the declaration, but not before declaring that it did not
apply to them because they were unbound for one reason or another."

"United States signed with the following reservation: "(a) pursuant to Article
24 (2) of the Convention, the United States of America declares that it does
not consider itself bound by Article 24 (1) of the Convention; and

(b) the United States of America reserves the right specifically to agree in a
particular case to follow the arbitration procedure set forth in Article 24
(1) of the Convention or any other procedure for arbitration."

Understandings:

"(1) EXCLUSION OF LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES AGAINST LAWFUL TARGETS. The United
States of America understands that nothing in the Convention precludes any
State Party to the Convention from conducting any legitimate activity against
any lawful target in accordance with the law of armed conflict.

(2) MEANING OF THE TERM 'ARMED CONFLICT'. The United States of America
understands that the term 'armed conflict' in Article 2 (1) (b) of the
Convention does not include internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots,
isolated and sporadic acts of violence, and other acts of a similar nature."

With regard to the declaration made by the Jordan upon ratification:

"The Government of the United States of America, after careful review,
considers the statement made by Jordan relating to paragraph 1 (b) of Article
2 of the Convention (the Declaration) to be a reservation that seeks to limit
the scope of the offense set forth in the Convention on a unilateral basis.
The Declaration is contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention,
namely, the suppression of the financing of terrorist acts, irrespective of
where they take place or who carries them out.""

------
jredwards
One of my college professors wrote a really interesting book on exactly this
topic:

[http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Religious-Violent-Economics-
Te...](http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Religious-Violent-Economics-
Terrorism/dp/0262516675/)

Highly recommend it.

------
ilaksh
[http://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorism-is-made-in-the-usa-
th...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorism-is-made-in-the-usa-the-global-
war-on-terrorism-is-a-fabrication-a-big-lie/5435816)

------
peterwwillis
Terrorism is an agenda sought through terror. Nobody ever claimed terrorism
was rational or effective. It's just the physical implementation of hate
speech.

I think The Westboro Baptist Church is a great example of a terrorist
organization. Sure, they haven't blown up anyone with a pipe bomb like other
extremist christian terror groups, but you can see in their bumbling
intimidation tactics how they're just acting violently in hopes that they get
what they want (in this case mainly violent speech and intimidation through
picketing). If anything they're more focused on inflicting pain than
successfully achieving their objective.

In this sense, terrorism is about terror.

------
sandworm101
>>Statistical analysis of terrorist groups’ longevity, aims, methods and
successes reveal that groups are self-contradictory and self-sabotaging,
generally ineffective;

"Every revolution carries within it the seeds of its own destruction." (A
cookie to anyone who knows where that is from.)

~~~
Afforess
Karl Marx. Karl Marx wrote that Capitalism carries within it the seeds of its
own destruction, that capitalists would sell you the noose with which you
could hang them.

~~~
sandworm101
Maybe that's where it started, but the exact quote is from a totally different
place. Think deserts and religious extremism.

~~~
rzzzt
Karl Marx from House Atreides, then.

------
meapix
Terrorism as delivered by the media in the current time is Islamic related
violence.

------
hitekker
I may not fully agree with each and every point, but I always appreciate the
research and meticulousness gwern brings to the table.

~~~
Theodores
I don't. This article is clueless. The truth has not been triangulated here.

Sometimes one needs to pull one's backside out of academic citations and speak
to people, at the moment Syrian people are pretty handy for informing one's
own perspective on things. I am fortunate in that I know regular Syrian people
that do professional jobs, raise kids, play football and have plenty of family
back home.

Normal people that happen to have moved out before the rest from Syria don't
have some crazy viewpoint, but you have to talk to them. They may not know the
truth either but they can provide a point of reference not provided by the
media or 'well meaning' articles written by people that either know nothing or
have an axe to grind.

~~~
jessaustin
This would be more persuasive if you told us what your prescient Syrian
acquaintances think, and how that contradicts TFA.

------
crimsonalucard
Terrorism is show business.

------
rhodri
So I suppose terrorists are like goths.

------
a3voices
_There is comparatively strong theoretical and empirical evidence that people
become terrorists not to achieve their organization’s declare political
agenda, but to develop strong affective ties with other terrorist members. In
other words, the preponderance of evidence is that people participate in
terrorist organizations for the social solidarity, not for their political
return._

Well this is probably true for any organization, and for culture in general.

~~~
jredwards
That's true, but these groups offer a lot more than your average highschool
club. It's a social structure and a livelihood.

~~~
grandalf
you could say the same thing about the US military though, couldn't you?

------
curiousjorge
I've always questioned the logic of mass murdering innocent civilians to get
them to vote their current leader out.

~~~
murbard2
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_(Liberian_polit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_\(Liberian_politician\)#Presidency)

"After the official end of the civil war in 1996, Taylor ran for president in
the 1997 general election. He famously campaigned on the slogan "He killed my
ma, he killed my pa, but I will vote for him."[22] The elections were overseen
by the United Nations' peacekeeping mission, United Nations Observer Mission
in Liberia, along with a contingent from the Economic Community of West
African States.[23] Taylor won the election in a landslide, garnering 75
percent of the vote. Although the election was widely reckoned as free and
fair by international observers, Taylor had a huge advantage going into the
election. He'd already taken over the former state radio station, which
referred to him as "His Excellency." Additionally, there was widespread fear
that Taylor would resume the war if he lost."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Escobar#La_Catedral_pris...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Escobar#La_Catedral_prison)

"Escobar was allegedly responsible for the 1989 murder of Colombian
presidential candidate Luis Carlos Galán, one of three assassinated candidates
who were all competing in the same election, as well as the bombing of Avianca
Flight 203 and the DAS Building bombing in Bogotá in 1989. "

...

"After declaring an end to a series of previous violent acts meant to pressure
authorities and public opinion, Escobar surrendered to Colombian authorities
in 1991. He was confined in what became his own luxurious private prison, La
Catedral. Before Escobar gave himself up, the extradition of Colombian
citizens had been prohibited by the newly approved Colombian Constitution of
1991. That was controversial, as it was suspected that Escobar or other drug
lords had influenced members of the Constituent Assembly."

~~~
grandalf
What you describe about Escobar is pretty much exactly the period of history
covered by Amazon's original series "Narcos".

------
oso2k
"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present
controls the past." [0] \-- George Orwell, 1984

"History is written by the victors." [1] \-- Napolean

[0] [http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6145-he-who-controls-the-
pas...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/6145-he-who-controls-the-past-
controls-the-future-he-who)

[1]
[https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/210910.Napol_on_Bona...](https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/210910.Napol_on_Bonaparte)

~~~
dalke
Please distrust goodreads as an authoritative source for quotes. If you search
you'll also find that "History is written by the victors" is also attributed
to Churchill and to Hitler. My experience is that quotes to famous people,
without any citation, are almost always misattributed.

For what it's worth, the oldest Google Book search for 'history is written by
the victors' is from the 1970 "Willard W. Waller on the Family, Education, and
War", p148, in a section dated "previous unpublished." A search for 'history
is written by the winners' finds this summary of the history of the quote,
[https://books.google.com/books?id=d6JZryGvfxYC&pg=PA90&dq=%2...](https://books.google.com/books?id=d6JZryGvfxYC&pg=PA90&dq=%22written+by+the+winners%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAGoVChMIr5Dqz7GsyAIVBXdyCh3eVgk6#v=onepage&q=%22written%20by%20the%20winners%22&f=false)
and concludes there is no clear origin.

~~~
oso2k
And google books is authoritative? Napoleon was oldest the attribution I could
find. I actually believe the quote is far older the 1970, maybe homer or some
other writer from antiquity describing Alexander the Great. Maybe Plutarch.
Grammatically, it's probably not identical to the modern English version,
especially if it were translated from the original Greek or possibly Latin.

~~~
dang
Dalke didn't claim that Google Books is authoritative. He's right that nearly
all attributions of famous quotes to famous people turn out bogus—the real
sources are usually obscure and often interesting. They're also often more
recent than you'd think. Who knows if that 1970 find is the origin of this one
(probably not), but it's exactly the sort of thing that could be.

A great resource for these is the Quote Investigator, an anonymous researcher
who has slowly been building up an impressive portfolio of all the well-known
catchy quotes. Here's a great recent example:
[http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/08/28/fish/](http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/08/28/fish/).
He or she takes requests, so I asked him or her to put "history is written by
the victors" on his or her todo list.

~~~
dalke
As a minor observation, the researcher goes by the pseudonym 'Garson O’Toole'
and uses the gendered pronoun 'he' when referring to the pseudonym, as seen at
[http://quoteinvestigator.com/about/](http://quoteinvestigator.com/about/) :

> What is Dr O’Toole’s background? Garson O’Toole has a doctorate from Yale
> University, and exploring quotations is one of his avocations.

(The Yale law librarian Fred R. Shapiro and editor of the Yale Book of
Quotations further goes on to say the person is "PhD'86" from Yale
[http://yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/3838](http://yalealumnimagazine.com/articles/3838)
. However, if Shapiro is part of a Tlön-like conspiracy, then this would be
exactly how to create a new Bourbaki.)

Also, if
[https://books.google.com/books?id=QZ0eAQAAMAAJ&q=history+is+...](https://books.google.com/books?id=QZ0eAQAAMAAJ&q=history+is+written+by+the+winners&dq=history+is+written+by+the+winners&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y)
is correct about the date, The New Yorker, Volume 42, Part 4 (1966) leads with
the line "Much of the world's history is written by history's winner".

