
Terrorism is not about Terror - gwern
http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20about%20Terror
======
ljf
I do agree with most of what is said there, but it misses out terror groups
like the KKK, that WERE about terror, and achieved (successfully) their aims
through terror. They aided and caused the oppression of black people by
carrying out a number of lynchings which left the wider black (and whites who
might aid the black cause) community afraid of breaking the status quo.

This was a special case as the terror group was widely in bed with local
policing, but it's a point to consider when discussing terrorism of the the
19th, 20th and 21st century.

~~~
spindritf
> terror groups like the KKK, that WERE about terror

With all those silly titles, meetings, garments, and weird rituals that most
often didn't involve black people... doesn't it sound like they were also
about socializing?

They were a violent masonic lodge. _Let 's call ourself grand dragons, and
burn a cross in the evening._

~~~
richardjordan
What nonsense. The KKK are directly linked to countless acts of physical
intimidation, violence and murder perpetrated against the targets of their
prejudice.

Military units socialize over dinner, doesn't make them less lethal. I'm sure
Al Qaeda members break the bread together from time to time, doesn't stop them
being terrorists.

~~~
spindritf
> KKK are directly linked to countless acts of physical intimidation

Yes, so are other terrorists group. And politicians really do make policies
but politics may not be about policy. Read up on the whole "X is not about Y"
concept[1]. I found it quite enlightening.

[1] [http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-
isnt-a.html](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/09/politics-isnt-a.html)

------
ChuckMcM
This stood out, _" the preponderance of evidence is that people participate in
terrorist organizations for the social solidarity, not for their political
return."_

There was a foreign policy brief which basically said "People want to feel
like they can make a difference." The more involved people are with running
their community, the less likely they are to be involved in terrorizing it.

I don't know if there a good way to test that correlation though.

------
theHiccups
There's a significant amount of willful of political amnesia in those 7
puzzles.

When one considers that Al Queda cut it's teeth, learning the effectiveness of
political violence, by participating in resistance to Russia's Afghan invasion
of the 1980's (with the eager assistance of the CIA), the nonsense purported
in those 7 puzzles goes right out the window.

~~~
gwern
First, let me point out that it is meaningless to offer a single counter-
example as a response to a statistical generalization over thousands of
terrorist incidents and hundreds of terrorist groups over the past century or
so. You haven't even begun to argue on the same level. "Smoking is bad and
cuts X years off life expectancy." "What willful amnesia! Don't you remember
your uncle was a smoker and died at the ripe age of 85?"

Second, what the predecessors to AQ did in Afghanistan is irrelevant. They
were fighting a conventional/guerrilla war against a government run by a
foreign superpower, and were heavily funded by the rival foreign superpower
and its regional nation-state allies like Saudi Arabia who viewed it as a
matter of geopolitical survival w/r/t subversion to neighboring countries &
global energy supplies. This looks nothing like their later terrorist
campaigns and the lessons or success of one do not generalize to the global
summaries of terrorist groups - not that you bothered to explain how the 7
puzzles 'go right out the window' in the first place.

~~~
theHiccups
I pretty much reject the entire premise of any sort of quantitative
"statistical generalization", when it comes to "terror", because terror is an
arbitrary qualitative generalization to begin with.

So, here comes this analysis that attempts to state facts as:

    
    
      1. Terrorists only target civilians
    
      2. Guerrillas only target uniforms holding weapons
    

...and never the twain shall meet!

These kinds of generalizations in social science are flawed from the outset,
but now we try to plot the numbers anyway?

I don't buy into the idea that a heterogeneous mixture of non-state, civilian-
killing groups can be boiled down to bald numbers. I think it's a mistake to
even try.

I don't think targeting civilians is a rational goal, so how are you going to
apply ratios to it?

~~~
gwern
> I pretty much reject the entire premise of any sort of quantitative
> "statistical generalization", when it comes to "terror", because terror is
> an arbitrary qualitative generalization to begin with.

I don't think it is. While there are differences about edge cases, you'll find
an awful lot of agreement among people about 9/11 or a random suicide bomber
blowing himself up in a cafe. Terrorism can be reasonably defined, classified,
and statistically treated.

> I don't buy into the idea that a heterogeneous mixture of non-state,
> civilian-killing groups can be boiled down to bald numbers. I think it's a
> mistake to even try.

If they really are heterogenous then they can be analyzed in more meaningful
subgroups!

------
louwrentius
TL;DR

Sorry but I could not get through this badly written incoherent article. This
makes me question it's contents.

Or I am just dumb?

~~~
omonra
+1

There is a reason schools teach students to write using a specific template:

Thesis Argument Conclusion

This here is just a collection of random points. I imagine the author has a
point he is looking to make but unless the article is edited it will elude
most readers.

~~~
kiba
I understand his points. I am not sure why you guys are having difficult to
understanding what he's saying?

~~~
omonra
Because he doesn't bother to make a coherent argument and I have plenty of
better use of my time than try and parse what he is trying to say.

If you understand his argument - can you make an outline for us?

~~~
peterashford
That terrorist groups are most about providing a sense of belonging for it's
members than achieving political aims as evidenced by the fact that they
routine achieve the former and almost never the latter.

~~~
omonra
Thank you - so that's his thesis. I guess it sounds a lot like gangs.

------
saejox
They certainly doesn't care about 'winning'. It's a pure revengeful act.
Vengeance only exist where law doesn't exist.

~~~
akiselev
I would disagree. The conservative concept of justice practiced in much of the
world (including in the US and in many Muslim gov'ts) is almost inseparable
from vengeance.

~~~
saejox
How would you seek justice if your family is killed by an USA drone strike?

~~~
akiselev
Is this rhetorical or are you begging for this question to be torn apart?

~~~
cup
Its a valid question and Im curious how you would tear it apart.

------
jere
Off topic, but gwern, I've noticed you've gone on a reposting binge of your
old articles (14 in the last 3 weeks). Any reason in particular that you
decided to do this? And isn't this kind of thing generally frowned upon (maybe
not that's why I'm asking)? Not that I mind, by the way; they're really high
quality articles.

~~~
revelation
He is doing an experiment where he regularly posts one of his good articles
together with two foreign articles he liked.

See his submission history and comment here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6466422](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6466422)

~~~
gwern
> with two foreign articles he liked.

And if I may say so, I'm a little disappointed in the performance of those
submission - I thought many of them were better than my own article, but I
think maybe 2 or 3 at this point have reached the main page.

~~~
trendroid
Yup, many were better. But the thing is that they are long and you are not the
author. Your essays are long too but since you are authoring them, they become
popular. I think many just upvote you without reading your whole article.

~~~
gwern
That would explain the patterns, yes. (I'm also annoyed at how HN keeps
editing the submission titles. Seriously, who keeps wasting their time doing
that?!)

------
znowi
Well, the US is pretty much in terror since 9/11

~~~
gwern
A useful side-effect for many parties, indeed, but one that was not intended
by AQ, not one of its goals, did not achieve any of its goals, and has badly
hampered it.

------
ExpiredLink
Terrorism is war. A very small group declares war on a very large group and
uses weapons that reflect the disparity in means.

~~~
Joeboy
Terrorism can be thought of as a kind of voluntary sector war. I think in
general people working in the voluntary sector do so because they get
something out of it. Not necessarily anything sinister or material, but
something of personal benefit.

------
DanBC
> terrorist organizations do not achieve their stated political goals by
> attacking civilians;

Most terrorist groups have the concept of "legitimate target". This includes
the armed forces, the police forces, government officials, etc. For people
like the Mardi Gras bomber it would be people working at banks. They tend not
to target "civilians".

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

> terrorist organizations reflexively reject compromise proposals offering
> significant policy concessions by the target government1;

This is just game theory. You have the game "Chicken" \- two cars drive
towards each other, the last to swerve away wins. Imagine two drivers walk
arrive. One gets out of his car. He's alert, awake, aware, keen. Good odds,
you think. The other driver falls out of his car. He's steaming drunk, with a
bottle of bourbon in one hand and a crack pipe in the other. He takes his
prescription glasses off, and stamps on them, and puts on some dirty cracked
sunglasses. You realise that this guy is not going to swerve away, this guy is
going to win "Chicken".

The government offers anything? You have the vocal terror group yelling "NO
SURRENDER!!" while the political wing is secretly discussing how to accept the
deal and what they need to do in return. This keeps the supporters supporting
you in very polarised situations.

> terrorist organizations generally carry out anonymous attacks, precluding
> target countries from making policy concessions;

I'm not sure what this means. Some terrorist organisations have press offices
and use code words to declare actions. Others are umbrella groups allowing
anyone to claim an action under that main name.

> terrorist organizations with identical political platforms routinely attack
> each other more than their mutually professed enemy;

But the People's Front of Judea are the real splitters.

> terrorist organizations resist disbanding when they consistently fail to
> achieve their political platforms or when their stated political grievances
> have been resolved…

People use all sorts of things to define themselves. Some people define
themselves as freedom fighter, and it's hard to re-define yourself when
circumstances change. (You like Ruby now, but what about in 10 years?)

I guess it's interesting that terrorists fall into the same trap as most other
people.

It's interesting to play games about "how many people could I kill if I had 5
people and $10,000" or "how much havoc can I cause with very little money",
but that's not the point of terror. You only need to do a few things
occasionally to have huge impact. Killing more people doesn't have
particularly more impact, but does make people less sympathetic to your cause.

It was reasonably common to hear people say things like "I dislike the means
they use, but the IRA have a reasonable cause" (although the much more common
line was "terrorist scum") but killing more people would have stopped that
pretty quickly.

~~~
vinceguidry
> Most terrorist groups have the concept of "legitimate target". This includes
> the armed forces, the police forces, government officials, etc. For people
> like the Mardi Gras bomber it would be people working at banks. They tend
> not to target "civilians".

There's a definitional problem here. Typically, terrorism is defined as
targeting civilians specifically. When your targets are institutional /
military, it's called asymmetrical warfare.

The way you phrased it implies that there aren't many groups out there that
target civilians, and that's emphatically not so. You have:

\- Al Qaeda's general strategy of targeting "the West"

\- The Boston Marathon bombers

\- The 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

\- The Unabomber

\- The 2008 Mumbai attacks

\- The 2005 London subway bombings

\- The 2007 London car bombs

\- PLO and other Islamist groups indiscriminate rocket strikes on Isreali
settlements

All of these groups and organizations specifically target civilians.

~~~
carlob
>\- PLO and other Islamist groups indiscriminate rocket strikes on Isreali
settlements

You're getting things mixed up a little bit here. PLO is not a terrorist
organization nowadays, it has recognized the right of Israel to exist in peace
20 years ago and it has ceased violent activity in the seventies. It is
considered Palestine's political representation at the UN.

Because of this even if it were bombing Israeli civilian houses this would be
considered more of an act of war between states than terrorism. This is not to
say that there are no terrorist organizations in Palestine, just that the PLO
is not one of them.

~~~
vinceguidry
The PLO is not a singular organization in the way we tend to think of
organizations. They're more like a banner under which various groups place
their actions. It has a leader, but he's more of a "first among equals"
figurehead. He can make agreements, but his only way of executing them is to
issue a decree and hope everyone complies.

This dynamic is one of the reasons why peace in that area has been very
difficult to achieve. The other is that Israel consistently acts in a manner
opposed to peace as it hinders their expansionist aims.

Palestine is being recognized as a state by both Israel and the UN, but that
doesn't really make it a state the way we think of states. The institutions of
governance simply aren't there. There's no way, for the PLO to, say, collect
taxes legitimately. They are simply an organization looking to start up a
state in Palestine, much like any revolutionary body. They don't have power,
they aspire to it.

One can proclaim the PLO as a terrorist organization or not, that's none of my
concern, but there's no question that they've engaged in terrorist attacks,
and that's what I was referring to.

~~~
carlob
Well if one considers PLO more akin to a government, as the UN seems to do,
then any act of violence they commit can't be considered terroristic, because
of the monopoly of violence that nations hold. If you start counting that as
terrorism so do Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden.

Again I'm not debating whether what the PLO does is right or wrong, I'm making
a commentary on the free pass nations get when killing civilians.

------
angersock
Fascinating reference to the Black September dissolution (covered here: All
You Need Is Love ):

 _" My host, who was one of Abu Iyad’s most trusted deputies, was charged with
devising a solution. For months both men thought of various ways to solve the
Black September problem, discussing and debating what they could possibly do,
short of killing all these young men, to stop them from committing further
acts of terror.

    
    
        Finally they hit upon an idea. Why not simply marry them off? In other words, why not find a way to give these men – the most dedicated, competent, and implacable fighters in the entire PLO - a reason to live rather than to die? Having failed to come up with any viable alternatives, the two men put their plan in motion.

"_

This makes sense--when you have no family, no ties, _no vested interested in
the perpetuation of society_ , mad-dog terrorism doesn't seem unreasonable.
It's easier to blow up a school, presumably, when you don't have kids in one
yourself.

I think that improving economic conditions and availability of care to would
be a major step in eliminating terrorism, as well as I imagine crime.

Conversely, current domestic policies in the US seem to be willfully ignorant
of this fact.

------
guard-of-terra
I come to realise that modern Muslim terrorism is also a tool of discouraging
force actions by other classes and layers of citizens.

What they implicitly say, "we are muslim fundamentalists, everybody despises
us and think we are stupid and what we do is hurt people", which makes
everybody else think "hurting any kind of people in any case is bad since it
makes you look like a muslim fundamentalist, and nobody likes muslim
fundamentalists".

I can see this working.

