Historically speaking, how successful terrorism was...

Historically speaking, how successful terrorism was? Was there well targeted assassination or violent act against common men that advanced perpetrator's goals?

Other urls found in this thread:

politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_Savagery
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Hasan_Khalil_al-Hakim
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

As hideous and unpleasant this might sound, recent acts of Islamic terrorism were/are probably necessary for the Western world to understand that they can no longer just shit on an entire culture. These rare moments of terror became everyday life in many areas of the MENA region partially thanks to Western governments and the ordinary citizens seem to be completely oblivious of this fact. This doesn't fit into the 25 year rule though.

> This doesn't fit into the 25 year rule though.
Terrorism existed for centuries.

No. Terrorism sends a message: "Do not to fuck with us".
It usually ends in the target group fucking with the terrorists more.

9/11 transformed the U.S. into an Orwellian dystopia and baited the west into shitting on the whole Islamic world so much it made jihadism mainstream.

politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/

A good read on the subject

He wanted to destroy the Austria Hungary and did it.

in case of isis and modern jihad group it was the other way around actually.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_of_Savagery

>Management of Savagery (Arabic: إدارة التوحش: أخطر مرحلة ستمر بها الأمة, Idārat at-Tawaḥḥuš: Akhṭar marḥalah satamurru bihā l 'ummah),[1] also translated as Administration of Savagery,[1] is a book by the Islamist strategist Abu Bakr Naji, published on the Internet in 2004. It aimed to provide a strategy for al-Qaeda and other extremists whereby they could create a new Islamic caliphate.

>Management of Savagery discusses the need to create and manage nationalist and religious resentment and violence in order to create long-term propaganda opportunities for jihadist groups. Notably, Naji discusses the value of provoking military responses from superpowers in order to recruit and train guerilla fighters and to create martyrs. Naji suggests that a long-lasting strategy of attrition will reveal fundamental weaknesses in the ability of superpowers to defeat committed jihadists

>Management of Savagery argues that carrying out a campaign of constant violent attacks in Muslim states will eventually exhaust their ability and will to enforce their authority, and that as the writ of the state withers away, chaos—or "savagery"—will ensue. Jihadists can take advantage of this savagery to win popular support, or at least acquiescence, by implementing security, providing social services, and imposing Sharia. As these territories increase, they can become the nucleus of a new caliphate.

Most terror groups fail, they don't have a long life cycle but you do get big large ones which manage to survive for decades

Guerilla warfare is by far empirically more useful for political groups to use over terrorism, however terror is extremely cost effective

the nizairis were islamic terrorist way before it was cool and more sucessfull too. also the origin of the word "assasin" we use now
>The Nizaris posed a military threat to Sunni Seljuq authority within their territories by capturing and inhabiting many unconnected mountain fortresses throughout Persia, and later Syria, under the leadership of Hassan-i Sabbah. Sabbah is typically regarded as the founder of the Assassins, founding the so-called “Nizari Ismaili state” with Alamut Castle as its headquarters. Asymmetric warfare, psychological warfare, and surgical strikes were often an employed tactic of the hashashin, who would draw their opponents into submission rather than risk killing them.[1] In the modern era the legend of the assassins continues to motivate insurgencies and terrorist cells throughout Western Asia, which seek to replicate the methods and tactics developed by the Assassins.[2]

>While "Assassins" typically refers to the entire medieval Nizari sect, in fact only a class of acolytes known as the fida'i actually engaged in assassination work. Lacking their own army, the Nizari relied on these warriors to carry out espionage and assassinations of key enemy figures, and over the course of 300 years successfully killed two caliphs, and many viziers, sultans, and Crusader leaders.

That's interesting.

>"if we destroy this huge trade center, the western world will collapse into chaos and anarchy"

Didnn't work, USA is superior.

I will never not believe this nigger isn't serving some power, or doing it just for himself.

IIRC from a terrorism class I took in college it was extremely effective in getting Europeans out of Algeria. Eventually they just came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it and packed up and left. I think something very similar happened in Lebanon too. According to the class, that was the original aim of terrorism (in relation to colonial or regional independence movements). To make less and less financially desirable for a power to stay in a region. And in that aim, groups have been successful.
There also have been groups that were very "successful" in the sense that they stuck around for a very long time. Like the Tamil Tigers (who also invented suicide bombing).
That class was pretty interesting.

>IIRC from a terrorism class I took in college

What of it?

Im assuming he finds the idea that theres a college degree in becoming a professional terrorist amusing.

the author was suspected to be this guy, al qaeda head of propaganda until he got killed by a drone in 2008

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Hasan_Khalil_al-Hakim

USA is born out of it.

>These rare moments of terror became everyday life in many areas of the MENA region partially thanks to Western governments

Yeah, because duncoons weren't already murdering each others long before whites got involved, right?
Who was that Timur guy again? A rocket scientist?

>and over the course of 300 years successfully killed two caliphs, and many viziers, sultans, and Crusader leaders

We can't compare them to muslim terrorist
When was the last time a muslim attack in the West killed someone important?
These dude don't fear death but still they'd rather target metal concerts and gay clubs rather than politicians

Like any form of warfare, it has its ups and downs.

Vietnam is basically a double-sided war of terrorism.
US massacred Vietnamese, Vietnamese massacred US soldiers.

In the end, the war was decided by the fact one side had its back to a wall so no amount of terror would make them yield while the other was throwing its youth there willingly and the public took notice.

Sabotages of German occupants by various terrorist groups during WW2 did not achieve much besides getting medals post-war.

Likewise, some terror campaigns in the middle east work while others are just pointless slaughterhouses of people and demolishers of infrastructure.

>IIRC from a terrorism class I took in college it was extremely effective in getting Europeans out of Algeria. Eventually they just came to the conclusion that it wasn't worth it and packed up and left.

The French gave up Algeria because guerilla warfare is unwinnable
It was very similar to the Vieynam War for Americans
Nothing to do with terrorism
Btw no attack occured in mainland France because muslims were still very few there (that's the real solution against muslim terrorism)

>Vietnamese massacred US soldiers.

Massacring soldiers isnt terrorism, it's war

The jewish revolt?

jews using terrorism to create israel, its how they kicked the british out with bombings, kidnappings torturing and murder

>Historically speaking, how successful terrorism was?
Well America exists.

Great observation, I'm pretty sure other European monarchs in the 15th century were learned scientists who did not care much about being administrators or politicians.

Please go back to /pol/.

Thanks, now I actually understand what the fuck is going on since all our media show is x terrorism in y.

t. european

My buddy has his masters in counter-terrorism.

Torturing prisioners isn't, or at least shouldn't be, part of war.