Address root causes of terrorism

[dArKeR]

The hostage standoff in Beslan, Russia, ended in a siege by Russian special forces and many casualties. An authoritarian Russian Federation government led by Vladimir Putin versus a Chechen pro-independence terrorist group -- that's a combination that can only result in more deaths and an escalation of hostilities, with neither side willing to back down.

On the one side are radically militant terrorists who do not mind killing themselves and innocent bystanders, and hence often do not even have any "exit plan" in their terrorist attacks. They feel justified by what they think is a higher and noble cause -- to free Chechnya from Russian rule, an effort that began long before troops were ordered by Boris Yeltsin to invade Chechnya to keep it from becoming independent from Russia. They of course are wrong, because no amount of wrong on the part of one's enemy can justify terrorism -- especially when innocent people, children in particular, are killed as a result.

On the other side is Putin, who has a tough policy toward Chechen independence and terrorism, and has never made compromises in the face of terrorist demands. Moreover, the Russian Federation remains a state in which human rights and lives are not exactly valued as a top priority. Therefore, in the Dubrovka theater siege, the Russian special forces' Alfa Brigade deployed poison gas which successfully ended the standoff, but also took the lives of more than 100 hostages.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/05/2003201711

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Here's a question:

has terrorism ever resulted in groups getting what they say they want? (I phrase it this way because I think at least some terrorists aren't in it for 'liberation' or whatever, but just for the violence)

India achieved its independence because of the non-violent efforts of Ghandi. The civil rights laws in this country were changed because of the non-violent efforts of Martin Luther King and his allies. When did non-violence as a tool for change go out of favor?

[bemildred]

2. "Terrorism" is simply war.

The distinctions drawn between moral violence and immoral
violence do not stand up to any serious examination, either
historically or in the present day. This is not to say that rules
have never been observed in warfare, but rather that they are
never observed unless the stakes are limited too, and then
usually only against opponents one considers "like oneself".

Dehumanizing the enemy is the first and essential step to
legitimizing atrocities in the name of "security", "liebensraum",
"national unity", and the like.

Commonly "terrorism" and other designations for "illegitimate"
violence are used in propaganda campaigns against one's enemies.
One also sees euphemism based on the means used, e.g. standoff
weapons are said to be clean and precise, where suicide bombing
is dirty and indiscriminate. This is a ludicrous argument, if
anything the human bomber is much more certain as to who is being
attacked.

Killing of women and children is and always has been common in
warfare. The use of standoff weapons, e.g aerial bombing or artillery,
has allowed a higher level of euphemism and denial about what is
being done, but it is still being done.

The only rule system that stands up at all is the Geneva Conventions,
and NOBODY observes them when the chips are down.

The bottom line is that one is a fool to unleash the dogs of war
in the expectation that some set of rules will protect one from the
violence so unleashed, or that the violence will be limited once
begun, or that the enemy will respect one's home and hearth when
one invades and destroys his.

To answer your question, sometimes it works, sometimes not. In the
common usage, "terrorism" is a weapon of the militarily weaker, the
side that does not control the dialog, so it rarely leads to outright
victory. OTOH it often achieves revenge and levels the playing
field somewhat, and it can have a marked effect in the political
arena, it can force attention to be paid where governments would
prefer not to pay attention, for example, as with this atrocity in
Beslan.

[ixion]

3. it worked for bin Laden... BushCo has met all their demands

and then some.

Oh right... bin Laden and Bush are on the same team... how silly of me.

It worked for the neocons... the got the DOHS and the unPATRIOTic Act.

The problem is that violence only begats more violence. :-(

[question everything]

4. Yes. The most recent example - the withdrawal of Spain and other countrie

from Iraq.

Several Palestinian terrorists were released from jail because of threat of future terror activities.