Has terrorism ever been successful?

[bilby]

I am doubtful about this explanation; The Irish, particularly Irish Republicans, are not a group that the English have historically understood, nor empathised with. My experience as an Englishman is that second and third generation English born Muslims, such as those who comitted the 2005 London bombings, are, if anything, more familiar and less alien than the Irish.

The London bombers came from the same area I do, and the community in that part of Leeds has a significant proportion of Muslims - most of whom, in that age range, are the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Pakistani and Bangladeshi migrants. About a third of the kids in my school were from that background, and they and their parents spoke like Yorkshiremen; by comparison, the only kid of Irish ancestry I recall was Brendan McMahon, whose dad had a totally incomprehensible accent.

The Irish don't even follow the cricket.

But just think about the differences in the perception of the two groups, whether the perceptions are well grounded in reality or not:

One group loves death more than we love life. How can you possibly trust or come to a compromise with such a group? How can they be trusted?

The other group has a political grievance. At the core, they are a people that can be reasoned with. They recoil from violence against their own people as much as we recoil against violence against ours. Therefore, they will come to an agreement that reduces the violence against both of us.

One group hates us for who we are, they hate our core values and oppose them at the very core of their being. The only thing they think we are worthy of is death unless we completely do a 180 on our beliefs and values to agree with them in every key respect.

The other group, at their core, doesn't hate us for our general values of human rights, freedom of expression, secularism, or other political values. They hate us for our what they perceive as control and meddling in what they consider to be territory and a people that should join up with them and be under their control. They want to bring the territory under their own political control. Once these understandable (not agreeable, but understandable) demands are satisfied, they will no longer have reason to initiate further violence against us. Because they are reasonable, not all of their demands need be met to stop the violence. At some point, a compromise will be found, and the violence will stop. And the compromise that must be made will not completely compromise our core values.

One group is foreign. They come from a culture of different core values, many of which are diametrically opposed to our own. Their religion is strange to us.

The other group is our neighbors, they share in many of our core values and dreams.

That is the American view; and since 2001 (or perhaps since 2005), it seems to be the English view too.

But in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, certainly in my part of England, the first group in the paragraphs I bolded was the Irish, and the second group were the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. And the view of the man in the street in Leeds in the 1980s was that it was pointless to talk to the IRA, as they simply couldn't be reasoned with. That may not have been true, but it was widely believed at that time.

 

[Axulus]

But just think about the differences in the perception of the two groups, whether the perceptions are well grounded in reality or not:

One group loves death more than we love life. How can you possibly trust or come to a compromise with such a group? How can they be trusted?

The other group has a political grievance. At the core, they are a people that can be reasoned with. They recoil from violence against their own people as much as we recoil against violence against ours. Therefore, they will come to an agreement that reduces the violence against both of us.

One group hates us for who we are, they hate our core values and oppose them at the very core of their being. The only thing they think we are worthy of is death unless we completely do a 180 on our beliefs and values to agree with them in every key respect.

The other group, at their core, doesn't hate us for our general values of human rights, freedom of expression, secularism, or other political values. They hate us for our what they perceive as control and meddling in what they consider to be territory and a people that should join up with them and be under their control. They want to bring the territory under their own political control. Once these understandable (not agreeable, but understandable) demands are satisfied, they will no longer have reason to initiate further violence against us. Because they are reasonable, not all of their demands need be met to stop the violence. At some point, a compromise will be found, and the violence will stop. And the compromise that must be made will not completely compromise our core values.

One group is foreign. They come from a culture of different core values, many of which are diametrically opposed to our own. Their religion is strange to us.

The other group is our neighbors, they share in many of our core values and dreams.

That is the American view; and since 2001 (or perhaps since 2005), it seems to be the English view too.

But in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, certainly in my part of England, the first group in the paragraphs I bolded was the Irish, and the second group were the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. And the view of the man in the street in Leeds in the 1980s was that it was pointless to talk to the IRA, as they simply couldn't be reasoned with. That may not have been true, but it was widely believed at that time.

But you are discounting the magnitude difference of the opinion. A certain percent thought the Irish terrorists couldn't be reasoned with, and even then, an even smaller percent would discount the possibility of any kind of compromise with them and their supporters all together. With the Islamist terrorists, the percentages are much higher in both categories.

 

[Valjean]

Haven't terrorist attacks successfully subverted liberation movements in China, South and Central America?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes, I do. Washington was obviously a terrorist as far as the British were concerned. The Boston Tea Party was a straight up terrorist attack. No back bending or twisting of facts in the world can escape that fact. But I did mention anti-colonial "freedom fighters" in the OP. So they're covered already.

And it is by no means obvious that American independence is a 'good' result. WWI would have been shorter and more decisive if the USA had been a British Dominion, like (or even part of) Canada, in 1914. WWII might not even have occurred, but if it had, again it would likely have been far shorter with the USA in on it from 1939.

USAians might even have wound up as polite, secular and cultured, like the Canadians did.

Bloody terrorists have a lot to answer for.

This is a derail... but fuck it. Here we go.

I somehow doubt it. The bit that became USA became USA because the British put all their efforts in holding onto the American territories that were the most lucrative. The Caribbean and Canada. USA was for most part worthless and not worth the fight. During the first 100 years of USA it was desperately poor and it's government was best described as dysfunctional. Corrupt as fuck. But that was the situation under the British to. What made USA was the European over-population, wars of the mid and late 19'th century and failed harvests. Those would most likely have migrated to America anyway. As far as the Europeans was concerned I doubt anybody saw the difference between an independent USA and one under British rule. Just an example, in European political discourse the French revolution was talked about a lot. Nobody in Europe gave a rats ass that the American revolution was a success. If we're to judge the events in America based on discussions in Europe it never happened. People travelled to USA because land was cheap there. It had been cheap under the British to. They to would have wanted settlers. Because of the existence of Canada we don't need to speculate. We know they would have come. Just like they came to Canada.

In the beginning of the 20'th century the British empire started falling apart and their colonies became independent. Obviously the same would have happened to USA. Canada was in practice independent as early as 1867. In 1926 it became official with the Balfour declaration. USA didn't start getting rich until after they found oil, and USA became the world's first Saudi Arabia. Which didn't kick in for real until after the Balfour declaration was passed.

All in all... I'd say the American revolution was an irrelevant event in history. Nobody outside USA seems to give a shit about it. All the things that happened very likely would have happened under British rule as well.

 

[bilby]

And it is by no means obvious that American independence is a 'good' result. WWI would have been shorter and more decisive if the USA had been a British Dominion, like (or even part of) Canada, in 1914. WWII might not even have occurred, but if it had, again it would likely have been far shorter with the USA in on it from 1939.

USAians might even have wound up as polite, secular and cultured, like the Canadians did.

Bloody terrorists have a lot to answer for.

This is a derail... but fuck it. Here we go.

I somehow doubt it. The bit that became USA became USA because the British put all their efforts in holding onto the American territories that were the most lucrative. The Caribbean and Canada. USA was for most part worthless and not worth the fight. During the first 100 years of USA it was desperately poor and it's government was best described as dysfunctional. Corrupt as fuck. But that was the situation under the British to. What made USA was the European over-population, wars of the mid and late 19'th century and failed harvests. Those would most likely have migrated to America anyway. As far as the Europeans was concerned I doubt anybody saw the difference between an independent USA and one under British rule. Just an example, in European political discourse the French revolution was talked about a lot. Nobody in Europe gave a rats ass that the American revolution was a success. If we're to judge the events in America based on discussions in Europe it never happened. People travelled to USA because land was cheap there. It had been cheap under the British to. They to would have wanted settlers. Because of the existence of Canada we don't need to speculate. We know they would have come. Just like they came to Canada.

In the beginning of the 20'th century the British empire started falling apart and their colonies became independent. Obviously the same would have happened to USA. Canada was in practice independent as early as 1867. In 1926 it became official with the Balfour declaration. USA didn't start getting rich until after they found oil, and USA became the world's first Saudi Arabia. Which didn't kick in for real until after the Balfour declaration was passed.

All in all... I'd say the American revolution was an irrelevant event in history. Nobody outside USA seems to give a shit about it. All the things that happened very likely would have happened under British rule as well.

I don't disagree - except with regard to the timing of US entry to the two world wars, which if Canada, Australia, South Africa and even India are any guide would have been four years earlier in the case of WWI. Canada may have been 'in practice' independent in the 1860s, and Australia in 1900, but in 1914 they could hardly wait to send troops to help out their imperial motherland.

Surely that would have changed the game? Perhaps enough to eliminate WWII and/or delay the Russian revolution. That leads to a major shake up of WWII (if it happens at all): The Russians might or might not be Soviet Republics, the Germans might not be Nazis, and the USA would likely declare war within days of the UK doing so, rather than hanging back for 18 months.

If that's not enough to radically alter 20th Century history, what would be?

 

[Togo]

That is the American view; and since 2001 (or perhaps since 2005), it seems to be the English view too.

No, I don't think so. The government may have panicked in 2005, but it was accused of doing so for political reasons, and ridiculed for doing so. Whenever people were shot by the police anti-terrorism units, the initial response was to blame the police. Even the closing down of Finsbury Park Mosque attracted commentary for and against, despite the activities going on there.

But in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, certainly in my part of England, the first group in the paragraphs I bolded was the Irish, and the second group were the Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. And the view of the man in the street in Leeds in the 1980s was that it was pointless to talk to the IRA, as they simply couldn't be reasoned with. That may not have been true, but it was widely believed at that time.

The view I grew up with was that it was a gang war between a republican minority (majority in Ireland as a whole, minority in Northern Ireland) and a Unionist majority, and that the British troops were simply trying to keep the peace between the two sides. Thatcher's shift to treating captured terrorists as criminals rather than Prisoners of War helped reinforce this, as did their attempt to assassinate her. Irish terrorists weren't seen as much different from any other criminal gang. You could talk to them, indeed they were often on TV, and you could but unless you wanted to transfer the territory to another country against the wishes of most of its inhabitants, there wasn't a great deal to talk about.

 

[ksen]

Has terrorism ever been successful?

Well, they did win the 2014 elections.

 

[Valjean]

A pro democracy movement was successfully quashed in Tiananmen square. Government militias and paramilitaries successfully installed right-wing governments and overturned elections in many South and Central American countries.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think it's hindsight to say the GB put more effort into protecting the Caribbean. The North American campaigns swallowed two British armies whole. They were simply better equipped for the islands because the islands were islands. If the American colonies were islands, the revolution would've failed, a basic point of AT Mahan's.

Kinda hard to be a great power if you let your subjects push you around.

 

[fromderinside]

I think it's hindsight to say the GB put more effort into protecting the Caribbean. The North American campaigns swallowed two British armies whole. They were simply better equipped for the islands because the islands were islands. If the American colonies were islands, the revolution would've failed, a basic point of AT Mahan's.

Kinda hard to be a great power if you let your subjects push you around.

So terrorism is when push comes to shove?

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think it's hindsight to say the GB put more effort into protecting the Caribbean. The North American campaigns swallowed two British armies whole. They were simply better equipped for the islands because the islands were islands. If the American colonies were islands, the revolution would've failed, a basic point of AT Mahan's.

Kinda hard to be a great power if you let your subjects push you around.

So terrorism is when push comes to shove?

That's what the terrorists would have you believe.

Thanks for saving my derail...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I heard a podcast today where they made the pithy remark that no terrorist attack ever has managed to achieve it's political goal.

That's not exactly true.

Also, that's pretty much how Hezbollah got the U.S. out of Lebanon, but in that case it was the bombing of a military target during a time of active hostilities so that probably doesn't count.