I've seen suicide bombs, 9/11, peoples head getting chopped of, etc. All I see is violence, the terrorists believe that what they're doing is the right thing, I don't know what is wrong with them, have they been brainwash, or crazy? All terrorism doesn't is just mostly make people look bad and just cause me more destruction. Violence is not the answer to such small things as how in Iraq a group of terrorist grabbed some french reporters and threaten france to repeal the rule which forces muslims to take off their I don't know what to call it, but its the things they wear on their head to cover their hair, and its not a turban.

My point is that all terrorism does is cause more resentment. for example in many people, the first thing that comes up in their mind about Middle east is "Terrorists, Barbaric, Axis of Evil and whatsoever." Many poeple hate them and there are stereotypes of Islamics being called terrorists.

Alrite cut the crap and get to what Im saying. terrorism will always be the worst choice.

If you look historically terrorism seems, at first glance at least, to be a highly ineffective tool. It has accomplished very little in the modern day since it is merely perception and not actual threat is it as meaningful and fleeting to the populous as any other big news item like the Jannet Jackson Superbowl incedent.

However, one can forsee a strategy using the reactions to terrorism as the means by which to hurt a society. This strategy would aim to hurt a society in so many different ways that it cripples the society to keep up with them. Essentially the terrorist spends Y number of dollars to recruit soldiers to destroy airplanes, then the society has to spend Yx1,000,000 to secure airliners from terrorism. Then the terrorists spend Y number of dollars to recurit soldiers to sabotoge powerplants which forces the society to again spend Yx1,000,000 dollars to safeguard the powerplants. Then the terrorist organization spends 1 dollar for every million the society has to spend to hurt train stations, parks, nuclear facilities, etc. etc. until the populace is so stuck in a vice between fear of attack on the one hand and governmental taxation/heavy handedness on the other that they cry out for the demands of the terrorist organization to be fulfilled to bring an end to it all.

you can look at the effect one act of terrorism had on the US,
new laws (some enroaching on personal freedoms)
billions spent on weapons & equipment
and Two Wars...one of them has cast alot of doubt on the motives of the US amonst the world community, and for all intents and purposes, rendered the UN ineffective

The definition of terrorism I'll use for this post is the use of force against non-combatants or combatants who surrendered by a non governmental armed organization (NGAO?).

On some occasions, terrorism has achieved some goals: It helped southern Ireland gain independence and aided in the creation of Israel. It may also have pushed Israel do pull out of parts of Lebanon in 2000, or did Hizbollah only attack Israeli military targets?

The above statement is not supposed to be understood as "country-bashing"

Terrorism has worked from time to time.
It's why groups continue to use it as their strategy of choice.

It depends what you classify as terrorism. Do you include blowing up oil pipelines during war time to slow the enemy? Or are you just including public buildings and civilians?

You have to seperate terrorism from sabotoge, sabotoge has always been an effective weapon of war.

Terrorism in the specific modern sense is the use of graphic random violence to strike the enemy populous so fearful that they give into your demands without a stand up fight.

It's an act of desperation. What happens if your foe is as cruel as your side and whatever you do to one, they do to ten or even one hundred of yours? I don't mean letting you die as a martyr but hanging you up and butchering you and leave the bodies hanging like the Roman's did?

If anyone doubts that this man is mentally ill, read this;

BAGHDAD - The upsurge in car bomb attacks in Iraq was ordered by al-Qaida's leader here, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, at a recent meeting of insurgents in Syria, a senior U.S. military official told reporters Wednesday.


The U.S. claim was made shortly before an audiotape surfaced in which a voice attributed to al-Zarqawi defended the murders of innocent Muslims as part of the costs of jihad, or holy war.

“The killing of infidels by any method including martyrdom (suicide) operations has been sanctified by many scholars even if it meant killing innocent Muslims," the person said in an audio clip posted on a militant Islamic Web site. "This legality has been agreed upon ... so as not to disrupt jihad.”

Read the whole story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7897149/

by and large, yes it does
the point of terrorism is to cause terror, or panic, or fear, or mistrust or whatever
that is very easy to achieve and terrorists have shown that it is an easy emotion to play with

what doesn't always work with terrorism is when they try to use it for some political or ideological purpose. you can scare people, but you getting them to legitimise you and give you power is significantly harder and needs more than just raw terrorism

Originally Posted by Whispering Death

You have to seperate terrorism from sabotoge, sabotoge has always been an effective weapon of war.

Terrorism in the specific modern sense is the use of graphic random violence to strike the enemy populous so fearful that they give into your demands without a stand up fight.

Well in that case, terrorism is risky. It can always back fire. September 11th brought fear and panic, but it also brought a great sense of Patriotism.