How would terrorism have been dealt with at different points

state terror (death squads, torture)

>>2609059
It wouldn't have been, because terrorism in its modern incarnation, of attempting to pressure a government into some sort of concessions by applying sporadic violence to civilian population groups in the hope that said groups will put pressure non their government to give you what you want that you can't achieve by direct confrontation.

Governments that are largely insulated by popular will, because they only draw support from relatively small segments of the population instead of the totality of it like modern states do, would largely ignore such things.

>>2609074
right, but if it had happened, what would they do in ancient greece, roman empire, medieval europe etc

>>2609059
No terrorism as we know it. People and their families would have been rounded up and entire communities would be expelled or massacred. We only have problems now because it's more profitable for business and government to import separatist communities than it is to have a homogeneous peace.If you're talking about sectarianism and guerrilla warfare, see Ireland to England, or the HRE's "push to the east".

I forget how the Romans dealt with the zealots, specifically, which is the only port I can find to modern terrorism, but there were mass killings and enslavement on several occasions.

>>2609125
Like I said, they would have ignored it, because it doesn't impact the political structures extant at the time.

>>2609125
>ignore
>genocide

Typically one or the other.

Friendly reminder that Einsatzgruppen was an anti-terrorist force that all but eliminated monster terrorizing much of Eastern Europe. Similar can be said for the Blacks and Tans in Ireland.

>>2609059
Byzantines would have buckled over and died

>>2609074
>to civilian populatin
does that mean the Barracks bombing wasn't an act of terrorism?

>>2609771

Yes, it would have been, because the U.S. forces in Beirut answered to a civilian government and it was civilian pressure which would have forced their withdrawal. A strike does not need to be at a civilian target in order to pressure civilians into making some kind of change.

>>2609785
What about actions in which you strive to make the home population vote for something? Such as attempts of the the Japanese Imperial army to make the US civilian population grow tired of the war

>>2609849
>What about actions in which you strive to make the home population vote for something? Such as attempts of the the Japanese Imperial army to make the US civilian population grow tired of the war

Generally, actions taken in part in a conventional war are not considered terrorism, but you get a fuzzy line when you have State A and State B at war with each other, and State A sponsors people to go throw bombs in state B, as opposed to just bombing a city themselves.

Regardless, a fundamentally coercive strategy in the middle of a conventional war is hardly new and is not usually defined as terrorism.

File: crucifixion-small.png (98KB, 484x262px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 484x262px

How Rome dealt with Terrorists

Almost any leader in history would have ethnically cleansed Afghanistan without a second thought if they had the power and resources of America and had been attacked.

But George Bush was a cuck.

Usually by genocide of the nation responsible. Our current, humanist approach is a new thing.

File: quote-of-the-romans-they-make-a-desert-and-call-it-peace-tacitus-310954.jpg (41KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 850x400px

>>2609125
The Romans would just murder everyone or make them slaves.

>>2609059
It's funny because that surveillance prison cell is only necessary because we're not allowed to remove kebab.

>libshits won't let us fight our enemies
>libshits won't let us defend against put enemies
>libshits are only satisfied when Americans die

File: michael-caine-as-alfred-in-the-dark-knight[1].jpg (240KB, 1920x816px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1920x816px

>>2609125
>>2609059


they burned the forest down

>>2609996
>Can't kill groups of dem evul mullims >:((
>So mass surveilance and abuses of power is completely okay even though the biggest terror attack was discovered by the intelligence agencies and bush didnt take it srs and most of our terror problems today stem from that

>>2609074

This

Only democracies are susceptible to terrorism

>>2609059
Globalism didn't exist the way it today, so terrorists were domestic as opposed to international because they only worried about their state(however they saw it), with little regard to what's going on across the planet. You would British terrorists committing terrorism against Britain to sway the british state(example: guy fawkes). And before telecommunication you could only coordinate an attack close by.

So i guess they would hunt them down and purge them as fast as they could before they spread; and using sadistic methods so others don't get any ideas. Unlike an international terror group who could live and hide outside your judicial jurisdiction, domestic terrorist could be dealt with rather easily.

The closest thing to an international terror group was an army who invaded, sacked, and attempted assimilate using terror(convert to our ways or die). And you just faced them in war hoping you'd win.

Didn't the British used to kill every male 18 years of age or older when there was a rebellion in a part of their empire?

File: 1488654433534.png (157KB, 500x536px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 500x536px

>>2609996
Exactly, 1/7th of the global population needs to be exterminated because I personally know exactly how they think and can make sweeping generalizations. It's safe to say they are evil enemies of the West and Islam is inherently extremist. Every single Muslim on the face of the earth prays for the death of America every single day.

>>2609125
Did you just skip over everything he said and ask the same question?

File: 1487906073965.png (111KB, 644x598px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 644x598px

>>2611092