Historically speaking, has any state been able to successfully

File: 012 (1).jpg (105KB, 632x415px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 632x415px

>That image fuckup

>>872094
Historically speaking could you FUCKING RETURN TO >>>/pol/?

>>872155
I don't browse /pol/.

I want a historical discussion about terrorism and its history for the last several thousand years, including strategies against it, how successful or unsuccessful they've been.

I don't want this to be a "gas all muslims" thread.

>>872164
>and its history for the last several thousand years,
Terrorism developed in the 1960s and 1970s largely as a reflection on Western mass media by arabic revolutionaries.

It had nothing to do with revolutionary terror, a strategy developed in the 19th century as a reflection on the "Terror" in the French revolution, and arguably perfected by the south Vietnamese liberation movement.

Thanks for playing.

Next time don't start your thread with "Historically speaking" and /int/ shit.

>>872094
>fall for the terrorists plans to make you desire revenge
What terrorist wants that? Terrorists have specific politicl aims they're trying to force society into, they're not just goading governments into violence. If anything, the moment govedrnments actually decide to take armed action against terrorists, is the moment they get rekt. Just look at the jewish roman wars, particularly the first.

>>872176
I was just trying to use the term as inclusively as possible to people could discuss anything they thought relevant, not just modern era stuff. Jeez, take the stick out of your bum.

Anarchists waged individual terrorism, if I remember correctly.

Also, that Guy Fawkes or whatever.

>>872207
"Historically speaking" words are fucking important as the differences between what you want to subsume beneath the term "terrorism" are greater than the responses laid against them.

>terrorist campaigns against states
You do realise that most terrorism has been by states against societies?

>>872219
How is decapitating the protestant state "terror"?

>>872222
>nice get
but seriously, theyre bringing mass media attention to the situation of syria, as well as making themselves seem like the more powerful group by having global influence

>>872222
>could you tell me what you think the goal of IS's attacks in Europe are? What are they seeking to achieve with their terrorist attacks?
Look, I'm no expert and this is just my opinion, but I see it like this: ISIS is a conquering power with no legitimacy whatsoever who's trying to hold onto a shitload of land with nothing but a few men and some vague pretense of religious piety. By attacking the west they're showing their population that they are both strong enough to hit the world's heavy weights (well relatively speaking, Belgium ain't a military power but I doubt ayrabs see beyond the veil of first world-ness) and willing to bring the fight away from the middle east onto the enemy's homeground. Their propaganda war is not aimed at convincing us of anything, it's aimed at convincing other muslims of ISIS's strength. They want to avoid disgregation into local movements, they wanna expand further up the north african coast and in the rest of the middle east, but they can only do it through local insurrections (like in Lybia) which they try to fire up by showing the west's (and by extension the west's proxy governments') weakness.

>>872247
>>872255
Good answers, thank you. I'd also add that perhaps they want to show the weakness of liberal democracy as form of human polity - if the west becomes more authoritarian in order to combat terrorism, this serves ISIS's goals of showing their theocracy is stronger than liberal democracy, which - in their eyes - they will have proven to be a sham.


Can the present situation be compared to any previously in history? That's what this thread was basically asking. I'd love to learn from history what the best response to it is.