Thesis: TerrorismDoesntWork.

Interpretation: Committing acts of Terrorism (see DefineTerrorism) does not further the aims and objectives of the Terrorist.

''Consider moving the sarcasm below to TerrorismDoesWork.''

Some examples:

Terrorist: Wtc Suicide Bombers

Aims (Assumed): 
	1. Kill Enemies.
	1. Become martyr.
	1. Enjoy eternal sexual paradise.
Analysis:
	1. Successful.
	1. Successful.
	1. Unsuccessful.
Terrorist: Bin Laden

Aims (Assumed): 
	1. Hurt America.
	1. Increase personal power and influence.
	1. Remove American influence from Saudia Arabia and Middle East in general.
	1. Remove current ruling regimes from same.
	1. Destroy Israel.
	1. Rule Saudia Arabia, Palestine, entire Muslim world?
Analysis:
	1. Successful.
	1. Successful, so far.
	1. Unsuccessful so far.
	1. Too early to say.
	1. Unsuccessful so far.
	1. Too early to say.

It is worth remembering that furthering the aims of terrorists only ~ = furthering aims of supporters only ~ = furthering aims of ThePeople.

This equation also works in reverse. While WTC has been bad for not only Americans but the 1st world in general, it has been _good_ for (for example) the military establishment and those who would like to see the public trade personal freedom for security. It has dramatically increased their political power and control.
----
I don't think terrorism works as the terrorists plan it to, but it usually has long term consequences which tend to solve the problems anyway. I am optimistic about the future because all I have been hearing from my colleagues in Australia is that war is not the way to solve the problem. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, I believe a lot more people thought that war would succeed. As Bin Laden has demonstrated that what goes around comes around, people have realized that maybe the invasion of Iraq and military funding of Israel weren't the solutions they appeared to be at the time. Whether or not that is what was intended, I think that realization will prevent the deaths of Americans and Arabs in the future. If this disaster causes greater understanding, and fewer Arabs die as a consequence, maybe Bin Laden has achieved something he wanted, even if it's not what he intended. -- JohnFarrell
----
Only rarely if ever does terrorism occur as a result of a rational cause/effect calculus. There might be some such cases (S.Africa, India under British rule, Israel after WWII), but maybe it's only cultural/chronological distance that makes it seem so. Terrorism is one of the things that can happen when communication and rational calculus break down, seem hopeless, or are just not valued. As to working or not working: it's hard to believe that all cases fit into one rubrik. If you think of the cases where terrorism has become a significant element in the politics of nations (the above 3, Spain, N./Ireland, Palestine, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, numberless others), I doubt that any catchphrase can help analyse what has happened or may happen. Terrorism has effects. They may be positive from the terrorists point of view in some cases (the 3 mentioned above would be prime examples), but then we don't know for sure what might have happened had other approaches held sway.

If terrorism does happen as a result of communication and rationality being or seeming hopeless, what has to happen to make them seem like the best alternatives?
----
CategoryOffTopic (Yeah, ''way'' off topic, but useful anyway. Perhaps a new home on a Sister Site?)