When did terrorism actually work?

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Algeria "War" of independence was largely a terrorist war against the French. They succeeded in making the French leave a place they considered to be part of their country.

Interesting example. The French actually achieved military defeat of the terrorists. They smashed the "internal" FLN and reduced the flow of terrorists and arms into the country to a trickle. However they incurred a cost in terms of adverse world and domestic opinion. After a change of governemnt in France, De Gaulle wasn't prepared to pay that cost so the French left. A president who was prepared to ride it out could possibly have done so and France retained Algeria, at least for some considerable time.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Cyprus - expulsion of the Brits.

Some success for a terror campaign - yes, but not entirely.

In the end the Brits kept what mattered to them, military bases in the eastern mediterranean. EOKA didn't get what it wanted, unification with Greece. The stage was set for the subsequent Turkish invasion, not what the terrorists ever wanted. Verdict - partial success.

It is worth noting the difference between terrorism aimed at ousting a colonial or occupying power, which usually has a degree of support amongst the local population and often has some degree of success, and terrorism against a reasonably popular and competent government, which usuall persists at a low level without any real achievement for years.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
9/11 worked in terms of creating fear panic that has thus far never really gone away.. in nearly 2 years.

It created a political/social backlash that resulted in knee jerk wars, making it easier for OBL to justify a jihad. Thus far, its working. Ultimately of course it will fail, but as a short term means to that end it has been quite successful.

Terrorism does not work tactically. Its more of a mind game. If you consider success in terms of mere material/collateral/tactical damage, then its pathetic. If you mean in terms of morale, its about the most successful crime one can commit... and ultimately of course, it is a crime.

Still, lets not get into this... too many terrorist threads this week!

9-11 was a failure. In its execution, it was almost flawless (remember the plane that hit in Pennsylvania because the passengers defeated the terrorists), in fact brilliant. Yes it has succeeded in creating fear, and getting many in the Arab world to dislike the US. But it also got the US's MAJOR attention. Just like Pearl Harbor, it was successful in execution and helped the Japanese at the start, but it set the stage for their defeat. What was it the Japanese admiral said? "I fear we have awakened a sleeping dragon" or something like that. That's what 9-11 did, and it will be the terrorists undoing. Already the US is in a position from which it can cut off terrorism. With Iraq, we are no longer dependent on the Saudis for oil or bases in the ME, for one example.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by CerberusIV


Some success for a terror campaign - yes, but not entirely.

In the end the Brits kept what mattered to them, military bases in the eastern mediterranean.

It is true that the bases have stayed but the aim was for the colonial power to leave. Also said bases are now inside a sovereigner state which means that their presence can be evaluated and negotiated for the freed state advantage as well. The rampant economic growth of CYprus after the British Empire left is notesworthy.

EOKA didn't get what it wanted, unification with Greece.

This is very true. But not all Cypriotes wanted the unification. Remember that there was a coup by the then military Athens in CYprus to "conveince them".

The stage was set for the subsequent Turkish invasion, not what the terrorists ever wanted.

That was actually a corelation of an imposed by Britain two community constitution that was not viable and Greece junta's also criminal mistakes. Assuming we attribute to the Turks only the limited responsibility of a vicious beast not to be counted amongst the sapients... Somehow this is not true and they bear the major burden of the massacre.

It is worth noting the difference between terrorism aimed at ousting a colonial or occupying power, which usually has a degree of support amongst the local population and often has some degree of success, and terrorism against a reasonably popular and competent government, which usuall persists at a low level without any real achievement for years.

The first is called, atleast by The cypriotes, National Liberation Struggle.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Sava
define terrorism...

if you are referring to the wanton murder of innocent civilians... it worked for the US in WW2... Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki

Lame troll.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Also said bases are now inside a sovereigner state which means that their presence can be evaluated and negotiated for the freed state advantage as well.

Read the small print on the deal. The two base areas are sovereign British territory. They are not part of the Cypriot state at all. They are not leased and there is no expiry date on British occupation of the bases.

[Bereta_Eder]

Hence, the word" negotiation" which also applies for the future. If Cyprus deemed that their presence did not serve its interests as well, it would simply confiscate the territory. I doubt Britain would launch an invasion to reclaim them.

[Dinner]

There was no expiry date on the island of Hong Kong either but...

[Dinner]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Hence, the word" negotiation" which also applies for the future. If Cyprus deemed that their presence did not serve its interests as well, it would simply confiscate the territory. I doubt Britain would launch an invasion to reclaim them.

The Argentines thought similiarly.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Oerdin
There was no expiry date on the island of Hong Kong either but...

I don't have time to find a source now, but I'm almost certain there was.

[Saras]

There was a 99 year lease. The brits were at the height of their power and thought, what the hell,

Yeomen on the land
and Ironclads at sea
will force the chinks a new lease
in 1997 AD

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The Argentines thought similiarly.

I thought the Malvidas hadn't achieved independence from the British Empire in the first place.

[problem_child]

It worked in Nicaragua, El Salvadore, Guatamala and a whole bunch of other 3rd world dives we don't really care about.

[Dinner]

You're thinking of the New Territories which were only leased for 100 years. The island was siezed during the first Opium War and was British "in perpetuity". Thatcher decided that the island couldn't survive economically without the new territories so she agreed to give both back to China.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by paiktis22
I thought the Malvidas hadn't achieved independence from the British Empire in the first place.

The Falklands (let's use their real name and not what some silly Spaniard named them) are part of Britain. The Argentines thought the British wouldn't fight them over the islands so they invaded and then got beat down.