WMN: t3_2235f3_t1_cgizsij

[TITLE]

CMV: Terrorism is a result of people being reasonable.

[SacoETrampa]

I know this might sound shocking, but hear me out. When I was little, a friend's dad once told me: "If you fight someone way smaller than you, don't expect them to fight clean." I have always thought terrorism is just this same phenomenon on a national scale. Think about it. If some powerful country is carrying out abusive foreign policy in your country, and it's military is incomparably superior to yours, are you going to fight a conventional war against them ? Of course not ! If you abuse people, they will fight back in whatever way they can. Since you leave no opportunity for a fair fight, you are essentially asking for a clandestine "dirty" war. After Vietnam, who would be stupid enough to take on the US face to face? Now, I am not in any way justifying what terrorists have done, but we also have to recognize the fact that we (US & Other Western Countries) have committed terrible abuses throughout the world. And also, that we are spending ridiculous amounts of money improving our armies to fight wars against enemies that don't exist and will likely never exist. There might be a good argument against this, which is that terrorists aren't actually killing the armed forces of the countries they attack, but rather civilians. This is true, but I think if these countries had the ability to fight back in a conventional war with comparable armies, the anti-US sentiment could be channeled through their hypothetical armies and not through terrorist acts. This is just my opinion, but i would like to hear what other people think. This will probably get down-voted to hell for it's title... Either way I wanted to share this thought. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than just downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[terrdc]

[STA-CITE]>And also, that we are spending ridiculous amounts of money improving our armies to fight wars against enemies that don't exist and will likely never exist. [END-CITE]We spend huge amounts of money improving our sanitation to prevent diseases that hardly affect anyone in the first world and will likely never be a big issue in the first world. Should we cut back on our sanitation efforts because they are effective?

[chrizzly_bears]

your premise is that it is as proven that a big army and continuous military intervention are the factor that provide safety for a nation as clean water is essential to prevent diseases. comparisons should not be used to link questionable (social) statements with medical/biological evidence and have them appear stronger than they are, or to make them unquestionable via hidden premises.

[SacoETrampa]

We are already used to these sanitary conditions, which means that we would be extremely susceptible if placed under somewhat less hygienic conditions. Our Army however, would still be the best in the world for quite some time even if we stopped spending so much on it. [STA-CITE]> Should we cut back on our sanitation efforts because they are effective? [END-CITE]How do you define effective? Because I could say that it is extremely ineffective at fighting wars like the ones recently witnessed in Afganistan and Iraq.

[terrdc]

The real question is "Would other countries try to get a bigger military if we have a smaller one?" I think it is far better to have one overpowered military in one country than it is to have a dozen equally powered militaries in a dozen countries.

[SacoETrampa]

Its far better if you live in the country with the overpowered military

[america200001]

I don't think that reasonable is the word you are looking for. Reasonable can imply morally correct. Maybe a rational strategy, as in a value maximizing strategy, or an effective strategy. There are defiantly cases where terrorism was part of a ultimately successful strategy, such as in the Algerian war of Independence, where terrorism drew French and International media attention to the conflict and provoked a brutal and counterproductive response from the French. But terrorism can also be a very counterproductive strategy. The militia movement in the US took a major hit from the Oklahoma City bombing. The Al-Qaeda bombing in Amman Jordan in 2006 produced a dramatic change in public opinion towards Al-Qaeda. There are lots of other examples. Many Palestinians are arguing that they make much more progress towards their cause from non violence than from terrorism. Imagine if the US civil rights movement had adopted terrorism instead of a mostly non-violent approach. Do you think it would have been as successful? Then there is the issue of morality, which is a separate discussion from effectiveness. Intentionally targeting civilians and the innocent doesn't have much of a moral basis.

[doc_rotten]

In a general way, I could agree. But the US and the west haven't really abused Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Afghans were sadly caught in the crossfire. None of it had to do with the US oppressing those people's. Especially since the US helped Afghans avoid the oppression of Communists.

[MoralHazardFunction]

You're assuming that terrorism is something that the weak engage in to battle the strong. This is not necessarily the case. The US saw a lot of terrorist activity conducted by the KKK in the century following the Civil War, and that terrorism was aimed at ensuring that impoverished and disenfranchised people **remained** impoverished and disenfranchised.

[ripcitybitch]

There is a widely held narrative that terrorists are merely crazy people who employ violence for the sake of violence. This is clearly false. While there are unquestionably some psychotic and sociopathic personalities within the movement, taken as a whole, jihadists' use of violence -- both terrorism and insurgency -- is quite rational. It is also worth remembering that terrorism is not associated with just one group of people; it is a tactic that has been employed by a wide array of actors. There is no single creed, ethnicity, political persuasion or nationality with a monopoly on terrorism. Jihadists employ terrorism as they do insurgency -- as one of many tools they can use to achieve their objectives. Arguably, the objectives the jihadists are pursuing through the employment of violence are delusional. Although we can question whether or not they will be able to achieve them through violent means, we simply cannot dispute that they are employing violence intentionally and in a rational manner with a view to achieving their stated goals

[DienekesIV]

[STA-CITE]>Think about it. If some powerful country is carrying out abusive foreign policy in your country, and it's military is incomparably superior to yours, are you going to fight a conventional war against them ? Of course not ! [END-CITE]Right, so that's called guerrilla warfare, not terrorism. And the counter to that is COIN (google it). And the counter to COIN is terrorism against your own populace + guerrilla warfare (Afghanistan, etc). Whichever side best controls the noncombatant populace through kindness or fear will win. Pretty disappointing that you would be so quick to jump on board with terrorism when it doesn't even apply to your initial observation, but then again, reddit.

[SacoETrampa]

∆ This difference is key, although I think on some occasions it might be hard to distinguish one from the other. While acts carried out against civilians are just pure terrorism, an IED against a US soldier in Afghanistan is guerrilla warfare carried out by "terrorists". I don't know why you would say I:"Jumped on Board with terrorism", when I clearly said I don't think it's in any way justifiable... but whatever. In any case, I appreciate your comment because the distinction between the two changed my view. Also, COIN seems very interesting, although I am skeptical of it's effectiveness.

[DienekesIV]

No problemo. If you want a detailed reading on it (COIN), it's Army Field manual FM 3-24. The primary author is General Petraeus, who is pretty much a genius inside a badass (was shot in the chest by an M-16 and was literally doing push ups a few days later).

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DienekesIV. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DienekesIV)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]

[Hadok]

Terrorism is not the result of abusive forgein policies, and would not be an intelligent response to it. Terrorist is the result of a fundamental incompatibility between a group and an other that must result in the neutralisation of one of thsi group through terror. The Situation in Ukraine can be considered as an abusive forgein policy of Russia, but Ukraine is not using terrorism as it would provoke more abuse from Russia. American forces are neither the main target nor victims of islamic terrorism. The main victims and targets are the muslim that dont want to abide to their ideas. It is the result of people being cynical beyond what we can conceive. I must add that the US would have no chance of staying a week in Irak if Iraki just started a mass revolt or a general strike, but most Iraki are not terrorist, yet the fact that terrorist target Iraki Police, Iraki schools and Iraki Sunnites/Shiites is drowing them in terror as they know they could be killed at any moment by terrorists if they talked a little too much to the wrong person.

[SacoETrampa]

You mean the situation in Crimea, which has a 60% Russian population...

[Hadok]

Well that is nonetheless an abusive forgein policy. If France annexed Wallonia on the pretext that it has a promemiannt french population that would be also considered very abusive.

[BaconCanada]

Define abusive

[Aphareus]

Throughout history terrorism has been extremely unsuccessful at gaining its overall political purposes. Sure, short term fear is a result of the terrorist acts, but not the overall goal. Nations rarely give up land or power to terrorist organizations and generally have sufficient military to qualm any all out offensives. In this context, how can it be considered reasonable to continue to use violence on innocent civilians without obtaining your total goals?

[binlargin]

If terrorism didn't work then governments wouldn't be scared of it. South Africa and Ireland are good examples of terrorism working, in both cases terrorist campaigns resulted in political change and long-term reform.

[chrizzly_bears]

you have to distinguish between terrorism and guerilla warfare. are you thinking about any special example that you would describe as reasonable, while others would call it unreasonable? in your example you describe more guerilla warfare then terrorism. the fbi defines terrorismlike that: * "Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law; * Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and [...]" source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition so if you seek influence over some territorium, your intentions might be rational, or they might not be, it is not an inherent feature of terrorism. edit: formatting

[McKoijion]

If terrorists were just responding to abuses by foreign powers, I'd agree with you, but the motivation is often tied to religious and political ideologies. It's one thing to fight dirty against the oppressors who are enslaving you, it is quite another to fight against someone because they have a slightly different concept of God or how to allocate resources throughout a society. In many current conflicts, both the armed oppressor angle and the irrational ideological angle come into play, so it is hard to determine which is more relevant here. Personally, I think that once a person has decided to kill innocent civilians in their own country, I think they've passed the point of simply responding to a foreign oppressor. The only way they can justify that kind of motivation is through an irrational religious or political belief. As an example, at the end of WWII, Joseph Goebbels and his wife Magda Goebbels poisoned their own children in Hitler's bunker. If they were simply standing up to the Allies, they wouldn't have done that. The reason why they did it is because they had the irrational belief that a world without National Socialism is worse than any conception of hell. I think many of today's terrorists have reached this point, so I don't think it's fair to say that terrorism is, at least entirely, a rational decision.

[sornvru]

I think you're looking at the issue as the "us vs them" scenario the government and the media like to hype, but when is the last time you've heard about a terrorist attack on the US? Most of the destruction terrorists cause is happening in the Middle East and not here. Sure terrorists have caused some major problems for us, but they aren't a real threat to us. The real threat is expending a mass of time and resources to pursue them. It's like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun. Sure, terrorists hate the US, but [Bin Laden hated Saudi Arabia just as much](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beliefs_and_ideology_of_Osama_bin_Laden) [STA-CITE]>According to bin Laden's ideology civilians may be deliberately killed in jihad [END-CITE]I don't think you could interpret this as being reasonable. Are you allowed to violently stab the old lady down the street because you disagree with the President? I think this is as far from reasonable as you could be. Terrorists are not a single defined group with a unified goal, they are multiple factions fighting for dominance over a region with multiple levels of internal conflict. They aren't fighting a war, they're in a bunch of minor skirmishes to fight for territory. Did the US and other countries contribute to the existence of terrorists? Yes, I believe so, but terrorists are an enemy we made appear a greater threat than they are to justify going to war. In addition, while you clearly think of "terrorists" as the ones from the Middle East, what about the ones here at home. School shootings are a much more legitimate threat to our safety. They cause equal, if not greater fear in our country. Is there a way you could define school shootings as reasonable?

[zenthr]

[STA-CITE]> > According to bin Laden's ideology civilians may be deliberately killed in jihad > > I don't think you could interpret this as being reasonable. [END-CITE]Part of bin Laden's view on democracy is that it makes *everyone* in the national culpable. Now the view is obviously extreme and poorly refined as he extended this logic to considering every single American citizen as a threat. However, citizens voting for pro-interventionist leaders *would* legitimately be a concern to him. Hence those who vote (and specifically would re-elect) these leaders really could be included as enemies (I here exclude people who did not vote for said candidates). This is his actual goal- get rid of foreign intervention by making it costly to the people who have the power to pick leadership. If America equates intervention with specific risk to ourselves, we will favor more withdrawn candidates. Essentially, the logic is the same as attacking national leaders who don't actually fight the war. The president/king/general is not exempt from what the nation's military does when it directs it somewhere, hence the American electorate are not exempt from what the nation does when it appoints war hawks.

[SacoETrampa]

I Agree with you that reasonable is a bad word... I just meant that given the options, it's their only real choice at fighting back, not that it's a humanist philosophy in any way. [STA-CITE]> Most of the destruction terrorists cause is happening in the Middle East and not here. [END-CITE]If you refer to attacks against the US Army overseas, I think that only proves that they are fighting back in the only way they can... Attacks against civilians in the Middle East however do seem paradoxical, I have no idea why someone would do that.

[doc_rotten]

Generally it's refereed to as asymmetrical conflict. Most "terrorist" groups tend to be organized crime. (then again, one could argue the same is true of most governments). But they are not guerrilla warriors, they are criminal gangs.

[SacoETrampa]

Wow, thanks a lot for this ! Its a very interesting read on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

[GnosticGnome]

[STA-CITE]>If you refer to attacks against the US Army overseas, [END-CITE]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2014 The majority of terrorist attacks are committed by Muslims against Muslim civilians. It's pretty weird to treat these as "outliers" when they are so common. Really the anti-US terrorist attacks should be considered the outliers.

[SacoETrampa]

∆ The fact that the majority of attacks target Muslim civilians also changed my view. This means that there is no way they can be considered freedom fighters for any cause.

[CarsonF]

Though it does make everyone involved look bad. Its a different form of hostage taking. The civilians are essentially pawns in every middle eastern ethnic battle. Shiites hate Sunnis. Everybody hates everybody else. Its not about america anymore. Its about which ethnic sect gets control of which government or territory.

[sornvru]

Maybe I was not clear enough in my explanation, but this is one of the things I was alluding to. If terrorists were a (mostly) unified group with a specific goal, as they are often portrayed as, debating the level of reason of such a goal would be easier, but they just cause destruction wherever they go, indiscriminately. The example I used was stabbing the old lady down the street because you hate the President.

[binlargin]

[STA-CITE]> This means that there is no way they can be considered freedom fighters for any cause. [END-CITE]Really? Just because people share the same religion doesn't mean that there aren't powerful people in control and weak people fighting back, the West doesn't have a monopoly on being bullies.

[SacoETrampa]

Ok, but the people that die when a bomb goes off in a mall are not the powerful oppressors, just innocent Muslim bystanders. This is just terrorism without a real goal, which is blood spilled in vain.

[binlargin]

I'm pretty sure they have goals, just not the ones that you thought they did. Murdering unarmed civilians in cold blood may be immoral and extreme but unless it can happen without consequence it's difficult to imagine it's without a goal. Whether that goal is to cast doubt on the ruling regime's ability to maintain peace, to stir up hatred between groups and trigger an uprising or even just to act as a foot in the door to the political process, there are reasons for it and in the minds of those committing the acts they are usually good ones.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/GnosticGnome. ^[[History](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/GnosticGnome)] ^[[Wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltabot)][[Code](https://github.com/alexames/DeltaBot)][[Subreddit](http://www.reddit.com/r/DeltaBot/)]