...And it does tend to work in those places. Kidnapping people and blowing up police chiefs puts the community in fear and allows terrorist groups to consolidate their power over the people. Summary executions in the town square that sort of thing

And yet, according to this article, these organisations rarely achieve any of their strategic goals.

Terrorism is not exclusively about Mad Muslims Killing US Citizens. Honestly...talk about ethno-centrism. Even if we talk about 'The West', the Brits have been dealing with "terrorism" since at least the year 1919.
And its not just about a scorecard - its about impact. What have those deaths (3.3/year?) done to change the way those in The West or The US or whereever go about their daily business?

They don't change US policy. But if your goal is to collect protection money from the blacksmith of a small village they tend to achieve this quite a lot. Likewise they get rid of the police and make lawless provinces in Afghan/Pakistan to the point where you cant even go there. Those are small achievements at least

Also one of their goals is to increase awareness. Al Quaeda has had spectacular achievement in this regard, we ALL know about them.

Good link. I'll have to check out Cronin's work.

Also it doesn't seem like people here read the link.

Well the title suggests that terrorism doesn't work. In fact it is simply addressing domestic US terrorism, most terrorism in Nigeria, Pakistan Yemen etc has definite effects on the populace

According to CNN in 2011 15,000 people were killed by terrorist attacks worldwide

The part of the article talking about whether terrorism works or not was separate from the point about the number of deaths per year in the United States. Cronin's book addresses 457 terrorist campaigns worldwide.

Terrorism is not about causing deaths. It's about using the *fear* of death or destruction to gain leverage for your cause. Measuring whether terrorism "works" by measuring how many deaths are caused is nonsense.

Also, the article claims that terrorists usually fail to achieve their aims. However this fails to account for state terrorism, which has succeeded in its aim of keeping many rulers in power beyond the point where they would otherwise have been removed by their people.

Or that when a terrorist group achieves power they are no longer branded terrorists

I'd have to say "state terrorism," such that the actions aren't covered by definitions of acts of war and just the extreme end of how governments normally behave, deserves to be analyzed separately than, for example, the actions of extra-governmental terrorist groups.

After all, not doing so risks lumping in IED roadside bombings with the Allies firebombing Dresden. Regardless of what you think about those events, you have to admit they're quite different.

Does anyone remember the horrendous IRA Birmingham pub bombings? Just to let you know that there is an active campaign in the UK entitled "Justice for the 21". Unfortunately this campaign receives very little publicity in our media. I would also hazard a guess those of you in the USA (where the IRA received a substantial proportion of its funding) have never even heard of it. I wish the campaigners the best of luck, but rather feel they have missed the boat. Adams and McGuiness now metaphorically "take tea with the Queen", or at least the President.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/17/world/gerry-adams-shakes-hands-with-clinton.html

Oh here we go with the obligatory Irish bashing from the fundie. And America bashing too.

"Measuring whether terrorism "works" by measuring how many deaths are caused is nonsense."

Except that's not what they were doing.

I agree with Invictus - state terrorism is a meaningless term.

No Irish bashing from me. Do you want to talk about the appaling treatment of the brave Irish who served in WW2 once they returned home to the IRA/Dev's Ireland after the war again? Only you were wrong on that one too, remember?

They were Irishmen too, only a much better class than that nasty little fascist Sean Russell (he of the Dublin statue) who died in a German U-boat before he could join your hero Dev in offering his condolesances to the German embassy on the death of Hitler. You are a nasty little crypto-fascist shit, just like your murdering mates.

So it pains me to shatter the bonhomie by calling you out on accusing fulhamish of "Irish bashing." If he's bashing anyone, it's the IRA, not the Irish people, and the IRA is a terrorist group which deserves contempt.

But I guess that it's another one which falls into your can't criticize camp. I wonder if you'd be so strongly in favor of a United Ireland through violent means if the groups calling for it happened to be on the political right.

Yes, can we talk about the Irish reward for supporting the British Empire during WWI was to have the Black and Tans unleashed on them by your hero Churchill? Or do Irish victims of British abuse not register in your chauvinistic obscurantist mind?

The only good Irish are the ones who kill for the British Empire, is that right? Anybody who values their independence, is a "fascist shit".

It's not about Irish independence, it's about how and whether Norther Ireland joins the Republic.

Oh please Invictus all this fundie ever does is bash the Irish. All Irish. Not just the IRA. He blames all of Ireland for the fact that WWII volunteers were not given a hero's welcome, not the IRA.

But you'll stab your own people in the back if it means being a good soldier, won't you?

As to the relatives of the 21 and the surviving injured, dammed right they deserve justice. Shame there is no politically motivated lawyer to fight their corner for them.

And he routinely trashes a wildly popular Irish leader who stood up to the bullying of the drunken war monger, Churchill.

That's the first time i've ever seen the term "crypto-fascist" used outside of Red Dwarf. I always thought it was something they'd made up, like smeg-head.

You learn something new every day.

Everybody is a fascist who doesn't kiss the feet of the Queen, or supports Darwinism, in Fulham's view.

By the way this remains one of the greatest speeches I've ever heard.

http://www.rte.ie/archives/exhibitions/681-history-of-rte/684-rte-1940s/289798-eamon-de-valeras-response-to-winston-churchill/

Not given a heros welcome???? Have you actually read how these guys were treated. I am supporting them as Irishmen who took to the right side in the war... you know the side that the USSR was on.
Here is the apology and amnesty, albeit around 60 years too late
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0507/390710-soldier-amnesty/

You small minded bigot.

Who cares? The Irish volunteers who killed for empire came back to kill their own people as the Black and Tans. Why do you expect the Irish to turn the other cheek? Why do you expect the Irish not to believe the same damn thing will happen after WWII?