i sterrorism best described as a tactic of teh powerless against teh powerful?

Answer 1

Unfortunately, the answer is "no," and "yes."

NO:
Throughout history, many powerful governments have engaged in "State Terrorism" as a means of controlling populations. The ancient Romans used crucifixion as a public display of terror to remind subject peoples of the need to obey -- or else. Other governments employed "death squads" to openly terrorize the regime's enemies and instill fear. So, no, terrorism isn't only for the powerless.

YES:
Modern groups like Hamas or Al Qaida employ terror because they know that they can never compete with conventional powers like Israel or the US. In a conventional armed conflict these groups would be wiped out in a day, and they know it. So, realizing that they are in a powerless position, they resort to terror as a means of getting what they want. Their use of terror is a direct measure of their perception of their own weakness.

Hope this answer helps.

Answer 2

That is often the case. Historically, it's also a tactic used by those in power to generate public support for otherwise unpopular agenda's.

Take the burning of the Reichstag in Berlin for example. The nazi's set the fire and blamed it on a poor immigrant communist who was found shirtless in the building after multiple fires and at least one explosion had taken place. There was a huge government media campaign after the fire citing the threat of communism and the need for a serious crackdown by the government. Fear of communism and what would happen to Germany as a result was driven into the public's thought process through extensive radio and newspaer campaigns.

As a result the nation agreed to new laws that conentrated authority under Hitler, gave new powers to the police, and granted nearly unlimited authority to the Fuhrer, who was presented as a national hero and as the best chance for a secure country. Tyranny began from there, and within 5 years there were Jews being rounded up.

When looking at history from this perspective, it makes sense to look at serious terrorist events from the perspective of "who benefits?" Once you determine who benefits most, you're on your way to figuring out who did it.

Answer 3

No. Generally acts of "terrorism" are acts of cowardice by a trained paramilitary group against a civilian population to instill fear. To either make a political point or as an attempt to force a decission or open dialog.

That is why legitimate governments make a habit of not (openly) negotiating with terrorists. Terrorism is an act of war against civilians and terrorists should be thought as nothing more than rogue combatants.

Answer 4

Nope. It is best described as a cowardly attempt to cause fear in your opponent's civilians. If they sent suicide bombers after military targets (like Kamikaze in WWII) that's a legitimate military tactic. Sending suicide bombers into a pizza store to kill women and children is cowardly.

Answer 5

If they were truly powerless then they couldn't commit acts of terrorism, now could they?

Answer 6

i'd agree...just powerful picking on the powerless

Answer 7

That is one perspective..its valid

Answer 8

killing the innocent is wrong, terrorism is fundamentalism

Answer 9

no body is ready to do anything without a reason!!!!!!!!!!!