zlacker

It might be not about political goals:

http://www.gwern.net/Terrorism%20is%20not%20Effective

>>ArekDy+(OP)
Gwern's analysis looks hopelessly naive in the face of modern ISIS-related acts; and ignores the difference between USA, where poison Tylenol causes a huge response, and China where people expect bad fake drugs with a certain frequency.

And he ignores that over-complicated (in gwern's view) cost over a trillion dollars in US response, from NSA to TSA to Afghan and Iraq war.

>>ArekDy+(OP)
I've tried to take that analysis seriously when people have linked it before, but to me it just doesn't seem very relevant to the real world. I'm curious what you mean when you say that it's not about political goals and how that is supported?

Terrorists are by definition extremists. They want to upset the status quo to force people to take sides and create a situation where they feel they, who are righteous, have a better chance of being successful or at least relevant. Whether that is a race war, holy war or revolution. The killing itself isn't particularly relevant until your fighting over land and then normally in form of ethnic cleansing.

The analysis you linked misses a the point of e.g. the terrorist plot in Norway. It's wasn't just about killing people, he deliberately tried to effect politics by killing a generation of people he disagreed with. He also believed that it was part of and going to lead to a larger conflict.

>>ArekDy+(OP)
That link gets way too much airtime. As much as I usually like Gwerns analysis this one seems in spite of the mountain of citations to miss the point entirely.