How would anarchists prevent/reduce/respond to terrorism?

[Beloc]

States protect the rulers from terror but do not protect the people from terror. Anarchism would not protect any rulers from terror. As a strategic choice, then, terror makes less sense against state societies (where it affects anyone except policymakers) and more sense against anarchist and other egalitarian societies.

How would anarchists prevent, reduce, and respond to terrorism? Obviously changing foreign policy would eliminate many current threats, but changing social conditions could activate new threats, who now have (or believe they have) more leverage.

[|Y|]

Terrorism would be reduced in an anarchist society because the antagonistic things that states do would not exist, so the situation to "build terrorists" would not exist. There would of course be fundamenalists who want to change how things are, who would result to terroristic activities to try to make some insignificant impact on the society, but they would be far more minimal than they currently are.

The thing is, states are the biggest sponsers of terror.

[Aaron]

States protect the rulers from terror but do not protect the people from terror. Anarchism would not protect any rulers from terror. As a strategic choice, then, terror makes less sense against state societies (where it affects anyone except policymakers) and more sense against anarchist and other egalitarian societies.

This reasoning makes very little sense to me. Please elaborate.

Logically, the only terrorism anarchists will most likely have to worry about, if anarchy comes about, is terrorism from state agents.

[tsihcrana laicos]

We won't go about killing peoples families, or otherwise activities that tend to create terrorists.

When people don't have much to live for then they will be more likely to give themselves up for a cause.

[|Y|]

Logically, the only terrorism anarchists will most likely have to worry about, if anarchy comes about, is terrorism from state agents.

C'mon, that's reactionay bullshit. How about anti-civiliation groups? How about anti-environmentalist groups? There are potential extremists on every side of the coin.

Suicide bombers will still exist, you better fucking believe it. Quelling them is erridicating their corrupt ideologies through peaceful and evolutionary means. It's going to take time.

Some here go on about how MI5 and other groups are "using people to create terrorism." Even if that's true, wouldn't the mere fact that there exists a religious ideology to uphold the beliefs of would be suicide bombers show that it's not just the "governments" but also the systems of ideology themselves?

[huntergatherer]

How would anarchists . . . respond to terrorism?

By arguing about various conspiracy theories furiously for at least three weeks.

[|Y|]

We need gulags!

[Beloc]

Let's break this down:

(1) The more terrorism works, the more groups will use terrorism.

(2) The less terrorism works, the less groups will use terrorism.

(3) Terrorism does kill ordinary people but rarely kills rulers (with their personal security forces).

(4) Terrorism does threaten ordinary people; therefore terrorism could work against non-state societies.

(5) Terrorism does not threaten rulers; therefore terrorism does not work against states.

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

[Aaron]

Let's break this down:

(1) The more terrorism works, the more groups will use terrorism.

(2) The less terrorism works, the less groups will use terrorism.

(3) Terrorism does kill ordinary people but rarely kills rulers (with their personal security forces).

(4) Terrorism does threaten ordinary people; therefore terrorism could work against non-state societies.

(5) Terrorism does not threaten rulers; therefore terrorism does not work against states.

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

In 3-4 you move from killing to threatening... why? You don't need to kill in order to threaten.

I disagree with 5.

[Post_Morpheus_I]

Let's break this down:

(1) The more terrorism works, the more groups will use terrorism.

(2) The less terrorism works, the less groups will use terrorism.

(3) Terrorism does kill ordinary people but rarely kills rulers (with their personal security forces).

(4) Terrorism does threaten ordinary people; therefore terrorism could work against non-state societies.

(5) Terrorism does not threaten rulers; therefore terrorism does not work against states.

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

In 3-4 you move from killing to threatening... why? You don't need to kill in order to threaten.

I disagree with 5.

Obvioulsy you don't NEED to kill in order to threaten, but terrorists DO kill and DO threaten. What is your point?

[ive_been_registration_ed]

States protect the rulers from terror but do not protect the people from terror. Anarchism would not protect any rulers from terror. As a strategic choice, then, terror makes less sense against state societies (where it affects anyone except policymakers) and more sense against anarchist and other egalitarian societies.

How would anarchists prevent, reduce, and respond to terrorism? Obviously changing foreign policy would eliminate many current threats, but changing social conditions could activate new threats, who now have (or believe they have) more leverage.

By abolishing government, you abolish terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic states use to force their agenda on the people. See http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/.

[tsihcrana laicos]

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

What would be the point in terrorism? What effect would they be going for?

[Aaron]

Let's break this down:

(1) The more terrorism works, the more groups will use terrorism.

(2) The less terrorism works, the less groups will use terrorism.

(3) Terrorism does kill ordinary people but rarely kills rulers (with their personal security forces).

(4) Terrorism does threaten ordinary people; therefore terrorism could work against non-state societies.

(5) Terrorism does not threaten rulers; therefore terrorism does not work against states.

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies (few people consider themselves expendable) than against states (all rulers consider others expendable).

(7) Therefore terrorism is more likely against non-state societies than against states.

In 3-4 you move from killing to threatening... why? You don't need to kill in order to threaten.

I disagree with 5.

Obvioulsy you don't NEED to kill in order to threaten, but terrorists DO kill and DO threaten. What is your point?

5 makes no sense.

[E.L.S]

most ppl here think terrorism acts are targeted at the state..... but most religious terrorist act are not mainly focused at the state but at the people who live in them.... a anarchist sociaty would be a major target for religion based terrorism because of our focuses on librety and equality

[|Y|]

We have to give the terrorist spammers credit for one thing, they do bump interesting topics ocassionally... I've seen some real gems from the 2003 days (when flag was switched over from that old software).