How would anarchists prevent/reduce/respond to terrorism?

[coeus]

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

WRONG. First of all, I'm assuming that you're talking about Islamic terrorism as "religious terrorism" and referring to groups like Al Qaeda. If you think that Al Qaeda attacked the US because of "liberty and equality" then you're a victim of state propaganda and I suggest you get yourself deprogrammed. Terrorist attacks against the US (and UK,etc ) are all political and are a result of imperialist foreign policy. Land grabs, military bases on foreign lands, stealing of resources, etc are all acts of the state and therefore states become targets from terrorists. If it were about liberty and equality, then Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, etc would be prime targets.

In fact, in most cases, terrorism is a RESULT of lack of liberty and inequality. See Ireland, Colombia, Mexico, South Africa when it was under the Apartheid, Palestinians, etc. For the most part, if people were living in equal and free societies they would not be willing to kill themselves. Capitalism also plays a huge part in this because it's the force that drives the desire to grab land, resources, etc.

The largest form of terrorism that anarchists need to worry about is state terrorism, as it's the largest form of terrorism that exists today.

[MMMark]

Sat. 08/05/03 21:09 EDT
. post #316

Anarchism would not protect any rulers from terror.

Obviously, since Anarchy, by definition, is "without rulers".
There would be no rulers to protect.

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 is a non sequitur, i.e., it does not follow from your initial statement, which is trivially true, but irrelevant.
Let's restate it, slightly edited, and without the irrelevant first part:

As a strategic choice, terror makes less sense against state societies (where it affects anyone except policymakers) and more sense against anarchist and other egalitarian societies.

Before this proposition even "makes sense", you'll have to explain what you mean by your use of the word "sense". Assuming you can do that, the onus is now upon you to establish the validity of this proposition.

(1) The more terrorism works

"Works"? What could this possibly mean? Presumably, it has something to do with "terrorism making sense", a non-sensical expression you have failed to explain.

(6) Therefore terrorism is more effective against non-state societies

"Effective"? What could this possibly mean? See above.

Edit: corrected a spelling mistake

[lefty]

With the possible exception of Ted K, I can't think of any "terrorism" that wasn't state sponsored.

And come to think of it, Ted was a survivor of CIA mind control experiments (see http://counterpunch.org/tedk.html) so perhaps there is state involvement there as well.

Try googling for 'strategy of tension' or 'operation gladio' and you will begin to get a picture of what 'terrorism' really is. I also like this essay: http://spiritofmaat.com/archive/may2/faktrror.htm

[Caz]

2 cents:

What we think of as terrorism is a reaction to Western imperial/military actions, and if we had no aggressive power structure here trying to spread its influence, then I don't think we'd have a problem with it.

Were I living in an anarchist society and we saw domestic (TedK) terrorism, I would probably suggest a group band together and hunt down the bastard(s), which might garner support. Then that group would organize itself and develop into a cohesive task-driven unit with someone directing its activities for the sake of efficient operation and allocation of resources, eventually evolving a hierarchy. If it didn't, then another group would complain, start their own organization, and do it, taking advantage of increased effectiveness to garner public support...

[Jawn Disease]

What we think of terrorism is a joke.

In India they have terrorism. In Pakistan they have terrorism. In Sri Lanka they invented the suicide belt.

Anyways, a stateless society would not be affected by terrorism because there would be no state to affect.

[FirePirate]

Retaliate, there is always going to be people willing to fight. In an anarchist society people fought to take their freedom, they will be ready to fight to keep it that way.