[kiba]

War may be imposed upon you by one side, such as the invasion of a country. At which point, war stopped being a choice.

Terrorism as far as we can see is basically incredibly ineffective for inspiring any sort of changes, and serves to enrage your enemy, much like indiscriminate mass bombing often strengthen the resolve of those who are on the receiving end of it.

[ChuffedToBits]

But, circling back to 9/11, I often do wonder how the world would look like today, if America had found it within itself to not react with war to the attacks. There was such a broad outpouring of sympathy and support across the world: enough political capital for all kinds of projects.

If only a few of those hanging chads in Florida had hung differently, or if Gore had further pressed the issue...

[kiba]

What do you suggest then? I agree that our disproportionate reaction isn't the way to go.

[hnbad]

> Terrorism as far as we can see is basically incredibly ineffective for inspiring any sort of changes

I think that deserves a qualification: terrorism can be very effective against an occupying force and when it has the backing of the local population. But terrorism in its 20th century sense of "propaganda of the deed" has indeed shown very ineffective time and again.

I recall an anarchist revolutionary in the early 20th century assassinating a factory owner or somesuch thinking that his act of violence would spur the combative union workers into revolutionary action only to find out that they would turn on him instead. On the other hand there are plenty of documented successes at guerilla warfare - of course always contingent on wide support from the local civilians they were trying to liberate. Likewise, the bombing campaigns in WW2 did little to break the spirit of the civilian population and at worst only radicalized them.