[Houshalter]

None of these examples got away with it, or even acheived any of their stated goals. If terrorism actually worked, it would be a lot scarier.

Also fortunately most political extremists don't want to kill just random people. Weapons of mass destruction don't discriminate, making them poor choices.

[wpietri]

I'm not getting your point as it relates to the discussion here.

But for some goals, terrorism definitely works. Look at the US South after the Civil War. White terrorism worked for more than a century, from thousands of individual lynchings up through mass events like the Tulsa Massacre and Wilmington Coup. Or look at the number of shootings that involve misogyny, which is the enforcement mechanism for patriarchy. In both cases, violence is used to create fear to keep a population subordinate.

It also can work very well against occupying forces. Afghanistan, for example. Or if Russia takes Kiev, we'll surely see how well it works against Russian soldiers.

And it works very well to get attention and heighten tensions. Al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks were a big success for them on both counts. If you're in the "immanentize the eschaton" class of kook, which these days includes a lot of people from the far left to the far right, the heightened tensions are their own reward.

And even if it didn't work, that's not really the question. The question is whether somebody being crazy enough to think it will is enough to prevent them from succeeding. I'm saying the two aren't mutually exclusive. Aum Shinrikyo comes to mind here. As, in another way, does Russia. Would Putin using nuclear weapons ever keep him in power? I doubt it. But might he do it anyhow on one theory or another? Nobody can rule that out.

[Houshalter]

Terrorism didn't work after the civil war. The north was able to occupy the south indefinitely with minimal cost.

>the number of shootings that involve misogyny, which is the enforcement mechanism for patriarchy

Please translate this to english