Effectiveness of terrorism

[David]

Barb wrote, on the main list:

>Nothing is a justification of violence or terrorism, and in fact, 
it is likely to damage the reputation of the movement and make it 
less likely that change will occur in the near future, as sympathy 
is more likely to lie with the victim(s) of the violence. It is self-
defeating.

It would be nice to think this was true, but I think sometimes 
violent acts can be effective in bringing about change.  That 
doesn't justify them, but it may go some way to explaining why they 
still happen.

Part of the reason we don't perceive this is that successful 
terrorists usually lose that label, being known instead 
as 'respected elder statesmen'.  Naming names would start a flamewar 
so I will refrain, but there are plenty around.

David