2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

We are not convinced of Abrahms' argument or conclusion

Reader comment on item: The Limits of Terrorism

Submitted by Barry Goldberg (United States), Apr 22, 2009 at 16:17

We wish we were convinced of Abrahms' argument and conclusion; however, we find that it fails.

* Terrorists recognize that their "maximalist objectives" will take time. Mao's goal of regime change didn't occur for more than 20 years. Lenin's didn't occur for more than 15. Khomeni's didn't occur for nearly that long, as well. The same holds true for other movements in the present time.

* Terrorist leaders are willing to sacrifice their foot soldiers to martyrdom, their foot soldiers are eager to achieve it, and their supporters all rejoice at it. This strengthens and emboldens, not weakens, their movements.

* Low-intensity terrorism has proven to be highly effective. Witness the suicide bombings against Israel, which resulted, we believe, in a majority of Israelis being willing to make peace, cede land, and engage in other concessions with potentially dire consequences.

* We further believe that was an underlying reason for Israel's withdrawal from Gaza--and gave a significant boost to the far-left movement of peace-at-any-cost and designating Israel's "occupation" as being morally equivalent to Nazism.

* Witness also the FARC terrorists, Castro's success, Che Guevera's successes in Latin America, and, as you noted, the Tamil Tigers. Perhaps most importantly, consider what is now occurring in Pakistan.

* We do agree, as you and others have long pointed out, with the chilling effect of Islamic radicals seeking to subvert from within our democratic establishments. Perhaps no better example can be found than Londonistan. Yes, we are on notice. Unfortunately, very few are aware, even fewer are concerned, even fewer are involved in doing anything about these frightening inroads--and we believe any turnaround will only come many years down the road after our Western civilizations are facing catastrophic regime change--and perhaps not even then.

P.S. We, and we believe all your followers, would very much like to know whether you agree with Abrahms' thesis and conclusions.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Daniel Pipes replies:

Defining terrorism is the key problem involved with such a study; that said, I do bascially agree with Abrahms.

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to We are not convinced of Abrahms' argument or conclusion by Barry Goldberg

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)