Reply #49: Silly post to assume taht all terrorists have one shared objective like that.

[Bucky]

As has been repeated endless times on DU ever since the insane "War on Terror" was started in 2001, terror is a technique, not a philosophy. Just as you can't "declare war" on it, neither can you assign a uniformity of intentions and beliefs to people who use terror as a weapon.

For instance the Anarchists of the late 19th century were by any reasonable standard terrorists, although they had the discrimination to only murder monarchs and plutocrats (McKinley, a couple of tsars, some other Euro-royals) or at worst half a dozen cops in Haymarket Square. And yet their intention was not to initiate a police crackdown, at least not uniformly so.

Few violent extremists are the conspiratorial masterminds you suppose, plotting out ricochet-like knock on effects of their violence. Lenin was, possibly Hitler was, but for the most part they're being violent to protest and hope that their protests will radicalize their would-be sympathizers. That was certainly bin Laden's game. His plan was to rally Islam to his cause, discourage America, and drive us out of the Middle East. His plan most certainly was not to trigger an American imperial over-reach with two full-on wars and half a dozen proxy actions.

With regard to Guido Fawkes himself, I just don't see how one can attempt to murder the entire Parliament and intend it not to be terrifying. Mass destruction as a means to mass murder, by targeting a principal symbol of a nation's sovereignty is by definition terrorism. I don't think it's throwing the term around loosely call a politically motivated would-be mass murderer taking on a specific plot that hinges on the terror he cause a "terrorist." It would be disingenuous to call it anything but terrorism.