So? That only matters if the goal and purpose of the terrorists was to create fear and change the way of life of their enemies. But is that their aim? No (or at least it's highly unlikely). Terror is a means to a larger end and their goal is for that fear and panic to result in the political objectives they seek, be it the overthrow of a government or the Western countries getting out of the Middle East or whatever. Having an effect and 'working' are completely different things.But terrorism nearly always works - it creates terror and fear amongst the population.
Our way of life has been changed by terrorism for decades in the UK, and the world for many years.
It would be like the Intense Disciples for an Idependent Opium Trade deciding that by bombing all the cookie factories of their enemy that the children will rise up and demand that the adults cave in and stop interferring with the opium trade. Let's say that are completely successful at eliminating every cookie factory. So what? Unless that results in them getting their unrestricted opium trade, the terror campaign was unsuccessful, regardless of whatever other effects it may have had.
I would want to examine such a survey very carefully. While there were certainly some people that naive, I have a hard time believing it approached anything close to a majority.There was a survey (which I will try to find) which suggested that the majority of Americans believed that terrorism would be solved when Bin Laden was captured or killed (let's assume that in this case we are talking about islamism).
I don't think that is the general case. There have been numerous times throughout history when the leaders of the victorious side did not survive the battle, much less the war.In 'conventional warfare', if the leader of the country/armed forces was captured/killed, then yes the battle would be all but over.
Last edited: