Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AntEater
The study is a typical thinktank product.
Apparently their list of "terrorist groups" is comprised mostly out of pretty harmless movements like the "animal liberation front".
Throwing political or ethnic guerilla movements which are labeled terrorist because of political opportunities e.g. because the government they fight is allied with you (like FARC or PKK) together with real terrorist groups is one thing.
Comparing something of the size of the RAF (never more than about two dozen active members) with a huge operation like the taliban is another.
Any statistics can only be as good as its data set.
And since most of the listed terror organisations are small, the chances are that they dissolved because of leaderships crisis (a 10 man organisation will topple if the leader is gone).
The "political process" thing is simply a child of the 1990s. Since 99% of the then active terror groups were sponsored by one side of the cold war (or both, sometimes), it is logical they laid down their arms at the end of the cold war.
Either because their financial sources dried up (leftist ones) or because they had no longer any use for the US because the governments they fought had to make concessions to the US. That was then sold as "peace process".
This whole statistical operation makes as much sense as taking a random group of people and analyzing their deaths. The results will be a huge percentage of car accidents. The conclusion of the group will then be:
"ban cars and less people will die"
:rotfl:
|
So you wouldn't suggest Northern Ireland as an example where the politcal process has ended the violence?
08-05-08, 07:29 AM
Threaded Mode