In the light of the terrorist attacks in Nice, I've been thinking.
Are there any historical terrorist attacks that have actually engendered substantial political change?
Reason I'm wondering is because we all know that in the 19th century, anarchists also committed a lot of terrorist acts because they believed in the propaganda of the deed; that people would be moved to change their opinion about politics or ideology in general if one could see someone actually doing something real.
But is that actually true? Can you actually change people's minds by using civilians as means to an end in such a manner?
>inb4 thinly-veiled /pol/-thread
No, I am genuinely interested in some historical events.
Pic unrelated.
>>1416133
wait another 5 years and we can talk about 9/11
>>1416133
>Are there any historical terrorist attacks that have actually engendered substantial political change?
Does killing a ruler of a nation big enough change for you?
Franz Ferdinand and Alexander II were both killed by terrorists
>>1416175
>Princip was a terrorist
nice meme fuckface
the revolution of 1776 was a terrorist act against the uk
>>1416133
Give us a definition of terrorism first, not a perfect one but one we can work with for the sake of the argument.
Also the FLN (Algeria) got rid of the French from the country while the right-counter-terrorists (who uses similar methods) putsched De Gaulle to power.
>>1416177
The actual revolutionary moment was when the Troisieme Tier proclaimed itself the nation assembly. It has nothing to do with terrorism or the UK, mostly because the UK didn't exist until 1800.
>>1416186
>United Kingdom of Scotland and England does not exist in 1800
>>1416182
Well, I would say definition-wise, using civilian murder as a means to an end.
But of course I freely admit that the definition of terrorism is ambiguous.
>>1416133
The death of Alexander II triggered a strong reactionary backlash in Russia, which may have been the thing that made the revolution inevitable.
Islamic and Zionist terrorism undermined British rule of Palestine, causing them to pull out.
Later, in the 90s, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process came to a halt because of terror attacks from both sides, and especially the assasination of Yitzhak Rabin.
Really, it depends on what you consider terrorism.
>>1416193
Too ambiguous tbqh.
Basically any murder could be terrorism.
A man rapes a girl and kills her so she can't report it - terrorism.
>>1416208
>Basically any murder could be terrorism.
Yeah, I forgot to mention for political or ideological motives though, not just sexual gratification or whatnot.
>>1416182
DeGaulle was put in power by the army not terrorists
The OAS was after DeGaulle came to power m80
>>1416133
Zionism
>>1416193
>>1416249
Is civilian murder the murder of civilians or the murder done by civilians?
If it is the former and we include the for political and ideological motives bit, most violence that happened during the last century or so counts as terrorism. If it's the latter, well then, many revolutions. Not quite sure, was there lots of civilian-initiated violence in the arab spring?
>>1416133
>Reason I'm wondering is because we all know that in the 19th century, anarchists also committed a lot of terrorist acts because they believed in the propaganda of the deed; that people would be moved to change their opinion about politics or ideology in general if one could see someone actually doing something real.
Is there literature about this?
