Question

the effects of terrorism
terrorism is based on the mistaken belief that a small number of violent acts that target symbolic and meaningful places and events important to the adversary can enable them to achieve political goals. secondly, terrorists always underestimate the strong revulsion and disgust that the majority of human beings feels toward acts of political violence.
the article makes the following argument:
in a short paragraph, explain the argument that the author is making. do you agree or disagree with his claim?

Explanation:

The author argues that terrorism is based on a wrong belief (small - scale violent acts targeting symbolic places/events can achieve political goals) and terrorists underestimate the public's revulsion towards political violence. To agree or disagree, one could consider historical examples. For agreement, look at how terrorist acts often lead to counter - measures (e.g., increased security, public backlash) rather than achieving the terrorists' stated political aims. For disagreement, one might argue that in some cases (though rare), terrorist acts have brought attention to a cause (but this is usually short - lived and the negative consequences outweigh any potential positive in terms of achieving political goals).

Answer:

The author's argument is that terrorism is founded on a misbelief (using small - scale violent acts on symbolic locations/events for political goals) and terrorists miscalculate public revulsion. Regarding agreement/disagreement: Agree - as seen in post - 9/11, terrorist acts led to global anti - terrorism efforts and public unity against terrorism, not achieving the terrorists' ideological/political goals. Disagree - though hard to find, if one considers the initial attention some separatist terrorist groups got (but even then, it didn't lead to long - term political success and was overshadowed by the violence's horror).