General discussion


Controlling Terrorism

By Oldefar ·
This is a follow up to several other discussions such as Jim Phelp's Privacy and Admin's The Post War World.

I see where the British based World Markets Research Center (WMRC), assessing the risk of terror attacks in 186 countries around the globe, has identified the country with the lowest terrorist risk. It is North Korea.

How badly do you want your government to protect you from terrorists?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

N. Korea is different

by road-dog In reply to Controlling Terrorism

N. Korea is an issue of gross violations of nonproliferation and pre-existing treaties where that nation agreed to suspend nuclear weapons research in exchance for financial aid from the US.

N.Korea has also stated their official position as any economic sanction being construed as an act of war. This being the case, they have basically rendered the UN as any kind of arbiter of the issue, as the UN uses sanctions first in almost any rogue nation scenario.

N.Korea has abandoned all existing agreements, has stated that the normal diplomatic pressures will escalate the situation, and stated that their response will be war.

N.Korea is also a major exporter of weapons to all types of terrorist nations, including Syria and Iran.

This is brinkmanship of the highest order. There is no realistic expectation that there will be a diplomatic solution, as there is no mechanism of enforcement that will not result in war. For all intents and purposes, the die has been cast. Either the world lets this nutcase do as he pleases, or war will result. This being the case, the economic situation in N.Korea makes conflict inevitable because N.Korea will almost certainly sell such weapons when they reach production.

This situation is unprecedented. Unless there is regime change from within in N.Korea, Kim Jong-Il will force the world's hand. If he is prepared to blackmail the world with conventional war, then we must not allow him the nuclear option for the next stage.

Is the world ready to deal with him now? If not, the world will suffer greatly later...

Collapse -

Our Government

by MallardtooXX In reply to Controlling Terrorism

NOK is a prime example of why our government cannot be complacent. It was the actions of our former policies that have allowed this situation to escalate to the state it is at today. I am not content with the idea that an unrestricted fire sale of nuclear material could reach the hands of a would be terrorist or wanna be dictator. I agree that this is brinkmanship, I also think the underlying current is one of age. Kim Jong Ill is old, declining in his grasp on a country that has long been burdened with his maniacal grasp at the world stage. In the grander scheme of things one could say that yes NOK is not a threat directly to the USA, then a **** Feng missle shoots into California and the rest is history.
We have to face facts; the world is a lot smaller than it used to be. We are the last remaining superpower from the cold war era, the tactics of brinkmanship are no longer applicable on this stage. IF a terrorist organization gains access to fissile material and we are the target that would be really bad. But what happens when they decide to hit Russia, or China, or Germany? Will those countries show restraint? What happens if Trafalgar square is turned radioactive? 9/11 was a wake up call folks, the world we all grew up in is gone and an even greater threat is before us. If a country is willing to ***** itself out to gain financial aid from the highest bidder then they must be dealt with in a manner that will remove the possibility completely.
It is impossible to gauge the magnitude of this situation without taking into consideration that this stage is a WORLD stage and the USA is not the only target Britain, Canada, you too are lands full of Infidels, lets not forget who stirred the pot to begin with. We are all in this together like it or not the USA has the Balls to call a spade a spade and you must admit all political BS aside someone has to take the point and do something before it is too late.

Collapse -

You made a good point

by GuruOfDos In reply to Our Government

In that you say the USA is the only remaining post-Cold War Superpower.

Superpower or not, this isn't going to help you any as far as terrorism goes. I don't mean that in any disparaging's just a fact that terrorism can strike any target anywhere at any time. All the Minuteman, Trident or SS20 ballistic missiles in the world can't prevent a fanatic rogue nation or religeously motivated individual from wreaking havoc if they so choose.

As you say, the world has changed and certainly not for the better. The Coalition forces 'won' the war in Iraq, but have NOT won the 'hearts and minds' of the inhabitants. Perhaps they are glad to be rid of President Hussein, but that doesn't take away their anti-Western feeling, as can be seen fron the ongoing attacks against US and British Forces. Dissident Iraqi factions in the last three days have targeted two oil pipelines and the main water pipeline into Bagdad. To what end? Pissing off the coalition maybe, but costing their own people $7million a day in oil revenue and depriving 750,000 of their own people of vital water.

This is the difference between war and terrorism. Even if your own people suffer, the end justifies the means in the minds of the terrorist. If a country goes to war, as Britain did against Argentina in 1982, it is usually to counter an act of aggression or claim against its territorial possessions. That has justification in International law. The Iraq conlict had dubious justification, but a general consensus was reached by the UN and the action was legitimised to some extent. Acts of terrorism by their very nature have no justification other than in the minds of fanatics and the accepted 'Rules of Engagement' no longer apply.

What makes it difficult for nations like the US, Britain and other 'upright' countries is that we have to throw away the rule book and wake up to the fact that these fanatics have no way of gaining their demands by 'legitimate' means, so will use any and every dirty tactic to leverage their views. Unfortunately, as 11/09 proved, we can't forsee every eventuality, unless we stoop to 'their' level, and that, my friends, is an impossible task.

Collapse -


by john_wills In reply to You made a good point

Britain did not go to war against Argentina in 1982: Argentina went to war against the Falklanders and Britain came to the Falklanders' aid. I was not in Britain in 1982, but I am told that BBC TV broadcast several historical programs - some clearly showing the British to have been in the wrong in earlier incidents - to demonstrate that the Argentines were not simply the cowardly bullies that the then war made them appear; no doubt British resentment at Argentines was lessened by this. Perhaps this could be copied by the broadcasters of other states at war.

Collapse -

I have to correct you here

by GuruOfDos In reply to 1982

Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a British Dependent Territory, against the will of the inhabitants, all British Citizens. This was deemed to be an act of war and so Britain responded accordingly. The Falkland Islanders themselves were not the target of Argentinian aggression and no declaration of war was ever made by Argentina against the inhabitants. Britains in general had no beef with the Argentinians...we even had a famous Argentinian footballer (Oswaldo Ardiles) playing in the English FA league. Our biggest issue was that the Argentinians had been supplied with military hardware by the French, contrary to arms control agreements and NATO membership regulations. The Super Etandard jet fighter armed with Excocet II missiles were responsible for many British casualties and did the tenuous relationship between Britain and France no favours at all. The Argentinian army was 80% conscript, with most of their ground forces being aged between 19 and 23 and with little or no formal military training. In every encounter on land, especially at the Battle of Port Stanley, the Argentinian conscripts simply surrendered...preferring to face the consequences as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention to the retributions that would ensue in the hands of their own military leaders. This didn't necessarily make them cowards...but being faced with the SAS and SBS as well as several regiments of Royal Marines, they knew which side their bread was buttered.

Collapse -

Is it true that . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to You made a good point

... the British Navy sunk every ship in the entire Argentine Navy, and that every ship in the Argentine Navy was insured by Lloyds of London?

Collapse -

Not quite!

by GuruOfDos In reply to Is it true that . . .

Three argentinian ships returned to port. Lloyds refused to pay out as 'Acts of War' were one of the exclusions in the policy.

The Argies only had Third Party, Fire and Theft insurance....and who's gonna steal a burning warship?!!!!

A couple of jokes from the time...

For Sale:Argentinian Assault rifles...never fired...dropped once.

For Sale: Argentinian Army Surplus uniforms....trousers may be soiled

Collapse -

Too funny

by maxwell edison In reply to Not quite!

Thanks for the laugh.

Collapse -

What is interesting here is that

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to You made a good point

All of the the people considered as "Great Men" in the non-weatern World started out lives as terriorists. Take Nelson Mandella, Gandi as just two examples. Both of these men spent a considerable time in jail for insiting their fellow countrymen to uprise oand throw out the current controllers mainly of British descent. But while 9-11 was a stupid and unnecessary action it was hardly the first terrorists activity that the Western World has faced but it was the first on Americian Soil that proved sucessful. The World Trade center had been a target for over 20 years but all previous attacks had only been superficial, but if you live on the other side of the pond in the UK then you would have been fuly aware of the IRA and its policies of blowing things up. Even the IRa has gained some form of respectibility nowdays by becoming a Political force. It seems that alot of these organisations start off as terrorists and evolve over time into Political forces some take longer than others and some don't take as long but they all eventually end up in the same place as Political Organisations who do more to further their aims within the system rather than outside the existing system. Sad but True so one day in the not too didtant future we will see some Muslim based Political Group in high ranking of the US Electered body or maybe even one day President. The same will happen in all the Western COuntries so this will not be something isolated to the US but the western world in general.

But don't believe me just ask Gary Adams from the British Parliment he was once a member of the radical IRA which was never a friendly group to meet of even worse upset.

Collapse -


by john_wills In reply to What is interesting here ...

...was not a terrorist, nor did he encourage terrorism. He preached "non-violence" or "ahimsa", which can be very annoying to whoever's path you're blocking, with violent reactions. He also taught self-sufficiency, e.g. weaving for everyone, partly in reaction to an earlier government-sponsored monopoly on weaving. He ostentaitously made salt fro msewater when salt production was a protected monopoly. There were politicians within the Indian electoral system working for change, e.g. the Nehru family, and these were the ones who took power at Partition - keeping, be it noted, such foolish institutions as government-sponsored monopolies and other restrictions on productivity until the 1980s. There were terrorists, such as Chandra Lal and his "Indian National Army", who tried to do a deal with Japan, but they seem to have no major political descendants.

Related Discussions

Related Forums