Community

General discussion

Locked

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 -

Err.....

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

You mean Gerry Adams, the Irish politician and leader of Sinn Fein...

Yes he sits in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but he has NEVER sat in the British Parliament! Until the Northern Ireland Peace Accord was signed, he was even prevented from entering mainland Britain itself!

Collapse -

Can only protect what you control

by JimHM In reply to Controlling Terrorism

You can only protect what you control 100% - So I want my government to protect the boards of this country - I want the government to protect the citizens from foriegn powers - Period.

For them to protect me and my family - they need to control 100% of the citizens and that will not happen.

Sorry - I will take my risks - and accept my freedoms - over the illusion of safety and security provided by the government ...

Collapse -

risk or certainty of terror

by john_wills In reply to Controlling Terrorism

The people of North Korea have very little risk of terror, because they have a certainty of it, perpetrated by their government. WMRC may mean that they have a low risk of terror from foreign governments or NGOs. The word "terrorism" was invented to characterize the behavior of the First French Republic, which had a "reign of terror" lasting only a fraction of the time that NOK folk have now been experiencing such a reign.

Collapse -

Non conventional weapons ...

by jardinier In reply to Controlling Terrorism

Survival of the human species has always been a tenuous matter. And yet, despite the vagaries of nature, natural disasters, disease epidemics and wars, we have now reached a position where the size of the world?s population is perhaps the biggest threat to survival of the species. We are rapidly destroying and polluting our home, the planet Earth. If current technology were applied where it is most needed, perhaps we could re-establish a balance with nature. But that is not the way the world works. Individual desire (call it greed or gratification) does not consider the cost to other humans, nations or the planet. I have painted this scenario in an attempt to show that, all things considered, terrorism is at this stage no more of a threat to the continued survival of the species, or the balance of power in the world, than any of a number of other unavoidable factors. However, quite a different scenario can be projected if terrorists resort to non conventional weaponry. North Korea is the first instance where this much more terrible outcome is confronting us. Prime Minister John Howard has been holding talks with the Chinese leadership encouraging them to use their influence to negotiate a peaceful settlement. A few days ago the director general of ASIO, Dennis Richardson, said that it was "only a matter of time" before there was a "catastrophic" - chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear - terrorist attack in Australia. Let us pray that this prediction is not fulfilled, either in Australia or anywhere else on the globe.

Collapse -

Original Question

by timwalsh In reply to Controlling Terrorism

Getting back to Oldefar's original posting and the points he was trying to make:

North Korea apparently has the lowest risk of terrorist attack. Why?

Terrorists generally cannot operate in totally closed societies. North Korea at present probably has the most oppressive government on the planet.

One must also understand that traditionally, terrorism has been a political act with political goals. What are those goals?

1. To make the target population feel vulnerable.
2.

Collapse -

Sorry, got click happy

by timwalsh In reply to Original Question

2. Gain recognition and attention.
3. Gain support from other like-minded extremists by provoking the target government into committing violent acts of retribution (which usually also draws world condemnation)
4. Push the target government into self-constraining acts - limiting or withdrawing citizens rights; declaring martial law; becoming more oppressive.
5. Use public pressure to cause the target government to institute policy changes (which usually end up being unpopular with the same public). "Why did you let terrorists attack us? FIX IT! And by the way, you better not take any of my rights away in doing so!"

North Korea has the lowest risk of terrorism because:
1. A population that is already cowering from its own government can't be made to feel more vulnerable.
2. Closed societies don't tend to publish their troubles to be scrutinized by the rest of the world (sorry, no free press for your cause).
3. You can't make North Korea look any worse than it already is. An oppressive government is expected to behave poorly.
4. You can't make a country that is already operating under virtual martial law become more oppressive.
5. If the public starts to complain, they're just thrown in the dungeon or stood against a wall.

So Oldefar's question of how far do you want your government to go to protect you against terrorism is a rhetorical one. What he is really asking is "Do you want to become the next North Korea to feel safe from terrorists?"

Collapse -

Thanks

by Oldefar In reply to Sorry, got click happy

Some interesting posts, but I was beginning to wonder if anyone understood my question.

Related Discussions

Related Forums