The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Death by terrorism: regional counterterrorism responses > Comments

Death by terrorism: regional counterterrorism responses : Comments

By Jo Coghlan, published 31/8/2011

The war on terror is a global battle...what are the measures being taken by affected nations to combat it?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Agree.I would used the analogy that cars kill far more people than terrorists could ever hope to achieve.Do we bring in laws like The Patriot Act or John Howards' Sedition Laws to counter act this? Do we then decide to ban cars because they kill people?

It is a total over reaction to what is most of the time contrived terrorism to bring in these new oppressive laws.Al Qaeda is not the establishments' enemy.We are the enemy,because a few elites have decided there are just too many of us.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 10:01:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fact that less people die from terrorist attacks, could also mean the government agencies are being very successful at their jobs .. see how many people in Australia are charged before they can carry out their attacks, quite a few. While others are deterred from even getting to the planning stage, because they know there will be a response.

Terrorism is a deliberate act to frighten and harm societies by selfish people for their own political goals.

Arjay uses a stupid analogy, the government doesn't ban cars because the deaths are not deliberate or planned, they are accidental.

If they are planned, then we would do something about it, we might ban cars.

If every driver went out deliberately trying to kill people. (Of course, any way that one can revive and relive hatred for PM John (MOS) Howard is excusable, for some.

I wonder about people who are against laws to protect us from terrorism, yes they are invasive, but are happy to regulate every other aspect of our lives. Indeed they insist on it.

If I call Victoria the nanny state, as it was under the ALP, there is a chorus of the usual lefties howling that more bureaucracy is required, that everything should be controlled.

That if someone is caught speeding,then the speed limits MUST be reduced (Premier Bracks reduce the speed limit on the Monash from 100 to 80, near the city, because some people were .. speeding!)

if kids drink alcopops, ban alcopops, or tax them out of existence so kids now buy full bottles of spirits .. nice job!

Someone killed a steer the wrong way, ban live exports!

Any action that "offends", must be banned or regulated .. when the ones taking offense are the ones we need to take a good look at, but the ALP and their leftie mates have empowered the culture of offense and entitlement, so that people offended by being protected, insist on none .. well, sorry we won't bow to every demand by the terminally offended, we protect idiots as well, more is the pity.
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 10:55:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Amicus,it is alright to bring in Bush's Patriot Act and for Obama to bring in Preventative dentention so even if you are suspected of being a terrorist you can be gaoled indefinietly without a trial?

Your alarm bells of lost freedoms should be ringing loud and wide.Govt will not protect you by stealing your liberty and human rights.Currently our Govts are controlled by large corporate interests.They own the media and create from nothing,all the money our Govts need to function,are the ones who have the real power.He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Just look at where the War on Terror is being waged.It is about oil,or access to via piplines and resources.Afghanistan has
$ trillions in Lithium and due to the USA is the number one producer of heroine on the planet.It is also on route for an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan.

Howards' Sedition Laws have us a hairs breadth from a totalitarian state.Have a long hard look at the Sedition Laws.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 12:07:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most successful approaches to counter-terrorism measures are quality information gathering and analysis and sharing of intelligence between the various agencies.

There is an irony in introducing totalitarian and draconian laws to prevent terrorism or bring terrorists to justice by making 'us' more akin to the terrorist.

The risk inherent in counter-terrorism measures is the line between denying basic civil liberties and encroaching into long held tenets and beliefs around justice.

How to define terrorism? It is difficult. Many times governments will support 'terrorists' if the outcomes are beneficial to their interests or they will support totalitarian regimes for the same reason, aiding and abeting in quelling any rebellion that might bring a more democratic government if it means a risk to foreign investments.

Counter-terrorism measures can be self-serving. The last thing governments will discuss is how fairer and more transparent foreign (and trade) policies would obviate the need to spend billions on CT measures.

Did anyone catch 'Top Secret America' on SBS the other night? YouTube link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDLVCyCm1ck

National security policies that arose out of 9/11 are part 'real' and part staged-other authors have written about the 'theatre' of national security. That is governments looking like they are doing something about the threat even if the 'threat' is ill-defined and while billions of dollars are thrown at it, the benefits vs cost are incongruous. The development post-9/11 of a new oversight agency in the US to oversee all the other national security agencies (ensuring cooperation and sharing of information) is almost worthy of a theatrical revue or satire.

On a slight tangent, the increased requirement for security clearances to work in government has become ridiculous with security seminars for public servants concentrating not only on confidentiality but on 'protecting the reputation' of departments.

We might have once been the lucky country but lets hope we don't become the silly country.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 4:27:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the link Pelican.The USA has over 600 empty FEMA camps with barbed wire facing inwards.Some have turnstiles to process many people and some have trainlines linking them with large gas pipes servicing buildings.

The USA has the largest prison pop per head,with 2 million of it's 315 million in gaol.Why do they need another 600 prisons? Just google Jessie Ventura and the FEMA camps.It will frighten the crap out of your complacency.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 8:48:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"lets hope we don't become the silly country."

I think that boat sailed when the new Rudd government had the 2020 best and brightest festival ..

Didn't all the media and the left absolutely wet themselves over that!

What do you think the rest of the world thought about that little exhibition of media management of the truly stupid?

Even after that, we still get fools who worry that Australia needs to lead the world in reducing climate change .. oh dear

Since then of course, we have spiraled downwards into more and more stupid and futile acts of self obsession.
Posted by rpg, Wednesday, 31 August 2011 10:13:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh please, we're the "silly country" through and through- we went from leading world standards to redifining the gap between first and second world (with supposedly 'second world countries' now far surpassing us in broadband capabilities).

Anyway- Terrorism isn't a random phenomena- it comes from two sources
1- occupying, supporting or participating in the occupation of another nation (Iraq, Afghanistan- and in previous cases, supporting Israel and Saudi Arabia)
2- importing religious nutters and providing the means and permission for them to operate
3- homegrown religious nutter converts- or generally social outcasts who resort to extremism to be heard (Breivik).

Stop these three and the problem is solved- measures 1 and 2 are easy- it's only the third one that is not.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 1 September 2011 10:30:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With all due respect....people are now becoming what science is, so since this is a tiny-planet....and holding back.....on we know by pollies questions with the will of man, how do you think we got here?

Cactus
Posted by Cactus:), Friday, 2 September 2011 2:39:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So, Author, nice compendium, but no offered alternative or solution?

What is the basis of terrorism? Disaffection, mostly based on religious, national, historical or cultural differences, or various other disaffection held with a religious fervour - political, ethnic, affluence/opportunity, employment, etc - or mental imbalance.

What is missing? An overriding social conscience. What mitigates against a universal social conscience? In the first instance, human nature - compounded by our system-based inequity in this aggressively capitalistic superiority-compelled social order.

The solution? Education and equity - equality of opportunity and right to life. (Mind you, there's little can be done about the nutters, except perhaps making psychological assessment mandatory for gun ownership.) Is a universal social conscience essential for world order? You bet! Can it be easily achieved? No!

Critics of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions have a point. However, it is possible that this ham-fisted, poorly conducted evolution may prove to be the beginning of a radical revision of international and world-order social affairs. Unfortunately, the converse is also possible, and the difference will be in how the major nations proceed forward from Libya and the rest of the middle east. Fingers crossed, there is a long hard road to go, but all radical and essential reform has to start somewhere - and the key will be in reconstruction, and that reconstruction will have to be fully engaging the local constituency and populace, and with a total absence of the corruption and jobs-for-the-boys evident thus far in the Iraqi reconstruction effort.

Hair-brained? Maybe, but I think the future lies in the development of the UN as a formidable arbiter in world social affairs and social order. For the future of humanity, no one nation should have the power to dictate to or take precedence over others.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 2 September 2011 6:33:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy