In the past fifty years there have been many large-scale terrorist attacks, undertaken by a wide range of groups, on a diverse array of targets all over the world. Some of the most devastating attacks include:
• The 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem
• The 1972 attack on Israeli Olympians in Munich
• The 1985 bombing of the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior in Auckland harbour
• The 1988 attack on a Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland
• The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing
• The 1998 car-bomb attack in Omagh, Northern Ireland
• The 1998 Luxor attack on tourists in Egypt
• The 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen
• The 2001 attacks on the U.S. World Trade Centre and Pentagon
• The 2002 bombings of tourist venues in Bali
• The 2004 bombings of trains in Madrid
• The 2004 school siege in Beslan, Russia
• The 2005 London tube and bus bombings
• The 2006 attack in Sinai, Egypt
Terrorist tactics – new strategies in terrorism and possible cyber terrorism.
How is technology affecting terrorism? The WMD argument for the war against Iraq rested on assumptions about the possible ease that technology was having on the ability to make weapons. The WMD argument is now being used increasingly in the context of the development by North Korea of its nuclear program. What role does the UN and international law play in the anti-terrorism campaign?
Distinction between individual terrorism/state sponsored terrorism. Is it correct to attack countries that harbour terrorists? Can states be regarded as terror or rogue states? How should the world deal with “terror states”?
16 responses so far ↓
Terrorist tactics – new strategies in terrorism and possible cyber terrorism.
How is technology affecting terrorism?
Technology is making the terrorism grow rapidly. It allows terrorists to communicate faster and easier. It allows for the greater power and accuracy of weapons, that makes it possible for terrorists to cause havoc while out of sight with long range remote transmitters that set off explosives and other remote controlled weapons.
The WMD argument for the war against Iraq rested on assumptions about the possible ease that technology was having on the ability to make weapons.
Terrorists now have ability to create computer controlled missiles. They can act under a false identity and order explosives over the Internet. In some countries it is easier to obtain uranium that makes creating weapons of mass destruction even easier. The simple procedure of making bombs out of readily available household items is a major threat.
The WMD argument is now being used increasingly in the context of the development by North Korea of its nuclear program. What role does the UN and international law play in the anti-terrorism campaign?
The UN has a great role to play in cracking down on any suspicious behaving that could be leading to terrorism. Being the country it is North Korea would be a high suspect in terrorism. With the government already having its own counterfeiting operation of US currency, it is quite likely that they could also be producing weapons for other terrorists as well as their own.
Distinction between individual terrorism/state sponsored terrorism. Is it correct to attack countries that harbour terrorists?
Definitely a country that harbours terrorist is a terrorist themselves. They are supporting what terrorists do and therefore are just as bad as the terrorists themselves. State sponsored terrorism, which means countries having their own trained terrorists is different to a country harbouring them. If two countries have declared war on each other they can be used as a form of weapon which there is no problem with if the countries have decided to go to war. Although I’m sure there is an international war against it, but that never stop nuclear weapons being manufactured did it.
Can states be regarded as terror or rogue states? How should the world deal with “terror states”?
Bomb them. If a country or state is involved in the encouragement and practicing we should bomb the people at fault and give them a taste of their own medicine. It’s like capital punishment you die for taking someone else’s life, you get bombed for bombing someone else.
The UN has to be not only the defining but the deciding body in combatting global terrorism, and all nations must have respect for the organisation else it will remain a toothless tiger. The way Iraq was handled through the UN by the US was disgraceful, and stirred up much more anti-US sentiment around the world than was cleaned up by removing Saddam Hussain. The US treated the UN as a rubber stamp authority and made it clear that they would ignore the Security Council’s and Nuclear authority’s decisions if they did not agree. Iran and North Korea look like similar targets, and the world seems heading for the same situation with similar arguements. These global political issues raise moral problems of a countries rights to “defend” itself proactively, and to influence the course of another nation. Much of the problem with anti-us sentiment is their approach to other countries and their simple ability to ignore and dismiss what others say.
I think there is little distinction between State sponsored and indivual terrorism. Both follow similar terms; and ideal in mind and the single minded pursuit of of that goal through violence and fear. The only difference is that State sponsored terrorism is that it is just that- sanctioned by the State, an organisation that is the ultimate representation of a nation and has formal ties with other countries.
States that harbour terrorist should equally be attacked if they know and understand what the terrorists are doing in their country. I believe that if the country does know what the terrorists then country is equally as guilty as the terrorists. But when one says such claims one must remember that one-man terrorist is one man hero…. To me though terrorist are weak for attacking civilians. I believe these terror states should be given the same punishments as the terrorists it harbours and there boarders are a safe haven for, but the U.N should control this instead of the U.S and the U.N should decide who is a terrorist and what country is a terror state.
Technology is affecting terrorism in a positive and negative way. Technology is helping us to detect terrorist attacks before they happen, to protect the boarders of our country and in some cases catch the terrorists guilty.
Many and most developed countries are spending a lot of time, money and energy on creating better technologies to help prevent terrorist attacks happening in their countries. This technology is a good step towards helping our world to be a safer place, but the technology may also be helping the terrorists.
The technology, which is being developed by countries in a bid to stop terrorism, can also be used by the terrorists themselves. Terrorists can use technologies and programs to help them be more prepared and have a better understanding of what they must do to succeed.
The UN plays a large role in controlling terrorism. They are responsible for keeping the peace and they are responsible for checking that what is being done to stop terrorism is done by the law.
Terrorist Attacks
Technology is affecting terrorist in both a negative and a positive way. The fact that technology has grown so much, terrorist are able to be detected easier then before but on the contrary terrorists are able to scheme smarter attacks using modern day tactics, weapons and technology. These weapons modern day weapons are being cracked upon by the influences made by the UN and current international law. Technology is able to detect most unlawful tactics happening in other countries and super powers such as the USA are able to counter this up growing terror.
I think countries that host terrorist should be able to be attacked in an effort to find the terrorist/s hiding in that country but they have no right to hurt innocent people who have no involvement in the action.
Technology is affecting terrorism in many ways. Technology is allowing terrorist to be more efficient and have more of an understanding on how things work. Giving them a larger range of terrorist activities they can choose from to make maximum impact. It is also making it harder to trace terrorist attacks and to prevent them. The UN plays a large role in anti-terrorism aspect as it is a worldwide problem and everyone should work together to help limit the occurrences of terror attacks. They should be leading the anti terrorist campaign in order to get other countries to follow in their footsteps. I believe that countries that harbour terrorists and it is certain that they harbour terrorists that they should be brought to justice and forces go in and try slow them up and eventually get eradicate terrorists.
1. I think technology is affecting terrorism a lot. The terrorists get for example new weapons and bombs and can kill more people than they could before with one attack.
2. The UN and the international law should play a very important role in the anti-terrorism campaign, but they don’t. Terrorists or states don’t follow these laws( for example the debate with Irans nuclear program) and the UN cannot do anything exept giving them some punishments, but they don’t care.
3. Individual terrorism: Terrorism by a group which supports themselve with money and weapons
State sponsored terrorism: A kind of terrorism where the terrorits get money and weapons from a state which are intrested that something bad happens to a country/person.
4. It is not correct, but I think if the country refuses to take the terrorits in custody and hide them, then I think it should be allowed to send a special operation troop into that country to kill the terrorists.
5. No they can’t, because in the most cases there are only a small percentage of the inhabitants terrorists.
6. I have no idea
yes and no. i think that they should be attacked but before they do they should take in to consideration the other people who live there and how long it will take to get rid of all the terrorists i mean are we ever going to get rid of terrorism. the more technolgy we get the smarter the terrorists get. soon they will be able to bomb us from were they live if technolgy keeps getting better.
What role does the UN and international law play in the anti-terrorism campaign?
The UN plays a part in trying to negotiate with them to prevent further attacks and to ensure that all countries are protected properly from the threat of terroism.
.Is it correct to attack countries that harbour terrorists?
No it is not correct to attack countries that harbour terroists because it could further complicate things and the terrorists could then seek revenge. This could lead to devastating effect and losses of innocent lives.
Can states be regarded as terror or rogue states?
How should the world deal with “terror states”?
Ensure stricter security, if not retaliate with exssessive force to ensure the absense of terror attacks .
Technology will affect terrorism a lot because with more technology comes more weapons that could be used to hurt or even possibly kill more innocent civilians. Such as bioterrorism against humans, animals and plants. One advantage of bioterrorism is its cost-effectiveness compared with other forms of weapons of mass destruction. In one study the cost per casualty was assessed to be $2,800 for atomic weapons and $600 for conventional and chemical weapons, where as the same study assessed the cost per casualty of using biological toxins and bioterrorism to be about $1. But other studies have said that when it is delivered properly that the quantity of botulinum toxin needed to kill 10 people is as small as a dot of an I. and this is an advantage to bioterrorism which is also called the poor mans atomic bomb. Another advantage is that bioterrorist weapons are easy to produce. Bioterrorism can be used against humans and it can be spread through the air or water or introduced into the food supply from the farm to the table. It can be used against livestock and animals, essentially causing panic in the society. And the last advantage was that agricultural pathogens could be introduced to decrease crop production, including cash crop production, and to disrupt the economy. And the terrorists that use this don’t have to be Islamic they could also be political or religious terrorists fighting against the state.
The UN is a peacekeeping army core which helps countries that are under attack from terrorism and international laws also help to prevent terrorism by making the same law apply everywhere by maybe doing more thorough checks in airports and stuff like that.
No it is not because most of the time by doing that it is causing those countries to attack us thus causing terrorism and that only makes it worst for us.
No because not everyone is a terrorist and some people actually are trying to stop terrorism when they are in a terrorist prone country.
The world should try and solve their problems with terror states through discussion and just try and settle their differences by just looking at the problem and seeing if there is a way that the matter can work out for everyone.
Improvements in technology have significantly increased the ease in which terrorism can be spread around the world and how easily terrorists can now make weapons to spread terror. Improvements in communications has increased the potential for terrorists to publicise their views around the world. The efforts of the UN and international law do help to restrict terrorism however terrorists are constantly finding ways around these laws and ways of escaping inprisonment. Safe havens in countries are one such example. Terrorists world wide are being harboured by friendly countries and are being financially supported by these countries. I feel that countries harbouring terrorists should be attacked but only military targets otherwise we would be fighting terrorists as terrorists.
How is technology affecting terrorism?
Media is a big aspect on how technology is affecting terrorism, the use of the internet and television is great ways that the terrorist can use as propaganda. Also the technology in weapons is at great advantage for the terrorists.
The WMD argument for the war against Iraq rested on assumptions about the possible ease that technology was having on the ability to make weapons. The WMD argument is now being used increasingly in the context of the development by North Korea of its nuclear program. What role does the UN and international law play in the anti-terrorism campaign?
UN possesses significant comparative advantages for delivering assistance in counter-terrorism. In particular, it combines a range of expertise in the related areas of crime prevention and criminal justice, rule of law, drug control, transnational organized crime, money laundering, corruption and related international cooperation in criminal matters with operational field-level capacity.
Distinction between individual terrorism/state sponsored terrorism. Is it correct to attack countries that harbour terrorists?
I believe it isnt right to attack countries that have terrorists but a country that supports the terrorists and what they are fighting for should not have the right to hold terrorists in there country. I like you are helping a crime if you are holding terrorist groups without doing anything about it.
Can states be regarded as terror or rogue states? How should the world deal with “terror states”?
I believe states could be regarded as terror states, the world should prevent anything that has to do with terrorism.
How is technology affecting terrorism?
Beacause the new technology is both helping terrorists and also making it harder for them. Technology is making it harder for terrorists to plan and make attacks because technology is getting better to find out who planned the attacks and who did them, parties such as the FBI would use these technologies. Technology such as media casting is helping terroists to help get thier message accross to the people, there is aslso technology to help terrorists make better attacks, this is includes technology such as computer run bombs etc.
Yes i think it is corrct and also not correct, i think it corrrect to attack countries that harbour terrorists because it will give them a message not to muck with them, it will hopfully also quieten them down a bit, and it might even give the other people from the attacking countries a bit of security,
i think it is incorrect to attack because i think it will start wars, and cause a lot of disturbia,but i think the terrorist harboured countries should be kept an eye on.
Events that shock the world
1. Technology has affected terrorism in many ways, it has let terrorists know where and when much more easier. It is now easier for terrorists to get information about their targets and their remote allies.
2. International law has only a small role to play in international terrorism. It only serves to diagnose terrorism, in many cases the U.N. ways of combating terrorism won’t work; the sanctions do not have any affect on these groups because they are independent organisations. So simply the U.N. has a diagnosis role in terrorism. It will declare that a rebel group against a western country is a terror group but will not assert that the CIA or government groups such as this are not. Terrorism has always been an independent entity and we will struggle to change it.
3. A state can be seen as being a terror state. Especially in the case that a terrorist group has attained power in that country, such as Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Hamas in Palestine, or even Hezbollah in Lebanon. There needs to be stronger way of dealing with these countries and more importantly more consistent in dealing with countries that are sponsoring or being run by terrorist groups. The world needs to either take a hard line stance or find out what these groups want and compromise
technology affecting terrorism?
Technology has a large bearing on terrorism throughout history. The fact that in the past but more prevalent today is that terrorism can be used against us. The issue immediately raised is how and why such technologies have been released in the market. The fact of the matter is that the possibility that this technology can be used by bloodthirsty terrorists to assassinate thousands of people, is certain. The question of dangerous technology is a fair, yet a simplistic one. We need to define what technology is deemed as dangerous in order to prevent further attacks. The problem is when Technology is made, there is no way for it to be restricted on a long-term basis. It is knowledge, and knowledge cannot be stopped with wire fences. So u can see the predicament governments and society have when technology we have created is being used against us by terrorist groups.
What role does the UN and international law play in the anti-terrorism campaign? The UN laws in theory is supposed to create sanctions in which to combat terrorism. There are set laws and guidelines in which we as citizens of earth are responsible to adhere to yet we seldom do. Events such as the war in Iraq, believed to combat terrorism and destroy the supposed WMD’s Hussian was said to be harboring, is in theory meant to be approved by the UN. This shows a failure as the US super power could not be stopped once deciding to launch war against Iraq. So this shows the UN can be very effective when adhered to and very ineffective.
Is it correct to attack countries that harbor terrorists? Can states be regarded as terror or rogue states? How should the world deal with “terror states”? I believe under the right circumstances the UN should intervene if it is for the common good of the world. Certain states themselves I believe should not be branded as rogue states yet, instead those who lead these states and the people controlling these rogue groups should be labeled and destroyed.
Technology now makes it much easier for the terrorists to perform there acts. For eg they can communicate with each other much easier and more importantly help carry out there acts by using mobile phones to detonate bombs. This makes it much easier for terrorists because they become even more inconspicuous and fit in with the rest of society, therefore leaving society unprepared. The UN has maintained a strong stance on their belief against terrorism. However they haven’t been fully supportive of the US insurgence of Iraq and prefer to put the spotlight on the environment. If countries harbour terrorists and regard them as heroes they should be dealt with by the UN for eg and prosecuted so that this can discourage people to do the same.
Leave a Comment