So the act of one insane person makes a country "terrorist" in your opinion?
Its not just the act of one, its that of many.
Many countries have small organizations that could be classified as 'terrorist'. Ireland for one has had on going issues with bombings etc... from within their own country.
Even Canada had a separatist terrorist organization within it in the 1970s.
The only thing that has changed is the terrorists are getting smarter and know how to target their attacks to get in the news and the weapons potentially at their disposal are more powerful than ever.
It could have been a once off bombing attack...or a sign of things to come. All one can do is wait and see
USA has had its share of such problems since 1960 (LA bombings), and how about those car burnings in France about a year or so ago. Nigeria is more noted for its spam and scams then as a terrorist nation.
It's hard to say it, but how about most of the countries of the whole world?
Britain, the USA, Canada, India, Russia, France, etc.
Sometimes, many organizations try to charge the others with their own crimes. Unfortunately, many people believe that. It's been obvious that such kinds of crimes cannot be executed by one side. I mean what an organization that can cause violence and choas all over the world? Does this mean that the security is very vulnerable everywhere on Earth?
It's been also obvious that sometimes an international disguised organization carries out crimes all over the world to achieve one purpose.
(I'm not a conspircaist, but this is how the world seems to be going.)
@Pro2000
Not sure what your getting at, but the more connected the world becomes (internet, international flights, etc...) the easier it is for violent organizations to bring their 'message' and violence world wide. Since there are still many issues with sharing intelligence globally ("national security" not "global security") this means the baddies have a bit of an advantage over the goodies. But there are lots of different international organizations each with their own goals/ideologies.
There are also lots of small local organizations that do similar things because humans aren't really that creative. It you want to make a stink about something there are only a few ways to do it: petition, peaceful protest, political party/movement, vandalism, riot, blow something up (terrorism). So where ever people have complaints (aka everywhere) your going to see those behaviours even if the groups doing it are completely unrelated.
The group claiming responsibility have killed around 250 people this year, usually targeting Nigerian officials. I think the scale of the matter alone suggests that 'terrorism' is a valid monicker for the way in which this group is acting. Terrorist Country or Terrorist State means something totally different to my mind. I take that to mean that the government of that nation sponsors or endorses terrorist activities abroad. I may be wrong.
I am glad someone earlier mentioned France in the 60s - the French right was blowing up anyone who even showed the slightest approval of a Free Algeria. There was so much terrorist bombing going on that the created the word 'plastique' to mean 'to blow up with plastic explosives'. Not long after that in the UK there were so many people blowing people up that one group actually devised a code for the authorities so that they could tell if it was the IRA or a wannabe who set the bomb. In the US someone was using bombs to create a smiley face on the map of the US.
Bombs and blowing up innocent people has been the province of crazies to make political hay since the invention of gunpowder.
The group claiming responsibility have killed around 250 people this year, usually targeting Nigerian officials. I think the scale of the matter alone suggests that 'terrorism' is a valid monicker for the way in which this group is acting. Terrorist Country or Terrorist State means something totally different to my mind. I take that to mean that the government of that nation sponsors or endorses terrorist activities abroad. I may be wrong
If the terrorists are blowing up government officials how then do you say the government sponsors/endorses terrorist activities?
I didn't. I was making a distinction bet. Terrorism within a country (internal problem) and state-sponsored terrorism.
If the terrorists are blowing up government officials how then do you say the government sponsors/endorses terrorist activities?
That's why Nigeria's case is peculiar. SOme top government officials are said to be sponsors, about a month ago, a former state governor's house was bombed by the same group and they claimed to have had some disagreement with him and he's currently under investigation by the government.
Some may say it has happened elsewhere and it is being done to draw attention. The title of this thread was named as such because about a year ago, there was a UK-Based Nigerian who was caught on a flight in the US just about to blow the airplane and for that single reason, the US placed Nigeria on the terror watch list and yet someone asked if a country could be named a terrorist state just for one man's effort. Its more than one man, its a group that has even divided in to other groups and the government is not serious about it and that's why they're still moving ahead to higher National structures.
In a news bulletin this morning, they have declared the National Assembly as the next target and claim to have up to 100 target places
The group claiming responsibility have killed around 250 people this year, usually targeting Nigerian officials. I think the scale of the matter alone suggests that 'terrorism' is a valid monicker for the way in which this group is acting.
Agreed. 3 or 4 thousand were killed over the ~35 years of the "troubles" in Northern Ireland. They were terrorist acts, but it didn't make the United Kingdom a terrorist country....
Agreed. 3 or 4 thousand were killed over the ~35 years of the "troubles" in Northern Ireland. They were terrorist acts, but it didn't make the United Kingdom a terrorist country....
So what really defines a terrorist country?
A county which sponsors terrorism. E.g libya was a terrorist country, as their government sold explosives to the IRA....
Okay, now i get. So why was Nigeria place on a watch list bye the US just for a one man's action?
Because hundreds of people (e.g. foreign oil workers) are always getting kidnapped and killed there etc.... its a dangerous place to go to.
I think lawlessness and 'gang' culture should be different to 'terrorism'. If we equate these then almost every country in the world would be deemed terrorist.
I think the word 'terrorist' has been overworked by the media and has become almost an umbrella term for extreme violence. It may be part of the word's definition, but even so, there has been a ready tendency to label groups as 'terrorist' organisations. I'm not saying for a minute that the members of this particular Islamist group in Nigeria are not 'terrorists'.
Okay, now i get. So why was Nigeria place on a watch list by the US just for a one man's action?
Because the US is touchy about it since 9/11. I heard an interview with a guy who was suspected by the US of terrorist activities because his name was similar to someone who was involved in terrorist activities. He was delayed for hours at immigration when he tried to fly anywhere until he started tracking himself and contacting them ahead of time.
A lot of this (not all) is in the eye of the beholder. Any government, no matter how dictatorial or illegitimate, can brand rebels as "terrorists". Because other countries are hesitant to challenge this because of their own loose definition of terrorism, it seems to now be a way to make suppression of dissent legitimate. The original US colonists who rebelled against the UK could have been branded as terrorists under this loose definition. Also remember that a lot of secret funding for the IRA came from US citizens. There is a lot of political convenience and paranoia involved. Never good to put too much trust in what you get from politicians.
I'm not saying for a minute that the members of this particular Islamist group in Nigeria are not 'terrorists'.
You seem to be a good writer. You wrote in such a way that you don't stand for or against but at the end of your statement, the point was clear
he original US colonists who rebelled against the UK could have been branded as terrorists under this loose definition
They *were*.
Also remember that a lot of secret funding for the IRA came from US citizens
We *do* remember. Hence i dont eat at McDonalds....
Keep bringing in your thoughts. Because to me there is more than just a violent group
thanks all. I can say am satisfied after much reading and posts from members.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.