Can you name another country that has done more to combat terrorism, BEFORE 9/11 than the United States?

Do you mean like Spain or Greece? Or Russia? Or what exactly do you mean by "combat terrorism?"

UK and Israel come to mind.

Being vigilant against the IRA and PLO for decades seems to dwarf what the US has done.

America just gets more press, UK and Israel have done it on a daily if not minute by minute basis. I cannot say the same for the US. If you are a US national in your own country, you don't walk around where you live wondering if someone is going to blow up the car, store, building you are walking next to, they did and in still do.

I'm feeling historic, so I'll put them in that order with the first anti-terrorist on top:

France
Imperial Russia
Great Britian
Soviet Union
India
Israel
Spain
Italy
Sri Lanka
South Africa
Egypt
West Germany
Mexico
Columbia


All of these countries had or have major terrorist organizations working against them. Osama bin Ladin did not invent terrorism. Arabs did not invent terrorism. The US is not the only target, and we've only been in the game for a very short time in comparison to some of the others. In the post-9/11 world, Americans and American officials act very differently when overseas than they once did.

I think the 3 subsequent posters have addressed this issue.

(And we ain't even started yet! (heh))

Yes, You've named a lot of countries none of which I'm going to believe have done more than the US.

Possibly Israel, but they don't exactly do it to combat terrorism, they do it because if they don't they'll probably die from it.

Since you insisted here's some additional information.

Imperial Russia - created a whole new secret police force specifically to deal with anarchists in the mid 1870's. Expanded that police force to the precursor of the KGB in the 1880's and 90's after the anarchists kill Alexander II. Yeah, that's more than what we've done.

Great Britain - also faced off against the anarchists, then the Communists and then the IRA. Basically turned Northern Ireland into a police state in the 70's and 80's in an attempt to keep a lid on the IRA. Again, more than what we've done.

Soviet Union - created the high water mark that all secret police forces are measured against - the NKVD which became the KGB and is now the FSB. It was started to make sure that the Whites didn't sabotage the nation. During the 1930's they killed somewhere between 5M and 7M of their own citizens and imprisoned another 10M-18M (depending on the source), all in the name of fighting terrorism. Please explain to me how the US has done more.

Columbia - basically has ceded half the country to rebel groups to try to keep the violence down. Then there are the drug runners. Columbia is one of the kidnapping capitols of the world, and the police deal with it every day. There's an entire branch of the Columbian military supported by US tax dollars to fight the drug runners and rebels/terrorists.

So, there's my evidence. Let's see yours as to all that the US has done that equates to more than this. Compared to the rest of the world, we haven't done squat.

/me would have said previous but you're right all the way around...

The Jazz we were talking about how countries can ignore terrorism in other parts of the country. Battling terrorism in your own country is one thing, and its an expected course for governments to take.

What I'm speaking of is what countries have done more, to combat terrorism, when it's not directly against your own country. When you can ignore it, and it wont affect you, and you still do something about it.

All the examples you posted weren't about combatting terrorism, they were simply about a government policing itself.

Changing the paramaters from this "Can you name another country that has done more to combat terrorism, BEFORE 9/11 than the United States?" because you don't like our answers? I mean you posted before stating that "maybe Israel" but you never stated it quite like you did about "when it's not directly against your own country."

(uh-oh) Let's consider which countries have done the most to promote terrorism and then compare lists!

I don't know how you come up with the idea that we were discussing countries that have done more than the US when it comes to battling terrorism that doesn't affect them...

if that's the line of logic that you want to pursue, I think you should provide a single example of the US combating terrorism even though it had no interest in doing so. or any country, for that matter.

for one thing, I don't even know if it's possible by definition. terrorists are non-government entities. the very basis for our detaining terrorists without trial is on argument that they are not members of a recognized army. That being the case, I don't see how any act of waging a war on terrorists that weren't affecting us would be legit. I may not agree with our government's assessment of the harm wrought on us by foreign entities, but that's certainly the only legitimate claim they've put forward for us waging a war abroad on terrorism that I know of.

it seems to me that if any foreign country actually started arresting or killing "terrorists" in another country without even the most minimal claim of right to be there securing their own interests, they'd basically have no jurisdiction to even be there.

I'm confused as to how you even came up with the idea that the US is combating terrorism that it doesn't see as negatively affecting the security of the nation, pre or post 9/11.

OK. Our president might be legitimate except that he was never elected and has been exacerbating terrorism worldwide. (I hope they don't come and shoot me tonight!)

You can think that if you want, but its not a very good arguement obviously you didn't follow this thread.

I thought it was quite obvious I wasn't talking about rogue sectors within your own country. That may be terrorism, but hardly has anything to do with the terrorism we were discussing. Like I said, that is policing your own country.

I spoke of Israel because that actually IS a part of the kind of terrorism I am speaking about, seeing as how there are how many people outside, that do not agree with israel on this or that or whatever, that want to destroy it... through terrorism.


The difference? You can ignore terrorism to a large extent when it's not in YOUR country, When it's your own citizens, you cannot ignore that.

So judging a country by saying "Oh they fought terrorism so hard" when the violence and such was from their own citizenship. Makes no sense, They HAD to do that, you can't exactly ignore that kind of terrorism.

However look at such terrorism that happens throughout much of the world everyday, largely ignored, shoved under the rug. Calling the terrorist who pulled it off a 'lonewolf' not acting on behalf of an organization. Or saying it's a fluke. Largely ignored and cast aside.



Smooth, as I see it, the main point you're trying to make is the US has never done anything to stop terrorism that doesn't enhance our situation or given us personal gain.

Like you said, anyone would be hard press to find a single government anywhere in the world who has done something like that.

Saying it like that is much too literal, obviously there will be gain for any government to put action into anything. What I'm talking about is when a government will put action into something for the betterment of others, When it would be much easier to simply ignore that it is happening.

One example of good intentions post 9/11 was to remove hussein from office. Though the foul up of the following war is awful and not what was expected. We stopped a terrorist who was destroying his own citizens. Things will often not happen exactly to plan obviously either, and yes there was benefit for the US in this. But do you think there was more benefit for the US? Or for the Kurds who are alive today and not gassed/bombed/executed? Whatever we gained, their lives I'm sure are worth more in the true light of thigns.

An example of pre-9/11 is the amazing amount of work we put into the Koreas when that was easily ignorable and the return we receive for trying to stop that violence and terrorism going both ways between the countries, is as near nothing as it's going to get for any country.

ok, you've got a weird definition going for what terrorism is and what other nations have had to do about it. I'm going to bow out of this discussion now, not even sure how it relates to the original thread before.

Meno, I'm going to be like smooth and walk away from this point, if you'd like to start another thread to discuss the merits of which countries put more in for anti-terrorism, maybe I'll discuss it there. But there is no reason to thread jack this thread.

I'm going to prove everyone's suspicisions right that I'm not as smart as smooth and Cynthetiq and refuse to walk away. Your target is still big enough for me to hit, even if you keep moving it.

Germany cared enough about terrorism outside their own borders that they went to war over it. You might have heard about it - it's commonly referred to as WWI. That started over an act of terrorism.

The Soviets invaded Afganistan because of terrorism. They did the same thing over Finland. And they also went into Poland in the 80's at the invitation of the government to stop terrorism.

The British invaded Afganistan in pursuit of terrorists.

Ok Meno, are you going to change the terms on me again or are you ready to accept that the US government isn't quite ready to receive a collected sainthood?

Now you're talking!

:thumbsup:

[threadjack] Wow, is this a request to abuse my new mod powers by editing your quote or banning you? Wheee! Oh, the fun we'll have! :eek:
[/threadjack]

I have a request, Jazz. This thread started at (W) going somewhere and tying up traffic. It has since transmogrified into weirdly extrapolated thoughts regarding international terrorism, and even having participated, I don't get it. ...my request is for a closer focus.

Whether any one of those countries did more than the U.S. is up for debate, and not one I'm going to get into.

I'm stepping out, obviously as what people have said, there is different definitions of terrorism and mine is not the same. I don't understand how it isn't understood what I am talking about, perhaps others feel the same of me.

I'd rather discuss the subject rather than be jabbed at with your subtle remarks of how I change my story when you simply didn't understand what I was saying.

~outty

Do I dare suggest that we either start a new thread trying to define "terrorism" or resurect the old one? Clearly we're all WAAAAY off the reservation in this one, and this entire page is so far removed from the OP as to be worthy of it's own separate page. However, I'll leave that decision up to everyone else.

Well, as the OP was admittedly a rant, we may have beaten this one into the ground. But I would just like to thank ironman for the pleasure of seeing "The Jackass Has Landed" pop up in my subscription window for the last week or so. It's the funniest "turn-of-phrase" that I've seen in a long while.

I'd suggest Menoman start a new thread. Menoman, make your case, define your box what it means to you. I'd be happy to give you my take on it and compare it to my own.

I'd like to bring this back to the OT, I know that there are some country leaders that fly commercial coach with little to no security. I'm trying to recall which ones do it, but cannot at the moment.

Clintons coming is an understatement. They would visit all the time shutting down FDR Drive, and lots of high ways. They estimated just for Hilary campaign coming to NYC there was over 2 million spent on police over time.

i think the various scandanavian pms do this.

Keep him, we don't want him here, either.

It was questionable the first time, but the second time the Democrats managed to nominate the only guy less likable than him. Back to the Dukakis era of running candidates who can't possibly win (a strategy briefly co-opted by the Republicans when they ran Bob Dole in 1996.)

(?) ... (?) ...sir?