May 27, 200917 yr SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea launched a tirade Wednesday against world powers threatening to punish it for conducting its second nuclear test, saying it is not afraid of sanctions and calling South Korea's decision to join an operation to prevent the spread of weapons a declaration of war. Read More
May 27, 200917 yr The Mouse that Roared . Not too often that we get a Duchy of Grand Fenwick reference here on BGP.
May 27, 200917 yr Yet another example of why concessionary diplomacy doesn’t work with terrorist states like North Korea.
May 27, 200917 yr Yet another example of why concessionary diplomacy doesn’t work with terrorist states like North Korea. I don't think the term "terrorist" state applies here. Mostly because the term "terrorist" generally refers to a sub-national fighter who operates without any legitimate governmental backing. The Communist Regime in NK might be crazy, and they might be looney and they might be a threat but they are not a "terrorist" state. In fact the very concept of a "terrorist" state is counter-intuitive.
May 27, 200917 yr I don't think the term "terrorist" state applies here. Mostly because the term "terrorist" generally refers to a sub-national fighter who operates without any legitimate governmental backing. The Communist Regime in NK might be crazy, and they might be looney and they might be a threat but they are not a "terrorist" state. In fact the very concept of a "terrorist" state is counter-intuitive. 1983 Rangoon bombing 1987 Korean Air flt 858 bombing Multiple kidnappings of Japanese and South Korean citizens North Korea was on the list of state sponsors of terrorism from 1987 – 11 Oct 2008 when they were removed because of their compliance to stop pursuing nuclear weapons and to verification measures. It seems that agreement is now null and void which goes back to my original point that concessionary diplomacy does not work with these types of states/organizations.
May 27, 200917 yr I don't think the term "terrorist" state applies here. Mostly because the term "terrorist" generally refers to a sub-national fighter who operates without any legitimate governmental backing. The Communist Regime in NK might be crazy, and they might be looney and they might be a threat but they are not a "terrorist" state. In fact the very concept of a "terrorist" state is counter-intuitive. :thumb:
May 27, 200917 yr I don't think the term "terrorist" state applies here. Mostly because the term "terrorist" generally refers to a sub-national fighter who operates without any legitimate governmental backing. The Communist Regime in NK might be crazy, and they might be looney and they might be a threat but they are not a "terrorist" state. In fact the very concept of a "terrorist" state is counter-intuitive. Their country is run by a terrorist and their actions are terroristic in nature. That's all the insight I need to intuitively assert they are a terrorist state.
May 27, 200917 yr I believe that any nation should have the right to build whatever arms it chooses. However, should North Korea choose to use a nuke, or should a nuke manufactured by N Korea be used, I would keep dropping nukes on North Korea until Kim Jong Il was dead or thrown out of office by his people.
May 27, 200917 yr Author I believe that any nation should have the right to build whatever arms it chooses. However, should North Korea choose to use a nuke, or should a nuke manufactured by N Korea be used, I would keep dropping nukes on North Korea until Kim Jong Il was dead or thrown out of office by his people.I agree. :thumb:
May 27, 200917 yr 1983 Rangoon bombing 1987 Korean Air flt 858 bombing Multiple kidnappings of Japanese and South Korean citizens North Korea was on the list of state sponsors of terrorism from 1987 – 11 Oct 2008 when they were removed because of their compliance to stop pursuing nuclear weapons and to verification measures. It seems that agreement is now null and void which goes back to my original point that concessionary diplomacy does not work with these types of states/organizations. I am not saying that they have not encouraged or sponsored terrorism in the past, and may do so still. That is not my point. My point is simply this: They are a legitimate state that is recognized by the U.N. and most other nations around the world. They are not a terrorist state, a terrorist state would be a state run by sub-national fighters who have no official ties to any state. A legitimate state, by definition, removes that very label. Were it not recognized by any nation in the world, or by very few, then I would be on board with calling it that. I don't care one way or another on people's emotional responses to this situation. I am merely clarifying a point of order. Rhetoric is of little use here and as such I was just being specific.
May 27, 200917 yr Their country is run by a terrorist and their actions are terroristic in nature. That's all the insight I need to intuitively assert they are a terrorist state. Kim Jong-Il is a sub-national fighter with no ties to any legitimate government? Really? He may be a power-mad and crazy dictator but he is not himself a terrorist. Unless you have information that I was unaware of.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.