NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently it sits on Page 12 for all you Delegated :D

The resolution proposed is as below:

Whereby Islamic Extremist means terrorist based on religious belief, or support of such cowardly acts, this resolution proposes that:

1. Any suspected Islamic Extremist may be questioned and held by the relevant authorities for up to 366 days provided there is some sort of intelligence that suggests their guilt, or are acquitted.

During this time all assets will be frozen, and passport will be confiscated until they are acquitted.

2. Islamic Boarding Schools which are caught preaching anti-Other Religions agenda can be shut down by the government of the nation it is situated in at any stage.

3. Extremist Clerics found guilty have a minimum penalty of life sentence in an isolated jail on an uninhabited Pacific Island funded and secured by the UN. Should the relevant nation choose the death penalty, this is also approved provided it is via a method that delivers excruciating pain.

4. Should the relevant Government wish, they can inspect Mosques on a regular basis to check that there are no terrorist training camps under the mosque

5. All assets of suspected Islamic Extremists will be frozen by the UN until they are either:
a) Acquitted
b) Found guilty.
If someone is found guilty, their assets will subsequently be used in the following:
a) Meeting the cost of their punishment
b) All assets converted into monetary form after which the full amount will be donated to a deserving charity of the relevant Government's choice.

6. Should a jailed Islamic Extremist escape, any citizen within the UN has full permission to either capture the terrorist and bring him/her back to the relevant law enforcement agencies, or execute them on the spot by whatever means.

This contradicts at least three current UN resolutions (Religious Freedom, Fair Trial and Universal Bill of Rights).
Nasty piece of legislation.
No support from me :lol:

Is islamic terrorism any worse than christian, inkresaistic or vanajuan terrorism :?: Our country won't support this!

I say we target fundimentalist baptists next - or perhaps Mormon's

*lights torch*

TO THE MORMON TABERNACLE - LET'S HOIST THE CHOIR!!!

Just think if I was a racist, I might even support this proposal! :roll:

Peace,
Stephanie.

Just think if I was a racist, I might even support this proposal! :roll:

Peace,
Stephanie.

Even if I was, I don't think I would, because I don't know how the UN would be paying for all of this....

dude, i recon all terrorists are the same, kill one person youve killed em all, kill all terrorists.

peace and love dudes

This proposal will not fly.

What is terrorism?

War is terrorism. How do you fight terrorism without causing terror?

The resolution sits on Page 10 now.

If you're not interested in the security of YOUR country, that's fine. Just don't expect us to come and defend you when you realise appeasement and pandaing up to terrorists doesn't work.

We of Oonamahambra try not to piss people off. They generally don't get too angry at us, even if our lifestyle isn't compatable with their religion.

I'd like to point out two things. One, this is NOT the real world and we are not all collectivly the United States. NationStates does not have the same issues the real world does. Read the international issues fourm if you want to see NationStates issues.
Two, Islam is not the only breeder of extremists. Any other ideology that can be taken to an exteme can potentially compell someone to go blow up a building if the people in it don't agree with him or her. The United States blew up buildings in Iraq because we didn't agree with their form of government (among other things, such as supposed WMDs). Maybe it's not terrorism, since it was done with a military and we declaired war, but it's still extreme. This resolution is what we call, at worst, oppressive and intolerant, and at best selective.

On my comment about blowing shit up in Iraq, I really can't say I have a clue as to what the hell the Bush Administration was thinking. They should have seen this before it happened. It was painfully obvious. Maybe it's just one of the bigger bone-headed mistakes in history?

The resolution sits on Page 10 now.

If you're not interested in the security of YOUR country, that's fine. Just don't expect us to come and defend you when you realise appeasement and pandaing up to terrorists doesn't work.

Yes it will. Even APATHY would have been a step up from the past policy of United States in the Middle East. 'Appeasingand pandering to the terrorists' would have been just leaving them alone. They're angry because many of the injustices in the Middle East were OUR fault. If you do ANY research about the past US policy there you'll see why Arabs are convinced we're the devil incarnate.

The resolution sits on Page 10 now.

If you're not interested in the security of YOUR country, that's fine. Just don't expect us to come and defend you when you realise appeasement and pandaing up to terrorists doesn't work.

Yes it will. Even APATHY would have been a step up from the past policy of United States in the Middle East. 'Appeasingand pandering to the terrorists' would have been just leaving them alone. They're angry because many of the injustices in the Middle East were OUR fault. If you do ANY research about the past US policy there you'll see why Arabs are convinced we're the devil incarnate.

These terrorists will stop at nothing to destory non-Muslims. It's all in their Quran. If you're not a Muslim, you're an infidel. It also tells you to take over countries that aren't Muslim and impose sharia law.

I suppose you tolerate beheadings stonings and floggings? That's endorsed by Islam.

The resolution sits on Page 10 now.

If you're not interested in the security of YOUR country, that's fine. Just don't expect us to come and defend you when you realise appeasement and pandaing up to terrorists doesn't work.

Yes it will. Even APATHY would have been a step up from the past policy of United States in the Middle East. 'Appeasingand pandering to the terrorists' would have been just leaving them alone. They're angry because many of the injustices in the Middle East were OUR fault. If you do ANY research about the past US policy there you'll see why Arabs are convinced we're the devil incarnate.

These terrorists will stop at nothing to destory non-Muslims. It's all in their Quran. If you're not a Muslim, you're an infidel. It also tells you to take over countries that aren't Muslim and impose sharia law.

I suppose you tolerate beheadings stonings and floggings? That's endorsed by Islam.

Yes - and Judism supports cutting off the end of your penis - and Christianity says we're all going to hell - and Hindu's believe washing in a heavily polluted river will help them come back as a cow - and Buddists believe to attain nirvana one should pray to a stone fat guy - and. . .

This proposal endorses racism and intolerance.

What about Hindu extremists?
Mosques are burning in India today.
What about Catholic/Protestant extremists (Ulster).
Jewish extremists? (Likud)
Then there are the non-religious fanatics, such as the anti-wto luddites.
PETA.
Greenpeace.
This list is looking impossibly long, but at least it is more fair and comprehensive.

The people of Corinto, ardent civil rights lovers that they are, would do everything they could to strike out this proposal, for several reasons.

It would be quite a falling if the NSUN were to pass a piece of legislation that set a precedent for racism. That means that in the future, more racist actions can be justified out of fear. As we have no Islamic Extremists, this does not affect our people, just our sense of justice.

Secondly, and more importantly, it reeks of corruption. If the government were to decide that you were an islamic extremist, Isochronous, they could hold you in jail for a year. Meanwhile, they'll sieze all your assets to pay for the monitoring of Islamic Schools and churches, and after the racist jury against you charges you as guilty, you get sent to that pacific island and the government liquidates your life.

Thirdly, how does the NSUN play into all of this? Obviously we'd be passing a legislation to force all of our member nations to undertake such actions, and we're running the small pacific island-prisons. But didn't you say the individual governments were holding trials? And siezing assets? And inspecting Mosques and schools? And all of the money goes towards individual governments, to pay for the inspections, siezing and trial, I assume, and not for the upkeep of the NSUN's prison. This legislation doesn't belong as a NSUN-wide legislation. It's almost like you're getting legitimacy of your legislation from the NSUN, but otherwise they're uninvolved. I'd hate to think the NSUN would agree to something like this.

A fourth, and smaller contention, the idea of "leftover funds" being donated. I'd like to guess what the most popular charity would be: TFFLG, the fund for a larger government.

This legislation doesn't make sense, and it goes against human and civil rights. Corinto will not only vote no, but do what it can to persuade other nations against this act.

Captain-General Grim
Federation of Corinto

The people of Corinto, ardent civil rights lovers that they are, would do everything they could to strike out this proposal, for several reasons.

It would be quite a falling if the NSUN were to pass a piece of legislation that set a precedent for racism. That means that in the future, more racist actions can be justified out of fear. As we have no Islamic Extremists, this does not affect our people, just our sense of justice.

This legislation is not racist. And the fact your country hosts no extremists is no excuse for turning a blind eye. On the UN you have to serve for the greater good of the world, and this resolution will help.

Secondly, and more importantly, it reeks of corruption. If the government were to decide that you were an islamic extremist, Isochronous, they could hold you in jail for a year. Meanwhile, they'll sieze all your assets to pay for the monitoring of Islamic Schools and churches, and after the racist jury against you charges you as guilty, you get sent to that pacific island and the government liquidates your life.

The Government can't just decide. There had to be evidence, the extremist like all other criminals has a right to a fair trial. Assets are only siezed if you are found GUILTY. The jury, like all other jury is IMPARTIAL. Your blatant attempts to paint everyone as racist does nothing to further your cause but give people a false impression of this resolution.

Thirdly, how does the NSUN play into all of this? Obviously we'd be passing a legislation to force all of our member nations to undertake such actions, and we're running the small pacific island-prisons. But didn't you say the individual governments were holding trials? And siezing assets? And inspecting Mosques and schools? And all of the money goes towards individual governments, to pay for the inspections, siezing and trial, I assume, and not for the upkeep of the NSUN's prison. This legislation doesn't belong as a NSUN-wide legislation. It's almost like you're getting legitimacy of your legislation from the NSUN, but otherwise they're uninvolved. I'd hate to think the NSUN would agree to something like this.

No, money will also go to the UN for prison upkeep. They have an active role where UN inspectors can be used in certain circumstances.

A fourth, and smaller contention, the idea of "leftover funds" being donated. I'd like to guess what the most popular charity would be: TFFLG, the fund for a larger government.

No, charities will be UN approved and records of the donations vetted.

This legislation doesn't make sense, and it goes against human and civil rights. Corinto will not only vote no, but do what it can to persuade other nations against this act.

Civil Libertarian :roll:

Terrorists are against human and civil rights. <sarcasm>I know, let's appease them and let them continue with their disgusting, vile agendas!</sarcasm>

Then there are the non-religious fanatics, such as the anti-wto luddites.
PETA.
Greenpeace.
This list is looking impossibly long, but at least it is more fair and comprehensive.

I take exception to your characterization to anti-WTO protesters as fanatics and Luddites. They simply show a different view of globalization, one where the divide between have and have-not reaches medieval proportions. Most of them realize that globalization is an inevitability; they just want to keep those without voices from getting crushed under the machinery of corporate giants.
PETA, well, I can't defend them, except to say that their actions don't usually rise to the level of terrorism, although some of their more extreme splinter groups do resort to it.
Greenpeace may go a bit overboard at times, but their actions are generally positive as far as I'm concerned.