NationStates Jolt Archive

Link to proposal (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=Universal%20Terrorism%20Act)

Esteemed delegates and members of the United Nations;

I respectfully request and urge you to approve the above proposal. I say this based on the following arguments.

Terrorism is a dangerous, ever-increasing, menace that threatens the free world in which we live; and if left unchecked, even has the possibility to crumble civilisation. This may sound extreme, but it is no exaggeration. Terrorism kills- an obvious statement maybe. It kills husbands, wives, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers; the list goes on. Because of what? A belief that anyone who lives in the free world is entitled to and that one person or organization believes is wrong? One person who has been brainwashed or wants to send a message by using death? It is time that these United Nations stand up against this, and send out our own powerful message. Terrorism must stop.

But before we can do this, we must level the playing field. We are varied on our stances and methods against terroism, (although I would somewhat certainly assume that most member states oppose it) which in some ways is good, but in many ways bad. If we can all share a united front on what terrorism actually is and what we must do to punish, stop, and deterr it from happening then we are so much closer to eradicating it for good. By approving this proposal, and hopefully it becoming a resolution, we shall have the power in unity to increase the safety of this world.

Remember, the people killed could be someone you know or love one day. Let us work together to combat this evil.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Icentom

The best way to combat terrorism is to take out it's biggest source: the state. Think about it. Anarchists never do more than throw bombs or attempt assasinations. The state uses nuclear weapons, genocides, etc. Statism has killed far more people than any other ideology.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

well, by my definition, any violence meant to intimidate people is terrorism- and that's pretty much all violent acts committed worldwide, including wars waged by governments like those of the US & UK.

I'm afraid I would personally disagree. Most wars, as opposed to single attacks, are waged to either protect an interest or to carry out a purpose/encourage some sort of freedom. Take the most recent war. The supposed purpose was to end the Saddamic regieme, and apparently "protect the interests of the free world" by removing a dictatorship. WW2 was about a group of nations opposing invasion of various nations by Germany, amongst many other things. In some cases and in the broader pocture, you are correct, it is trying to intimidate someone, but you have to look at the reason for the intimidation.

Letita, I agree with you and you have a very valid point. However, now I'm going out on a limb to make a risky generalisation here, most nations only attack or use weapons to protect their interests or as defence purposes (this obviously excludes nations that are on a rampant desire to take over the world, and so probably would not be a member of the UN anyway)- and both of these reasons could be in response to a terrorist attack. When protecting interest of defences, this is usually in an act of war, and it seems impossible to ban war, both in the NS and real world, and one resolution is not going to stop this. Therefore, my counter argument is that by removing one ofb these problems, terrorism, we may be closer to world peace.

I think. (Sorry if this seems rushed/are errors but I have to go somewhere).

Car accidents and smoking have killed far more people each year than terrorism. Teorrism only gets more attention because it occurs less frequently and the methods that terrorists use fall outside of conventional thinking. I oppose terrorism, but I feel there are more pressing agendas within my nation.

To Letila, Afghanistan has always been in a state of near anarchy. The past Presidents and Kings have never been legitimate, yet that country has been, and still very much is, a terrorist training ground. Somalia also is not a real country, as with Afghanistan, it has not unity, just a subsystem of divided and warring tribes.

Human evil is the cause of many the atrocities mentioned, getting rid of the state will not get rid of human evil... indeed it has been states have combatted terrorism and genocide. From World War II to the most recent Kosovo war to now with the EU sending troops to DR Congo.

Once again, you use chaos and anarchism as synonyms. Real anarchism isn't chaotic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

No, anarchism isn't neccesarily chaotic. But without laws and restricitions, we eventually regress to the level of animals.

Somebody could kill somebody and get away with it. They would do it again and again, each time for something more and more trivial. Then somebody would kill them. And everyvody would be killing everybody else.

A man would see a woman they liked. He would rape her.

To eat, people would simply take food from wherever they could, often fighting over it.

It all goes in a downward spiral.


Back to the subject of terrorism, it must be stopped. But, the governments opposing it must also look at their strategies. The regimes often want easily met demands, but the governments refuse to comply, in order to look strong (and also out of stubbornness). As a result, millions of people are killed.

We'll need a definition of "terrorism" before we make a decision on it.

So many misconceptions. I won't even try correcting them this time.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Here is a transcript in case you missed the link:

Universal Terrorism Act

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Icentom

Description: WHEREAS this organization recognises that the threat of terrorism is a varied and dangerous one;
and being COMMITTED to upholding moral decency and protecting the sanctity of life whilst allowing the freedom of political ideology;
and RECOGNISING that all nations in this organization have a right to justice being served;
WHEREAS all affected nations may want to see justice served on convicted terrorists;
WHEREAS different nations have varying definitions, penalties and intelligence of/for terrorism;
and that this institution is RESOLVED to enhancing world peace;
LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT:
A) the definition of terrorism be defined universally in all member states as "The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

B) that all member states use their heighest punishment available under their terrorism laws against any person convicted in a fair and just trial of a crime as describe in A); and that a trial be held in a fair and unbiased way in the country of the accused person(s) or organization(s).
If no terrorism laws exist, then the country should resolve to create them; until that time the highest punishment (for crimes such as murder, genocide, treason) authorised in that country be used. Any affected nations have a right to partake in such a trial, give evidence and so forth (see section E).

C) the involvement of a person in a terrorist act is planning, aiding, plotting, funding, actively supporting or carrying out and act as described in A). The same definitions apply to an organization. The involvement of a country in a terrorist act is defined as funding, planning, actively supporting (excluding acts of sabotage in wartime of the above) or harbouring terroists and/or protecting them from trial and prosecution, even retrospective of any attack.

D) the definition of a country being affected by terrorism is any negative effect on the country's economy, political or social climate in a direct or indirect way, or in such a way that its allies are so affected that it must intervene; or said country has an international committment in the prevention of terrorism, including placing sanctions on nations harbouring terrorism.

E) All nations affected (as in section D) in the trial of a terrorist or organization have the right of appeal against any decision made by the court for a period no less than 2 years.

F) nations SHOULD, and it is RECCOMENDED and not ENFORCED that nations should share their intelligence and join forces to become united against the evil that is terrorism.

------------------------------------

Anthonycha, you also have a good point. But one resolution across the whole UN to ban cars and ban smoking is impractical and most likely impossible. It is more a civil right and there for nations to decide themselves. This affects everyone, regardless of nation, regardless of choice. It is also possible to stop, not with one resolution, but with a way of uniting usagainst it. Also, as grave as car accidnets and smoking and heart disease may be, sustained terrorist attacks against a nation have the power to topple it.

The real threat is from machines, not terrorists.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Letila, as long as humans exist, there will be conflicts. If the whole world was in anarchy, perhaps the conflicts would only be local power struggles, or mere disputes over little things like food and women. However, only if every single person in the whole world didn't want to rule over anyone else, to control anyone else, would anarchy actually be prevalant. As long as someone has something that someone else wants, and there are limited resources, human nature will cause conflicts and suffering. In your anarchy, where there are just random groups of people or whatever, are you saying there is entirely no order whatsoever? If people live in a village with other people, is that true anarchy? Or are you just saying that there is only a local/village government, and no nation-wide organization in place?
Like I said, human nature causes suffering, thus a leader should do his best to put aside the weakness that is inherent in our race, and strive to guide the rest of the population. Under such strong leadership, the people are not allowed to get away with stealing, killing, or chaotic actions like that. Also, if my citizens are not allowed to get away with such acts, terrorists stand even less of a chance with escaping unharmed, provided i can find them.

[OOC] Has anyone seen Swordfish? An organization exists with the sole purpose of finding terrorists, and making their lives so horrible that every act of terrorism has a response that is many times worse, and many times more costly than the original terrorist act. They make it so that no government/leader would want to harbor terrorists, because their country would suffer for it. If terrorists hijack and crash a plane, the organization destroys an airport, if they burn down a church, the organization destroys ten. That is the way my nation is run. The weaker aspects of humanity must be controlled, and outlawed, and thus life should be orderly and organized.

You are WRONG! THE THREAT IS THE ANARCIEST/TERRORIST NOT THE WEAPONS

I'm confused. Without being facetious, that sounds like The Matrix/Terminator type thing. What do you mean?

The real threat is from machines, not terrorists.

Well it's the small dangers that make life worth living...

I fully support this proposal, and will act to promote it as much as I can. We need some sort of proposal to unite the UN against terrorism, and this one is fit for it.

You are WRONG! THE THREAT IS THE ANARCIEST/TERRORIST NOT THE WEAPONS

Anarchists aren't all terrorists. It's a stereotype.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

And any intelligent person would have responded to the more intelligently-phrased arguments, rather than pick the most immature-sounding one and state the obvious. Perhaps you could respond to the other questions and arguments as well, Letila?

well, by my definition, any violence meant to intimidate people is terrorism
So your saying, by pushing someone, you are commiting a terrorist act?
Or, by getting in a schoolyard-fist fight, you are comming a terrorist act?
What if someone is using, Verbal-Assault? That is a form of violence, so is that terrorism?

OOC:Terrorism: The systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political ends. That is a dictionary defination of terrorism, a terrorist is someone who commits terrorisim. That is what it means and now that undisputed fact has been settled why don't you clever people try and seperate real-life from nationstates! I am sick and tired of resolutions being made or proposals coming up and being debated only to have the topic clouded by people refering to real-world events as though they have some bearing on NS.

To clarify, the definiton given in part A is a dictionary definition of terroism, be it a slightly in depth one. And Kodic is right, if you examine the definition closer, it says societies or goverments, not people or a person as an individual.

It seems to me that it;s the deifnition that is causing all the disarray.

To clarify, the definiton given in part A is a dictionary definition of terroism, be it a slightly in depth one. And Kodic is right, if you examine the definition closer, it says societies or goverments, not people or a person as an individual.

It seems to me that it;s the deifnition that is causing all the disarray.

It is. Okay, so your definition is this :


A) the definition of terrorism be defined universally in all member states as "The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."


So you're saying that only people or organized groups can be terrorist ? and governments, however much violence or force they use to achieve their political ends, cannot be defined as terrorist ?

This may be somewhat confusing, is that if you look down toards sections C and D it details how a country (or it's governement) may ber involved in committing a terrorist act. Section C states:

"The involvement of a country in a terrorist act is defined as funding, planning, actively supporting (excluding acts of sabotage in wartime of the above)* or harbouring terroists and/or protecting them from trial and prosecution, even retrospective of any attack. "

Section D states, although somewhat obscurely, what other countries could do as a punishment of this:

"said country has an international committment in the prevention of terrorism, including placing sanctions on nations harbouring terrorism."

The terrorists themselves is what this act mainly targets- by doing this they will hopefully be deterred; much like the "Swordfish" principle. A government cannot be defined as terrorist in my opinion, Take the Russia (pre-civil war) as an OOC example; you could say Tsar Nicolas II's goverment used terrorist tactics to put forward their ideas; but in essence it was just a dictatorship. Now under my proposed legislation as the UN would be united against what is terrorism and what to do about it, it would be easier to place sanctions on terrorism-supporting governements.

I know I should have made it a little clearer, but I hope this explanation helps.

Bumped for suggestions, comments etc.

well, by my definition, any violence meant to intimidate people is terrorism- and that's pretty much all violent acts committed worldwide, including wars waged by governments like those of the US & UK.

I love this whole definition game.

Face it, terrorism, facism, communism on some places, kapitalism in some places. Those are poisoned words. They can practically not be used in a serious discussion anymore. Once they had a simple dictionary meaning. Now they are nothing but a whole lot of emotion. Everybody has different definitions. And each person choices the definition that happens to agree with his views about who is right and who is wrong. There only use is for people to wipe people up in a frenzy. No.....better to find new emotionally neutral words that have simple clear definitions without any emotional baggage.

My compliments......you guys noticed you got in trouble with the definition problem too :)

Tja that is what happens when words leave science and enter the political arena of speeches.

oh if you want suggestions......

use the term terrorism. Don't give a shit that everbody has different opinions about it. And play on the emotions of the voters who don't read the forum anyway :P.

And you are well on your way of becoming a great politician :D.

If you want to be serious, and really want to do it right. Better lose the term terrorism completely. Because everybody thinks different about it and reacts instinctively on it. Find other words with clear definitions to describe what you want to achieve. Don't know if people will vote for it......but at least that will be another lesson in politics :P

You are WRONG! THE THREAT IS THE ANARCIEST/TERRORIST NOT THE WEAPONS

Anarchists aren't all terrorists. It's a stereotype.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

Yes but they love that stereotype. You see they got a thing going for anarchists too. So while hunting for terrrorists who tend to be rather unpopular, you can accidentally ...hehe....shout an anarchist once in a while. Just scream.....it was a terrorist. And everybody will think...well done :).

OOC:Terrorism: The systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political ends. That is a dictionary defination of terrorism, a terrorist is someone who commits terrorisim. That is what it means and now that undisputed fact has been settled why don't you clever people try and seperate real-life from nationstates! I am sick and tired of resolutions being made or proposals coming up and being debated only to have the topic clouded by people refering to real-world events as though they have some bearing on NS.

very wise....but doesn't work that way. Almost none of the voters can look at this so calmly. We are not conducting science here ladies and gentilmen. We are here to domate the world and make it bow for our views.

And I am talking about emotions. Those are had by the people behind the screen.

To clarify, the definiton given in part A is a dictionary definition of terroism, be it a slightly in depth one. And Kodic is right, if you examine the definition closer, it says societies or goverments, not people or a person as an individual.

It seems to me that it;s the deifnition that is causing all the disarray.

It is. Okay, so your definition is this :


A) the definition of terrorism be defined universally in all member states as "The use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."


So you're saying that only people or organized groups can be terrorist ? and governments, however much violence or force they use to achieve their political ends, cannot be defined as terrorist ?

governments are organisations ;). So they are included. Uhm technically. Not everybody would agree on that even if you put the definition in there face but oke :P.

My dictionary is not entirely specific, or actually to specific. The description would say yes, than in its examples it says no :P.

But a government is an organization from a slightly more philosophical point of few then :P