NationStates Jolt Archive

---Closed---

We live in troubled times. Many terrorist states continue to plague peace loving peoples and wreak havoc on millions on a daily basis. It is now time the UN took action and put a swift end to those states which would seek to cause pain and suffering in the most cowardly ways.

It is proposed that:
1. Nations harbouring terrorists be placed at the mercy of any state and that no UN member shall offer protection or enter into conflict on the terrorists side.
2. UN member governments be given international permission to deal with terrorists and terrorist sympathisers in any way they see fit without repercussion by other nationstates who may also be UN members.
3. UN member governments actively seek out and eradicate terrorism of all forms.



Have you actually submitted a proposal, and if so what is its name? :roll:

The Armed Republic Of Gloopjtp do not wish to be harmed by terrorists ion any way. We have taken vital steps to protect ourselves after the UN turned a blind eye. If you are proposing we are punished for supplying terrorists as the only means of protection then I disagree. Harboring terrorists is wrong I disagree with what they do but some Regions face fierce oppression and these corrupt leaders should be dealed with instead. This would give the terrorists no reason to terrorise. If any terrorists do strike after these actions then they should be punished but your Idea will make the UN the bad guys.

We live in troubled times. Many terrorist states continue to plague peace loving peoples and wreak havoc on millions on a daily basis. It is now time the UN took action and put a swift end to those states which would seek to cause pain and suffering in the most cowardly ways.

It is proposed that:
1. Nations harbouring terrorists be placed at the mercy of any state and that no UN member shall offer protection or enter into conflict on the terrorists side.
2. UN member governments be given international permission to deal with terrorists and terrorist sympathisers in any way they see fit without repercussion by other nationstates who may also be UN members.
3. UN member governments actively seek out and eradicate terrorism of all forms.

We the Kingdom of Monkeypotamia rightfully condemn the acts of terrorism and the harboring of terrorists.

That said, Monkeypotamia can not stand idly by in witness to this proposal. The suggestions made in this proposal are alarming and outright dangerous to the global community. To suggest that any UN member has the right to attack another country by any means they see fit

1. without positive evidence
2. without UN investigation and concensus and, most importantly
3. without repercussion,

this proposal is an offense and an indignation. Should this proposal become a resolution, the United Nations would be lighting the fuse to World War. Nations with decades long if not centuries long conflicts would enter immediately into war, claiming terroristic threats from the other, vindicated or not, with the global community powerless to interfere.

We, the Kingdom of Monkeypotamia request that this proposal be withdrawn immediately.

with this resolution completly. Terrorism and terrorist states should be stopped at all costs.

We live in troubled times. Many terrorist states continue to plague peace loving peoples and wreak havoc on millions on a daily basis. It is now time the UN took action and put a swift end to those states which would seek to cause pain and suffering in the most cowardly ways.

It is proposed that:
1. Nations harbouring terrorists be placed at the mercy of any state and that no UN member shall offer protection or enter into conflict on the terrorists side.
2. UN member governments be given international permission to deal with terrorists and terrorist sympathisers in any way they see fit without repercussion by other nationstates who may also be UN members.
3. UN member governments actively seek out and eradicate terrorism of all forms.

We the Kingdom of Monkeypotamia rightfully condemn the acts of terrorism and the harboring of terrorists.

That said, Monkeypotamia can not stand idly by in witness to this proposal. The suggestions made in this proposal are alarming and outright dangerous to the global community. To suggest that any UN member has the right to attack another country by any means they see fit

1. without positive evidence
2. without UN investigation and concensus and, most importantly
3. without repercussion,

this proposal is an offense and an indignation. Should this proposal become a resolution, the United Nations would be lighting the fuse to World War. Nations with decades long if not centuries long conflicts would enter immediately into war, claiming terroristic threats from the other, vindicated or not, with the global community powerless to interfere.

We, the Kingdom of Monkeypotamia request that this proposal be withdrawn immediately.

We, of the Holy Empire of Kokablel, concur.

Let me address this issue as politely as possible. Any nation stupid enoughh to harbor terrorists that is not part of the UN will be crushed at some point in time. So Watch out!

We, the Terrorists Isle of Gibratlar are against this propasal (duh) for obvious reasons (hence the name).

In many regions there are super power nations that will eventually feel the urge to rise up and destroy the less fortunate.
Terrorism is the only option for many nations as well, as either,
a) The numbers in their national army isn't enough
OR
b) Their army is being forcibly restricted for some reason or another.

Therefore, I feel that this proposal should be withdrawn immediately.
Besides, if people want to be terrorists and blow themselves up, let them. It's their choice really. IMO, a slightly better proposition may be that all terrorist nations forcing their people into terrorism be forced to disarm, not all terrorsit nations.

Please do consider my alternative, as I feel that it would be a slightly better proposal.

Terrorism poses a threat to my fledling region and my fellow countrymen.

I Ochryd, and the people of Jeff Shaver will back any cause to rid the world of terrorism.

Who are the terrorists, exactly? Did you ever pause to ask that question?

Definition One: one who uses violence, torture, or physical intimidation to achieve one's ends, esp. one's political ends.

Definition Two: one of an unofficial or loosely organized group of soldiers who stage unconventional or surprise attacks against an enemy.

See the difference? Not much of one, is there? Here's the thing, though - #1 is a definiton of terrorist. #2 can be a definition of the following:

Freedom fighter, devotee, sympathizer, Jacobin,
radical, revolutionary, extremist, nonconformist,
Maquis, agitator, anarchist, ultra, fanatic,
True Believer, sectarian, partisan, guerrilla,
insurgent, irregular, disciple, Young Turk, extremist

Which is the terrorist? The anti-abortionist who bombs a clinic, or an abortion doctor who performs the procedure? Depends on which side of the aisle you sit on, doesn't it?

Is this a terrorist? This guy sneaks into enemy territory and kills the head of the intelligence agency with a sniper rifle. His name? Bond. James Bond.

Terrorism depends on which side you are on. Terror is a weapon used by the weak against the mighty. It's fine to condemn terror when you're one of the mighty ... but it's another thing when beleagered Freedom Fighters are struggling to bring medical supplies into your plague-ridden country, while the evil empire that is your enemy bombs your cities and kills your countrymen.

You want to fight acts of terror? Fine. Define them as such. Figure out which actual acts offend the international sensibility, and condemn those. As long as you let yourselves be ruled by the word terrorism and ignore the acts of terror, you deserve all the punative laws and abuse that get passed in that name.

---Closed---

Well naturally a nation needs evidence of terrorism...normally after something gets blown up!
Benicus, your posts seem to say, "Hey, they're terrorists because what they're doing is terrorism. We must eradicate terrorism!" With that, you're missing my entire point. You're throwing words around without taking time to consider what they mean.

Here's a little allegory for you. Let's pick on a little country, say, Benicius. Your peaceful 187 million Beniciustardheads are minding their own business when a big invasion force from, oh, The Imperium of Battlecrabs*. The massive army from this nation of 2.353 billion have top-notch intelligence, and they take out your entire pitiful military the first day. Since they are an "oppressive government, which measures its success by the nation's GDP and refers to individual citizens as 'human resources'," they pay no attention to your pitiful citizenry while they procede to bulldoze your rainforests for the uranium underneath.

Meanwhile, your remaining scientists and housewives organize themselves into the Benicius Leage Against Battlecrabs, and start making molotov cocktails in the kitchen. When the BLAB freedom fighters toss their first molotov cocktail onto the bulldozers of the oppressors, a crack UN anti-terrorist squad parachutes in and wipes out the Terrorist Cells of BLAB.That's what your proposal implies. No definitions, just terrorism. No measurement to see which side has the right of it, no independent bureau checking to see if Battlecrabs' claim is just. It's terrorism, and it's got to be eradicated.

You came here to learn about the UN and nation building. Why don't you open your eyes and let some of those preconceptions flow away. Terrorism is a boogyman used to frighten the citizenry. Until you define what it actually IS, you're just another frightened child.


(*random pick from the front page, Battlecrabs. No offense)

---Closed---

If you do not know what terrorism is already, then perhaps you need to spend more on your nation's education system.
You just don't get it, do you? OK, let's make this super simple.

1. Your proposal passes, exactly as written.

2. A resident of Benicius throws a water balloon.

3. Since water balloonings are considered terrorist acts in Frisbeteria, we declare Benicius a Terrorist State.

4. We n00k you until you're nothing more than a smoking pit.

5. Nobody from the UN can do a damn thing to stop us, thanks to your Article 2.

6. We giggle manaically at the thought of such a stupid proposal ever giving us a clear and open mandate to destroy whomever we dislike.

---Closed---

stupidity such as you propound would not be tolerated and more than likely you would be ignored in any civilised RP.
I think that was Frisbeeteria's point.

The proposal relies on commonsense.
Something you seem to lack.

This is a place of law, not assumption. You don't throw out blanket rules of ANY sort that include phrases like "in any way they see fit without repercussion." You explain, you define, you codify, and you debate. Only after those basic steps are met can your proposal be taken seriously.

You haven't explained the nature of terrorism.
You didn't bother to define your terms.
You have decided to grant blanket permissions rather than setting limits.
You refuse to debate, resorting to the fallback line of the incompetent, "common sense".

Under your proposal, every nation may have their own definition of terrorism. You don't specify any international process for declaring a terrorist state. You specifically PREVENT the UN from dealing with any abuse of this resolution.

And you end with the catch-all phrase, "of all forms." Whether it's suicide bombers or grade school bullies you don't specify, falling back to that idiotic phrase, "common sense". No, you fool - you said ALL FORMS. We have no latitude here. Common sense is SPECIFICALLY denied. I have no more interest in protecting terrorist than the next nation, but this is a damn-fool way to do it.

Since you're obviously not interested in listening to anything but agreement, I'll agree with this lineWe live in troubled times
The one solace I have from these troubled times is that the rest of the UN is more aware of their responsiblity than you, and will NEVER allow this proposal to reach the floor.

MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria

---Closed---

Fris, the only reason anyone would oppose this proposal is if they supported terrorism.
[OOC]Listen, you little twit.

I'll post when and where I want, and as often as I want, in opposition to stupidity. I don't care if you're a brainwashed Bush supporter or just a grade school dropout, but the war on terrorism is a blank check for the government to do whatever they want, wherever they want. Your proposal takes it ten steps further into the realm of utter government madness.

As a libertarian, I oppose anything that gives the government unchecked access to this sort of power. Governments with unrestrained power to go after ANYTHING they desire are far worse than anything terrorists can throw at us.

As to my long posts, try putting your brain in gear and responding to them, instead of demonstrating your obvious inability to think with those one line "rebuttals"

The Council of Enn asks the leadership of Benicius how they define a "terrorrist state"? Is this a nation that attacks other nations for causes that turn out to be false? Is this a nation run by "evil" people? We seek clarification.

Though the Confederacy of Caligatio fails to see the necessity of Frisbeeteria's attack on the Bush administration, we do support his other well-laid out points.

Fris, the only reason anyone would oppose this proposal is if they supported terrorism.

(your long reponses are boring and unecessary, please do not post here again)

The reason that many will not support this proposal is because it MANDATES TERRORISM. Benicius, if you actually took any time to read the nation of Frisbeeteria's responses, you would know full well that your proposal is ridiculously flawed. Don't you understand that?

I don't care if you're a brainwashed Bush supporter or just a grade school dropout, but the war on terrorism is a blank check for the government to do whatever they want, wherever they want.

As a conservative libertarian (yes, they exist), I feel that laws like the Patriot Act are necessary at this time, though some of it does infringe upon our civil liberties. I feel that terrorism, as defined by the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, every administration in the past 2 decades, needs to be quashed. I don't really know how to explain this any better, but, for a useful reference, my views are somewhat in line with Hollywood actor Kurt Russell, another fairly conservative libertarian.

But, enough of my political banter. It is clearly evident that Frisbeeteria, though I disagree with some of his political views, has spelled out the many flaws of this proposal. One can only hope that such a ridiculous idea will not pass.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

The Confederacy of Caligatio finds it amusing that the nation of Benicius has edited all his posts to remove his ridiculous ideas from this forum. What the sovereign nation of Caligatio finds more amusing is that his idiocy cannot be removed, as it is etched into many of the other posts here in the form of quotes.

The nation of Frisbeeteria has gained the utmost respect and confidence from the Confederacy of Caligatio. The opposite is true for the nation of Benicius.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Yet again Frisbeeteria has shown (almost) level-headed rationale when it comes to proposals that could spell disaster.

I side wholeheartedly with Frisbeeteria on this matter.

that said, if the original poster were to re-define terrorism and resubmit the proposal, the Archdruids of New Eriu will look it over again.

Nice going Frisbeeteria :!: Now this is closed :cry: .

:lol:

Frisbeeteria's attack on the Bush administration
My apologies for the Bush remark. Certain supporters of the current US administration are far from the first to wave the flag of patriotism and claim all who oppose their current plan must by definiton be treasonous. It is not Bush that is dangerous, it's this "blinded by patriotism" attitude that is the problem. I'll stick with the brainwashed comment, though.

I'd like to applaud Benicius for having the courage to stick to his convictions and vigorously defend his statements. It could have been so easy for him to simply claim that everything was somebody else's fault, grab his toys and run home. I'd have hated to see that.

[OOC]Listen, you little twit.

That's uncalled for. The UN forum is for calm and rational debate. I don't want to see you doing this again.

Since this thread has no further purpose, I'll lock it.