NationStates Jolt Archive

The Dictatorship of Edward VIII is considering submitting a resolution to the United Nations to keep countries from harboring terrorists.

The text of the resolution, as we have it figured so far, would be as follows:

We the people of the United Nations, in order to form a more perfect Union, do hereby outlaw terrorism of all kinds, and the harboring of terrorists.

By this law, any country that is cound guilty of harboring or supporting terrorists, that is a member of the UN, shall be fined, via the UN, the amount of $15 Billion USD, which will go to helping third-world countries. If the offense is repeated, war shall be enacted on the guilty country.

**************END***************

What do you think? We at the Dictatorship of Edward VIII would love to hear your comments and critiques of this resolution before it submitted.

Good suggestion, but I doubt it could work. If they are found guilty of harbouring terrorists then they should be taken out of power and there country under the direct rule of the U.N. Now that would work. But you have got a point.

Why do you feel it wouldn't work?

Why do you feel it wouldn't work?

Sorry about posting 2 "Why don't you think it will work"s. My bad.

I'm not putting up with them.


http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=139439

How do you plan on fining the country if they don't comply. My view on it is that any state that harbours terrorists that make an attack on another country are complicit in the attack. Therefore the attacked country is within its rights to retaliate and declare war upon the state harbouring the terrorists. That's self defence.

My question is: what if it is found out that there are terrorists present
in the country, and the government had no idea about it, and then
acts of terrorism are waged upon whatever target, and the acts
of terrorism are linked back to whatever the country which was
harbouring them was? Is that government at fault if they had no idea?

I think it would be sad if a government had no idea that there were terrorists in its country, but since the world isn't perfect, you have a point. So, therefore, Edward VIII will amend this proposal to "...knowingly harboring terrorists..." upon its submission to the UN.
Thank you! :D

How do you plan on fining the country if they don't comply?.

Since this is a computer game, the $15 billion would just be decucted through 1's and 0's. I know, I know, there's no real system of counting money, but remember guys, this is just for fun.

If Bush can appease terrorists, so can nations in this game.

I'd say you need a definition of what constitutes a terrorist or terrorist group.

Yep. And no ridiculous 'causing fear' definitions this time. If attacks aren't on civilians they're not terrorism.

I would define terrorists as any group of two or more, that would cause harm/damage that is not recongnized as a current offical body of the nation represented.

i.e. Al Qaeda was not the offical "Army" of Afghanistan thus they were Terrorists. if they were part of the offical "Army" of Afghanistan, then 9/11 would have been an act of WAR.

And no I do not "put up" with terrorists, anyone resorting to such cowardly acts are delt with harsher than traitors in my nation. We have systems set up to address greivences that is fair to all.

I would define terrorists as any group of two or more, that would cause harm/damage that is not recongnized as a current offical body of the nation represented.

No - we call those rebels. Under your definition, Nelson Mandela would be a terrorist, and all UN nations would have been forbidden from harbouring ANC members during the apartheid regime. Your country may have legitimate channels of protest - but not all nations do.

If it doesn't target civilians, it is not terrorism.

True.. but remember, to some, terrorists are rebels are freedom fighters... it just depends on your point of view. And while I agree on the civilians target point. My military personnel are still my people. Granted they signed up to defend their country and lay their lives on the line. I as their leader, still hold their sacrifies and their lives are as dear to me as my civilians.

And While Nelson Mandela would be classified as a terrorist. I will also admit to all that he has paid his debt, and thus free to live his life as he chooses as long as he does not harm anyone. (he could, for example, become a politician and change the system from the inside.)

I just hate anyone who thinks violence is the only true way to get what they want.

hmm, memory fuzzy on Mandela, I thought he just organized Protests and did not condone blowing up of things and violence out side of Self Defense.

My military personnel are still my people. Granted they signed up to defend their country and lay their lives on the line. I as their leader, still hold their sacrifies and their lives are as dear to me as my civilians.

Then why should a so-called terrorist attack on them be any different to an orthodox act of war?

And While Nelson Mandella would be classified as a terrorist. I will also admit to all that he has paid his debt, and thus free to live his life as he chooses as long as he does not harm anyone. (he could, for example, become a politician and change the system from the inside.)

They tried that. They got banned.

He didn't 'pay his debt'. The guy had no debt to pay. All of his actions were justified. The formation of a military branch of the ANC was an absolute last resort, caused by the apartheid government's utter unwillingness to change. At the time, virtually the only foreign government to materially support the ANC was Cuba. There was no choice but to resort to paramilitary action, or submit completely to a brutal and unjust rule.

No, Mandela was instrumental in the setting up of the armed wing of the ANC, the Spear of the Nation. As revolutionary forces go, it was a fairly half-assed attempt, but it did some damage - didn't kill anyone, but sabotaged a lot of stuff and was (in theory) prepared to fight the government's forces. Mandela himself became an explosives expert.

...to some, terrorists are rebels are freedom fighters... it just depends on your point of view.

Freedom fighters do not intentionally strike civilian targets on a regular basis. I would argue that all terrorists are rebels, but not all rebels are terrorists. Suppose a rebel is one who acts violently or militarily toward political ends without endorsement or authorization of their home-government and a terrorist is one who does the same and acts against civilian targets? At that point, a freedom fighter would be a rebel who acts for the sake of gaining freedom via the establishment of democratic government.

Wyrmia agrees that terrorists shall be wiped out. But before attacking or removing a country, there should be a very good evidence of terrorists in the country. We also think that no country should be attacked for harbouring terrorists, unless these terrorists performed a task that threatened or endangered lives of civilians in any country within the UN.

Okee dokee.

The Nation of Edward VIII appreciates everybody's input and ideas about this proposal. Thank you. Every one of your comments has helped the Nation of Edward VIII come up with this second draft of our proposal:


We the people of the United Nations, in order to form a more perfect World, do hereby outlaw terrorism of all kinds, and the harboring and supporting of terrorists.

By this law, any country that is cound guilty of knowingly harboring or supporting terrorists, that is a member of the UN, shall be fined, via the UN, the amount of $15 Billion USD, which will go to helping third-world countries. Of course, before this fine would be enacted, extensive research would be conduted to assure the country does harbor terrorists.

What exactly consitutes terrorists? Terrorists are a group of persons within a country or set of countries that resorts to violence, massacres of citizens, hijacking of airplanes, suicide bombings, or other inhumane forms of destruction, in order to exploit their disturbing views upon the world.

If the offense is repeated, war shall be enacted on the guilty country.

**************END***************

This proposal will be sent to the UN this evening.

Please show your determination to wipe out terrorism by voting for this proposal.

Thank you,


-The Nation of Edward VIII

What exactly consitutes terrorists? Terrorists are a group of persons within a country or set of countries that resorts to violence, massacres of citizens, hijacking of airplanes, suicide bombings, or other inhumane forms of destruction, in order to exploit their disturbing views upon the world.

Dude, that's an army.

Dude, not really. Terrorists could be said to be an army of their own bizarre views, but let's not split hairs. We all know what consitutes as terroists.

By the way, how did you make red text?

We the people of the United Nations, in order to form a more perfect Union, do hereby outlaw terrorism of all kinds, and the harboring of terrorists.

LOL, in order to form a more perfect union :) I know, I know, you already changed it...


I would define terrorists as any group of two or more, that would cause harm/damage that is not recongnized as a current offical body of the nation represented.

No - we call those rebels. Under your definition, Nelson Mandela would be a terrorist, and all UN nations would have been forbidden from harbouring ANC members during the apartheid regime. Your country may have legitimate channels of protest - but not all nations do.

If it doesn't target civilians, it is not terrorism.

Nelson Mandela just recently came off the US's terrorist list, but just for the next ten years. They have to make sure that he isn't really a terrorist, I guess:

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=ct20030810102700522T600578&set_id=1&click_id=3&sf=



Dude, not really. Terrorists could be said to be an army of their own bizarre views, but let's not split hairs. We all know what consitutes as terroists.

No, we don't- you aren't really familiar with legalistic sorts texts, are you? I am certainly far from an expert, but I know you have to write up a resolution keeping in mind that it is going to be pretty much applied to the letter of the law. Besides, there are some real ambiguities- are armies that are associated with a sovreign nation but have committed war crimes terrorits groups? What's the difference between a group rebelling against an unjust government and a terrorist group? And it is true what Rehochipe said- any army is out to promote its nation's views through violence. You could at least say that terrorist group is not an army of a sovreign nation, but that still doesn' clear up all of the ambiguities present in the resolution as it currently stands.

Perhaps the resolution is well-intended, it not well thought-out and has many fatal flaws. Bootai-Bootai will not support the resolution in its current form.

Nelson Mandela just recently came off the US's terrorist list, but just for the next ten years. They have to make sure that he isn't really a terrorist, I guess...

Which illustrates precisely why we need better legislation. This isn't a domestic-policy document (people can list whoever they like as terrorists on a domestic list): it's a UN document that would have prevented any UN nation from harbouring or aiding Mandela.

Dude, not really. Terrorists could be said to be an army of their own bizarre views, but let's not split hairs. We all know what consitutes as terroists.

No, clearly we don't. The Mandela example makes that very clear: I'm convinced he was not and never was, but the USA has a different opinion.

The hijack of a military plane is not a terrorist act. Blowing up the President is not a terrorist act. These are legitimate acts of war, and we see no reason why it should be okay in the eyes of the UN if they're done by a government body but not by an independent group.

lables do tend to be applied in accordance with the tastes of the
labeler.

we seem to have pyromaniacs shouting fire the loudest.

whether you're a government
an anti government
a self styled mellitia
or just some guy that likes to destroy things

if you tear up a bunch of stuff
whatever else subsiquently happens
you've still got a big pile of torn up stuff

is it just me or doesn't terrorist hunting sound just a teeney tiny
bit like 'commie' hunting of the 1950s?

terrorists are a bunch of guys paid by the people they appear to be attacking
to keep the people they appear to be attatcking in power
so that the people who'se freedoms
they are actualy robbing
namely their own
supposedly won't realize how useless their own so called leaders
really are to any intrests other
then those of intrenched corruption

it's convoluted but not that interesting

and a damd poor excuse for making big holes in the ground full of
unhappy dead people

=^^=
.../\...

Okay-blowing up a plane. The Soviets did that, and were not considered terrorists.

Detonating a bomb in a civillian building harming civillians. The American Air Force did that in WWII (with the RAF helping), in Korea, in Vietman--but they were not considered terrorists.

Suicide bombers--the Japanese did that in WWII--they were not considered terrorists.

"inhumane forms of destruction". War of any kind is inhumane destruction-yet we do not consider those acts terrorism.

So, I think that we should reconsider what we are calling a terrorist. It depends on where you stand. Is it a terrorist act when Israel bombs Palestinians? Not according to Isreal. Is it a terrorist act when a Palestinian bombs Israelis? Not according to Palestinians. What is the difference? Your point of view.

With that in mind, how can we outlaw terrorism when there really cannot be a consistant defination of what a terrorist is?

Both a freedom fighter and a terrorist would argue they are waging war. The argument would then be that civilians get killed in war.

The distinction, as any number of cruise missiles will tell you, is targeting (or, as we'd call it in ethical terms, intent). If you hijack civilian planes - terrorism. If you hijack military ones and some civilians get killed in the crossfire - war.

If you bomb the Pentagon - war. If you bomb a residential district - terrorism.

My question is: what if it is found out that there are terrorists present
in the country, and the government had no idea about it, and then
acts of terrorism are waged upon whatever target, and the acts
of terrorism are linked back to whatever the country which was
harbouring them was? Is that government at fault if they had no idea?

Right. Many countries have terrorists but don't want them. Either the terrorists are well hidden, or the government is too weak to prevent their activities.

Is this "harboring"? If so, many peace-loving countries are guilty.

Is this "harboring"? If so, many peace-loving countries are guilty.

[OOC]: Yep. We might be misremembering and are open to correction, but we seem to recall suggestions that the IRA was being funded by US citizens and that, possibly, IRA members were operating out of the US. Does that make the US complicit in the IRA's activities?

The distinction, as any number of cruise missiles will tell you, is targeting (or, as we'd call it in ethical terms, intent). If you hijack civilian planes - terrorism. If you hijack military ones and some civilians get killed in the crossfire - war.

If you bomb the Pentagon - war. If you bomb a residential district - terrorism.

I can understand the distinction you are making, but it is not quite that black and white in my opinion.

Both Germany and the United States have targeted civillian populations. Germany in WWII, and the US in WWII and Vietnam. The US currently is targeting civillian areas in Iraq in an attempt to kill the anti-US resistance--those would be a terrorist act under your description, since the power in question is purposly targeting civillians. The US is doing it in Iraq to crush the resistance, Germany did it to create terror flight from the cities of Britian, just as the US and Britian intended to do to Germany during WWII. The US targeted civillian areas of northern Vietnam to create pressure in the north to end the war.

If we look at the Israeli-Palentinian issue, who is the terrorist there since both sides intentionally target civillian areas, although the Israelis claim they are always "unfortunate events caused by Palestinian terrorists" and the Palenstinians claim that the human bombs sent onto buses and cities in Israel to be "unfortunate, but caused by Israeli politics." It is obvious to anyone who spends some time looking at the issue that it is a war for independence--but pro-Israelis claim the Palestinians are terrorists, and pro-Palestinains claim the Israelis are terrorists.

I would argue that to be labeled a terrorist, you have to look at the motives of the group or the individual. If the motive is just pure murder--such as in the 1972 Munich Olympic Games murder of Israeli athletes or the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center with the attack on the Pentagon, or the Rwandian massacres of the late 1990s, then you can justify those folks as terrorists.

However, if there is a political purpose (such as an independence movement, or a fight against an occupying power, or other related actions) and a political motive--can you really only allow certain types of fighting and label all the rest as terrorism? I don't think you can and be realistic--since you have to fight with any and all means at your disposal against any and all targets that are available to convince the offending party that things need to change.

Under the label of terrorism as we apply it today, the first few years of the American Revolution would be labeled as terrorism. Destruction of state assets, ambushing of soldiers but not meeting them on a field of battle, deliberatly causing dissention and confusion for the government supporters, harassing those who are loyal to the current frame of government---all that we brand as terrorism today.

This is exactly why when trying to determine what a terrorist is and is not, MOTIVE ALONE should be the determining factor.

in my opinion and to help secure my people. I have a simple definition.

Rehochipe wrote: If you bomb the Pentagon - war. If you bomb a residential district - terrorism.

My take on that line... If you bomb anything of Ichi Ni's property... WAR! If the person or persons doing it is doing so as part of an Offically Recognized Army of a Nation... Then it's war against that nation. If the person or persons are NOT recognized as an army by any nation... then they are treated as terrorists and thus not protected by any Geneiva (sp) Convention, Rules of War, or anything that dictates how POW's are treated.

If the person is part of some Army and that Nation disavows any knowledge of such act... then the Nation to which he/she/it belongs to will be given the benefit of the Doubt and that person will be considered to be acting alone (for now) and will be treated as a Terrorist.

I, for one, will not tolerate any of my people's lives being taken without my permission. You attack my soldiers, military bases, or civilians you are committing an act of war. My soldier's job is to protect the citizens and property of Ichi Ni. My job is to minimize their danger. My job is to order my soldiers into combat as a last resort, their job is not to give their lives for their Nation, it's to make the enemy give their lives for their Nation.

I have no tolerance for senseless deaths. Terrorism is probably the most sensless way to kill or be killed, but then again, so is Offically mandated wars.

Ma Fish Falastin

Both Germany and the United States have targeted civillian populations. Germany in WWII, and the US in WWII and Vietnam.

Those are what we call war crimes.

The US currently is targeting civillian areas in Iraq in an attempt to kill the anti-US resistance--those would be a terrorist act under your description, since the power in question is purposly targeting civillians.

If you're targeting unarmed civilians, we've got no problem with calling it terrorism. As far as I know the US is still making at least a token effort to avoid breaking the rules of war; fighting paramilitaries who happen to be in a civilian area doesn't count as targeting civilians. Of course, the US is pretty laissez-faire about collateral damage, but if they were bombing civilian areas for the hell of it there'd be something of an outcry.


The US is doing it in Iraq to crush the resistance, Germany did it to create terror flight from the cities of Britian, just as the US and Britian intended to do to Germany during WWII. The US targeted civillian areas of northern Vietnam to create pressure in the north to end the war.


And this practise is barbaric. It's on a precise moral par with any more conventional terrorist act you might name.

However, if there is a political purpose (such as an independence movement, or a fight against an occupying power, or other related actions) and a political motive--can you really only allow certain types of fighting and label all the rest as terrorism? I don't think you can and be realistic--since you have to fight with any and all means at your disposal against any and all targets that are available to convince the offending party that things need to change.
Mass-murder cannot be justified. History is full of armed and unarmed struggles that have taken the high road and refused to take the easy path of harming innocent civilians. We refuse to justify those who take the coward's way out.
Motives don't divide simply and cleanly into means and ends. The means is as much part of the motive as the end.

there is no war on terrorism, drugs, or supposedly failed idiologies that were never given an honest chance. there is only (in more hierarchal nations then ours that have such things) war against your personal freedoms for the comfort and convenience of entrenched corruption and greed.

in carlemnaria we do not take sides
nor do we close our borders, build fences arround them or ask people where they are going or comming from if they should happen to wander accross them

if we catch them blowing up things that don't belong to them we politely invite them to go elsewhere

(if they refuse we put them to good use generating electricity
by running on treadmills)

=^^=
.../\...

How about as a pose to a fine which unless you declare you block all foreign trade, aid and foreign relations with terrorist harbouring nations.

But, how do you keep them on the threadmills if you do not build fences...
(just nitpicking, no need to answer ;)

Still love your posts Carlemnaria