NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello, thank you for letting me post to your forum. As UN Delegate I have a proposal in the queue I sincerely believe in and am happy to now give you the opportunity to discuss the rights and wrongs of it. The text is below. ;)


BECAUSE we do not sufficiently understand the threat terrorists pose to our freedoms.

RECOGNIZING the terrorists may pose a real-and-present danger to our shores, lands, buildings and children and that this threat is a blight on our lives.

ADMITTING the longer the threat goes unanswered the sooner it will take us by surprise with heavy toll on lives and our economies.

MAINTAINING the principles that regulate our normal lives should not be altered in the face of the barrel of a gun.

DEMONSTRATING the United Nations is sailing on the boat to freedom.

DECLARING nationstates will be adequately trained to counter all the growing terror threats by contributing together to a United Nations Anti-Terrorism Fund.

Hello, thank you for letting me post to your forum. As UN Delegate I have a proposal in the queue I sincerely believe in and am happy to now give you the opportunity to discuss the rights and wrongs of it. The text is below. ;)


BECAUSE we do not sufficiently understand the threat terrorists pose to our freedoms.

RECOGNIZING the terrorists may pose a real-and-present danger to our shores, lands, buildings and children and that this threat is a blight on our lives.

ADMITTING the longer the threat goes unanswered the sooner it will take us by surprise with heavy toll on lives and our economies.

MAINTAINING the principles that regulate our normal lives should not be altered in the face of the barrel of a gun.

DEMONSTRATING the United Nations is sailing on the boat to freedom.

DECLARING nationstates will be adequately trained to counter all the growing terror threats by contributing together to a United Nations Anti-Terrorism Fund.

That is actually quite poetic. I really like the "sailing on the boat to freedom" part.

But since my government was founded by people who were denounced as terrorists for the whole of the time they were trying to liberate my country from the corrupt authority that had taken control of it, I am going to have to pass on this.

Also - it is a well known fact that in times of war, the law falls silent and this would mean that no government would be permitted to alter any laws because of the threat of potential violence, which would make running a nation almost impossible.

The other side is if we don't do anything to stop terrorists they'll kill us and cost our economies heaps.

It could be said not acting is putting our head in the sand and that we'd do better to admit the unpallettable reality exists now, before something bad happens.

The United Nations should make a stand against the principle of Terrorism - change through violence- by upholding a first principle of peace, the defence of freedom!

Woud'nt you have to define terrorism first? Do'nt a lot of nations use teror, who is it that you are calling terrorist?

That would be my problem - who gets to define what (and more importantly who) is a terrorist?

The United Nations should make a stand against the principle of Terrorism - change through violence- by upholding a first principle of peace, the defence of freedom!

Change through violence is not always unjustified. Sometimes it's the lesser of two evils - there are governments in this world, sadly, which need to be violently opposed.

The other side is if we don't do anything to stop terrorists they'll kill us and cost our economies heaps.
While I have no figures to back this up either in NS or RL, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the expenses of running counter-terrorism bureaus and organizations aren't two to ten times the cost of letting terror strike without supra-regional organizations. As for the cost in human life, it's a tiny tiny percentage of overall deaths anywhere terrorists are active.

In addition to the economic cost, the cost to liberty is even higher. For every checkpoint installed or law passed, your freedoms go down just a little bit. That may outweigh the economic costs for some people.

As horrific as 9/11 was, it probably didn't add a significant statistical bump to NY state deaths for the month. Despite the randomness of suicide bombers in the Middle East, the vast majority of citizens continue to live, work, and have ordinary lives.

The concept that "the terrorists will kill us all and destroy our economy" is a straw man to distract us from the immense cost of building an anti-terror bureaucracy. No matter how big and well-organized such an organization ever gets to be, it can always be defeated or avoided by dedicated terrorists who are willing to die for their cause.

Ultimately, terrorism isn't attacking people or property. It attacks morale. No matter how much money and men you pour into anti-terrorism, you can't stop it all ... and the higher your expectations of safety, the bigger the hit against morale when it (inevitably) happens.

Guess you can put me down for a "No".

Our "anti-terrorist groups" are part of the Police and Intelligence community already, not a separated group. Seems to work.

lets look at the term terrorist. a terrorist is one who uses fear and intimidation to achive their own goals. real life examples are: ETA running bombing campains in spain in order to make a seperate basque state. another is the liberal-national government putting the fear of intrest rates rising under a labor government in australia, something that has somewhat backfired due to the fact that while they did win, intrest rates have risen under them. or a terrorist could be someone freeing their own land from foreign control, which has happened many times throughout history. the thing is, the term terrorist could apply to just about anyone, and on that fact, this should not be supported. what you deemed to be a terrorist, could be someones ally, and also, it opens the way for a nation to declare war one ANYONE, simply by calling them a terrorist

lets look at the term terrorist. a terrorist is one who uses fear and intimidation to achive their own goals. real life examples are: ETA running bombing campains in spain in order to make a seperate basque state.

That's ironic isn't it. When the Madrid bombing occurred, certain leaders and officials, depending on your political leaning, were hoping that ETA were responsible, and even blamed them at first. The incumbency was sure hoping that they could spin it that way, at least until after the Spanish election.

another is the liberal-national government putting the fear of interest rates rising under a Labor government in Australia, something that has somewhat backfired due to the fact that while they did win, interest rates have risen under them.

Ah, well. Of course, John Howard's classic comeback to this, the one that we knew we were going to hear sooner or later after the election and a rate rise, was that he actually said during the campaign that 'interest rates will always be higher under a Labor government'. Not that they will not rise under a Liberal-National govt. He's a wily one that PM. He sickens and irritates me in equal measure.

or a terrorist could be someone freeing their own land from foreign control, which has happened many times throughout history. the thing is, the term terrorist could apply to just about anyone, and on that fact, this should not be supported. what you deemed to be a terrorist, could be someones ally, and also, it opens the way for a nation to declare war one ANYONE, simply by calling them a terrorist

Yes!

No!

DECLARING nationstates will be adequately trained to counter all the growing terror threats by contributing together to a United Nations Anti-Terrorism Fund.Yes, because by golly gosh, nothing solves a problem better then blindly tossing lots of @@CURRENCY@@ at it till it goes away, by darn'd.

And, of course ...DEMONSTRATING the United Nations is sailing on the boat to freedom.Yet, like the usual " muck " creek the U.N. seems to be up these days, as usual we seem to be lacking a decent " paddle ".

Read into it what you will ...

* Mind you, this is a minor U.N. Delegate saying no. Just being a tad grouchy about it, is all ...