NationStates Jolt Archive

After concerns that the original anti-terror bill were illegal and too vague.
A new anti terror proposal has been tabled.

If you take the UN seriously, and this issue seriously. Please support it.




Category: International Security

Proposed by: Ricardo and Smith


At the present time, the UN does not have a universal definition of religious terror. Therefore some states are ‘legitimately’ assisting organisations they regard as ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘liberation armies’.

A religious terrorist group is an organisation that seeks spread its spiritual or fundamentalist religious ideals through the use of force. This force includes domestic terrorism and international terrorism.

A country promoting religious terror is doing one or more of the following

-Offering financial, logistical, military or intelligence support to religious terrorists.
-Providing a safe-haven for religious terrorists to hide or operate.

Countries guilty of refusing to outlaws religious terror will be dealt with in the following way.

- Political leaders of the terror states must meet the UN Delegate of the victim state and promise an end to terror attacks.
- If terrorist atrocities do not desist in the victim state. Then all UN member states cease to trade with the terror-supporting state. This includes economic, financial and military trade. As well as humanitarian aid. The terror state is now a pariah state.
- If terrorist atrocities do not desist. The victim state has the right to attack the terrorist state in anyway it chooses. Other UN members have the right assist victim in attacking the terrorist state in anyway they like. No other state has the right to assist the terror-supporting state. If they do, the above steps will be repeated for them.

Why should it only be religious terrorists?
I would rather you defined a terrorist as "one who uses force, designed to terrorise, to impose a minority viewpoint upon the majority"

Why should it only be religious terrorists?
I would rather you defined a terrorist as "one who uses force, designed to terrorise, to impose a minority viewpoint upon the majority"

I dislike the minority-majority thing. Something doesn't become right just because a majority of people are in favour of it, and vice versa.

Also, your definition begs the question, "Minority and majority of whom?" Of the people in the room? Of the inhabitants of a town? Of a country? Of the entire UN?


As to the proposal, I am very wary of UN proposals on terrorism, as there are some groups that _Myopia_ does indeed consider to be "freedom fighters" or the like, that many others class as terrorists (in fact, we often consider these people, usually governments, to be the real terrorists). Currently I'm undecided on whether the concept behind this proposal should have _Myopia_'s support.

Regardless, you'll need to define religious ideas to separate them from other ideas very carefully (I'm not sure that it will be possible to do this acceptably).

Your punishments do not seem appropriate - it is unacceptable to give free rein to a nation to attack another in any way they like, no matter how bloody and destructive, simply to punish the actions of terrorists from that nation. You even fail to allow for situations where the formerly criminal nation does its best to crack down on terrorism, but the terrorists continue their attacks.

Treatment for such cases must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

I dislike the minority-majority thing. Something doesn't become right just because a majority of people are in favour of it, and vice versa.

Also, your definition begs the question, "Minority and majority of whom?" Of the people in the room? Of the inhabitants of a town? Of a country? Of the entire UN?


As to the proposal, I am very wary of UN proposals on terrorism, as there are some groups that _Myopia_ does indeed consider to be "freedom fighters" or the like, that many others class as terrorists (in fact, we often consider these people, usually governments, to be the real terrorists). Currently I'm undecided on whether the concept behind this proposal should have _Myopia_'s support.

Regardless, you'll need to define religious ideas to separate them from other ideas very carefully (I'm not sure that it will be possible to do this acceptably).

Your punishments do not seem appropriate - it is unacceptable to give free rein to a nation to attack another in any way they like, no matter how bloody and destructive, simply to punish the actions of terrorists from that nation. You even fail to allow for situations where the formerly criminal nation does its best to crack down on terrorism, but the terrorists continue their attacks.

Treatment for such cases must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

I totally agree with my esteemed colleague from _Myopia_.

Me too. I'm all for an anti-terror bill, but there needs to be a clear definition of who is the terrrorist and who is the one fighting terrorism- which may prove to be very tricky indeed.

[QUOTEAs to the proposal, I am very wary of UN proposals on terrorism, as there are some groups that _Myopia_ does indeed consider to be "freedom fighters" or the like, that many others class as terrorists (in fact, we often consider these people, usually governments, to be the real terrorists). Currently I'm undecided on whether the concept behind this proposal should have _Myopia_'s support.QUOTE]

The original anti terror proposal was changed. People wanted it changed because it used the term 'jihad'.
To say this discriminated against muslims is ridiculous, but - the point was taken and it has been changed significantly.

Moving onto this new proposal. Obviously, Myopia's potential support is welcomed.

Its very, very simple. This proposal goes beyond any definitions of left or right in the political spectrum.

It clearly says - if you assist, or help a terrorist group which is killing innocent people, you are breaking international law.

The use of force is a last resort. And it doesnt even demand a use of force in a response!

It gives any victim the right to defend themselves through force, if they so choose.

This applies to all UN member states who are the victims of terror. Conservative, Commununist, Islamist, Robotic, whatever.

The proposal got a fair bit of support today.

I do not want only 'capitalist/conservative' countries voting for it (although i welcome all allied support), because it effects everyone.

Enough is enough. Lets just agree terror is wrong.

Rev.Ricardo

After re-reading some of your comments.

You have no problem with a minority using force against a majority?

Well, then you have no problem with any illegal use of force.

This proposal is probably not for you.

NAME OF PROPOSAL

Outlaw Religous Terror

Support it.
:confused: :mp5:

As it stands, I can't support this proposal. Sorry. All I can do is make a constructive criticisms. Here's a hypothetical (I seem to have a lot of these lately :) ). Let's say your nation is invaded by... Myopia, for example. (Nothing personal to either nation involved, pick whatever names you want.) After 50 years, your nation has been completely subjagated by the Myopian army and is now a police-state colony. Your citizens are struggling to get by treated as second or third class citizens and their only option left to free themselves of the oppressors is acts of terrorism. What distinguishes between illegal terrorism and acceptable terrorism such as the one in this scenario? (And for those of you with the argument, "Terrorism is never acceptable, even in a scenario like the one above", my counter argument is this: Waht distinguishes terrorism from war in this case? If your nation is invaded, overrun by enemy forces and completely subjagated, you won't be able to train troops and launch tank assaults and bomber squadrons. How is resorting to a car bomb or suicide bomber as a last resort any different?)

sorry, but we are against any anti-terror proposal. for starters, the UN has no armed forces or police, so then it falls upon member states to take up the fight. secondly, one country's terrorists are anothers freedom fighters, as the esteemed delegate from _Myopia_ pointed out. thirdly, not that is really needed, but an anti-terrorism pretty much allows you to say 'X nation is habouring terrorists, so we are going to bomb the F*** out of it'

I am against any anti-terrorist laws for many reasons. One beeing the fact that sometimes there are really good reasons for their acts even if said acts and reasons aren't something that most people can understand. I would however like to see some regulation towards tactics that revolve around attacks that are directed at civillians.

All of these are straw arguements.

If you will allow me to explain.

Scenario 1. - Myopia attacks your nation. Subjigates your people. You are now a colony.
If, in 50 yrs time, or before - your people are fighting Myopia, using 'terror' as a political tool to free themselves.

Your nation will not be breaking the Outlaw Religous Terror proposal for two reasons.

- You are not attacking myopia to spread any religion or spiritual ideals.

-Myopia has already broken UN law by intervening in your your 'sovreignty'. I think its highly unlikely that Myopia can use this proposal to its advantage.

Secondly.

Concept 2 - 'Some countries do support terrorists they regard as freedom fighters'.

I cannot be bothered to get on my high horse here. If you think it's ok for innocents to be killed by 'freedom fighters', its a matter of choice. Less so if this proposal is passed.

What i can say is Outlaw Religous Terror is NOT Outlaw All Terror.

It clearly defines, who are the Religous Terrorists, using no RL examples i might add, to avoid controversy.

There are NO people in the world, who can possibly be defined as Freedom Fighters, who are killing in the name of any God.

So, if you want to carry on supporting blood thirsty Soviets, or whoever, this proposal (sadly) can do nothing about it.

Support the Outlaw Religous Terror proposal.

I will return to this thread at a later time to answer any more concerns.

rev.Ricardo. :headbang:

The use of force is a last resort. And it doesnt even demand a use of force in a response!

But it dictates that the victim nation can be given free rein to launch as bloody an assault as they like, with as little regard for civilians as they like.

It gives any victim the right to defend themselves through force, if they so choose.

It also allows misdirected attacks. Say country A is hosting terrorists, which attack country B. The UN demands that A cleans up its act and cracks down on the terrorists, and A's government duly attempts to do so. However, their efforts are not fully successful, and the terrorists manage to keep up the attacks on B. Your proposal dictates that sanctions be implemented against A, despite its efforts, and if attacks still continue, your proposal fully endorses any attack that B chooses to launch on A at this point, including the use of nuclear and other indiscriminate weaponry against civilians.

You have no problem with a minority using force against a majority?

Well, then you have no problem with any illegal use of force.

No, what I mean is, I do not judge the morality of a use of force on the basis of majority vs. minority.

So, in an oppressive country, where a minority is being treated ruthlessly by a government with at least the passive support of the majority, that minority might well (depending on exact circumstances and the way they engage in resistance) be justified in using violence in self-defence or to attempt to overthrow the oppresssive government. Equally, just because the oppressors are in the majority, does not make their actions right.

All of these are straw arguements.

If you will allow me to explain.

Scenario 1. - Myopia attacks your nation. Subjigates your people. You are now a colony.
If, in 50 yrs time, or before - your people are fighting Myopia, using 'terror' as a political tool to free themselves.

Your nation will not be breaking the Outlaw Religous Terror proposal for two reasons.

- You are not attacking myopia to spread any religion or spiritual ideals.

-Myopia has already broken UN law by intervening in your your 'sovreignty'. I think its highly unlikely that Myopia can use this proposal to its advantage.

Actually, war is still legal under UN law. Rights and Duties states:

Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

As I interpret it, these immunities are then set out as regards war in the next section, which allows consensual RP war - so consensual RP'ed invasions are not breaking this article.

And what if _Myopia_ was suppressing the religious freedoms of our newly conquered lands by banning the native religion (I hasten to reassure fellow nations that any _Myopia_ that engaged in acts such as these would be one far removed from the one I know)? A major part of the resistance would be religiously-motivated.

Concept 2 - 'Some countries do support terrorists they regard as freedom fighters'.

I cannot be bothered to get on my high horse here. If you think it's ok for innocents to be killed by 'freedom fighters', its a matter of choice. Less so if this proposal is passed.

What i can say is Outlaw Religous Terror is NOT Outlaw All Terror.

It clearly defines, who are the Religous Terrorists, using no RL examples i might add, to avoid controversy.

There are NO people in the world, who can possibly be defined as Freedom Fighters, who are killing in the name of any God.

So, if you want to carry on supporting blood thirsty Soviets, or whoever, this proposal (sadly) can do nothing about it.

The Soviet government was avowedly atheist - so this would not appear to deal with terrorists of that school of thought.

And actually, your proposal is not specific enough about the people you are targeting. Spreading religious ideals is quite a wide net to cast - as well as my example of attempting to achieve freedom for one's religion, there are other beliefs which might have their origin in religion. So for instance, if someone uses force to protect their democratic system because they believe it leads to less corruption, they wouldn't be touched by this proposal, but if they believed in democracy because they believed that it was endorsed by their deity, this proposal would apply.

okay, so now this is 'Outlaw Religious Terror' proposal. the only difference i see is that it is for a specific group. which brings to question the legality of it. if i remember rightly, somewhere among the resolutions (within UBR, i think) there is something covering Freedom of Religion? you might have to pass this by the mods, but i think this would be in violation of that. whilst we dont like terrorisim, we dislike most anti-terrorism bills. in this case, there can be theocacies supporting the religious group who are UN members, and could cause war between those said nations. also, this could be seen as an invade-and-conquor-supported-by-the-UN bill, as anyone could use the exuse of harbouring terrorists as a defence for attacking a nation. we are still hesitant to support any anti-terrorist bill.
You have no problem with a minority using force against a majority?
no, we do have a problem with a minority using force against majority, but we will deal with it ourselves within our borders

Cobdenia has decided to use "fuzzy logic" in reference to this proposal.
As we feel it should reach quorum, we have approved it.
However, should it reach quorum, we'll vote against it.

I'm not sure why...

Concern over the anti-terror bill.

The proposal does not say - Outlaw All Terror.

Although i would support this. The chances of getting this through the leftist-dominated UN are slim to zero.

The proposal identiifies WHO the terrorists are.

Religous terrorists/fanatics who kill innocents in the name of God/God's.


If your nation/myopial/lynx etc - presently engaged in a battle or containment excercise with groups like this, you would not be breaking the resolution.

Thus, the proposal clearly identifies what states can be regarded as 'supporters' of religous terrorists, domestic and international.

These are states which shelter/finance religous terrorits.

Lynx; i think it is laughable you suggest any nations which conduct any of the above are protected by a 'religous freedom' bill. You are kidding about that right?

Also - concern about the use of force issues.

- Force is clearly indicated as a last resort.

-WHY DONT WE SHOW SOME SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIMS OF TERROR RATHER THAN THE 'RIGHTS' OF TERRORISTS.

:headbang:

Some posts I made about a year ago in a similar thread:
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.
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 arrives. 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.
You've done a better job of defining "religious terrorism" than the poor unfortunate from these quotes, but it doesn't matter. I could define "spiritual or fundamentalist religious ideals" into terms of almost any action to mean "religious terrorism", and use this proposal as Official UN justification to destroy anyone I like. "You think children should be sent to bed without dessert if they misbehave, and you punched a guy who disagreed with you? That's using force to impose your religious ideals! Heresy! Your attempt to spread your heretical ideas is religious terrorism!"

"You allow people to quit their jobs and seek others without permission from the government, and you threw a rock during a demonstration? Heresy! ..."

"You allow unfettered border crossings to refugees, and you pushed the guy in front of you out of the way to say that? Heresy ..."As the very concept of religious ideals necessarily involves making a value judgement, using this definition as Law puts the decision right back in the hands of the very people we've been trying to keep it out of. If I can do it, so can anyone who is genuinely terroristic and "evil".

This is not about coddling religious terrorists. It's about preventing them from gaining legal sanction to do what they already do illegally. Using an easily-subverted definition in International Law would do exactly that. And that is why Frisbeeteria opposes, and will always oppose, such attempts to codify exactly what terrorism is in NationStates.

Yeah... I'm very iffy about a "religious terrorism" bill because for all I know Bob the God of String Beans and Rubber Bands really IS commanding people to bomb other countries' skyscrapers.

Unfortunately this proposal is loosely defined. At what point does a "terrorist" become a "religious terrorist?" Do they have to official declare themselves to be working the will of their deity, or must the mere intent, whether expressed or not, be there?

I might support this bill if it weren't so full of holes, ones that have dangerous and far ranging consequences.

The issue here is international terrorism. "Freedom fighters" within a nation should be dealt with by that nation, unless that nation requests intervention from other nations for either military support or to be an independent moderator in negotiating a peace. International terrorism should be defined as either rogue or nationally supported "soldiers" sent out in order to attack other nations where the main target is the civilian population, with demands of money, religious or political power or influence. I also believe that there should be a clause where nations are required to share any knowledge of any international terror cells, especially knowledge of pending attacks.

Concern over the anti-terror bill.

The proposal does not say - Outlaw All Terror.

Although i would support this. The chances of getting this through the leftist-dominated UN are slim to zero.

The proposal identiifies WHO the terrorists are.

Religous terrorists/fanatics who kill innocents in the name of God/God's.


If your nation/myopial/lynx etc - presently engaged in a battle or containment excercise with groups like this, you would not be breaking the resolution.

Thus, the proposal clearly identifies what states can be regarded as 'supporters' of religous terrorists, domestic and international.

These are states which shelter/finance religous terrorits.

Lynx; i think it is laughable you suggest any nations which conduct any of the above are protected by a 'religous freedom' bill. You are kidding about that right?

Also - concern about the use of force issues.

- Force is clearly indicated as a last resort.

-WHY DONT WE SHOW SOME SYMPATHY FOR THE VICTIMS OF TERROR RATHER THAN THE 'RIGHTS' OF TERRORISTS.

:headbang:
1) my reference to the religious freedom resolution is in regards to the fact that in calling this 'Outlaw Religious Terrorists Bill', you are specifically targeting one group based on their religious beliefs. whilst i agree that their methods are wrong, they are still entitled to their beliefs, and singleing them out because of their beliefs could well be in violation of said resolution
2) we are an open minded nation, and settle most things with deplomacy. when Frosbitaria initially seceeded from Resistancia, it was done peacfully. if a terror attack occurs, then we know they have overstepped their bounds, and we will deal with them accordingly. if they make it into another nation, we will not pursue them, but notify that nation of the terrorists.
3) there is only one recorded instance of religious terror in the history of any of the provinces of TLA. in that matter, the chief diety of Frosbitaria, the ice goddess Shiva, burried most of the terrorists in an avalance. the rest instantly converted, save one, who was promptly given a wedgie and sent back to wherever they came from.