NationStates Jolt Archive

:mad: I for one am fed up with the sight of terror on our streets i propose that i put forward a proposal to combat treeorism, But not like the usual way i mean big time, everyone must be with me. :)

Lets kick terror out of our lives.

P.S. Remember this is only a game not real life just pretend ass whooping terrorists...! :sniper:

Leave your views so i can decide to propose this or not and to help me draft the proposal...

NOW PROPOSED

Anti Terrorism Act

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

Category: International Security

Strength: Strong

Description: 1.a)A terrorist act will be defined as

Any act of violence, or that which otherwise brings intentional harm, directed solely at civilian and/or other non-military targets(excluding government), in a way that is precieved as being military in nature. Any such act that is so clearly intended to inflict devestation by such means include:

1. Suicide or 'homicide' bombings (examples:suicide bombers, Kamakazi)

2. Using any weaponry to inflict harm on civilians and those not engaged in military(or governmental) operations, for the purpose of forwarding a political or otherwise ideological agenda (this would exclude common murder, though not strictly interpreted. In the case of freedom fighters, they are indeed freedom fighters provided that they seek to destroy military targets or government infustructure and not civilians.)

3. Engaging in any activity that is meant to, and intentionaly executed as an act to instill fear, doubt, 'terror', or no confidence in the civilian population.

1.b) Your government can keep track of the intelligence records of all 137k nations (including all that have been founded) not to mention the historical databases of all of the 1.2 million nations that have ever been in this world to determine who is a terrorist and who is not and PASS this info on to every single border guard so that they can carefully screen them all coming through.

1.c)If more than 5% of nations class a terrorist as a freedom fighter then this act will also class them as freedom fighters.

Voting Ends: Thu Jul 14 2005

The Black New World doesn't have much of terrorist problem. Certainly not one we need a multinational campaign to deal with.

We also wouldn't like to commit to wiping out other countries 'terrorism' problem. Especially as the definition of terrorist is relative.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The Principality of Ausserland supports the idea of taking serious steps to combat terrorism. We'd be happy to be of whatever help we can in drafting a resolution. Here are some thoughts....

(1) The resolution has to include a good, "fool-proof" definition of terrorism, or it will undoubtedly be nit-picked to death by those concerned about national sovereignty.

(2) It should focus on prohibiting international support or export of terrorism (money, people, weapons, etc.). This should include pass-throughs (Nations allowing known terrorists to pass through their territories to commit crimes in third-party nations).

(3) There needs to be a clear statement of what actions must be taken by UN member nations in case of violation of the resolution. Economic sanctions? Blockade? Interdiction? Expulsion of the violator's nationals? Something else?

These are just some initial thoughts. We hope other nations will chip in their ideas. This is a good effort which deserves support.

OFFICIAL:
Ministry of Foreign Relations
Principality of Ausserland

(1) The resolution has to include a good, "fool-proof" definition of terrorism, or it will undoubtedly be nit-picked to death by those concerned about national sovereignty.

What about the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist? Do we leave that up to the victor?

(2) It should focus on prohibiting international support or export of terrorism (money, people, weapons, etc.). This should include pass-throughs (Nations allowing known terrorists to pass through their territories to commit crimes in third-party nations).

I know I'm not the only nation with open borders but that aside do we punish countries for letting people 'pass-through' when the haven't seen sufficing evidence? How do you define 'known terrorist'? Who is it 'known' by?

(3) There needs to be a clear statement of what actions must be taken by UN member nations in case of violation of the resolution. Economic sanctions? Blockade? Interdiction? Expulsion of the violator's nationals? Something else?

Call me a cynic but I'm expecting some form of committee.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

The Confederacy does not have any major terrorist problems. Furthermore, we are not interested in solving other nations' issues. It would require a lot of money to be invested, not to mention a lot of time. Terrorism should be left to the nations it concerns. If it gets out of hand, and if the nation trully requires help, we will, of course, 'pitch' in. Terroirsm will always exist. Spending so much money on its alleged prevention is pointless, for as soon as we root one cell out, another will appear.

What about the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist? Do we leave that up to the victor?


Freedom fighters are not terrorists and will not be affected by this...

What about the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist? Do we leave that up to the victor?

Wolfish has certainly had its share of terrorist attacks - but we too would be concerned about the definition of terrorist - and would very much like to see any such potential definition debated prior to a proposal.

In our past we have funded several organizations that seek to bring about revolutionary change when it was suited our political and moral purposes. We would certainly frown upon any definition that made our support of liberty groups difficult.

Freedom fighters are not terrorists and will not be affected by this...
Great so I'll just fund a unit to overthrow the government of Nation X using a nice big bomb outside parliament. This brings me considerable economic rewards and it's perfectly legal because they define themselves as freedom fighters.

Well their fighting to free the people of Nation X from their government…

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

i propose that i put forward a proposal to combat treeorism,

I'm shocked that no one has picked up on this, but I refuse to support a proposal limiting the rights and benefits inherent in being a tree.

As for terrorism we have no problems with it as we do not antagonize countries into producing terrorists. We suggest that you should stop the cause at its roots*, in resentment, rather than attacking it when it is fully grown.

*I do apologise for dragging the subject back onto treeorism, and hope the esteemed UN members here will forigve me.

I'm shocked that no one has picked up on this, but I refuse to support a proposal limiting the rights and benefits inherent in being a tree.
Think of the children!

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Think of the children!

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Or, indeed, the saplings! :D

Oh deary me...this could degenerate wildly in a short period of time. We could have the whole host of tree puns on our hands.

I say we leaf it be.

Maybe the tree shrubs will hold an uprising for their rights... ;)

Anyhow, I say we forget about this proposal, at least in this sense, and draft something actually doo-able (about terrorism, of course). Or, we could sit here for days trying to define 'terrorists'. :confused:

The Conservative Union views terrorism as one of the most foul and dispicable ideologies ever known to man. We fully support the idea of a proposal, and suggest this definition of terrorism:

Any act of violence, or that which otherwise brings intentional harm, directed solely at civilian and/or other non-military targets(excluding government), in a way that is precieved as being military in nature. Any such act that is so clearly intended to inflict devestation by such means include:

1. Suicide or 'homicide' bombings (examples:suicide bombers, Kamakazi)

2. Using any weaponry to inflict harm on civilians and those not engaged in military(or governmental) operations, for the purpose of forwarding a political or otherwise ideological agenda (this would exclude common murder, though not strictly interpreted. In the case of freedom fighters, they are indeed freedom fighters provided that they seek to destroy military targets or government infustructure and not civilians.)

3. Engaging in any activity that is meant to, and intentionaly executed as an act to instill fear, doubt, 'terror', or no confidence in the civilian population.

Please feel free to dissect and debate my defintion. HOWEVER, we must act quickly to defeat terrorism, and squabbling over technical details only gives the terrorists the upper-hand. As is true for every law, there is a degree of variability in interpretation, don't let that inhibit progress.

In addition to this resolution, I also want to point people to my "International Summit on Equal Education" in the "international incidents" forum. There, we have organized an effort to equalize education in every nation. By providing stable and adequte education for even the most destitute people, we may be able to stem the tide of fundementalism, radicalism, and terrorism. I believe that education is the key to helping people escape the cluches of terrorism.

I'm shocked that no one has picked up on this, but I refuse to support a proposal limiting the rights and benefits inherent in being a tree.

As for terrorism we have no problems with it as we do not antagonize countries into producing terrorists. We suggest that you should stop the cause at its roots*, in resentment, rather than attacking it when it is fully grown.

*I do apologise for dragging the subject back onto treeorism, and hope the esteemed UN members here will forigve me.


"The difference between a freedom fighter and a terroist is who's side they are on" (Don't remember source - but an inverview in a documentary I once saw).

If you can find a true definition that differentiates the two, suggest it. I'd love to read it.

What about the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist? Do we leave that up to the victor?

Who else decides anything that has such heavy connotations

I know I'm not the only nation with open borders but that aside do we punish countries for letting people 'pass-through' when the haven't seen sufficing evidence? How do you define 'known terrorist'? Who is it 'known' by?

Well that's a silly argument. Your government can keep track of the intelligence records of all 137k nations (including all that have been founded) not to mention the historical databases of all of the 1.2 million nations that have ever been in this world to determine who is a terrorist and who is not and PASS this info on to every single border guard so that they can carefully screen them all coming through. Not to mention you are quite capable of doing this all right away - after all, they might not confirm him being a terrorist until just minutes before he enters your country (and then you'd be letting in a known terrorist)

Call me a cynic but I'm expecting some form of committee.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

Nah - he'll just send us to the TPP :P

Actually - you don't need to have a committee to determine the fate of a violator - though I think expulsion will work quite well - at getting your proposal deleted that is (illegal to expel members for non-compliance).

Ok - that was a bit mean. Apologies for the excess sarcasm - it was unnecessary to get my point across. The fact of the matter is that every nation has their own terrorist database - and for that matter, a database on freedom fighters which sometimes end up on another nation's terrorist database (especially if the latter is the nation that is being rebelled against). To expect one to prevent any and all terrorists from entering the country (and considering the population of NS is well over 200billion), I find it difficult to justify such a requirement.

Besides - if a nation declares someone is a terrorist on their own personal list - it would be a breakdown in either their security or a lack of an actual border guard that would permit the terrorist to enter their country - both of which wouldn't be fixed by such a comment (or it would put a considerable extra strain on a vital border link that had no crossing regulations but now does).

I say we leaf it be.Knew I should have nipped this in the bud...

What about the difference between freedom fighter and terrorist? Do we leave that up to the victor?


We see little difficulty in distinguishing between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters risk their lives in armed combat with the armed forces of the government. Terrorists kill and maim innocent civilians and destroy private property in order to make some point.

We see little difficulty in distinguishing between freedom fighters and terrorists. Freedom fighters risk their lives in armed combat with the armed forces of the government. Terrorists kill and maim innocent civilians and destroy private property in order to make some point.

Um....most freedom fighters do the same thing.....

Check your facts

Um....most freedom fighters do the same thing.....

Check your facts

Bah - to expand (OOC):

Combatants in Iraq against US forces being called Terrorists by the Bush Administration are taking out both US/Coalition troops as well as Iraqi military and police forces. Their target isn't civilians (by and large)

IRA - terrorist group to some nations, and I've heard that the US government has contributed considerable funds to the movement. Engage in conflicts with military and civilians alike

Chechnyan Rebels - Widely regarded by western nations as freedom fighters. However, they regularly kidnap and engage civilians in battle. Further - 13 of the 19 9/11 hijackers fought in Chechnya as well as many other Al Queda members (and probably other terrorist groups as well).

Combatants in Iraq against US forces being called Terrorists by the Bush Administration are taking out both US/Coalition troops as well as Iraqi military and police forces. Their target isn't civilians (by and large)


Correction, their targets are increasingly civilian. They are terrorists, undermining the re-build effort by trying to scare the population into submission.

The 'terrorism/freedom fighter' thing is a whole can of worms that has been more or less successfully avoided around here for a while. Simnply because there are no easy answers.

Take ETA.
ETA is acting to free the Basque people from Spain (and to a lesser extent, France). Thus, freedom fighters.
But hang on. ETA's tactics include bombings, kidnappings and murders. Not just of government and law enforcement agents, but of civilians as well. Terrorist.
But then again, ETA has had a policy of letting people know when they are planning a bombing - they don't just blow things up at random.

Similar arguments for terrorism and freedom fighting can be made for several other organisations and people, past and present. The IRA, the Chechnyans, ethnic Albanian Kosovars, Kurds in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran, the Marsh Arabs during their failed uprising against Saddam, the mujahedin in Afghanistan, and even people like Nelson Mandela have been regarded as either at different times, by different people.

Knew I should have nipped this in the bud...
You just took too long to get to the root of the problem.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Correction, their targets are increasingly civilian. They are terrorists, undermining the re-build effort by trying to scare the population into submission.

Or - they are trying to rid their nation of Infidels who don't respect their culture or their history - and who are putting in place and empowering a government that is opposed by their religion and fails to account for the teaching of their holy book.

Every story has two sides. Every terrorist / freedom fighter / American Revolutionary fighter is seen by various people in various ways.

I've said this before: I suspect that many members of the Ecopoeian government since 1979 would be classified as terrorists should the UN adopt a specific anti-terrorism proposal, yet the activities of the 1970's demi-monde has undoubtedly brought about enormous benefits in terms of vastly improved civil rights, universal education, full political participation for all citizens... the list goes on and on.

One should also consider the link between the adoption of aggressive anti-terrorist actions and increased terrorist activity before legislating in this area.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

You just took too long to get to the root of the problem.
Greetings.

We suggest you stem this fruitless efflorescence. Thorny issues are being discussed here, and no amount of hedging will dispose of them.

Greetings.

We suggest you stem this fruitless efflorescence. Thorny issues are being discussed here, and no amount of hedging will dispose of them.

Indeed. I propose that we cease this discussion and go smoke some weed.

I'm suprised we haven't branched out from the appalling mindset yet. I still believe trying to define terrorists is barking up the wrong tree, and yew are wasting you thyme. But still, if you persist in oaking this discussion on, then I shall be forced to shoot of somewhere, possible trop(h)ic.

Ahem.

Carry on like this and I shall have to bough out of the discussion.

Greetings.

We will try to truncate this discussion so that it does not take up so mushroom. Although some might not give a fig, certain standards should be appled. Offenders should be impeached, if it can be oranged.

:confused: :gundge:

[EDIT: Gervase the Gardener, master thaumaturge, dendromancer and phytomagician, has been suspended for abusing the authority given to him as scribe to the NSUN. We of Roathin apologize for the unusually flowery language of the last few posts.]

Greetings.

We will try to truncate this discussion so that it does not take up so mushroom. Although some might not give a fig, certain standards should be appled. Offenders should be impeached, if it can be oranged.
I thought about saying something similar earlier, but I didn't feel like going out on a limb.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What have I started?

Well, this has grown quite rapidly...from small acorns come mighty oaks, and the like.

Struggling to find anymore now, though.

Apparently we can't leaf well enough alone.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Will you lot please stop with the funny puns, you're killing me :p:D.

Seriously, my bad cold has come back for round 2, my ribcage is sore from coughing and laughing like a madwoman at these funny post hurts :D:D.

Umm, to touch the topic for a moment, I agree with those who have said the main problem with an idea like this is that a "terrorist" would be very hard to define. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and which label you'd use would depend on which side your on.

Now, we can't have the same one twice. I've already done leaf, I'm sorrel to say.

Now, we can't have the same one twice. I've already done leaf, I'm sorrel to say.
You're right, I didn't notice that leaf was already used, perhaps I should delete my use to spruce the thread up a bit.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You're right, I didn't notice that leaf was already used, perhaps I should delete my use to spruce the thread up a bit.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This thread has become rather flakey

I agree 100% propose it and i will vote for it!!!

I agree 100% propose it and i will vote for it!!!

Sounds like you're a very deciduous person... (I know, REALLY bad)

The Dominion of BobEPeru opposes vague, chest-thumping legislation, and can be counted for a "no" if ever this comes to vote.

While the Dominion of Yrneh has had some issues with internal terrorists in the past including the recient assassination of our President we wish to see the exact wording of the proposial before we would support it. We have little current problems with external terrorists as we do not restrict our trade even to so called rogue nations, any legitimate government can trade with us and we try not to interfere in any nation but our own. Our internal terrorist problem was handled by our new military goverment during the recient state of emergancy after the assassination and the terrorists are no longer living so can not harm us again and we are restoreing all political freedoms that had sadly been somewhat restricted during the crisis. While we do not expect further terrorist problems we will be happy to sell technology to aid any nation in need. We will not support any antiterrorism act that bans trade with any legitimate government just because of suspected terrorist ties.



Grand Duke Arthur Hendrik representing the Dominion of Yrneh

The difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is that terrorists attack other countries to bring them to their knees which, might I add, never works. Examples:

Bombing of the Twin Towers and London.

Freedom Fighters are people who want to overthrow a government, resulting in democracy. Examples:

American Revolution
Operation: Iraqi Freedom
Irish Separation from Britain
Belarus

Terrorists also want to overthrow oppressive government but result in a dictatorship or any other oppressive government. Examples:

Taliban take control of Iraq
Israeli Conflict
Somalian Conflict

I say, a War on Terror is a wonderful idea. It could bring peace and less stress to all who fight for a terror-free world.

The difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is that terrorists attack other countries to bring them to their knees which, might I add, never works. Examples:

Bombing of the Twin Towers and London.

Freedom Fighters are people who want to overthrow a government, resulting in democracy. Examples:

American Revolution
Operation: Iraqi Freedom
Irish Separation from Britain
Belarus

Terrorists also want to overthrow oppressive government but result in a dictatorship or any other oppressive government. Examples:

Taliban take control of Iraq
Israeli Conflict
Somalian Conflict

I say, a War on Terror is a wonderful idea. It could bring peace and less stress to all who fight for a terror-free world.
But the definitions get a bit sticky in places, I would think? Ooh, time for a bit of a story.
Once in our history, we had a region that had a group in it that wanted to split out of their country. They felt that there was somethnig wrong with the country they were a part of, and that their region could do better off on its own. About half the people in the region backed them, while the other half thought their cause was quite pointless. When their requests to secede were denied, this group began to take action against the country they wished to separate from. They bombed military installations and political targets, and tried to justify their cause as legitimate due to them supposedly being oppressed by the country.

Were they freedom fighters, or terrorists?

Now you guys all think about that for a bit, cause I've got a headache and I gotta go out to the hallway for a bit and lie down...

~Samantha Ballard, the (slightly hungover) UN Representative of Neo-Anarchists

ooc: Neo-Anarchists is spot on, Puppetslovakia. If you're prepared to excuse the IRA's actions in the UK... shit, I don't see a way to have a rational dialogue with you.

The difference between freedom fighters and terrorists is that terrorists attack other countries to bring them to their knees which, might I add, never works. Examples:

Bombing of the Twin Towers and London.

Freedom Fighters are people who want to overthrow a government, resulting in democracy. Examples:

American Revolution
Operation: Iraqi Freedom
Irish Separation from Britain
Belarus

Terrorists also want to overthrow oppressive government but result in a dictatorship or any other oppressive government. Examples:

Taliban take control of Iraq
Israeli Conflict
Somalian Conflict

I say, a War on Terror is a wonderful idea. It could bring peace and less stress to all who fight for a terror-free world.

Hmm - let's see

1) Ok - you think the Palestineans want a dictatorship when they get their free state? Try again

2) "Taliban take control of Iraq" <- WTF?

3) Wasn't Osama once a "Freedom Fighter" as far as the US was concerned - when he was supporting a dictatorial Afghani government that was trying to TOSS THE SOVIET UNION out of Afghanistan?

4) Which are Chechnyans? The US considers them freedom fighters - but many terrorists (including numerous Al Queda operatives and 13 of the 19 hijackers) fought with the Chechnyan rebels

5) I believe someone mentioned Nelson Mandela as once being considered a terrorist by South Africa. He certainly lead one heck of a powerful dictatorship :p

6) I wonder what Ghandi would've been called by the British.

7) Anyone remember when the Palestineans rallied to the streets on September 11 - SUPPORTING the bombings? I wonder if they thought Osama was a "freedom fighter" trying to help "liberate" them from the "tyranny" of the US supported Isreali government (which, iirc, doesn't let Palestineans vote).

Another thing - the Somalian conflict was a civil war. Not terrorists, but two halves of the country taking it out on each other.

[edit after quick revision] Somalia was, and still is, a case of civil collapse. These is still no recognisable government in the nation.

The War on Terror; better to just let the people in charge of your finances develope a huge coke habit, or fund the futile war on drugs, or just throw the money into the street, for that matter.

Anti Terrorism Act

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


Category: International Security


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Steamodi

Description: 1.a)A terrorist act will be defined as

Any act of violence, or that which otherwise brings intentional harm, directed solely at civilian and/or other non-military targets(excluding government), in a way that is precieved as being military in nature. Any such act that is so clearly intended to inflict devestation by such means include:

1. Suicide or 'homicide' bombings (examples:suicide bombers, Kamakazi)

2. Using any weaponry to inflict harm on civilians and those not engaged in military(or governmental) operations, for the purpose of forwarding a political or otherwise ideological agenda (this would exclude common murder, though not strictly interpreted. In the case of freedom fighters, they are indeed freedom fighters provided that they seek to destroy military targets or government infustructure and not civilians.)

3. Engaging in any activity that is meant to, and intentionaly executed as an act to instill fear, doubt, 'terror', or no confidence in the civilian population.

1.b) Your government can keep track of the intelligence records of all 137k nations (including all that have been founded) not to mention the historical databases of all of the 1.2 million nations that have ever been in this world to determine who is a terrorist and who is not and PASS this info on to every single border guard so that they can carefully screen them all coming through.

1.c)If more than 5% of nations class a terrorist as a freedom fighter then this act will also class them as freedom fighters.

Voting Ends: Thu Jul 14 2005

Another thing - the Somalian conflict was a civil war. Not terrorists, but two halves of the country taking it out on each other.

[edit after quick revision] Somalia was, and still is, a case of civil collapse. These is still no recognisable government in the nation.
ooc: Bizarrely, this isn't quite true. The not-recognised-by-anyone 'state' of Somaliland (in the north of Somalia) has a functioning government and a degree of stability not witnessed in many long-standing nations. It's about time the international community acknowledged this, I feel.

ooc: Bizarrely, this isn't quite true. The not-recognised-by-anyone 'state' of Somaliland (in the north of Somalia) has a functioning government and a degree of stability not witnessed in many long-standing nations. It's about time the international community acknowledged this, I feel.
Alright, change my post to 'recognised'.

Sounds much like North Cyprus - it's apparently an anarchic wasteland, according to which governments are recognised. Just ignore the functioning Turkish-ethnic government, and hey presto! One Cyprus!

Anti Terrorism Act

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


Category: International Security


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Steamodi

Description: 1.a)A terrorist act will be defined as

Any act of violence, or that which otherwise brings intentional harm, directed solely at civilian and/or other non-military targets(excluding government), in a way that is precieved as being military in nature. Any such act that is so clearly intended to inflict devestation by such means include:

1. Suicide or 'homicide' bombings (examples:suicide bombers, Kamakazi)

2. Using any weaponry to inflict harm on civilians and those not engaged in military(or governmental) operations, for the purpose of forwarding a political or otherwise ideological agenda (this would exclude common murder, though not strictly interpreted. In the case of freedom fighters, they are indeed freedom fighters provided that they seek to destroy military targets or government infustructure and not civilians.)

3. Engaging in any activity that is meant to, and intentionaly executed as an act to instill fear, doubt, 'terror', or no confidence in the civilian population.

1.b) Your government can keep track of the intelligence records of all 137k nations (including all that have been founded) not to mention the historical databases of all of the 1.2 million nations that have ever been in this world to determine who is a terrorist and who is not and PASS this info on to every single border guard so that they can carefully screen them all coming through.

1.c)If more than 5% of nations class a terrorist as a freedom fighter then this act will also class them as freedom fighters.

Voting Ends: Thu Jul 14 2005

5% of all 137k states in NS or the 37k in NSUN. Either way - I have a hard time believing that you'll be able to find 5% of nations that would care about a specific group throughout all of NS - let alone classify them as one or the other.......

And 1b) - seeing as that was in response to one of my comments - I should note I was being sarcastic.....that is a pratical impossibility.