NationStates Jolt Archive

Description: This is a proposal to preserve the world of acts of hatred and terrorism. Currently all are allowed the right to free speech; this includes those who promote the idea of terrorism and religious/racist hatred. If this act were approved it would:
1.Make it illegal to speak out against an entire race or religion with the explicit purpose to encourage acts of terrorism against that race/religion
2.Allow police the same powers that they currently have relating to other crimes when investigating a case of this nature
3.Prevent anyone using the defence of freedom of speech in a court of law when prosecuted for crimes linked to promoting terrorism through speech

The argument for this proposal is that:
1.Safety of people is more important than freedom of speech to all.
2.Only a very small minority would be affected by this resolution since few speak out against religions and/or races.
3.The proportion of people who believe speaking out against races/religions is immoral and unjustified is far greater than the proportion of those who believe that it isn’t immoral and unjustified. And this area of thought is important since morality is strongly linked with law (i.e.- Murder is against the law and is considered immoral by a majority)
4.Finally speaking out against either religions or races is an act of racism and therefore is classed breaking the law and is unjust.

1.Safety of people is more important than freedom of speech to all.

The number of people killed by terrorism is vanishingly small compared to the number whose freedoms would be restricted

2.Only a very small minority would be affected by this resolution since few speak out against religions and/or races.

And civilised countries protect their minorities, not persecute them

3.The proportion of people who believe speaking out against races/religions is immoral and unjustified is far greater than the proportion of those who believe that it isn’t immoral and unjustified. And this area of thought is important since morality is strongly linked with law (i.e.- Murder is against the law and is considered immoral by a majority)

Morality should have nothing to do with law. And I for one do not believe that speaking out against religions is immoral in any way, shape, or form. In fact most religions *need* to be spoken out against. And while I consider racism immoral, I do not consider it anything like as immoral as destroying freedom of speech.

4.Finally speaking out against either religions or races is an act of racism and therefore is classed breaking the law and is unjust.

What on earth does arguing against a religion have to do with race? And how on earth is attacking a religion unjust?

***OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STATEMENT***

If anything passes in the UN that promotes terrorist events, we will pull out of the UN.

***OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT STATEMENT***

If anything passes in the UN that promotes terrorist events, we will pull out of the UN.

Anyone who wants proof of people who don't read past the title.......

Shazbotdom - read the actual proposal

The good people of Discordinia, who enjoy an absolute right to Freedom of Speech and Expression, do not endorse your proposal.

Before anyone seeks to accuse either our fair country or wise governing officials of supporting terrorists, we would note the following:

1) Acts of terrorism, defined as acts of violence committed with the intent of intimidating or coercing others to effect governmental change and/or for political purpose, are prohibited by our criminal law.

2) Conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism is also a recognized criminal offense, though to be found guilty of this crime the accused must commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit the ultimate terrorist act. (e.g. the purchase of a truckload of fertilizer to ultimately be used as an explosive device would be an overt act in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism).

3) Mere expression (speaking, writing, or communication via any media) in support of terrorist activities and/or condoning/encouraging terrorist activities is not punishable by law ... our citizens having an absolute right to make such expressions ... and cannot form the basis for a charge of conspiracy.

In the end, the good people of Discordinia do not believe the NSUN should be dictating the criminal laws of its member states, and certainly will not support a restriction on rights of speech or expression.

Finally, the good people of Discordinia are pleased to see that the esteemed delegate from Stealthmunchkania, the newest member of our region, is also expressing his dissatisfaction with this proposal.

All Hail Eris!

Cookie I, El Jefe

Description: This is a proposal to preserve the world of acts of hatred and terrorism. Currently all are allowed the right to free speech; this includes those who promote the idea of terrorism and religious/racist hatred. If this act were approved it would:

Preserve means protect. You are protecting terrorism with that statement

1.Make it illegal to speak out against an entire race or religion with the explicit purpose to encourage acts of terrorism against that race/religion

Freedom of Conscious, Freedom of Choice possible duplication. I'll have to check that.

2.Allow police the same powers that they currently have relating to other crimes when investigating a case of this nature

If its a crime, why would police not have the powers to investigate it like any other crime?

3.Prevent anyone using the defence of freedom of speech in a court of law when prosecuted for crimes linked to promoting terrorism through speech

Freedom of Conscious duplication

The argument for this proposal is that:
1.Safety of people is more important than freedom of speech to all.

Which has been used as arguments to remove what is believed to be basic rights amongst all sorts of things. Safety of people should not supercede the rights of the person, as the person who's right you are removing is STILL a human being.

2.Only a very small minority would be affected by this resolution since few speak out against religions and/or races.

Only a small minority of Germany was effected by the anti-semetism in the '30s. Don't claim that's a good justification. Again, that minority is still composed of HUMAN BEINGS

[QUOTE]3.The proportion of people who believe speaking out against races/religions is immoral and unjustified is far greater than the proportion of those who believe that it isn

The people of The Discotheques do not support the resolution as it currently is, free speech can not, and should not be restricted to any nation under international law. But on the same note The People Of The Discotheques do view terrorism as the biggest social flaw facing the world today, and with minor tweaking will back this resolution fully, I the Representative of the Discotheques would like to see at least the first resolution removed from this proposal and would like to see the rest of the resolutions to be tweaked in a way that will not severley restrict the lives of innocent citizens

I agree with the concerns expressed about freedom of speech expressed above. I am also concerned such a restriction would restrict genuine debate surrounding the causes of terrorism (e.g. it would be illegal to express an understanding of terrorists' motives) and also make ethnic or religious groups popularly associated with terrorism feel persecuted, with the result that more members of these groups actually turn to terrorism.

Look people, im not saying its perfect but we need something, and its not bad. Improvement suggestions would be welcomed.
Plus your all far too focused on freedom of speech for god sakes, i mean it would hardly will affect freedom of speech for most people.

Except the speech of "terrorists" or those who agree with, encourage, condone or support the actions of "terrorists", whomever they might be.

The good people of Discordinia would also suggest that, in some cases, one man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

Look people, im not saying its perfect

Good, because it's far from that.

but we need something,

Why?

and its not bad.

It's extremely bad.
(ooc) Just for a couple of real-world examples, this proposal would have criminalised anyone who supported the American War of Independence or those who supported Nelson Mandela and the ANC in their battle for freedom in South Africa, as well as, arguably, Gandhi and Martin Luther King (given the vagueness of the wording). It would also have made a criminal of Marx, and would make criminals of all those, like the Socialist Workers' Party, who believe that political change can only come from violent revolution.

Improvement suggestions would be welcomed.

How about rather than criminalising people for the words they say, instead addressing the root causes of terrorism and devoting more resources to those who are actually comitting terrorist acts?

Plus your all far too focused on freedom of speech for god sakes,

Freedom of speech is the single most important right that a human being can have. It's arguably even more important than the right to life, as many have died for their beliefs, and the words someone says can live long after they themselves have died. Any infringement of that right is a blow to humanity far, far worse than any terrorist atrocity in history.

i mean it would hardly will affect freedom of speech for most people.

That's not the point. As long as one person is in chains, no one is free. Removal of the right to vote from black people would not affect the rights of the majority of Stealthmunchkania's citizens, but it would still be an unconscionable infringement of civil liberties.

I've further considered it, and I have came to the conclusion that if this is to pass, the UN nations are going to have to set a strong precedent for what is considered Terroist speech...Is me saying I am going to kill someone in a moment of anger considered hate speak, and terrorist speech???If so then it will affect many more people than you seem to think it will. I don't see how we can persecute someone for saying something if they never carry out the action, if we do it becomes a 1984esque society, and that is something we musn't have. Secondly in the first part of the proposal it clearly states you aren't allowed to verbally threaten anyone of a specific race, or religion. Why does it have to be a specific race, or religion. If a white person kills a giant group of white people it is still terrorism just the same, like I said this proposal can't pass until a boundry is set for what terroist spech, and what terrorism in general is.

Freedom of speech is the single most important right that a human being can have. It's arguably even more important than the right to lifeYou are clearly insane, are you saying that you would rather risk death but have the right to free speech rather than having a minor infringement of your right to free speech but live safely. If you are then see a doctor.

Removal of the right to vote from black people would not affect the rights of the majority of Stealthmunchkania's citizens, but it would still be an unconscionable infringement of civil liberties.You inexplicably link the two completely different issues here. Freedom of speech and the right to vote are two completely separate issues which are linked in no way whatsoever

Also after looking at your nation's civil rights rating (Frightening), I can see that that says it all. You are too focussed on civil rights (in this case free speech) and consequently you are giving your citizens too much freedom and endangering the lives of your people. Whereas, in my nation civil rights are classed as "very good" and I know for a fact id rather have this rating than yours for obvious reasons.

The Nation of Zxein does not support your propsal, as our free speech is a right we hang onto most tightly. Everyones opinions, whether you consider them immoral or not, should at least be heard by the rest of the world. Every person has a right to having their opinions heard, and if you wish to limit that, our right to say what we will, we will retaliate with all we have.

You are clearly insane, are you saying that you would rather risk death but have the right to free speech rather than having a minor infringement of your right to free speech but live safely. If you are then see a doctor.[/B]

Many, many people have fought and died in wars over the last few centuries for precisely that reason. Remember the famous quote "I do not agree with what this man says, but I will defend to my death his right to say it". And yes, I would rather take a tiny risk of death (far, far more people die from car accidents than terrorist acts, on the order of a million times as many. Should we ban promotion of cars?) than the certainty of repression.
Personally if I was going to start banning free speech, I would start with banning gratuitous insults on message boards, so you're very lucky I *don't* want to remove people's rights.

You inexplicably link the two completely different issues here. Freedom of speech and the right to vote are two completely separate issues which are linked in no way whatsoever

It's not inexplicable, it's called 'analogy'. Both are removals of human rights from a small minority that don't affect the majority. Both are wrong.

Also after looking at your nation's civil rights rating (Frightening), I can see that that says it all. You are too focussed on civil rights (in this case free speech) and consequently you are giving your citizens too much freedom

Freedom is not 'given' to citizens by the government, it is taken away from them. And I think that there needs to be a very, very, very good reason for removing any of those freedoms.


[B] and endangering the lives of your people. Whereas, in my nation civil rights are classed as "very good" and I know for a fact id rather have this rating than yours for obvious reasons.

No-one has ever died from speech to my knowledge, and certainly in Stealthmunchkania there is not one recorded case of people dying, or even being injured, because of someone saying nasty words they didn't like.
On the other hand, permitting citizens to drive cars, smoke cigarettes, own knives, eat sugary foods and have unprotected sex definitely *does* endanger the lives of the people. If your nation allows *those* rights, then there isn't a cost-benefit analysis in the world that would say you're not endangering your citizens' health far more with those than with the right to free speech.

You are clearly insane, are you saying that you would rather risk death but have the right to free speech rather than having a minor infringement of your right to free speech but live safely.
Err, we don't know of any cases where speech has killed someone.

Err, we don't know of any cases where speech has killed someone.

The people of Cluichstan are not aware of a case in which speech has proven fatal either. However, the statements made here by my esteemed collegue from Rajlworld are certainly causing us to lose IQ points.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nanerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Our own Freedom of Conscience resolution renders this proposal illegal as stands. And a good job too.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Depty Speaker to the UN

There is no such thing as a minor infringement on freedom of speech. Banning any kind of expression destroys freedom of expression - to claim otherwise reminds me of the old saying, of the Model T Ford . "You can have any colour - as long as it's black".

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it includes the freedom to say things which the majority consider distateful, offensive and immoral.

Furthermore, the very idea that suppressing these forms of expression will do any good is fallacious. You'll merely push the movements underground and encourage them to move past simple words. (OOC: I'm personally very grateful that the BNP - a British far-right racist party - is given the chance to stand in party politics legitimately, because I dread to think what methods they'd be using if they didn't have access to legal ones).

The fledling nation of YellowComet agrees with clauses 1 and 3 of the resolution. However it views the idea of giving the police more powers foolish and a chance for things to go horribly wrong

my governements stand is on supporting free speech, howerever rhetorical and extremist it may be viewed by some.
We do not condone terrorism and condole the victims of terrorist acts. while we shall work in tandem with fellow allies in combating this threat, we are not approving of dissolution of civil rights and basic human rights of our citizenry and those of others.
it is therefore viewed, that a more comprehensive and dialectical approach be adopted to combat this thread.
We cannot accept the proposal in its original form, till it addresses suitably the issue of civil rights of the people.

its already illegal in Kirisubo to make racist statements in public and our record on law and order speaks for itself (what crime rate!).

any terrorists who try and practice their dogma in Kirisubo will have the full force of the police and law and order against them as well as spending time in the deepest darkest prison we can find for them.

this proposal is a waste of UN time especially when there is more pressing matters that need attention.

its already illegal in Kirisubo to make racist statements in public and our record on law and order speaks for itself (what crime rate!).

As do your records on civil rights (rare) and political freedoms (few).

_Myopia_, for one, will not succumb to the temptation of destroying our own freedoms in a warped attempt to protect them. It's sad that so many people have more to fear from their governments than from terrorists.

Description: This is a proposal to preserve the world of acts of hatred and terrorism. Currently all are allowed the right to free speech; this includes those who promote the idea of terrorism and religious/racist hatred. If this act were approved it would:
1.Make it illegal to speak out against an entire race or religion with the explicit purpose to encourage acts of terrorism against that race/religion
2.Allow police the same powers that they currently have relating to other crimes when investigating a case of this nature
3.Prevent anyone using the defence of freedom of speech in a court of law when prosecuted for crimes linked to promoting terrorism through speech

The argument for this proposal is that:
1.Safety of people is more important than freedom of speech to all.
2.Only a very small minority would be affected by this resolution since few speak out against religions and/or races.
3.The proportion of people who believe speaking out against races/religions is immoral and unjustified is far greater than the proportion of those who believe that it isn’t immoral and unjustified. And this area of thought is important since morality is strongly linked with law (i.e.- Murder is against the law and is considered immoral by a majority)
4.Finally speaking out against either religions or races is an act of racism and therefore is classed breaking the law and is unjust.


Define terrorism.

Also - the fact that murder is against the law and considered immoral is just a co-incidence. A lot of people consider homosexualtiy immoral, but that's not illegal.

And just cause a lot of people think something doesn't make it right.

Except the speech of "terrorists" or those who agree with, encourage, condone or support the actions of "terrorists", whomever they might be.

The good people of Discordinia would also suggest that, in some cases, one man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

Ahhh this always comes up with this debate.

I did seek to form a group to define terrorism, but alas due to my lousy OOC work firewall and lack of interest in the topic, nothing happened.

So I am working on a definition myself of what terrorism is - as for what a terrorist is, that's easy - it's someone who practices terrorism. A terrorist is someone who performs the act of terrorism regardless of their personal definition/justification.

As for infringing on freedom of speech - surely that freedom can only extend to the point where it does not seriously threaten innocent people - it's an often overlooked right, but the right for peace and security is never mentioned by those so eager to protect freedom of speech. Surely peace and security is a valid right to be expected by the masses?

I agree that curtailing freedom of speech is not a step that should be made without careful consideration - many nations regard this as an important foundation in the liberty and freedom within their nation.

OOC: There are several strong examples of where freedom of speech is restricted in the interests of national security. The European Convention on Human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) for example says:Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
It also included some other restrictions:
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Moreover, many nations do restrict the use of "hate speech" if it is felt that an induvidual is using his freedom of speech to promote and result in fear, intimidation and harassment of individuals and groups. This normally is used to target religous, ethnic or sexual-oriented groups, but could be argued as also being used to incite terrorist acts. Indeed, if an attack is incited upon an induvidual, how can one differentiate it between terrorism and other generic violence? Both have the same result.

here we go, this was the original topic. link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9643086&postcount=1)

I'll also post the original post, since that was the only post of relevance.

Fellow representatives,

It would appear that in recent times the biggest problem for the success and failure of international security proposals has been defining what a terrorist or what the act of terrorism actually is.

I drafted an terrorism proposal which attempted to define terrorism, but it failed to achieve a broad consensus. Considering other nations have also failed to resolve this issue, I propose that interested nations seek to contribute to this thread and form a working group to seek to define terrorism for future use. Once a definition is used, I would submit the definition in my international co-operation against terrorism proposal.

Hirota has worked on this issue for sometime, and has reviewed many debates on the matter. Looking at real life examples, we note even the RL UN has failed to reach agreement on a definition (link here), although we note an excellent definition from A. Schmid which should be considered for adoption by the NS UN and would work as a suitable starting point for a definition.

Hirota will below place a copy of aforementioned definition and also our own effort. Moreover My government will make available all the reading resources we have applied to our effort towards defining this act.

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

“Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of groups of induviduals by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily civilian targets during offensive operations. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.” Hirota, July 2005


Sources: United nations office on drugs and crime : http://www.unodc.org/unodc/terrorism_definitions.html

www.terrorismfiles.org

wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

RL UN draft convention: http://www.un.org/ga/57/sixth/index.html and in particular http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/...pdf?OpenElement

Google also has a lot of additional links, many of which provide similar information repeated endlessly

International prevention and cooperation against terrorism draft: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432143
__________________

As for infringing on freedom of speech - that freedom can only extend to the point where it does not seriously threaten other people - it's an often overlooked right, but the right for peace and security is never mentioned by those so eager to protect freedom of speech.

It is a right that is certainly mentioned by the peace-loving nation of Stealthmunchkania.
However, not one single Stealthmunchkin has ever been killed by someone else's words, nor are we aware of any examples of anyone from outside our land who has been harmed by a word. Any words that *do* hurt someone else would surely be classed as weapons, and as such it would be forbidden to use them on other people, but we know of no such.

In fact, we would go further and say that this resolution itself is an example of 'promotion of terrorism', as it clearly urges that people who express unpopular opinions should be kidnapped by armed people (for what else, when it comes to it, is arrest)?
If this proposal did go through, Stealthmunchkania would have no option by its own terms but to consider all those nations that supported it 'rogue states harbouring terrorists'...

It is a right that is certainly mentioned by the peace-loving nation of Stealthmunchkania.
However, not one single Stealthmunchkin has ever been killed by someone else's words, nor are we aware of any examples of anyone from outside our land who has been harmed by a word. Any words that *do* hurt someone else would surely be classed as weapons, and as such it would be forbidden to use them on other people, but we know of no such.

Don't be so literal. You know fully well what is meant, and suggesting that words are a physical weapon is just lowering the standard of the debate.

I'd expect better from most nations. :rolleyes:

In fact, we would go further and say that this resolution itself is an example of 'promotion of terrorism', as it clearly urges that people who express unpopular opinions should be kidnapped by armed people (for what else, when it comes to it, is arrest)?
If this proposal did go through, Stealthmunchkania would have no option by its own terms but to consider all those nations that supported it 'rogue states harbouring terrorists'...I'd agree on that - this is a bad draft/proposal. Hirota is not in the business of supporting poorly written proposals, but is in the business of contributing to well reasoned and informed proposals.

And arrest is not kidknapping. I'd define arrest as "To take into custody by legal authority." and I'd define kidknapping as "To seize and detain persons unlawfully, often for ransom."

Entirely different meanings.

Finally, if you feel that you could take action against the Supremely democratic states of Hirota, a nation that tentatively supports the concept of limiting free speech in order to provide a reasonable standard of safety and security to it's populace (whilst trying to ensure freedom of speech is maintained, promoted and endorsed as much as is possible) I would be very interested to see you try. The image of a large Hirotan shoe squashing a very small Stealthmunchkanian bug comes to mind.

Description: This is a proposal to preserve the world of acts of hatred and terrorism. Currently all are allowed the right to free speech; this includes those who promote the idea of terrorism and religious/racist hatred. If this act were approved it would:
1.Make it illegal to speak out against an entire race or religion with the explicit purpose to encourage acts of terrorism against that race/religion
2.Allow police the same powers that they currently have relating to other crimes when investigating a case of this nature
3.Prevent anyone using the defence of freedom of speech in a court of law when prosecuted for crimes linked to promoting terrorism through speech

The argument for this proposal is that:
1.Safety of people is more important than freedom of speech to all.
2.Only a very small minority would be affected by this resolution since few speak out against religions and/or races.
3.The proportion of people who believe speaking out against races/religions is immoral and unjustified is far greater than the proportion of those who believe that it isn’t immoral and unjustified. And this area of thought is important since morality is strongly linked with law (i.e.- Murder is against the law and is considered immoral by a majority)
4.Finally speaking out against either religions or races is an act of racism and therefore is classed breaking the law and is unjust.

I quote a famous statement from a certain individual named Earl Warren:

"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties which make the defense of our nation worthwhile."

Or another individual by the name of Adlai Stevenson:

"My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

The free societies we live in (for many of us) are defined by the committment to recognising that the opinions of others are as valid as our own and that to communicate them freely is our ultimate right. Advocating violence against a specific group is repugnant and we support its curtailment through sanctions, yet this resolution goes too far. It takes our rights and shreds them.

Consider point 4, preventing the right to use freedom of speech as a defence. In the event of a trial for words stated, what other right than freedom of speech can one draw upon. If you are accused using the law as a means of suppressing dissent, then this prohibition could lead to miscarriges of justice and severe undermining of civil rights.

The measures cited however, do not worry me as much as the rationales stated for putting them forwards:

1.Safety of people is more important than freedom of speech to all.
2.Only a very small minority would be affected by this resolution since few speak out against religions and/or races.
3.The proportion of people who believe speaking out against races/religions is immoral and unjustified is far greater than the proportion of those who believe that it isn’t immoral and unjustified. And this area of thought is important since morality is strongly linked with law (i.e.- Murder is against the law and is considered immoral by a majority)
4.Finally speaking out against either religions or races is an act of racism and therefore is classed breaking the law and is unjust

The safety of people is often cited in relation to free speech (the classic argument being the man shouting 'fire' in a theatre and causing a deadly stampede, even though there is no fire). Yet it is more important to protect the right of dissent, because it protects the rights of people and gaurantees their freedom from oppression.

The idea that morality is linked to law worries me. Morality is a personal concept, a personal critique of right and wrong. Laws are made to protect and enhance stability and order because they facilitate the running of society. Murder is wrong, but not purely because it is immoral, but because it takes the life of another without their aquiescing to permit themselves to submit to this act. Laws should be impartial, not dictated by personal colouring.

When you say speaking out, do you mean bigotry (which should still be protected by free speech), advocating violence (which shouldn't be) or just criticism (which should be enshrined). The clause is too vague and needs re-writing to avoid impinging on freedom of expression, speech and conscience.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Hirota's final word on this matter:

Fellow representatives, it is with great interest that we have observed a string of debates raised by other member states seeking to defend their nations, and the UN against the spectre of terrorism.

Hirota is one of those nations which has been eager to provide legislation on this matter, but time and resources have prevented us from doing so.

It is with hope these issues are now resolved that Hirota proposes to resubmit it's draft proposal on the international prevention and co-operation against Terrorism - it came very close to reaching the voting floor last time, and Hirota intends to drive the legislation through this time.

original topic is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=432143) Proposal text follows:

The general assembly;

Deeply concerned by the increase in acts of international terrorism which endangers the lives and well-being of individuals worldwide as well as the peace and security of all States,

Condemning all acts of terrorism, irrespective of motive, wherever and by whomever committed,

“Emphasizing the necessity to strengthen, under the auspices of the United Nations, effective international cooperation in this field on the basis of the principles and norms of international law, including respect for international humanitarian law and human rights,

“Supporting the efforts to promote universal participation in and implementation of the existing international anti-terrorist conventions, as well as to develop new international instruments to counter the terrorist threat,

“Determined to contribute to the efforts to combat terrorism in all its forms,

“Reaffirming that the suppression of acts of international terrorism, including those in which States are involved, is an essential contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security,

"Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of groups of induviduals by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily civilian targets during offensive operations. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

“1. Unequivocally condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed, in particular those which could threaten international peace and security;

“2. Stresses the vital role of the United Nations in strengthening international cooperation in combating terrorism and emphasizes the importance of enhanced coordination among States, international and regional organizations;

“3. Calls upon all States to take, inter alia, in the context of such cooperation and coordination, appropriate steps to:
- cooperate with each other, particularly through bilateral and multilateral agreements and arrangements, to prevent and suppress terrorist acts, protect their nationals and other persons against terrorist attacks and bring to justice the perpetrators of such acts;
- prevent and suppress in their territories through all lawful means the preparation and financing of any acts of terrorism;
- deny those who plan, finance or commit terrorist acts safe havens by ensuring their apprehension and prosecution or extradition;
- take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum-seeker has not participated in terrorist acts;
- exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law, and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters in order to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

“4. Determined to remain seized of this matter.”

Err, we don't know of any cases where speech has killed someone.


I beg to differ....




The Democratic Republic of Melidan supports the idea of this proposed resolution and would vote in favor if brought to the floor.

Hirota agrees with Melidan on this matter - Neo-Anarchists and other nations are failing to recognise the point - cynically I'd suggest they are being deliberately obstructive rather than naive or mentally dense.

Why do people try to ban guns, when ultimately it is the person who pulls the trigger who is responsible? It is a comparable scenario here.

Don't be so literal. You know fully well what is meant, and suggesting that words are a physical weapon is just lowering the standard of the debate.

I'd expect better from most nations. :rolleyes:

No. I do not know what is meant. Either words are dangerous or they're not. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever to support the former.

And arrest is not kidknapping. I'd define arrest as "To take into custody by legal authority." and I'd define kidknapping as "To seize and detain persons unlawfully, often for ransom."

Entirely different meanings.

That depends entirely on who's making the law.

Finally, if you feel that you could take action against the Supremely democratic states of Hirota, a nation that tentatively supports the concept of limiting free speech in order to provide a reasonable standard of safety and security to it's populace (whilst trying to ensure freedom of speech is maintained, promoted and endorsed as much as is possible) I would be very interested to see you try. The image of a large Hirotan shoe squashing a very small Stealthmunchkanian bug comes to mind.

I made no threats, nor do I make any, I merely stated the obligation this proposal would put Stealthmunchkania under. Nor do I have any illusions about the size and strength of my country. Nonetheless, this resolution passing would mean that those who voted for it would be terrorist nations.

Ah, and I thought this proposal would guarentee the right for terrorists to become colonel's

"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).

“Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of groups of induviduals by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily civilian targets during offensive operations. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.” Hirota, July 2005

With all due respect, both of these apply to those fighting against a government we support and a government we detest. But we would only classify one of the two as terrorists.

Ah, and I thought this proposal would guarentee the right for terrorists to become colonel's

Sounds like a good plan :}

"Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of groups of induviduals by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily civilian targets during offensive operations. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

This could easily apply to the methods used by almost all states to enforce their laws. Law enforcement officers use physical force or coercion in offensive operations against those civilians deemed to be breaking the law. The threat of police action, punishment etc is used to coerce members of society to follow the laws set by the state - by ensuring that the laws it sets are obeyed, the government achieves its goal of enforcing its political ideology.

I'm convinced that whether you consider an act to be one of terrorism or justified violence cannot be separated from your opinion of the goals of the supposed terrorists (and so whether the end justifies the means), unless you are the kind of anarcho-pacifist who absolutely refuses to use or support any and all forms of violence and physical coercion, even to prevent other violence or physical coercion.

As to balancing freedom of speech against personal safety, we are only prepared to make an exception if specific threats or incitements are made.

For instance, we will not prohibit saying things like "All [insert group here] must be punished for their sins" or "[Insert group here] deserve to die", or even "It was a great day when x, y or z terrorist act was carried out" or "I wish [insert individual here] would die/be killed". These are expressions of ideas and opinions.

We will, however, deal with people who, for instance, make a direct, serious and realistic physical threat to a particular person (as in, "I'm going to kill you" or "I'm going to go down the road and kill that man"), personally harrass others, or directly and seriously incite others to specific criminal acts of violence (as in, rallying a crowd outside the home of a person and ordering them to go in and kill the person). These are not expressions of ideas or opinions.

This could easily apply to the methods used by almost all states to enforce their laws. Law enforcement officers use physical force or coercion in offensive operations against those civilians deemed to be breaking the law. The threat of police action, punishment etc is used to coerce members of society to follow the laws set by the state - by ensuring that the laws it sets are obeyed, the government achieves its goal of enforcing its political ideology.

I'm convinced that whether you consider an act to be one of terrorism or justified violence cannot be separated from your opinion of the goals of the supposed terrorists (and so whether the end justifies the means), unless you are the kind of anarcho-pacifist who absolutely refuses to use or support any and all forms of violence and physical coercion, even to prevent other violence or physical coercion.

The honourable delegate from Myopia sums up Stealthmunchkania's position here very well.
Having said that, the proposal from Hirota is far more reasonable than the original proposal. Stealthmunchkania still considers the phrase 'or threatened use of force' to be unacceptable, but were that phrase removed from the proposal, Stealthmunchkania would abstain from voting on the proposal, and accept the resolution if passed.
That phrase, however, is to us a 'deal-breaker' and would mean we would use every means at our disposal to prevent that proposal from becoming law.

With all due respect, both of these apply to those fighting against a government we support and a government we detest. But we would only classify one of the two as terrorists.

If a group targetted a civilian target, it would be terrorism. If a group targetted a government target, it would not be within the definition. Thus it is not the state of government which is relevant, it is the target.

If a group targetted a civilian target, it would be terrorism. If a group targetted a government target, it would not be within the definition. Thus it is not the state of government which is relevant, it is the target.

And I can list a dozen or so example where it would be impossible to fight for the freedom of a nation without targeting civilians. Should the people just give up and accept slavery forever in those instances?

I missed a word there - in my definition is says primarily civilian based targets. but go ahead and state examples and I'll either debunk them or accept them.

I missed a word there - in my definition is says primarily civilian based targets. but go ahead and state examples and I'll either debunk them or accept them.

(grin) Now you have thrown me in to chaos. What do you mean by "primarily civilian targets"? Targets that are civilian (eg power stations, train stations etc), or that have civilians in them (houses, schools etc)?

SDOMEERF shall not allow this! it goes against all that we( and many others) stand for!! There are other way about going to stop terrorism!!

(grin) Now you have thrown me in to chaos. What do you mean by "primarily civilian targets"? Targets that are civilian (eg power stations, train stations etc), or that have civilians in them (houses, schools etc)?

:)

It depends on who runs them I suppose. If a power station is state owned it could be considered a government target, whilst if owned by a civilian company is arguably a civilian target.

Certainly those locations which contain primarily citizens can be included, so schools and houses are certainly tagets of terrorism, but a military base which happens to have a few non-military staff working on it would not be a primarily civilian target.

Train stations would finally depend on a variety of factors. If the target was a civilian station then that's pretty obvious, but if the station was used for government purposes as well (especially if it was being used at the time of the attack by the government).

There are plenty of different scenarios and targets which might need further consideration - ideally I don't want to wade through every possible target, and would suggest that common sense should be applied.

I'm going to try and use a few RL examples of attacks which would or would not be considered terrorism.

WTC: Terrorism
USS Cole Bombing: Not terrorism

By the way, as far as I know, "civilian" simply refers to those not members of the police or military. Therefore, most of those people who make up government are civilians, and all governmental activity not directly related to law enforcement or the military is civilian activity.

By the way, as far as I know, "civilian" simply refers to those not members of the police or military. Therefore, most of those people who make up government are civilians, and all governmental activity not directly related to law enforcement or the military is civilian activity.

Instead of being so damned negative and devoid of common sense, why not suggest an alternative?

<sigh> Fine, I'll add a definition of citizen in the proposal, I have space.

Defines citizen as not part of the state through participation in the military, police force or state sponsored beauracracy.

By the way, as far as I know, "civilian" simply refers to those not members of the police or military. Therefore, most of those people who make up government are civilians, and all governmental activity not directly related to law enforcement or the military is civilian activity.

That would depend on the government in question.

:)

It depends on who runs them I suppose. If a power station is state owned it could be considered a government target, whilst if owned by a civilian company is arguably a civilian target.

Certainly those locations which contain primarily citizens can be included, so schools and houses are certainly tagets of terrorism, but a military base which happens to have a few non-military staff working on it would not be a primarily civilian target.

Train stations would finally depend on a variety of factors. If the target was a civilian station then that's pretty obvious, but if the station was used for government purposes as well (especially if it was being used at the time of the attack by the government).

There are plenty of different scenarios and targets which might need further consideration - ideally I don't want to wade through every possible target, and would suggest that common sense should be applied.

I'm going to try and use a few RL examples of attacks which would or would not be considered terrorism.

WTC: Terrorism
USS Cole Bombing: Not terrorism

Pentagon bombing? (not to start a debate, of course)


The thing is if my nation is occupied by an army that is killing my people just cause it doesn't like them, I would be willing to fight and die to get it back. I would blow up power stations, train stations, public buildings, government buildings, army bases, private companies that make arms, guns and munitions - anything infact that I could see being of benifit of the government in supressing and murdering my people. And I would do it with a song in my heart and a smile on my face.

And you are telling me I can't. Despite the fact the government I am fighting is quite happy to rape, murder, torture and imprison my people for no reason. They are in the UN, so can bring down the whole might of the UN upon my head, when most people would agree I am fighting for the side of good.


That's why I want the freedom to define which groups/people are terrorists and which people are not left in my hands, not the hands of the UN.

Imagine that Hyrule had invaded an occupied Pallatium. Unlikely, but not impossible. They had installed a new government at Westminster and turned all of the military on to their side. After a year or so the new Occupying government starts a policy of sending kids to work in dangerous factories and down the mines. They then say that any woman under the age of 21 must stay at home, and if they are seen outside their homes they will be beaten and put in jail until they reach the age of 21. Any man who does not start wearing a dragon on his shirt will be subject to similar beatings. A few years after that they start sacrificing children - one a month - at random because they feel it will keep the people in line.

You live in Pallatium. You feel that this can not go on, so you start the resistance. But because you are a moral person you don't want to target civilians of any type. So you only plant bombs on military targets and compounds. For a few weeks you appear to be winning, but then the military and the government figure out the pattern and start relocating civilians to military bases and compounds.

So what do you do? Do you target the bases knowing you will kill civilians?
Or do you stop the bombings and give in to the government?
Accept the occupation of your country must continue for a while?

What if you decide that bombing the mlitary bases is still acceptable? That to free your country you can sacrifice a few lives. And since the people you are killing are your own people they will understand that liberation can not be won for nothing? And once you do that, what is to stop you killing other civilians? Collaborators? Non-military members of the occupying government? Wives/husbands and children of the occupying army and government?

Suppose the people of Hyrule vote by a vast majority to continue the occupation? To continue the policies of beating men and women and sacrificing children? Are they are now as guilty of the occupation crimes as the people at the military bases. And if you are willing to kill collaborators, to kill your own people, then why should those who are willing to continue the deaths, beatings and occupation be exempt? Why would you not be willing to go to Hyrule and kill people over there?

And so from a simple beginning - attacking a military target - you have moved up to going to another country to kill civilians because they are as responsible as the military for attacking you. And there is no big leap from one to the next - it is all tiny steps.


Another reason why I want to retain the right to chose who is a terrorist and who isnt'.

this is not an issue that the UN needs to get bogged down in.

leave this with governments who already have the power to decide how to deal with the issue of terrorism.

I agree with the delegate from Pallatium thats its my goverments right to define who is a terrorist or a patriot and not the UN's.

this is not an issue that the UN needs to get bogged down in.

leave this with governments who already have the power to decide how to deal with the issue of terrorism.

I agree with the delegate from Pallatium thats its my goverments right to define who is a terrorist or a patriot and not the UN's.

I am all for stopping terrorism, but I refuse to accept that someone else can tell me who to consider morally good and morally bad.

Instead of being so damned negative and devoid of common sense, why not suggest an alternative?

Sorry if it comes off that way - I just don't think it's possible to construct an acceptable universal definition. Fear, physical force, and the threat of physical force are in many cases necessary evils. They are tools which are inevitably used by all kinds of groups and people, including perfectly legitimate governments, and I truly do believe that it is impossible to separate the cases where it is justified from where it is not without invoking very personal notions of ethics concerning the exact means used, and the aims of the actions - and there's no way that you could get the UN to agree on these.

BUT, we must.

If the government decides who's the terrorist, then the law has done nothing.

The UN must decide who's the terrorist, not some nation.

Listen, I admit that if I do get overthrown, then I want to say the people that overthrow me are terrorists. I know that. But I need to convience others. I need to show them they are terrorists. And how do I do that by causing terrorist attacks and then bragging about it? It just makes my cause looks evil and give the illegimate government a reason to fight the terrorist.

No, I must have the UN decide in these issues. By doing so, the UN will show itself to be useful, as well as it provides me with some evidence that I AM right.

Now, I admit, what if the UN calls me a terrorist regardless, or what if a terrorist group that is attacking my rightful government is called "freedom fighters" by UN and that I'm the terrorist? What should I do?

I accept it. I admit that the UN calls me a terrorist. I will disagree with them and say that I'm not a terrorist, but there we go. That's a risk I have to accept. Because THIS is possible, and I don't want to be marked like this, I have a reason to respect the resolutions of the UN and actually fight Terrorism LEGALLY, as so not to be called a terrorist.

Plus, if the UN decides, then nobody outside of the UN will be able to go around the issue or refuse to help stop the terrorist, whoever it is. If the governments themselves decide, then other governments, UN or not, will have an excuse to not help me. And when fighting terrorism, we need help.

i've said this before and i've said it again.

terrorism in a matter for each nation state not the UN.

now can we leave this issue and get back to work?

Pentagon bombing? (not to start a debate, of course)Terrorism - only because of the nature of the weapon used. But I'd accept this is a grey area, hence the call for common sense applications.

The thing is if my nation is occupied by an army that is killing my people just cause it doesn't like them, I would be willing to fight and die to get it back. I would blow up power stations, train stations, public buildings, government buildings, army bases, private companies that make arms, guns and munitions - anything infact that I could see being of benifit of the government in supressing and murdering my people. And I would do it with a song in my heart and a smile on my face.Most of those are Okay, but if you are trying to free your country, surely you don't want to do it and target the other natives of your country? I'd consider private companies to be terrorism - of course if you targetted factories which were only building weapons for the occupying force then it falls into they grey area my definition has difficuly combining - although an arms factory has military implications.

What this proposal is trying to do is to protect innocent lives - it's the most important part of the whole conflict. I don't care if the liberators army of x has a grudge against y because they invaded their country/nicked their doughnuts/said nasty things. I don't care how that gives x justification to bomb things. I'm saying don't bomb the innocents who are not a part of whatever conflict is going on and then it's not the UN's concern, and its purely a civil matter and the government in question can do whatever it wants.

Same if it is a state-sponsored wave of covert strikes against another nation - provided it does not strike innocents it is not the concern of the UN.

And you are telling me I can't. Despite the fact the government I am fighting is quite happy to rape, murder, torture and imprison my people for no reason. They are in the UN, so can bring down the whole might of the UN upon my head, when most people would agree I am fighting for the side of good.If they are in the UN, then I'd personally seek to do something about that. It's a shame there are no rules of war out there at the moment - perhaps a proposal you would be prepared to submit?

That's why I want the freedom to define which groups/people are terrorists and which people are not left in my hands, not the hands of the UN.So you are saying if there was no definition included that you would endorse the proposal? That's fine, but every single time this topic comes up, some bright spark ask "define terrorism" and then the whole thing collapses.

So, it is important to make a genuine effort to define terrorism, give the word a meaning which everyone can recognise, so there is no debate over the matter. So on one side we have natons eager for a definition, and on the other we have groups who want the definition left to member states.

I appreciate my definition is not ideal, but I did post a topic asking for the formation of nations to work on this issue, and nothing was done beyond a few people volunteering and doing nothing else. Moreover, instead of nations being positive about resolving this issue, we are confined to critisms, without suggestions which resolve.

Secondly, if we left a decision on what terrorism is in the hands of induvidual nations, we will see nations titling groups as terrorists when all they have done is participate in a few peaceful marches, and before we know it, we have cruise missiles or <insert generic weapons here> being used against groups who work within a internationally recognised framework of peaceful protest.

Justa brief update - I think I can adjust my definition to avoid the comparrisons between government and non-government acts. Give me a moment.

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of non-state groups by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily non-state targets during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religous or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

There, so now it is referring to non-state organisations (so not the police or military), and refers to acheiving a change (for example the overthrow of a government) by targetting locations or people not associated with the state.

Better?

Sorry if it comes off that way - I just don't think it's possible to construct an acceptable universal definition. Fear, physical force, and the threat of physical force are in many cases necessary evils. They are tools which are inevitably used by all kinds of groups and people, including perfectly legitimate governments, and I truly do believe that it is impossible to separate the cases where it is justified from where it is not without invoking very personal notions of ethics concerning the exact means used, and the aims of the actions - and there's no way that you could get the UN to agree on these.

Sorry, it's not just you, it's been a few nations who have done the same, so please don't think I'm singling you out personally.

I've tried to seperate terrorism from the issues you have highlighted, by specifically defining them as the actions of non-state groups. Let me know what you think.

I know what will happen next - someone will say that governments can do the same - someone else can deal with that particular issue. My proposal is only here to deal with terrorism, not government thuggery.

Terrorism - only because of the nature of the weapon used. But I'd accept this is a grey area, hence the call for common sense applications.


(smile) So - we are allowed to apply common sense to the act that falls under the scope of this proposal? That is actually all I was aking for.


Most of those are Okay, but if you are trying to free your country, surely you don't want to do it and target the other natives of your country?


Honestly? Yes. If they are opposed to the government, then they would (hopefully) accept that sometimes lives need to be sacrificed for the greater freedom. And if they are not opposed to the government, then they condone it and are just as big a threat. And if they are totally indifferent then they are an even bigger threat.



I'd consider private companies to be terrorism - of course if you targetted factories which were only building weapons for the occupying force then it falls into they grey area my definition has difficuly combining - although an arms factory has military implications.


(smile) Cool :}


What this proposal is trying to do is to protect innocent lives - it's the most important part of the whole conflict. I don't care if the liberators army of x has a grudge against y because they invaded their country/nicked their doughnuts/said nasty things. I don't care how that gives x justification to bomb things. I'm saying don't bomb the innocents who are not a part of whatever conflict is going on and then it's not the UN's concern, and its purely a civil matter and the government in question can do whatever it wants.


It can be argued that everyone is a part of what is going on. People who support the government in the polls, people who make the weapons, people who work in the civil service.

(Someone once said if you are not actively opposing evil, you are a part of it)

I am all for saving innocent lives - I am not a homicidal lunatic (despite my arguements) who wants everyone who opposes me dead. But if I am faced with such a person, I honestly believe sometimes you have to turn to the nastiest of alternatives to get your freedom back.


Same if it is a state-sponsored wave of covert strikes against another nation - provided it does not strike innocents it is not the concern of the UN.

If they are in the UN, then I'd personally seek to do something about that. It's a shame there are no rules of war out there at the moment - perhaps a proposal you would be prepared to submit?


Probably not - the idea that war has rules is something I just can't get my head round. If people are capable of agreeing on rules about how to kill each other, then they should be able to find a way to agree on NOT killing each other.


So you are saying if there was no definition included that you would endorse the proposal? That's fine, but every single time this topic comes up, some bright spark ask "define terrorism" and then the whole thing collapses.


Good. I have no problem with opposing terrorism, but I have a lot of problems with being told that a group in Hyrule who I think are pretty good guys are terrorists, and I have to not support them despite the fact I think they are doing good work.


So, it is important to make a genuine effort to define terrorism, give the word a meaning which everyone can recognise, so there is no debate over the matter. So on one side we have natons eager for a definition, and on the other we have groups who want the definition left to member states.


I can also agree on the definition - to an extent - but it's kind of the motive behind it that I want to keep in my power. Terrorism is generally a bad, bad thing, but there are times when people who are fighting for their freedom are forced to consider methods they would not normally consider. Cause the alternative is another thousand years of pain and suffering - and I can not condem anyone to that.


I appreciate my definition is not ideal, but I did post a topic asking for the formation of nations to work on this issue, and nothing was done beyond a few people volunteering and doing nothing else. Moreover, instead of nations being positive about resolving this issue, we are confined to critisms, without suggestions which resolve.


(ooc) that would have been before I was in the game as Pallatium, but honestly - I would have had a lot to say about that topic if I were here. Just bad timing I guess :}


Secondly, if we left a decision on what terrorism is in the hands of induvidual nations, we will see nations titling groups as terrorists when all they have done is participate in a few peaceful marches, and before we know it, we have cruise missiles or <insert generic weapons here> being used against groups who work within a internationally recognised framework of peaceful protest.

I know. But if you can define terrorism, but still leave the choice as to whether or not a group is a terrorist group in the hands of the nation, then I would be happier to support it.


By the way - I am a small nation with no power, no endorsements and (apparently) very few friends. So while I am truly grateful you are taking the time to discuss my issues with this, whether I support it or not won't have a huge effect in the end :}

(smile) So - we are allowed to apply common sense to the act that falls under the scope of this proposal? That is actually all I was aking for.I suppose I could make the definition more flexible, which would satisfy governments further. I don't want it to flexible so that governments can label anyone a terrorist group, but am aware it is difficult to define terrorism in one paragraph.Honestly? Yes. If they are opposed to the government, then they would (hopefully) accept that sometimes lives need to be sacrificed for the greater freedom. And if they are not opposed to the government, then they condone it and are just as big a threat. And if they are totally indifferent then they are an even bigger threat.Which is why my definition specified the targetting of primarily civilian targets as being terrorism. Sure, we know civilians will be peripherial casulties in war, so can imagine the same would apply to terrorism. What's wrong is the deliberate targetting of civilians. (smile) Cool :}Think of it this way - a weapons factory has often been considered a legitimate target in war, so no reason why it would not be legitimate in actions by freedom fighters.It can be argued that everyone is a part of what is going on. People who support the government in the polls, people who make the weapons, people who work in the civil service.True, but if you are going to attack anything vaguely to do with the government, you are going to want to target something that will hurt the government. A few civil servants is not going to make a government cry. I suppose it would not be illegal to target civil servants, but you'd have a to be a very stupid terrorist to do so.

As for targetting electorates, that would be terrorism. They have a right to vote, which you might not agree with, but they still have that freedom.Probably not - the idea that war has rules is something I just can't get my head round. If people are capable of agreeing on rules about how to kill each other, then they should be able to find a way to agree on NOT killing each other.Hmmmm....something I'll consider working on later then :)Good. I have no problem with opposing terrorism, but I have a lot of problems with being told that a group in Hyrule who I think are pretty good guys are terrorists, and I have to not support them despite the fact I think they are doing good work.Depends on if they really are terrorists or not. If they were "nice guys" who confined themselves to blowing up the odd military base etc then no problems. :)I can also agree on the definition - to an extent - but it's kind of the motive behind it that I want to keep in my power. Terrorism is generally a bad, bad thing, but there are times when people who are fighting for their freedom are forced to consider methods they would not normally consider. Cause the alternative is another thousand years of pain and suffering - and I can not condem anyone to that.There is never a justification for attacking civilians. NEVER. Regardless of their conditions, I firmly believe that if a group does resort to extreme measures, they are as bad as the government they are trying to oust. Maybe the government has to be dealt with, but not with the same methods.(ooc) that would have been before I was in the game as Pallatium, but honestly - I would have had a lot to say about that topic if I were here. Just bad timing I guess :}I had noticed :)By the way - I am a small nation with no power, no endorsements and (apparently) very few friends. So while I am truly grateful you are taking the time to discuss my issues with this, whether I support it or not won't have a huge effect in the end :}No problems - if you don't raise these issues someone else will, and you've presented your arguements in a positive way, and listened to my response. Not all nations have the good courtesy to do so, and for that I think you for allowing me the opportunity to try and reach a serious concensus on this matter and propose a final resolution which might put this issue to rest once and for all.

This debate on defining terrorism has gone on for a long time, but nothing worth debating for is resolved quickly :)

I suppose I could make the definition more flexible, which would satisfy governments further. I don't want it to flexible so that governments can label anyone a terrorist group, but am aware it is difficult to define terrorism in one paragraph.


(grin) I understand.


Which is why my definition specified the targetting of primarily civilian targets as being terrorism. Sure, we know civilians will be peripherial casulties in war, so can imagine the same would apply to terrorism. What's wrong is the deliberate targetting of civilians.


I would say that's a gray area, depending on what exactly a "civilian" is (but that's touched on later)


True, but if you are going to attack anything vaguely to do with the government, you are going to want to target something that will hurt the government. A few civil servants is not going to make a government cry. I suppose it would not be illegal to target civil servants, but you'd have a to be a very stupid terrorist to do so.


(smile) But you blow up one or two buildings, of civil servants, and you can bring the government to its knees.



As for targetting electorates, that would be terrorism. They have a right to vote, which you might not agree with, but they still have that freedom.


Yeah - I disagree. If they have the right to vote, and use that right to opress my people, then they are, in my view, fair targets.


Depends on if they really are terrorists or not. If they were "nice guys" who confined themselves to blowing up the odd military base etc then no problems.


Again - I disagree. Civilian railways and civilian airports can be used to enact the business of supressing my people, so they are legitimate targets should the situation require it.


There is never a justification for attacking civilians. NEVER. Regardless of their conditions, I firmly believe that if a group does resort to extreme measures, they are as bad as the government they are trying to oust. Maybe the government has to be dealt with, but not with the same methods.


Yeah - I disagree. Entirely.



No problems - if you don't raise these issues someone else will, and you've presented your arguements in a positive way, and listened to my response. Not all nations have the good courtesy to do so, and for that I think you for allowing me the opportunity to try and reach a serious concensus on this matter and propose a final resolution which might put this issue to rest once and for all.

This debate on defining terrorism has gone on for a long time, but nothing worth debating for is resolved quickly


I am fully aware of the fact that doing what amounts to supporting terrorism is not going to be something most people accept or understand, and I am quite happy (amazed) you let me go on so long :}
On principal you have my support in opposing terrorism, but - as you might expect - I will make the final decision based on the proposal/submission itself.

But for now I will stop with my debating, cause I am not sure we are going to get anywhere new ;}

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of non-state groups by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily non-state targets during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religous or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

There, so now it is referring to non-state organisations (so not the police or military), and refers to acheiving a change (for example the overthrow of a government) by targetting locations or people not associated with the state.

Better?

Hmm. I'm not convinced that state and non-state actions should be considered ethically different, but I guess I'm prepared to let that slide for practicality's sake (though I think the exception should apply only on the state's own territory - if military personell are sent by one state into the territory of another to commit acts of terror, they're currently exempt. If a wording to deal with this could be found, that would be an improvement).

A further problem is that civilians can voluntarily involve themselves in conflicts without formal association with the state. Here's a RL example of the problem. Imagine my revolutionary group in Stalin's USSR is waging a campaign to oust the government. We're fighting on the streets of Moscow, trying to get to the Kremlin to capture or kill Stalin etc. We're fighting police and military, which according to this proposal doesn't make us terrorists - but then a bunch of deluded civilians, thoroughly taken in by Stalinist propaganda, decide to up arms, run out of their houses and start fighting us. They aren't agents of the state, they're just civilians - but clearly, they've actively chosen to fight on the side of the state. Nevertheless, if we fight back, we are defined as terrorists.

As a less extreme example, civilians might use themselves as human shields around their beloved leader. Of course, we'd do our best not to seriously hurt them, but we'll at least have to handle them roughly if we want to get past them.

These probably aren't brilliant examples, I'm having trouble explaining myself. But basically the issue is when civilians choose to involve themselves or are responsible for something - and who's to decide how direct the actions need to be, between something indirect like voting for a government (attacks on these people obviously ought to be terrorism) and picking up a gun on behalf of a state, before they become legitimate targets for freedom fighters?

Another thing. What if I'm targetting civilian facilities but ensuring the safety of human life, trying to respond directly to something the civilians are responsible for? For instance, if a factory is doing some local, serious environmental damage (perhaps it directly threatens the health or safety of me and my family) and the government is turning a blind eye. If I break into the factory and use sabotage and destruction of property to disable the plant and to try and force the managers to pack up their operations and leave town, I'm classed by the UN as a terrorist.

I still don't think it's possible to establish a universal way to draw the line between murder, destruction of property etc., and terrorism.

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of non-state groups by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily non-state targets during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religous or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

I'm a little shaky about the whole "non state target" thing. If you'll permit a quick OoC excursion, that means that the bastards who blew up the Consulate in Istanbul are not terrorists, or the IRA members who blew up the Grand Hotel in Brighton were not.

I personally would phrase it.

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a minority* political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation ** by non-state paramilitary groups using methods aimed at coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily civilian*** targets during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religous or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

*Therefore terrorism does not include popular revolution or rebellion
** Therefore citizens attempting to liberate an area of a nation (where the majority of people want independance)
*** this would mean that attacks on embassy's and other such things would be included, but attacks on soldiers wouldn't be.

The rest of the stuff is just my preferred wording.

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goals of non-state groups by coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily non-state targets during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religous or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

I'm a little shaky about the whole "non state target" thing. If you'll permit a quick OoC excursion, that means that the bastards who blew up the Consulate in Istanbul are not terrorists, or the IRA members who blew up the Grand Hotel in Brighton were not.

I personally would phrase it.

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a minority* political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation ** by non-state paramilitary groups using methods aimed at coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily civilian*** targets during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religous or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

*Therefore terrorism does not include popular revolution or rebellion
** Therefore citizens attempting to liberate an area of a nation (where the majority of people want independance)
*** this would mean that attacks on embassy's and other such things would be included, but attacks on soldiers wouldn't be.

The rest of the stuff is just my preferred wording.No, that's good, better than my ammendments. No objections if I use it?

Hmm. I'm not convinced that state and non-state actions should be considered ethically different, but I guess I'm prepared to let that slide for practicality's sake (though I think the exception should apply only on the state's own territory - if military personell are sent by one state into the territory of another to commit acts of terror, they're currently exempt. If a wording to deal with this could be found, that would be an improvement)I agree, and the more I've looked into the matter the more I've found comparrisons between war crimes/crimes against humanity and terrorism. The two are not that different apart from the former being committed by the state and/or it's agents, and the second being committed by groups generally seperate from the state.
I agree war crimes and crimes against humanity should be legislated upon in a similar manner, and with additional accountability by the state, but that's not the purpose of this proposal.A further problem is that civilians can voluntarily involve themselves in conflicts without formal association with the state. Here's a RL example of the problem. Imagine my revolutionary group in Stalin's USSR is waging a campaign to oust the government. We're fighting on the streets of Moscow, trying to get to the Kremlin to capture or kill Stalin etc. We're fighting police and military, which according to this proposal doesn't make us terrorists - but then a bunch of deluded civilians, thoroughly taken in by Stalinist propaganda, decide to up arms, run out of their houses and start fighting us. They aren't agents of the state, they're just civilians - but clearly, they've actively chosen to fight on the side of the state. Nevertheless, if we fight back, we are defined as terrorists.I agree that does fall under a grey area, how about adding non-combatant to the proposal? Thus (additions in bold):
Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a minority political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation by non-state paramilitary groups using methods aimed at coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily and deliberately the civilian non-combatant population during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religous or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.As a less extreme example, civilians might use themselves as human shields around their beloved leader. Of course, we'd do our best not to seriously hurt them, but we'll at least have to handle them roughly if we want to get past them.That's fine, the definition says primarily civilian targets, so a few broken bones for a few people dumb enough to get in your way is hardly committing any terrorist attacks on them.These probably aren't brilliant examples, I'm having trouble explaining myself. But basically the issue is when civilians choose to involve themselves or are responsible for something - and who's to decide how direct the actions need to be, between something indirect like voting for a government (attacks on these people obviously ought to be terrorism) and picking up a gun on behalf of a state, before they become legitimate targets for freedom fighters? I hope the adjustment to the definition should ease that issue.Another thing. What if I'm targetting civilian facilities but ensuring the safety of human life, trying to respond directly to something the civilians are responsible for? For instance, if a factory is doing some local, serious environmental damage (perhaps it directly threatens the health or safety of me and my family) and the government is turning a blind eye. If I break into the factory and use sabotage and destruction of property to disable the plant and to try and force the managers to pack up their operations and leave town, I'm classed by the UN as a terrorist.I'd have thought that would be more of a criminal act than a terrorist act, but I've changed the definition further so instead of says civilian, non-combatant groups, it refers to the population. Of course if you blow up buildings, the government in question is still going to want to hunt you down and punish you for your crimes.I still don't think it's possible to establish a universal way to draw the line between murder, destruction of property etc., and terrorism. I think we have got much closer, before hand we were talking about wholesale changes to a definition, now we are quibbling over single word changes to clarify or soften specific meanings or implications. We are getting there :)

First, let me clarify that I admire the efforts made here to reach a consensus. It almost saddens me to be so adamantly in opposition to Ambassador Kildarno and others.

My specific concern with the latest definition is its singling out of a 'minority goal. There are surely many irredentist movements, for example, whose goals align with only a minority of the population. Yet members of such movements may still be fairly regarded by many as freedom fighters.

In any case, how accurately can a minority be measured?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Threats of violence -- expression of intent -- can constitute terrorism, and be prosecutable depending on the state.

Saying "We have a nuclear bomb, do what we want or we will use it," is not just a string of random words. It is a threat, which constitutes a terrorist act of the principle of coersion.

Just as conspiracy or incitement to commit treason, rebellion or murder do not have to go past talking to get you arrested, conspiracy or incitement to commit terrorist acts can be arrestable crimes.

Telling someone "Go kill the President of Foobaria because my God said you must," can indeed be a crime in Foobaria.

What would be required is a uniform code of what constituted a terrorist threat, as opposed to protected and lawful expression of dissention.

Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a minority*(1) political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation**(2) by non-state paramilitary(3) groups(4) using methods aimed at coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily civilian***(5) targets during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religous or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

*Therefore terrorism does not include popular revolution or rebellion
** Therefore citizens attempting to liberate an area of a nation (where the majority of people want independance)
*** this would mean that attacks on embassy's and other such things would be included, but attacks on soldiers wouldn't be.
(1) Minority or majority do not matter in the definition of terrorism. State-sponsored terrorist acts can occur even if the state represents a majority. The "tyranny of the majority" can also occur. Definitions of terror focus on the commission of the crime regardless of whether it is one person acting against the entire state, or the state terrorizing an individual or series of individuals. It would be better to leave out "minority" to prevent majority governments from committing terrorism against minority groups or individuals.

(2) Terrorist activities do not need to be bound by national borders. Commission of terrorism can happen in international territories such as on the high seas, across national boundaries, in unclaimed or unincorporated territories or even in space. While jurisidiction of prosecution may vary depending on transborder and extranational conditions, it is the act which shall be held in violation of international law if committed against the persons or properties of citizens or governments of UN member nations.

(3) Non-state groups and even (4) individual actors are to be held accountable for terrorism, subject to the same punishments as paramilitary or military personnel. In fact, because they are not paramilitary or military personnel, they are given less protection under the Geneva convention, unless they conform to the Geneva convention and protocols (carrying identity, wearing identifying symbols, rendering hors de combat etc.) during time of their activities. Conversely, state-based or state-sponsored terrorism also occurs. For instance, genocide committed by a state is considered state-based terrorism against its own populous. States have also been known to sponsor terrorism in other states to destabilize other regimes. This too is being considered on the same legal footing. You might not like your neighbor's government, but you shall be judged by the rule of law if you pay to blow up his farmer's markets.

(5) Terrorism can also be committed against military personnel if it is in violation of the Geneva conventions and protocols, i.e., a war crime, under certain conditions. However, not all war crimes are terrorist activities. Just as a criminal act might result in a criminal trial and a civil trial, judged by different laws, an act might similarly be a war crime and an act of terrorism, judged by different courts or tribunals.

______
Sources

For further research into the topic of non-state actors, I recommend the following:

STATE ACTORS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTS OF INTERNATIONAL TERROR VIOLENCE (http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.abo.fi/instut/imr/norfa/mikaela.pdf) [PDF]

Adapted from here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9790756&postcount=46):

Any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

(smile) So - we are allowed to apply common sense to the act that falls under the scope of this proposal? That is actually all I was aking for.

NOOOO!

Common sense is differnet for many people...

Nation: "This guy killed hunderds of civilians! You are a terrorist. I arrest you."

Guy Who Killed Hunderds of Civilans: "Sheesh, Nation. Use common sense. These civilians were supporting your nation. Therefore, I am not a terrorist...Hey! WHY ARE YOU ARRESTING ME? I've done nothing wrong...YOU ARE A TERRORIST FOR ARRESTING ME!"

We solved nothing. No relying on common sense, okay? I say the UN must decide, not nations, not people, not players, just the UN.

Indeed, this silly notion of "common sense" has gotten out of hand...


</sarcasm>

NOOOO!

Common sense is differnet for many people...

Nation: "This guy killed hunderds of civilians! You are a terrorist. I arrest you."

Guy Who Killed Hunderds of Civilans: "Sheesh, Nation. Use common sense. These civilians were supporting your nation. Therefore, I am not a terrorist...Hey! WHY ARE YOU ARRESTING ME? I've done nothing wrong...YOU ARE A TERRORIST FOR ARRESTING ME!"

We solved nothing. No relying on common sense, okay? I say the UN must decide, not nations, not people, not players, just the UN.

Ok. I don't want to resort to real world examples, but what the hell.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were ENTIRELY designed to create terror in the population of Japan, and were done for a political reason.
So this makes the pilots, the bombers and the whole of the US administration of the time terrorists under this proposal.

Are you happy to accept that definition? Or would you argue that cause they were doing it in times of war, they should be let off being terrorists? Or would you argue that because Japan was a greater evil, they should be let off being terrorists?

If you are happy to accept that the USA was a terrorist government, then I accept the premise that the UN can defined terrorists. Otherwise I can't.

Indeed, this silly notion of "common sense" has gotten out of hand...


</sarcasm>

It is because common sense depends on the government's views. This is unfair, because what if the government is the true terrorist and their enemy are freedom fighters? Then what? The UN would be, in reality, supporting a terrorist, and that would not be good.

If this resolution says "common sense" decides if somebody is a terrorist or not, and not the United Nations, then what? We stuck with nothing. The idea of "common sense" is already being used. The UN resolution, by using that point, will not accomplish anything.

The UN is composed of many different types of governments, so they can see all different points of views. Then these point of views merge together, and they can debate. After the debates, then the UN will decide if so-and-so is a terrorist or not. That is what I think is fair. And not "common sense".

Ok. I don't want to resort to real world examples, but what the hell.

(snip)

OOC: Then I don't respond to real world examples, plain and simple. They don't exist in NS.

I agree that does fall under a grey area, how about adding non-combatant to the proposal? Thus (additions in bold):
Defining Terrorism as the use of violence or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving a minority political, religious, or ideological goals within a nation or region of a nation by non-state paramilitary groups using methods aimed at coerceing or intimidating governments or societies by targetting primarily and deliberately the civilian non-combatant population during offensive operations and designed to change the existing political, religous or ideological order. It may or may not be directed against a particular government, and it may or may not be state-sponsored.

That's better, thanks.

That's fine, the definition says primarily civilian targets, so a few broken bones for a few people dumb enough to get in your way is hardly committing any terrorist attacks on them. I hope the adjustment to the definition should ease that issue.

Hmm. I guess.

I'd have thought that would be more of a criminal act than a terrorist act, but I've changed the definition further so instead of says civilian, non-combatant groups, it refers to the population. Of course if you blow up buildings, the government in question is still going to want to hunt you down and punish you for your crimes.

Of course, I just don't want them to able to claim any support from UN terror legislation.

I think we have got much closer, before hand we were talking about wholesale changes to a definition, now we are quibbling over single word changes to clarify or soften specific meanings or implications. We are getting there :)

It's improving, but I'm still undecided. I definitely agree with Ecopoeia that whether someone is in a minority or a majority should not matter.

I guess I'm not even fully convinced that we should treat terrorism as separate from supposedly non-terrorist mass murder.

Pallatium's example of the bombs on Japan is a very good illustration of my point that whether we consider something terrorism depends almost solely on our ethical opinions of the aims of the attack (SLI Sector, RL examples are a very useful debate tool for those of us who find it easier to convey their points by example. If you're concerned with consistency, simply read them as hypotheticals within the NS universe - it's easier to do this than to actually give a hypothetical, in which we'd have to give reams of background to convey our points). Whilst some of us might disagree with that specific decision, I'd guess that quite a lot of us can agree that in perhaps more desperate situations such attacks might be justified - e.g. if the Nazis had taken all of Europe and subdued the Soviets, it might have been necessary for the US to use nuclear weaponry on, say, Berlin, to break the Germans' support for Hitler - and if such an act is justifiable for a government, what if the US had supplied the bomb to the Resistance and they'd carried out the attack instead? That would be classed as terrorism. So maybe, sometimes, terrorism can be a justified tactic.

I guess it depends on the proposal into which the definition is placed, and the balance between what it would force us to do, and where we would have choices as to how to respond to alleged terrorism.

I guess it depends on the proposal into which the definition is placed, and the balance between what it would force us to do, and where we would have choices as to how to respond to alleged terrorism.

Correct. My government still mantains however, that the only way to deterimine this balance is on a case-by-case basis, with each case being decided by the UN.

Let us take, for hypothetical example, an atomic bomb going off in a theoretical city of 100,000 people.

Is this a terrorist act?

1. If it was during wartime, where one party had egregiously violated the Geneva Convention, had vowed to die-to-a-man, had their troops committing suicidal attacks against the other power (itself a form of terror-based attack), slaughtered prisoners of war by the tens of thousands, shooting or beheading them without trial, and otherwise forced the conflict into a situation wherein only a nuclear retaliation, and threat of additional such attacks, would subdue the war-desires of the nation which had initiated the hostilities, then this is a) an act of genocide, b) an act of terror, c) a violation of the laws of war, d) a violation of international humanitarian laws, but e) might be exonerated or dismissed by an international tribunal as a reasonable defense against a foe who had proven utterly in disregard of the laws of war.

2. If this was an act of aggression in retailiation for a trade embargo, or after demands of a trade embargo be lifted were left unmet, then this is a) an act of genocide, b) an act of terror, and c) a violation of the laws of war, d) a violation of international humanitarian law, and e) probably would not be dismissed by an international tribunal, as an unreasonable means to respond in kind to an economic distress.

If it was during wartime, where one party had egregiously violated the Geneva Convention...

OOC: You really need to knock off these RL references.

OOC: You really need to knock off these RL references.
Sigh.

Okay - how about this for a new tack.

The UN has decided, in it's infinite wisdom, that genocide can be justified in terms of self defence. This has been codified in to UN law in The EON Convention on Genocide (Article 1, Section 5 from Eon Convention (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680087&postcount=84)) and was passed by a ratio of around 5 to 1 (so it is safe to say this idea had a lot of support in the UN).

So - if the UN can agree that sometimes genocide is justifiable, then why can the UN not agree that terrorism is sometimes justifiable?

It could. In fact, it already have. But in order to say that the terrorism act is justified, you must call it a different name:

Freedom Fighting.

It could. In fact, it already have. But in order to say that the terrorism act is justified, you must call it a different name:

Freedom Fighting.

But other people have told me that a terrorist is a terrorist, regardless of the cause that she fights for. So if I am blowing up buildings and shooting people in the street, even if I am attempting to liberate my nation from invaders, I am still a terrorist, and thus not permitted to receive any backing from any other nation.

Then you are a terrorist.

Listen, if the international community thinks that you are an evil terrorist (hypothetically speaking), then have you ever considered the fact that maybe you ARE an evil terrorist and may seek to change your tatics to be more acceptable to the UN.

i've said before that one mans terrorist is another mans patriot and its very true.

depending on the situation here are few pointers that I believe might help.


Say a group of people are unhappy with their government and a popular revolution is declared by them.

the government concerned would think they are terrorists and If the UN had a defination of terrorism would they help out the government or the people?

If this same group lacks public support and seeks to over thrown the legal government by force, create their own homeland etc a lot of people would tell you that makes that group a terrorist organisation.

a revolution or war of independance can be percieved in different ways. thats why i think that a proposal that could drag the UN into a members 'terrorist' problem is a bad idea.

Then you are a terrorist.

Listen, if the international community thinks that you are an evil terrorist (hypothetically speaking), then have you ever considered the fact that maybe you ARE an evil terrorist and may seek to change your tatics to be more acceptable to the UN.

So someone has invaded and occupied my nation, is killing and raping my people, is locking up anyone who dissents and then making them disappear, is basically setting about wiping out any resistance by any means necessary and causing my whole nation to live in fear and go along because to do otherwise would mean death.

And you want me to compromise with them?

i've said before that one mans terrorist is another mans patriot and its very true.

depending on the situation here are few pointers that I believe might help.


Say a group of people are unhappy with their government and a popular revolution is declared by them.

the government concerned would think they are terrorists and If the UN had a defination of terrorism would they help out the government or the people?

If this same group lacks public support and seeks to over thrown the legal government by force, create their own homeland etc a lot of people would tell you that makes that group a terrorist organisation.

a revolution or war of independance can be percieved in different ways. thats why i think that a proposal that could drag the UN into a members 'terrorist' problem is a bad idea.

The same concerns you have is the same reasons I want the UN to decide, and not the member of the UN. At least for the rebel/freedom fighter/terrorist, they have a chance to appeal to the international community and state their views. They have a chance to be recognized as legit. If not, then the government will decide they are terrorists and the rebel/freedom fighter/terrorist will have no chance to prove what it says is right.

The same concerns you have is the same reasons I want the UN to decide, and not the member of the UN. At least for the rebel/freedom fighter/terrorist, they have a chance to appeal to the international community and state their views. They have a chance to be recognized as legit. If not, then the government will decide they are terrorists and the rebel/freedom fighter/terrorist will have no chance to prove what it says is right.

And if a government that has a god-awful human rights record, but provides the vast majority of the nations in the UN with free beer and free uranium (say Hyrule) had a group trying to overthrow them, would you trust the UN to render an impartial verdict as to whether or not the group was a terrorist one or not?

But Hyrule would call the group a terrorist in the first place, so therefore, there would be no debate on if the rebels battling Hyrule are terrorists or not. If the UN decides, then the rebels attacking Hyrule has a chance to speak their views.

By the way, why all these comments on Hyrule, as in being evil and such?

But Hyrule would call the group a terrorist in the first place, so therefore, there would be no debate on if the rebels battling Hyrule are terrorists or not. If the UN decides, then the rebels attacking Hyrule has a chance to speak their views.


Actually there would be a debate. Hyrule can call them terrorists, but I might not, so I would not be bound by the terms of the proposal/resolution. Consequently the corrupt and evil government of Hyrule would not be able to stay corrupt and evil for long.


By the way, why all these comments on Hyrule, as in being evil and such?

(ooc) I am a REALLY big fan of the Zelda games, and I try to keep out of real world examples as much as possible, and consequently use made up nations to illustrate my point.

(still ooc) (grin) Would you rather I say "Suppose the SLI Sector is evil..."? (kidding)

(OOC: I was concerned because I interpeted your comments on Hyrule as a foreshadowing of an attempt to start a terrorist group and overthrow Hyrule.

Guess I worry too much.)

Just on another topic (ok - the same topic, but another thread).

This Resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7161716&postcount=76) outlines what UN states must to in regard to nuclear weapons and terrorist states (or groups).


1. PROHIBITS the sale or transfer of nuclear arms, devices, or technologies to known or suspected terrorist organizations;


It is pretty good, and nowhere does it outright say where the list of suspect/known terrorist groups is held, and who writes it. It lets nations keep the list (so to speak) so that if they know that the HLA is a terrorist group, they are forbidden from trading with it, but if they are told the HLA is a terrorist group, they can make their own minds up.

(OOC: I was concerned because I interpeted your comments on Hyrule as a foreshadowing of an attempt to start a terrorist group and overthrow Hyrule.

Guess I worry too much.)

(ooc) Oh gods! I am laughing quite a lot at this :} I can see how people might get that idea, but I swear - Queen Lily is not the type to wage war :}
I will endeavour to not cause this confusion in future :}

Just on another topic (ok - the same topic, but another thread).

This Resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7161716&postcount=76) outlines what UN states must to in regard to nuclear weapons and terrorist states (or groups).

It is pretty good, and nowhere does it outright say where the list of suspect/known terrorist groups is held, and who writes it. It lets nations keep the list (so to speak) so that if they know that the HLA is a terrorist group, they are forbidden from trading with it, but if they are told the HLA is a terrorist group, they can make their own minds up.

That resolution makes two points to me -

1) I don't need to worry about a definition regardless of what nations say on here - I could have saved myself so much time and energy and posted without tackling this (indeed nothing was commented about my proposal beyond the definition).

2) That resolution still does not stop nations selling nuclear arms, a nation can decide not to look to closely at an organisations track record, plead ignorance and sell nukes to their friendly group of people who happen to be bombing their next door neighbours, but that's just hearsay.

That resolution makes two points to me -

1) I don't need to worry about a definition regardless of what nations say on here - I could have saved myself so much time and energy and posted without tackling this (indeed nothing was commented about my proposal beyond the definition).

2) That resolution still does not stop nations selling nuclear arms, a nation can decide not to look to closely at an organisations track record, plead ignorance and sell nukes to their friendly group of people who happen to be bombing their next door neighbours, but that's just hearsay.

(smile) I never wanted a definition :}

And yeah - it doesn't stop people selling weapons to groups/nations it thinks are friendly. Which is how it should be.