NationStates Jolt Archive

Nice arguments :(

I do believe the Bible is the literal word of God and feel like my faith is evidently easy for some to attack here (I don't call anyone today a prophet, I don't handle snakes, or any other weird characterization people want to make on the average mom and pop in the U.S.). I came here to check why some were voting one way or the other on this since it's such a close vote and open to changing my mind (only to find my beliefs attacked). Equating those who believe the Bible to be literally true with those who believe the Koran to be literally true as the same is one of the reasons I cannot support the UN deciding who is a terrorist. The UN is comprised of some terrorist nations deciding this no doubt!

*Note* my nation and region are completely AGAINST terrorism, but have voted against this bill.




Votes For: 3,690

Votes Against: 3,696


Yikes! I've never seen anything like this before!

*Note* my nation and region are completely AGAINST terrorism, but have voted against this bill.

why is that?

and how do you enforce those laws? And any Liberal region here that I can join?

I cannot in good concience support this legislation, nor could any state that claims to be revolutionary because revolutionaries are only terrorists who win. Subcomandante Marcos is a terrorist, Nelson Mandella was a terrorist, as were Castro, Lenin,Zappata, Washington, Wallace etc. This legislation would impose the status quo indeffinatly and should be opposed by all free nations.

Nice arguments :(

I do believe the Bible is the literal word of God and feel like my faith is evidently easy for some to attack here (I don't call anyone today a prophet, I don't handle snakes, or any other weird characterization people want to make on the average mom and pop in the U.S.).

I had a feeling this might happen when the first person posted something implying that all terrorists are Muslim. Let's keep religion out of this it's got nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I came here to check why some were voting one way or the other on this since it's such a close vote and open to changing my mind (only to find my beliefs attacked).

We agree. That is most unfortunate that your religious beliefs werre being mocked. We are glad, however, that you are open to changing you mind regarding your vote on the proposal on the floor.

Equating those who believe the Bible to be literally true with those who believe the Koran to be literally true as the same is one of the reasons I cannot support the UN deciding who is a terrorist. The UN is comprised of some terrorist nations deciding this no doubt!

Please don't let an ignorant few sour you on this worthwhile proposal. As for the decision as to who is a terrorist, that would be defined by one's actions. If one commits an act of terrorism, as defined under the proposal, then one is a terrorist, and the definition is very specific. Thus, there need be no decisions on case-by-case bases whether or not someone is a terrorist.

*Note* my nation and region are completely AGAINST terrorism, but have voted against this bill.

This just puts me at a loss...


Votes For: 3,690

Votes Against: 3,696


Yikes! I've never seen anything like this before!

OOC: Yeah, frighteningly close.

I cannot in good concience support this legislation, nor could any state that claims to be revolutionary because revolutionaries are only terrorists who win. Subcomandante Marcos is a terrorist, Nelson Mandella was a terrorist, as were Castro, Lenin,Zappata, Washington, Wallace etc. This legislation would impose the status quo indeffinatly and should be opposed by all free nations.

OOC: Um...how many of those guys targeted civilians?

AsOriginally Posted by Omigodtheykilledkenny
We intend to invade every single nation that opposes this legislation. If they're not with us, they're against us. said. We're against this legislation. Snce our evil captors have ungagged us, I'd like to ask if hey are still invading optischer for opposing this crazy resolution. It's unclear, it's contradicting and it smells a funny colour.

one suggestion if this proposal do fail. Baby step. I would whole heartedly support a legislation about freezing terrorists' money. I just don't like the international cooperation part of the act:(

one suggestion if this proposal do fail. Baby step. I would whole heartedly support a legislation about freezing terrorists' money. I just don't like the international cooperation part of the act:(

It won't be effective without international cooperation. Besides, international cooperation is what the UN is all about.

Vote for this legislation, it will provide funding to further combat the terrorism that plauges all of our nations.

I think you mean plagues. Besides, while we mainly abhor terrorism, there are some 'Freedom Fighters' who are doing a useful job. You know you've got to support some terrorists sometimes don't you?

Vote for this legislation, it will provide funding to further combat the terrorism that plauges all of our nations.

You know, it is possible for nations to raise funding THEMSELVES.

I see we have a reading comprehension problem here. The means justifying the ends is just silly.

Ends justifying the means is more silly and usually criminal.

Look at Hitler: he uses terrorizing jews, gypsies, and cripples to make economy great.
If ends justified means: he was a great man.

But history doesn't say that about him because most people historically believe as I do that means justify ends 99% of time.

If I'm doing good deeds: if I accidently produce a bad result; at least I wasn't doing bad.

If one is doing bad to produce a good result: well you are still bad since you did bad. Really, the ends argument is never sufficiently justified in any court or opinion.

If anyone didn't see the close race coming, they ain't american ;)

I think you mean plagues. Besides, while we mainly abhor terrorism, there are some 'Freedom Fighters' who are doing a useful job. You know you've got to support some terrorists sometimes don't you?

This document does not attack the rights of citizens or states to sponsor freedom fighters in another country. That is, unless these freedom fighters are, "...targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population..."

RL: France's aid of American revolutionary war still okay because the American soldiers did not target civilians, but rather military strutcure. Any people who aided the attacks of 9/11, attacks on London, attacks in the West Bank... these people would be addressed in this legislation.

The freedom fighter argument is settled I think. It is still the funding issues that many still have problems with. See my previous comments on that matter.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak."

Vote for this legislation, it will provide funding to further combat the terrorism that plauges all of our nations.

The proposal provides no funding for anything. But yes, please do vote for it.

Ends justifying the means is more silly and usually criminal.

Look at Hitler: he uses terrorizing jews, gypsies, and cripples to make economy great.
If ends justified means: he was a great man.

But history doesn't say that about him because most people historically believe as I do that means justify ends 99% of time.

If I'm doing good deeds: if I accidently produce a bad result; at least I wasn't doing bad.

If one is doing bad to produce a good result: well you are still bad since you did bad. Really, the ends argument is never sufficiently justified in any court or opinion.

I disagree. You can't use either argument, because the means are an end. But then I'm a utilitarian, so I can't look at one result, good economy, without looking at EVERY result. The trouble with a utilitarian system is that you have to, like in many nations court systems, put a price on suffering, pain, loss of pride, etc. In which case it has to be based on some fair system, with a case by case allowance by judge, jury, politician, supreme overlord, or whatever each country determines.

The same goes for this legislation. If it passes in its current form, it will either have to be ammended or repealed and rewritten. Better to send a decent bill back in order to pass a better one than to have an imperfect piece of legislation in the books.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak."

Re the whole targeting civilians thing... and fundraising in other countries...

I hark back to my example of an ethnic minority being subject to genocide by the government of their country. There is no way for them to raise money for their cause WITHIN their own country as they have been kept in absolute poverty for many years, so they must seek outside help to survive. They do not have access to arms that could combat the government troops pouring into their region and slaughtering their civilians. There is no time for them to petition the international community to help them, so they take what money they can raise by begging and stealing in other countries and rig the only destructive force they can manage to bring them international attention, which is suicide bombers.

Under your resolution, these would be terrorists. In my eyes, they are not, they are an oppressed people fighting for their continued existance.

Your resolution would be the nail in the coffin for people in these sorts of conditions. How would it not be? And how do you propose that these people survive under these conditions if their only means of fighting back is absolutely taken away?

The proposal provides no funding for anything. But yes, please do vote for it. Regardless, you're extreme supporrt for this proposal is frightening.How you can support something that can reduce so may ways of legal action?

Taurains, I don't think the arguments over. What i you directly wanted to harm the civilian population, or anyone else for that matter? Would it be illegal to aim for the canine or feline population?

We need to stop terrorism from doing this:sniper: and this:mp5:

This document does not attack the rights of citizens or states to sponsor freedom fighters in another country. That is, unless these freedom fighters are, "...targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population..."

RL: France's aid of American revolutionary war still okay because the American soldiers did not target civilians, but rather military strutcure. Any people who aided the attacks of 9/11, attacks on London, attacks in the West Bank... these people would be addressed in this legislation.

The freedom fighter argument is settled I think. It is still the funding issues that many still have problems with. See my previous comments on that matter.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak."

I don't think the freedom fighter argument IS settled. Al Queda could not attack the American military complex, where do you strike? What they could do, with their limited resources, was hit an American economic target. And yes, they used unconventional weapons, and killed a large number of civilians, but for such a strike to be at all effective, that is what they had to do. They ALSO attacked a military target, the Pentagon, but with the weapons they could manage (airplanes) that was much less likely to be an effective target.

I am not, in any way, saying I support what they did. I would not fund it, I do not approve of it, I do not like it. But in many ways I do understand it. America had a policy of wiping out desert training camps of the Al Queda, who had never been terribly bothersome to us in the past, and they struck back in the only fashion they could. It is not conventional warfare, certainly, but how could Al Queda engage in conventional warfare with the United States? But they were fighting for their survival. They consider themselves to be freedom fighters. Much of the rest of the world would disagree. Who is right?

OOC: Yup, knew this would get stated outright eventually. The US (aka the Great Satan) has only itself to blame for terrorist attacks against its civilians. Same goes for those nasty Brits and Spaniards, too, I suppose. :rolleyes:

We need to stop terrorism from doing this:sniper: and this:mp5:
Assuming you're a republican in RL, this is typical of capitalists. I think terrorism is just the people saying, we don't want you to rape our country of our rights, but saying it with bombs so they're heard. If we offered cease-fire an pace negotiations that would be more effective.

Instead of blowing up some innocent freedom fighter/ terrorist.

OOC: Yup, knew this would get stated outright eventually. The US (aka the Great Satan) has only itself to blame for terrorist attacks against its civilians. Same goes for those nasty Brits and Spaniards, too, I suppose. :rolleyes:
you know what, the proposal is mostly good. I'll vote yes on this one and if a problem ever come up. We can revise it.

OOC: Yup, knew this would get stated outright eventually. The US (aka the Great Satan) has only itself to blame for terrorist attacks against its civilians. Same goes for those nasty Brits and Spaniards, too, I suppose. :rolleyes: I'm shocked. The only reason us Brits are at war is because our Prime Minister is having a secret affair with the President. And the president threatened to leave if Bliar (Yes I know it's spelt Bliar.) didn't declare war on iraq and indirectly send our troops to the slaughter.

This proposal is one step too far. Let governments do what they want and stop the infringement of National Sovereignity!

OOC: Yup, knew this would get stated outright eventually. The US (aka the Great Satan) has only itself to blame for terrorist attacks against its civilians. Same goes for those nasty Brits and Spaniards, too, I suppose. :rolleyes:

*Sigh* I did not say that, I am merely trying to point out that there are two sides to every story, and I still don't think this resolution adequately addresses this problem.

Perhaps it would be a better idea to get to the root causes of terrorism and deal with them, rather than simply assuming that if one side resorts to your definition of terrorism, THEY must be the "Satan" in the equation which is just as wrong as what you accuse me of saying.

I'm shocked. The only reason us Brits are at war is because our Prime Minister is having a secret affair with the President. And the president threatened to leave if Bliar (Yes I know it's spelt Bliar.) didn't declare war on iraq and indirectly send our troops to the slaughter.

This proposal is one step too far. Let governments do what they want and stop the infringement of National Sovereignity!

As Cluichstan is a member of the National Sovereignty Organization and the author of the proposal, the people of Cluichstan wonders how this infringes upon national sovereignty. The representative from Optischer must know far more than the members of the NSO, since none of them sees any such infringements.

*Sigh* I did not say that, I am merely trying to point out that there are two sides to every story, and I still don't think this resolution adequately addresses this problem.

Perhaps it would be a better idea to get to the root causes of terrorism and deal with them, rather than simply assuming that if one side resorts to your definition of terrorism, THEY must be the "Satan" in the equation which is just as wrong as what you accuse me of saying.

Yes, yes...the root causes. Let's end world poverty. That's pretty realistic.

Or maybe cluichstan is wearing rose tined glasses, or doesn't object to us being forced to oppose sometimes acceptable freedom fighting.

Yes, yes...the root causes. Let's end world poverty. That's pretty realistic.

Now THAT is an idea I would support.

Unfortunately for some, and fortunately for others, I wouldn't. How about we do something more realistic, like end all hunger. And everyone gets hungry. So you're gonna have to get shovelling those pies fast.

I think this is an issue to be left up to the involved states. All member nations should not be required to join in the fight on such a heavily disputed issue. Keep in mind that if your nation wants to become involved in this issue, they may, but I do not believe that it is right to require to rest of us to assist you.

I think this is an issue to be left up to the involved states. All member nations should not be required to join in the fight on such a heavily disputed issue. Keep in mind that if your nation wants to become involved in this issue, they may, but I do not believe that it is right to require to rest of us to assist you.

Uh? What exactly are you arguing against? Assistance in what? Please go read the text, and then come back with your objections.

Perhaps he means that allied countries should not share information as is stated in #5. That each country deal with its own problems. Unfortunately we disagree if that is indeed the meaning behind it. No matter the reason if a person from another country attacks one from our own out of political, religious, or any reason for that matter, they will be dealth with as is seen fit by we the Seperatists.

Cluichstan
Yes, yes...the root causes. Let's end world poverty. That's pretty realistic.

Alas, you are correct in your jest. There is no way we, the United Nations of the Free World, could afford to reduce global poverty. Particularly not if we intend to increase our stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, stealth bombers and the like.

Shall we face the bull head-on ladies and gentlemen? We could well advance upon the enemy known as poverty, save for our nations collective military expenditures. If we, honourable statesmen, were in a society where nations spent their current military budgets on releif, we would consider it absurd to reduce releif spending by 5M$ to purchase one stealth bomber. Since we are currently in the reverse position, it seems absurd to reduce military spending to generate more funds for releif.

As long as some nations prefer delivering death over delivering food, we will have terrorists.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, my noble peers.

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, international terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.


May I also request, most respectfully, an explaination of why it is neccesary to exempt "State Actors" from this act? Is it acceptable for Nation-heads to use Threats-of-violence for goal-reaching?

Thank you, enlightened members of the United Nations

Wow, support and opposition to this is right down the line. This is going to down to the last couple of minutes possibly to determine the passage of this at this rate.....

I have a couple hundred contacts on the UN sitting in the "Against" camp waiting until the last minute to switch to "For"

You pansy hippies don't stand a chance (remember, every swapped vote counts as two for!!!)

Good luck, lovechildren (LMFAO)

May I also request, most respectfully, an explaination of why it is neccesary to exempt "State Actors" from this act? Is it acceptable for Nation-heads to use Threats-of-violence for goal-reaching?

Thank you, enlightened members of the United Nations

Yes, we call that war.

We are shocked and saddened that several members of this assembly have chosen to equate freedom fighters with terrorists. There is a clear, critical and obvious difference.

We have the greatest respect for freedom fighters. Freedom fighters risk their lives by fighting against the armed instruments of governments they believe are oppressive and should be overthrown.

Terrorists kill and maim innocent men, women and children in order to further their cause. To call these criminals "freedom fighters" does a signal dishonor to that most honorable label.

International terrorism is international crime. It requires an international response. Ausserland supports this proposal 100%.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

OOC: Um...how many of those guys targeted civilians?
Well what do you consider to be targeting? All of the people I mentioned through their actions caused the death of civilians, targeting them is a grey area but if you want to look at the actions of state governments they target civilians all the time, more so since the advent of total war (some say in the Napoleonic but certainly by the time of the civil war). The lines are too grey to legislate around and will never be able to hold the right people to account for their actions. I am against most of what you would consider to be terrorism, but I am also against this piece of legislation.

Well what do you consider to be targeting? All of the people I mentioned through their actions caused the death of civilians, targeting them is a grey area but if you want to look at the actions of state governments they target civilians all the time, more so since the advent of total war (some say in the Napoleonic but certainly by the time of the civil war). The lines are too grey to legislate around and will never be able to hold the right people to account for their actions. I am against most of what you would consider to be terrorism, but I am also against this piece of legislation.

OOC: Oh ffs... :headbang:

Gahhhh! I thought I could have a week to let my liver heal after the last debate. after reading the 10 pages since my response I realized that I'm going to need to continue drinking. Whats wrong with y'all. Cant you see that this is a positive step forward in stopping international terrorism. It doesn't target gurillas or "freedom fighters" unless said people deliberately go outside their borders and target civilians of another country.

Gahh...Cluich If you need me I'll be under my desk drinking Wild Turkey(TM) from the bottle and reading the February issue of Soldier of Fortune. I can have Texas Jack come in if you like. He hasn't Piledrove someone through a Table for months.;)
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Americaustralia has always taken a strong stance against terrorism.

Let it be known, under times of war or not, that under no circumstances, is it acceptable to murder innocent civilians. Americaustralia is 100% for this resolution, not because we're against terrorism, we're simply against the loss of human life. Americaustralia encourages all countries of the world to stand together and pass a resolution that could so easily save the lives of thousands of innocents.

And the People's Republic of Ebfan2 stands beside your nation on this important issue. That must not be taken lightly.....

And the People's Republic of Ebfan2 stands beside your nation on this important issue. That must not be taken lightly.....

This [proposal has the potential to be the closest vote of all time.

I only read the first 4 pages of this. I've got too much homework to do to get through all 20+ pages of it.

I am not certain how I am going to vote on this resolution. I'm leaning towards no at the moment, but I firstly would like to say something about the subject.

To paraphrase SOME of the kinds of arguments I'm hearing: "If you're not with us, you're against us." Sorry, the world is not so black and white. I disagree entirely with that statement. And since most of the people saying that are suggesting that anyone who does not support this resolution support terrorism, I am inclined to believe that the word of this resolution will mean nothing to them. It seems to be interperated as a green light to get their own way and label anyone who disagrees a terrorist. It stinks awful bad of "patriotism" in the United States after 9/11. So whether or not this Resolution is well written, which indeed it is, I don't think it will mean just what it says.

"How could you possibly NOT support this Resolution?" Because it is not as simple as you think. Terrorism is a question of funding. It is also a reaction to an event or a policy. In the case of America, America did something to piss people off. Has the question ever risen, "Why did this happen?" that hasn't immediately been dismissed with the mindless mantra of "They just hate our freedom."? Not that I've seen. The mighty icons of stubbornness, the ones who don't listen to the little people crying out to be heard, or the ones who dismiss them out of hand are the ones who are targetted. It is impossible to please everyone, but it is not impossible to give everyone a reason why -- unless a nation itself is being unreasonable. Terrorism does not stem from nothing. I myself don't plan on sitting back and fighting the results of bad relationships. I, like in life, would much prefer turning bad relationships into either good, neutral, or non-existent relationships. Politics involve people too. Opening the ears, and closing the mouths would get a lot us a lot farther than opening the mouths and lacing up the shit-kicker boots.

I've convinced myself...

I vote no. Communicate with the people -- don't pick fights with them.

Edit: And I see this all the damn time:

"OOC: You're a stupid!"

For crap's sake, get off your pedestal. I'm getting really damn tired of people ripping on one another for having a different opinion. If you don't like what someone else has to say and can say nothing in return except some personal attack, then get the hell off the forums you weak-minded fools.

*snip*

Communicate with the people -- don't pick fights with them.

If you'd actually bothered to read the entire thread, you'd see that perfectly valid arguments for this proposal have been put forth.

If you'd actually bothered to read the entire thread, you'd see that perfectly valid arguments for this proposal have been put forth.

I have seen perfectly valid arguments for the proposal. I just don't agree with them, or if I do, I don't agree with the idea that terrorism is something that needs to be combatted.

And so sorry that I can't find time to read 20+ pages of back and forth about terrorism. I can barely read 5 without getting tired of it. Tommo got a life, and a college education going on right now. Tommo can't afford to humor you by putting off all that stuff that is more important to me than playtime.

Tommo mad that you got Tommo talkin in the third person.

"If you'd bothered to read it..." Gimme a damn break. :mad: :rolleyes:

I might give you a break if you weren't speaking out of ignorance. Do us a favour and get back to your homework. Clearly you could use the education.

I might give you a break if you weren't speaking out of ignorance. Do us a favour and get back to your homework. Clearly you could use the education.

What a dick.

::goes up to amend "To paraphrase the kinds of arguments I'm seeing" to "To paraphrase some of the kinds of arguments I'm seeing." because some people get real hot in the anus with the complete lack of the use of the Principle of Charity before they call one another ignorant::

Maybe ask me for clarification before you assume I'm brain-damaged.

I only read the first 4 pages of this. I've got too much homework to do to get through all 20+ pages of it.

I am not certain how I am going to vote on this resolution. I'm leaning towards no at the moment, but I firstly would like to say something about the subject.

To paraphrase the kinds of arguments I'm hearing: "If you're not with us, you're against us." Sorry, the world is not so black and white. I disagree entirely with that statement. And since most of the people saying that are suggesting that anyone who does not support this resolution support terrorism, I am inclined to believe that the word of this resolution will mean nothing to them. It seems to be interperated as a green light to get their own way and label anyone who disagrees a terrorist. It stinks awful bad of "patriotism" in the United States after 9/11. So whether or not this Resolution is well written, which indeed it is, I don't think it will mean just what it says.

"How could you possibly NOT support this Resolution?" Because it is not as simple as you think. Terrorism is a question of funding. It is also a reaction to an event or a policy. In the case of America, America did something to piss people off. Has the question ever risen, "Why did this happen?" that hasn't immediately been dismissed with the mindless mantra of "They just hate our freedom."? Not that I've seen. The mighty icons of stubbornness, the ones who don't listen to the little people crying out to be heard, or the ones who dismiss them out of hand are the ones who are targetted. It is impossible to please everyone, but it is not impossible to give everyone a reason why -- unless a nation itself is being unreasonable. Terrorism does not stem from nothing. I myself don't plan on sitting back and fighting the results of bad relationships. I, like in life, would much prefer turning bad relationships into either good, neutral, or non-existent relationships. Politics involve people too. Opening the ears, and closing the mouths would get a lot us a lot farther than opening the mouths and lacing up the shit-kicker boots.

I've convinced myself...

I vote no. Communicate with the people -- don't pick fights with them.

Edit: And I see this all the damn time:

"OOC: You're a stupid!"

For crap's sake, get off your pedestal. I'm getting really damn tired of people ripping on one another for having a different opinion. If you don't like what someone else has to say and can say nothing in return except some personal attack, then get the hell off the forums you weak-minded fools.


SWEET JAYSUS! another blame America post. Its times like these I really miss Ronald Wilson Reagan.

SWEET JAYSUS! another blame America post. Its times like these I really miss Ronald Wilson Reagan.

America is the obvious example. No "blame America" in there. I happen to live in America, and America is the key anti-terror country in the world right now.

Pardon my use of a good example.

If you're referring to the "america did something to piss people off" bit, well... They did, didn't they? It wasn't a random act of violence, was it? I most certainly think not.

OOC: Yup, US...Great Satan...yadda yadda yadda :rolleyes:

OOC: Yup, US...Great Satan...yadda yadda yadda :rolleyes:

I don't even see how this is relevent. Both of you are completely ignoring anything I said in there to attack my usage of America as a perfectly legitimate example. There are people in the world who don't like America. I am not going to turn a blind eye to that. So let's hear something constructive about the topic at hand, instead of, "Oh, he mentioned America in a less than shining light, let's give him shit!"

I don't even see how this is relevent. Both of you are completely ignoring anything I said in there to attack my usage of America as a perfectly legitimate example. There are people in the world who don't like America. I am not going to turn a blind eye to that. So let's hear something constructive about the topic at hand, instead of, "Oh, he mentioned America in a less than shining light, let's give him shit!"

OOC: Go do your homework.

Terrorism does not stem from nothing.Indeed it doesn't. There's a fantastic case to be made for the government-funded madrassas pounding hatred for Westerners into the minds of impressionable children, rampantly corrupt Middle Eastern governments bankrolling terror and robbing their citizens blind, refusing to reform and modernize their nations or societies, leaving their citizens and society to languish in decay and ruin, and then approving propaganda blaming all the government's shortcomings on America and Israel. Kind of like what Hitler did with the Jews.

Now, you can examine the real "root causes" of terror, or you can be a simple-minded git and blame America. A shame you've elected the latter.

OOC: Go do your homework.

Stop dismissing me. OOC nothing, it's perfectly within the context. Your refusal to treat me as worthy of effort is pathetic. If you don't want to give me the time of day, then don't bother posting on the forum. I've as much a right to expect respect on here as you do.

Repressive nations are already doing this; others will simply fund their peace corps in order to comply. This resolution is meaningless without some form of guarantee that nation states will actually comply.

A terrorist to me may not be a terrorist to you, so who makes the master list.

This is an attack on the sovereignty of every nation. I alone reserve the right to investigate and/or judge my citizens. I will choose when to cooperate with other nations.

Veto.

--Live free or die, and f**k New Hampshire

Veto.

Since when do UN members have veto power?

Indeed it doesn't. There's a fantastic case to be made for the government-funded madrassas pounding hatred for Westerners into the minds of impressionable children, rampantly corrupt Middle Eastern governments bankrolling terror and robbing their citizens blind, refusing to reform and modernize their nations or societies, leaving their citizens and society to languish in decay and ruin, and then approving propaganda blaming all the government's shortcomings on America and Israel. Kind of like what Hitler did with the Jews.

Now, you can examine the real "root causes" of terror, or you can be a simple-minded git and blame America. A shame you've elected the latter.

The US has an unbelievable ability to move men and machinery around the globe. In addition, they have room to move in their budgets like no other nation on earth.

To the US's credit, their response to the tsunami was decent. However, the record of the US on humanitarian and human rights issues is abysmal. They could easily resolve many issues if they only cared about other nations. Face the facts, the world gives you back exactly what you put into it. You face it with arrogance and disdain, and that is what you see mirrored back in terrorism.

Having lived in the US and caring deeply for my friends there, a little advice. Show the world the nicer side of the US, show the people that you care. End the suffering in Darfur, like only the US can. No other nation can do the good that you have at your fingertips. Please find the will to do it.

It is hard to hate somebody who feeds you.

Indeed it doesn't. There's a fantastic case to be made for the government-funded madrassas pounding hatred for Westerners into the minds of impressionable children, rampantly corrupt Middle Eastern governments bankrolling terror and robbing their citizens blind, refusing to reform and modernize their nations or societies, leaving their citizens and society to languish in decay and ruin, and then approving propaganda blaming all the government's shortcomings on America and Israel. Kind of like what Hitler did with the Jews.

Now, you can examine the real "root causes" of terror, or you can be a simple-minded git and blame America. A shame you've elected the latter.

Oh my GODS, WHY does everyone INSIST on focusing on the example of America? WHEN did I say "America is the ROOT OF ALL TERRORISM, DIE, STARS AND STRIPES!" and blame America? Stop denying the fact that people are pissed at America! If no one is upset with the big 50, then WHY did they attack? Instead of turning around, pulling up its pants and kicking the people who did it, why did no one seek to find out WHYYYYYYY it was done!? And what could be done to see that this never happens again besides stepping on everyone who looks at us slanty-eyed?

I'm getting tired of being called a simple-minded git or some such thing, and seeing my argument ignored in favor of the use of the big nasty A-word that people are all up in arms about.

Got something to say? Say it without resorting to the pissing and moaning about my use of America as an example. It's a perfectly legit argument, no matter how unpopular it may be in these circles.

Way to play the Hitler card too.

Honest to boxes...

"Shit man... I'm getting pissed at Belgium.... LET'S FLY PLANES INTO AMERICAN BUILDINGS!" Didn't happen THAT way! America OBVIOUSLY pissed somebody off. You all seem to be forgetting the rest of my argument, i.e. someone hit America with a glass bottle over the head, and started a big ass bar brawl! That's all it is. This whole thing could have been avoided if everyone, EVERYONE were communicating instead of taking turns to pee on one another.

Since when do UN members have veto power?

We don't, but I think it'd be an interesting concept. Perhaps the top 100 economic region's delegates could form a security council, with the top 10 having veto power?

No, that's probably a bad idea... but it could be fun.

We don't, but I think it'd be an interesting concept. Perhaps the top 100 economic region's delegates could form a security council, with the top 10 having veto power?

No, that's probably a bad idea... but it could be fun.

OOC: Um...illegal. And can we please get off the RL stuff?

The US has an unbelievable ability to move men and machinery around the globe. In addition, they have room to move in their budgets like no other nation on earth.

To the US's credit, their response to the tsunami was decent. However, the record of the US on issues is abysmal. They could easily resolve many issues if they only cared about other nations. Face the facts, the world gives you back exactly what you put into it. You face it with arrogance and disdain, and that is what you see mirrored back in terrorism.

Having lived in the US and caring deeply for my friends there, a little advice. Show the world the nicer side of the US, show the people that you care. End the suffering in Darfur, like only the US can. No other nation can do the good that you have at your fingertips. Please find the will to do it.

It is hard to hate somebody who feeds you.

Agreed.

Stop dismissing me. OOC nothing, it's perfectly within the context. Your refusal to treat me as worthy of effort is pathetic. If you don't want to give me the time of day, then don't bother posting on the forum. I've as much a right to expect respect on here as you do.

OOC: "OOC" means I'm posting out of character -- i.e., not as Cluichstan's UN ambassador, Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich, for instance. No, henceforth, I won't give you the time of day, but I won't stop posting here, nor will I concede that you deserve respect. Your posts in this thread killed any chance of that.

WHEN did I ... blame America?When you said the terrorists only crashed planes into our buildings because "we pissed them off somehow."

If no one is upset with the big 50, then WHY did they attack?Exactly how I said:

There's a fantastic case to be made for the government-funded madrassas pounding hatred for Westerners into the minds of impressionable children, rampantly corrupt Middle Eastern governments bankrolling terror and robbing their citizens blind, refusing to reform and modernize their nations or societies, leaving their citizens and society to languish in decay and ruin, and then approving propaganda blaming all the government's shortcomings on America and Israel. Kind of like what Hitler did with the Jews.Now calm the fuck down and cut all this out, before mods delete your posts. None of this has anything to do with the proposal at hand. If you want to gripe about RL politics, try General.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad28ts.png

OOC: "OOC" means I'm posting out of character -- i.e., not as Cluichstan's UN ambassador, Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich, for instance. No, henceforth, I won't give you the time of day, but I won't stop posting here, nor will I concede that you deserve respect. Your posts in this thread killed any chance of that.

I know full well what OOC means. out of character, out of context, out of cornbread...

You're still responding to what I said. And you did so without showing any respect. My posts in this thread were fine. I am so sure of that that I will even get a mod to back that up. I've seen you post things intelligently, I know you're not incapable of it. But you were just plain craptacular tonight.

Now calm the fuck down and cut all this out, before mods delete your posts. None of this has anything to do with the proposal at hand. If you want to gripe about RL politics, try General.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad28ts.png

I disagree. My original post had everything to do with the proposal at hand until you guys decided to take the bit that stuck a thorn in your paw and focus on that. Or, in the case of Cluich, start calling me ignorant and in your case, a git. If one cannot use an RL example to support their claim, then what can one use precisely?

I do not agree with the concept of terrorism as an enemy to be combatted. Therefore, the entire definition proposed in the Resolution is disagreeable to me. I vote no because of this. It matters little to me that the best example of the reason I don't agree with the definition is the US and the Middle East. And even if I were blaming the US, (something that you and your friend in this debate choose to focus on and magnify) I have the absolute right to say so, just the same as you have the right not to. Just do so without the slander against me.

Getting back to the topic at hand ...

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to address some of the main points made against this proposal if I may:

1. "Root causes"; this proposal ignores the social problems that breed terror, etc. -- Irrelevant. This proposal is geared toward dealing with people who have already become terrorists, not children who may potentially grow up to become them. Social Justice and Human Rights are always admirable goals, but those are matters for separate proposals, and separate categories. This is International Security. Adding Social Justice/Human Rights provisions would deem this proposal illegal.

2. "Freedom fighters" -- This proposal does not address legitimate nationalist liberation movements, only organizations that conduct terror activities across international borders in order to promote radical ideologies.

3. "State actors" -- First off, this proposal already deals with that partly by illegalizing national support for international terror groups. Secondly, UN proposals are specifically geared toward changing laws in member states. If you want all nations to outlaw war crimes, write a separate proposal about it. It has nothing to do with the specific force of this proposal; namely, halting state support for international terrorist organizations.

4. "National sovereignty" -- Your nation has no right to finance or give aid and comfort to those who would wreak havok on my citizens. There is no valid national sovereignty argument here.

Thank you for your time.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to address some of the main points made against this proposal if I may:

1. "Root causes"; this proposal ignores the social problems that breed terror, etc. -- Irrelevant. This proposal is geared toward dealing with people who have already become terrorists, not children who may potentially grow up to become them. Social Justice and Human Rights are always admirable goals, but those are matters for separate proposals, and separate categories. This is International Security. Adding Social Justice/Human Rights provisions would deem this proposal illegal.

I see it more favorable to deal with the root causes than the result. This is an easily debatable standpoint. Therefore, I vote no.

4. "National sovereignty" -- Your nation has no right to finance or give aid and comfort to those who would wreak havok on my citizens. There is no valid national sovereignty argument here.

Certainly there is. And that is the methods of which such criminals are prosecuted. The National Sovereignty argument is legitimate in stating that each nation shall prosecute and punish lawbreakers as it sees fit, provided due process and human rights are not violated. A National Sovereignty argument that deals with funding is a trickier matter, but there is certainly the aforementioned valid Sovereignty argument.

just keep in mind that many nations that are "free nation states" today were created because of "terrorists" and "terrorism". the negative connotations of "terrorism" are only in your mind because of the current American politcal war against "terrorism", be that what it may...

just keep in mind that many nations that are "free nation states" today were created because of "terrorists" and "terrorism". the negative connotations of "terrorism" are only in your mind because of the current American politcal war against "terrorism", be that what it may...

Well, the fact that the word has "Terror" in it doesn't make one think very highly of it either.

From Cluichstan

Yes, we call that [use of the threat of violence to advance political goals] war.

And doesn't that reveal that you simply desire to limit warlords to the elite? Either accept global conflict, dear delegate, or work for peace. There can be no half-peace with the few disarming the many. Fearmongering is fearmongering, enlightened peer. I just wanted to make it clear what you intend...

This act is an attempt to ensure the maintenance of the status-quo, my illuminates, and to do so violently

1. "Root causes"; this proposal ignores the social problems that breed terror, etc. -- Irrelevant.


1a. Agreed. This proposal has not attempted to deal with root causes. Remember that some people don't believe in punishing people for things society has caused and not sought to remedy. I am not one of those people, I merely point out that those people exist. They vary from those who believe in Robin Hooding down to those who simply want to spend time and money on improving communication, education, and standard of living. Deal with it. They may not agree with you on fundamental levels, but I have found that calling them idiots does nothing to find common ground or add to the discussion.


This proposal is geared toward dealing with people who have already become terrorists, not children who may potentially grow up to become them.


1b. This is true except for the part that asks us to identify those who, "...intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts..." For the most part, they discuss people who have become terrorists, people who have aided terrorists, and people who fund terrorists. However, the wording here and in the parts dictating those who have associated with terrorists is in total breach of the laws of my country, and hopefully those of previous UN legislations regarding fair legal practices?


2. "Freedom fighters" -- This proposal does not address legitimate nationalist liberation movements, only organizations that conduct terror activities across international borders in order to promote radical ideologies.


2. Agreed. Freedom fighters are NOT targeted in this bill unless they intend on attacking the government by attacking its citizens. People who seek to attack the innocent citizens of a country... the attacks are just so random... they hurt people that may have no idea what the struggles of the oppressed may be. And in the end, all it does is send people to extremes. I've read previous posts talking about the RL 9/11 attacks, and how no one cared why they did it... it saddens me to think that in someone’s mind that their can be a good reason for what they did. Why kill a bunch of people to bring attention to your plight or to your cause? If they had used those terrorists to attack the very people who were causing their anguish, it would at least make sense. But to use planes full of people to attack targets that primarily were made up of random people... The wording of this document does not forgive those acts, nor should they. However, the wording of this document does not forbid people of an oppressed nation from garnering the support of likeminded people from around the globe in an effort to bring about change, so long as it is done WITHOUT targeting the innocent.


4. "National sovereignty" -- Your nation has no right to finance or give aid and comfort to those who would wreak havok on my citizens. There is no valid national sovereignty argument here.


4. Actually, previous UN legislations may guard you against it, but not this one. There is nothing in this bill that says that if a group of people in your country want to rebel against your government, that I can't supply them. If they storm your capitol building and take you hostage, I'm afraid that you aren't civilian enough to fall under the protection of these guidelines. So long as they aren't targeting your civilians, any country is free to... invest in bringing down your government in favour of one that is friendlier. Go ahead. Read it again. This document won't protect you. Now there may be (and perhaps should be) legislation that DOES offer you that protection, but this isn’t it.

OOC: I feel like this is 12 angry men the way people's biases are in here. Being a Law student, I don't think that any piece of legislation should make it into the books unless it has no loopholes. So it is kind of the opposite of 12 angry men, people are innocent if there exists a reasonable doubt. Legislation is guilty if there exists reasonable doubt.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak."

Getting back to the topic at hand ...

2. "Freedom fighters" -- This proposal does not address legitimate nationalist liberation movements, only organizations that conduct terror activities across international borders in order to promote radical ideologies.



(1) Who decides what nationalist liberation movements are legitimate?
(2) What is a radical ideology? Democracy was once a radical ideology, Cf. American and French Revolutions.
(3) "Across international borders" -- if participants in a "legitimate nationalist liberation movement" are brutally oppressed by the ruling government and they cross state lines while still actively supporting their nationalist movement, do they now count as international terrorists?

What do we do if that oppressive regime claims that the movement is targeting civilians, but because of a complete lack of transparency, there is no way to verify or refute that claim? What about immigrants and expatriates who send remittances home to relatives who may or may not be supporting or participating in a movement that may or may not targeting civilians as a part of a revolution that may or may not be legitimate?

This resolution is somehow guilty of both vagueness and micromanagement at the same time, and also opens the door to UN-sponsored racial and ethnic persecution.

Nevertheless, even given these considerable shortcomings, based on past experience, this country predicts a thoughtless passage of this resolution followed shortly by an only slightly more thoughtful repeal.

I suggest you resign, then; it's clearly hopeless.

We intend to invade every single nation that opposes this legislation. If they're not with us, they're against us. :mad:

In my mind anyone who doesn't help prevent terrorism, is in fact a terrorist themselves. The Jingoistic States of Perpendiculous is with you all the way!:mp5:

I simply do not understand how anyone can vote in favour of terrorism. May you and your families be the next victims, instead of some innocents.

America is the key anti-terror country in the world right now.

To the contrary, the American government is, of course, the greatest terrorist network in the world today; this has been true since 1980.

To the contrary, the American government is, of course, the greatest terrorist network in the world today; this has been true since 1980.


OOC: OK, where have we deliberately and without obvious provocation murdered INNOCENT civilians?

OOC: OK, where have we deliberately and without obvious provocation murdered INNOCENT civilians?
OOC: Well, the US has encouraged those who have done so, especially in Latin America. The US has always been more of a force for terror than against it. Sorry if this upsets you.

And doesn't that reveal that you simply desire to limit warlords to the elite? Either accept global conflict, dear delegate, or work for peace. There can be no half-peace with the few disarming the many. Fearmongering is fearmongering, enlightened peer. I just wanted to make it clear what you intend...

This act is an attempt to ensure the maintenance of the status-quo, my illuminates, and to do so violently

No, under the precepts of international law, state and non-state actors are treated differently. Take your absurd classist "elites" argument elsewhere. It doesn't belong here.

OOC: Well, the US has encouraged those who have done so, especially in Latin America. The US has always been more of a force for terror than against it. Sorry if this upsets you.

OOC: Let's not continue this argument please. It has no place here. Take it to General.

EDIT: And Eco, that wasn't directed at you specifically. I merely used your post to quote because it was the most recent.

I vote against it, end of story

OOC: Well, the US has encouraged those who have done so, especially in Latin America. The US has always been more of a force for terror than against it. Sorry if this upsets you.


There is no need to apologize, because what you are saying is the truth. The truth, however shameful, must be accepted.

I vote against it, end of story

Good stuff.

Yeah, bloody brilliant that. :rolleyes:

This resolution essentially enforces the following statements:
1. Killing innocent civilians is a bad thing.
2. Nations should not give any support to groups who kill innocent civilians in other nations.
3. Nations should do their best to stop bad people from helping groups who kill innocent civilians in other nations.

Can some kind soul in the against field tell me which of these particular statements they disagree with?

NB: The nice freedom fighters are usually attacking the military, not innocent civilians, and that is beyond the scope of this resolution. Freedom fighters who kill small babies are nasty freedom fighters. Think of the children!

OOC: Well, the US has encouraged those who have done so, especially in Latin America. The US has always been more of a force for terror than against it. Sorry if this upsets you.

Aside - Specifically, the US has on its record one Security Council resolutions condemning it's unilateral invasion of Panama, and two for Nicaragua, and I don't need to mention Grenada, Libya, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan. The world court has convicted the US. All of these actions have been subverted by veto, despite large worldwide support. This is not a comment meant to inflame, but you deserve to hear the facts. Please look this stuff up and be informed.

/enough of that conversation.
//lets get back to in char

As the senior diplomat in my countries foreign service, I cannot agree to this resolution. It appears to be a direct assault on the sovereign rights of my nation to enforce a system of justice agreed upon by all of our citizens. We will not subject our citizens to the tyranny of other nations.

Vote Against.

As the senior diplomat in my countries foreign service, I cannot agree to this resolution. It appears to be a direct assault on the sovereign rights of my nation to enforce a system of justice agreed upon by all of our citizens. We will not subject our citizens to the tyranny of other nations.

Vote Against.

As a member of the National Sovereignty Organization myself, I still fail to see how this proposal infringes upon the sovereignty of individual nations and subjects their citizens to "the tyranny of other nations." Please explain.

Remove "intend to commit" and Englanti will vote for

Remove "intend to commit" and Englanti will vote for

I know this thread is very long, and there's a lot to wade through, but we have already addressed this issue here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10371648&postcount=227). We urge you to reconsider your position.

The Republic of Terrorocracy's official stance is to support the spread of Terror not only within its borders, but throughout the world as well. Any bill attempting to curb Terror will be met with stiff resistance by the Terrified citizens of Terrorocracy, adn the measure will be soundly defeated.

Against.

The Republic of Terrorocracy's official stance is to support the spread of Terror not only within its borders, but throughout the world as well. Any bill attempting to curb Terror will be met with stiff resistance by the Terrified citizens of Terrorocracy, adn the measure will be soundly defeated.

Against.

Ah, yet another troll has come out to play... :rolleyes:

I know this thread is very long, and there's a lot to wade through, but we have already addressed this issue here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10371648&postcount=227). We urge you to reconsider your position.

Let's see then. What you say in the post to which that link leads is the following:

"Intent" here is not meant as merely thinking about something. There would, of course, need to be some sort of evidence

That's sounds all fine and dandy. However, what you say in this post is not of any importance. What matters is what the resolution says, and the resolution makes no mention of any need for evidence of intent.

That's sounds all fine and dandy. However, what you say in this post is not of any importance. What matters is what the resolution says, and the resolution makes no mention of any need for evidence of intent.
That's because it doesn't need to. There are already sufficient legal protections under NSUN law that the only legal way to do so would be with evidence.

Also, didn't you say you were leaving this thread? :confused:

Certainly there is. And that is the methods of which such criminals are prosecuted. The National Sovereignty argument is legitimate in stating that each nation shall prosecute and punish lawbreakers as it sees fit, provided due process and human rights are not violated. A National Sovereignty argument that deals with funding is a trickier matter, but there is certainly the aforementioned valid Sovereignty argument.There is nothing in the proposal telling you how you must prosecute terrorist offenders; it only tells you to do it. You have no right to refuse to prosecute international terrorists in your borders; you have no right to refuse to freeze the assets of terrorists; you have no right to ignore the presence of international terrorism in your nation. All of this only gives aid and comfort to the enemy, which as previously stated your nation has no right to do.

Actually, previous UN legislations may guard you against it, but not this one. There is nothing in this bill that says that if a group of people in your country want to rebel against your government, that I can't supply them. If they storm your capitol building and take you hostage, I'm afraid that you aren't civilian enough to fall under the protection of these guidelines. So long as they aren't targeting your civilians, any country is free to... invest in bringing down your government in favour of one that is friendlier. Go ahead. Read it again. This document won't protect you. Now there may be (and perhaps should be) legislation that DOES offer you that protection, but this isn’t it.Yeah, you think you're so fucking wise; I'm the one responsible for this legislation making that very important distinction, dumbass. Support for legitimate nationalist movements are an entirely legitimate method in warfare; heck, even supporting nationalist militants in the absence of war is legitimate, if incredibly sleazy and anti-democratic. However, supporting international death cults [OOC: like Hamas and al-Qaida] who deliberately blow up innocent civilians only to promote a extremist ideology is not legitimate in any way, shape or form. That is what this proposal specifically addresses.

*snip*[OOC: I say we all take a deep breath, calm the fuck down, sit in a circle and join hands as we all share a verse or two of "Kumbaya," to be followed by a rousing chorus of "Death to America!" There will be soothing massages and a round of invigorating enemas for those of you who still feel pent up afterward.]

Let's see then. What you say in the post to which that link leads is the following:



That's sounds all fine and dandy. However, what you say in this post is not of any importance. What matters is what the resolution says, and the resolution makes no mention of any need for evidence of intent.

If there's no evidence, it can't be proven. Moot point.

OOC EDIT: Oh, yeah, and what Gruenberg said.

I am sorry not to read all of the thread either but Englanti has it's own pressing matters and cannot afford to spend time doing so ;)

Also my first time discussing an issue.

Our objection is not that there is no specification of needing evidence - as I assume that is the case - perheps too trustingly.

Our objection is whether intending to commit a crime is a crime or not - it is not an issue we have come to a conclusion in parliment, or the gemeral public. So other nations advice would be appreciated. For example I could intend to steal a new Microsoft Media Centre PC from Gigantti - but not do it because I realise it would be wrong. Would I be punished? No! I didn't commit a crime. Obviously, however, with the nature of terrorist criminal acts it is understandable to consider an exception to this logic. There could be thousands of lives at risk and you have the knowledge the planners but cannot do anything definite to stop it. Then also you have the situation where the terrorist may no longer be alive after commiting the crime - so punishment is not possible.

Advice appreciated.

Voted against because of the national sovereignty points of the argument. I am not comfortable with mandating or requiring any action of member states, thus can not support the resolution. The potential for unintended consequences is far, far to great as well as it sets a precedent (perhaps others see it as already being set) for greater UN authority.

I am sorry not to read all of the thread either but Englanti has it's own pressing matters and cannot afford to spend time doing so ;)

Also my first time discussing an issue.

Our objection is not that there is no specification of needing evidence - as I assume that is the case - perheps too trustingly.

Our objection is whether intenting to commit a crime is a crime or not - it is not an issue we have come to a conclusion in parliment, or the gemeral public. So other nations advice would be appreciated. For example I could intend to steal a new Microsoft Media Centre PC from Gigantti - but not do it because I realise it would be wrong. Would I be punished? No! I didn't commit a crime. Obviously, however, with the nature of terrorist criminal acts it is understandable to consider an exception to this logic. There could be thousands of lives at risk and you have the knowledge the planners but cannot do anything definite to stop it. Then also you have the situation where the terrorist may no longer be alive after commiting the crime - so punishment is not possible.

Advice appreciated.

As I noted in the post to which I linked you a short time ago, such a plan would have to be put into motion to a certain extent before there were enough evidence of intent.

As for punishment, you may not be able to punish a suicide bomber, but you could most certainly prosecute anyone who aided and abetted him in the commission of a crime.

EDIT: And no need to apologise for this being your first time discussing an issue in the UN. We were all new here once. Welcome aboard. ;)

Voted against because of the national sovereignty points of the argument. I am not comfortable with mandating or requiring any action of member states, thus can not support the resolution. The potential for unintended consequences is far, far to great as well as it sets a precedent (perhaps others see it as already being set) for greater UN authority.

There are no national-sovereignty arguments against this proposal, aside from people stating that there are but without providing any explanation as to what those arguments are. You can't just say, "NatSov. No." As a member of the National Sovereignty Organization (NSO) myself, I must ask you to stop it. You do those of us who have worked carefully and hard on this proposal -- and yes, there was a lot of input during its drafting from my fellow NSO members to ensure that it didn't infringe upon the sovereignty of individual nations.

Greater UN authority? How? There's no UN agency being established here. The UN really, once this proposal passes, wouldn't be involved at all. Individual nations, under this proposal, would simply work bilaterally and/or multilaterally towards combatting international terror. The UN itself won't be involved at all.

It seems like the againsts are righteosly going to win this vote. Vote against this infringement of our national sovereignity.

It seems like the againsts are righteosly going to win this vote. Vote against this infringement of our national sovereignity.

OOC: You fail at reading, troll. See the post directly above yours.

I AM NOT A TROLL! Fine I admit, I make some mistakes, I'm not perfect. But 'sstop acting like your the policeman with a case full of AK-47's.

[OOC: Yeah, you think you're so fucking wise; I'm the one responsible for this legislation making that very important distinction, dumbass.


You should really stop using the out of context/character when saying stuff like that. It doesn't seem at all out of character for you to resort to namecalling. As far as I'm concerned: I'll take a little wisdom over whatever it is you spout anyday.

[Support for legitimate nationalist movements are an entirely legitimate method in warfare; heck, even supporting nationalist militants in the absence of war is legitimate, if incredibly sleazy and anti-democratic.


It is not sleazy or anti-democratic to support nationalist militants who seek to bring democracy to places where democracy is a dirty word. In the very fabric of the NS world, we have many states that would refuse basic human rights to its citizens. Many of these fall outside of the realm of the UN as they aren't member countries.

However, supporting international death cults like Hamas and al-Qaida who deliberately blow up innocent civilians only to promote a extremist ideology is not legitimate in any way, shape or form. That is what this proposal specifically addresses.]


Read what I wrote. Did I look at all like I didn't know that? Why are you trying to explain to me what I've already written?

You seem to take your opinions very seriously, but you have not once been able to explain to me why the flaws I pointed out aren't legitimate. Instead of saying, "That dumbass is a freaking dumbass," try answering to my concerns. Or someone who is in favour of this proposal and is actually able to read, go back to where I listed my concerns, and attempt to persude me and all the other againsts that those were not legitimate reasons NOT to support this. The list is back on page 12 and quotes 4 pieces of the legislation, offering five criticisms of the document.

It also has a little tongue and cheek in the second section where I discuss the absence of prohibiting economic goals. So long as my goals were economic and I didn't want to bring about any political, religious, or ideological gains, I could destroy whatever and whomever I wanted.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak."

As I noted in the post to which I linked you a short time ago, such a plan would have to be put into motion to a certain extent before there were enough evidence of intent.

As for punishment, you may not be able to punish a suicide bomber, but you could most certainly prosecute anyone who aided and abetted him in the commission of a crime.

EDIT: And no need to apologise for this being your first time discussing an issue in the UN. We were all new here once. Welcome aboard. ;)

Your two examples in the linked post are interesting. Definitely helping Englanti resolve it's fight against crime. Paying somebody money is not a crime - even if the money is for murder - however if an attempt or murder occurs the person financing the crime should obviously be punished (pretty equally to the murder).

Likewise with the terrorist plan to blow up a palace it is a plan - not a crime. However rightly you cannot just allow it to happen. So leaves the question of how to prevent both these crimes. Englanti is a free country where people should be punish for crime but are able to use their minds. For example allowing freedom of speach opens a corridor of differences and disagreements. People have to use their minds and realise different people believe and want different things and those should be accepted. This is what I see as the underlying ignorance in (for example) the conflict between islam extremists and christians (which I assume is the reason for the timing of this act). People have minds that they can realise that different places have different rules and beliefs and those should be accepted. Differences are happy things.

So back to how to prevent the murder and terrorist act. The people you have evidence on have to be informed and warned. Also notified that they will be under close watch and everything will be done to prevent the event happening if it goes from a plan into an action.

This is a theory. A theory Englanti is split as to if in practice it can work. We feel this is a similar issue to the one we had in the past over the death penalty. In theory there is justice but in reality innocent people can be killed and it goes against spiritual guidance. Which is the dilemma here - saying it is a crime to intend to do something could punish a person who would choose not to do the planned crime. However if the person is not prevented from carrying out the intended crime other innocent people could be hurt or even killed. I wonder what the spiritual guidance on this one is?

If only people could open their minds to others and differences - to be accepting, open and more relaxed to life. The education sector is doing everything it can to help the people of Englanti develope this kind of mindset. The question is still open however - which is the best way to follow in reality at this minute in time? :confused:

Voted against because of the national sovereignty points of the argument. I am not comfortable with mandating or requiring any action of member states, thus can not support the resolution. The potential for unintended consequences is far, far to great as well as it sets a precedent (perhaps others see it as already being set) for greater UN authority.

We admit to having been a bit puzzled by this statement. Is the representative unaware that there are literally dozens of resolutions already in force that mandate and require actions by member states? We cannot agree that this resolution sets any precedent for greater UN authority.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Likewise with the terrorist plan to blow up a palace it is a plan - not a crime.

In most legal systems, planning to blow up a palace is a crime in itself. The concept of plan/intent in legalese do not encompass fleeting thoughts of "what if i blew up that palace." It implies that your mind is made up, and that you took some steps towards implementing it. Proof of that intent needs to be provided before you are considered guilty.

OOC: Incomplete crimes in America. (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can-i-be-convicted-of-attempting-a-crime-.html)

In most legal systems, planning to blow up a palace is a crime in itself. The concept of plan/intent in legalese do not encompass fleeting thoughts of "what if i blew up that palace." It implies that your mind is made up, and that you took some steps towards implementing it. Proof of that intent needs to be provided before you are considered guilty.

OOC: Incomplete crimes in America. (http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/can-i-be-convicted-of-attempting-a-crime-.html)

Yes I understand that. We believe in questioning everything :) Maybe Englanti will choose to go with the majority, maybe we won't.

Yes I understand that. We believe in questioning everything :) Maybe Englanti will choose to go with the majority, maybe we won't.

If the honorable representative of Englanti has some inside information about where the majority will lean in the end, I urge him to share it with us. ;)

“DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.”

As worded this would include organizations such as Greenpeace.

Or, say refusing to disperse a demonstration…laying down or going limp and forcing police to bodily remove you is considered resisting arrest is some places, and strangely enough that is considered “Violence” by some legal codes…

Too much wiggle room to invoke this as an excuse to eliminate dissent.

We vote against.


:gundge:

Whether or not this resolution passes, The Palentine will not stand for terrorist attacts on its native soil, or any of its allies native soil. My nation firmly believes in the doctrine of pre-emption, and the principle that it is far better to take the fight to the terrorist rather than have them come to you.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Whether or not this resolution passes, The Palentine will not stand for terrorist attacts on its native soil, or any of its allies native soil. My nation firmly believes in the doctrine of pre-emption, and the principle that it is far better to take the fight to the terrorist rather than have them come to you.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla


That's fine and all, but everyone in a true democracy is guarenteed a trial. You submitting legislation to the U.N. to promote authoritarianism-like laws to deal with this is not the way. Good motive, bad way of carrying it out.

“DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.”

As worded this would include organizations such as Greenpeace.

Or, say refusing to disperse a demonstration…laying down or going limp and forcing police to bodily remove you is considered resisting arrest is some places, and strangely enough that is considered “Violence” by some legal codes…

Too much wiggle room to invoke this as an excuse to eliminate dissent.

We vote against.

I don't know what that group is, but if that Greenpeace thing is or threatens to be violent against the peace-loving citizens of Fonzoland, you can be damn sure we will fucking destroy them! On the other hand, if all they do is refuse to disperse in a demonstration, we challenge you to provide one (1) source/dictionary/whatever describing such acts as violent.

Actually, the debate has come a long way, it is about time people started wanking on the definition of violence...

[You see what you did? Now I am beginning to sound like Mr. Riley.]

That's fine and all, but everyone in a true democracy is guarenteed a trial. You submitting legislation to the U.N. to promote authoritarianism-like laws to deal with this is not the way. Good motive, bad way of carrying it out.

Not all UN members have democratic governments.

Not all UN members have democratic governments.

Some of us have only the thinest veneer of having a democratic government, or even civillity. Mine's about worn off.:D ...oops, Did I say that aloud? Bad Senator, Bad Senator.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
"New Improved Barbaric Militant Machismo 24/7"

The proud Nation of Harfold fully supports all types of terrorism.

Those who disagree on our stance can go suck a letterbomb.

The proud Nation of Harfold fully supports all types of terrorism.

Those who disagree on our stance can go suck a letterbomb.

I support my esteemed militant brethren on this particular issue, I also support all kinds of terrorism, including (but not limited to) biological and chemical.

I will reiterate my prior statement: a vote for this resolution is a vote against your nations' right to support terrorism.

Cluichstan:
No, under the precepts of international law, state and non-state actors are treated differently. Take your absurd classist "elites" argument elsewhere. It doesn't belong here.


And here, sterling companions, is the problem. What is some "terrorists" commit a succesful coup and becomt the leaders of their country without outside funding. No noble votes, no exaulted line of succession, just a bloody and hostile take-over. They are now in control of their nation, like many of the...


Cluichstan:
Not all UN members have democratic governments.


...non democratic UN members. Now that they are in control, this act exempts them. Cluichstan would be free to fund this organization, a terrorist organization, because they are now "State Actors".

Am I truly, valued delegates, an egalitarian fool; do I just see more clearly how this act would allow some of us to legitimise funding to certain groups, provided they kill enough people to take national control first.

Oh ffs...

A question, shimmering enlightened-ones:

Does this act persecute those who kill innocents, or just terrorists?

This act defines terrorists simply as non-state-actors who use violence or the threat of violence to aceive political goals.

Someone could kill a large number of civilians, but if they are not trying to reach a political goal they are not terrorists.

ffs?

Oh ffs...

I second that, and raise you one omfg.

A question, shimmering enlightened-ones:

Does this act persecute those who kill innocents, or just terrorists?

Those who kill innocents.

This act defines terrorists simply as non-state-actors who use violence or the threat of violence to aceive political goals.

Not true. The esteemed representative of Aesthyra is either lying through his teeth or simply unaware of the subtleties of language. I am sure the esteemed representative will make an effort to read again, specifically the part about targetting the civilian population (and I am quoting from memory).

Someone could kill a large number of civilians, but if they are not trying to reach a political goal they are not terrorists.

No, they are serial killers. Your point being?

This "You're either with us or you're a terrorist" thing I've seen pop up on the boards makes me more than ever more against this Resolution than ever. This Resolution is a tool I don't want falling into the hands of people who believe that it is their way or an invasion.

Norderia also admonishes much of the kind of debating that has been used in this thread. Most notably (because I've been paying closer attention to them since last night's unpleasantness) Cluichstan and OMFGKenny. But it has been all over the place on this board, posts with nothing but flames, personal attacks on the literacy of others, and all because one side doesn't agree with the other. It just so happens that I name two of the contributors to this resolution because they seem to be (again, probably because of last night) more vocal in defending their proposal.

I'm tired of flames and slander. Debate, people. If you don't like someone's reason for voting pro- or con- and can't think of anything to say aside from "Well you're stupid" or "You can't read" or "Oh yeah, THAT'S smart," or any other irrelevent statement that doesn't advance the debate.... Then don't say anything.

I conceed to your valued insight.

I had interperated the passage incorrectly, which is why I had phrased my statement as a question.

Thank you for your clarification, esteemed pedant.

Added note*

I still beleive it is possible to classify as a terrorist under this act without killing innocents, good friends.

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Increased police and military spending is NOT the way to prevent terrorism I am scared by how this is going Please HELP!!!!!!! :gundge:

OOC: People who have complained about the sheer volume of material in these 20+ pages would have much less to sift through, and be better at liberty to educate themselves, without the abovementioned useless flames and rants.

IC: If we comit ourselves to communication, and not slander, perhaps we can open up channels of progress.

Please seek enlightnment!

Sushi Shovelers:
Increased police and military spending is NOT the way to prevent terrorism I am scared by how this is going Please HELP!!!!!!!


An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

OOC: Had the US taken the money spent on arms given to Israel and spent it on mediating the middle east conflict (rateher than funding one side), there would have been no costs associated with "rebuilding" after 911. There would have been no 911. Small cost for a big price reduction.

And yes, the people flying those planes were murderers.

They are excused no more than a serial killer acting on latent feelings of childhood abuse. They are killers, but what of those who created them? Are the abusive fathers and arms dealers of the world not complicit in the violence.

OOC Cluichstan, I had quite some respect for you when I read your resolution in the first place. It is well worded, well thought out, and well put together. My country had some problems with the content, as I have discussed earlier in this thread at some length, but I had hopes that you would be able to discuss them intelligently and understand even if I never agreed with you that this was an intellectual exercise.

I have read what you have posted since I left yesterday. Your arguments seem to all have devolved into namecalling. Please stop it. If your resolution does not pass, it is not a reflection on you personally. There are good ideas in it, and if it doesn't pass, you can rework it and resubmit. In the meanwhile, calling people who have come to discuss it names does your cause NO good whatsoever. Your resolution may pass, but currently, your poor behavior is doing nothing at all to further that possibility.

So grow up! Stop behaving like a child whose toy is being broken. Behave like an adult, ARGUE like an adult, and those of us who ARE adults might even take you seriously. If you are that needy of attention, let me say for the record that you are a good boy (yes, I am assuming boy, sorry if I am wrong) and have done a nice job on your resolution. You get a gold star. If you were a delegate in the RL UN and calling people such names, however, and being insulting when they have raised valid point, you wouldn't last two seconds. Diplomacy. Go look it up.


OK... go ahead, blast away. I am sure that you feel you must. My response, however, so that I don't need to bother with this again will be "whatever." So once you have written whatever attack you need about me, just go ahead and add at the end my response of "whatever" and we can be done with this and get back to the game. End of OOC.

In the name of the Divine Order and His Divine Majesty, Merreken XXXIV, by Divine Right Emperor of Erachon, etc., the Government of the Stellar Empire of Erachon wishes to express its utmost concern over the threats said by those who support this resolution. Using the phrase "If you're not with us, you're against us", declaring hostility towards nations who would oppose the said resolution and having a generally arrogant and warlike stance towards them is highly reminiscent of a certain lower life-form of questionable intelligence to whom the more intellectually impaired half of the people of the United States of America have given their vote in the recent presidential elections. It is a policy of the Stellar Empire not to negotiate with terrorists nor to respond to threats, especially when uttered by Bush-wannabe jackasses of whom we have an opinion even lower than the one we have of terrorists. We wholeheartedly oppose this resolution and impatiently await one which is worded better than this one and is proposed by people with better manners and whose idols' I.Q. is above room temperature level. The Government of the Stellar Empire believes that passing this resolution would indicate that the respected members of the United Nations consider threats as acceptable means for the passing of international law on the planet Earth. Such a notion is highly unacceptable, and the Government will propose to the Imperial Assembly the immediate resignation of our colonies on the planet Earth from the United Nations should this resolution pass.

With hope that reason and democracy will prevail over arrogance and belligerence,

The Most Illustrious and Most Serene Sir Ergal Norsuff, Jr., Count of Treyligh
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE EMPEROR OF ERACHON

HEY we are all "STATE ACTORS" here. WE CAN USE THREATS OF VIOLENCE ALL WE WANT. ITS IN THE DAMNED PROPOSAL.

Don't like it, leave. I'll join as soon as you losers leave the HEROES like Clutchistan and OFMGKenny alone. Once there are fewer pussies in the UN, I'll join and help clean this liberal-love-fest crap up.

GO ANTI TERRORIST ACT!!!

Just try legislating stateheads out of "The threat of the use of violence". Its integral to our way of governance, back off.

GO VIOLENT POSTS!!!

*snip*Lecture all you like, but please do not condescend. I can understand the author's feelings about this discussion, because instead of an actual debate weighing the actual merits of the proposal, he's mostly gotten only frustrated rantings about a certain RL nation (see above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10379809#post10379809)), trolling, disjointed reasoning, and pointless bickering over minutiae and "freedom fighters" and "state actors" and the such.

Once again, people, this proposal is about international terrorism. Not America. Not "freedom fighters." Not "state actors." Thank you.

OOC: No, Kenny, thank you. You're my hero now. ;)

Wouldn't this resolution be Resolution #1 more defined and detailed?
Well, the resolution says "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." But, with the increased budgets, wouldn't those party to said resolution use this to start more wars, and use this resolution to justify it?

Edit: I looked, and this resolution has the same heading and everything as resolution #1..

Wouldn't this resolution be Resolution #1 more defined and detailed?
Well, the resolution says "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." But, with the increased budgets, wouldn't those party to said resolution use this to start more wars, and use this resolution to justify it?

Edit: I looked, and this resolution has the same heading and everything as resolution #1..

Increased military spending doesn't automatically mean more soldiers, guns, bombs, tanks, missiles, etc. The increased spending could be -- and, in this case, will be -- going towards primarily increased intelligence funding.

EDIT: All international-security proposals receive that header.

Lecture all you like, but please do not condescend. I can understand the author's feelings about this discussion, because instead of an actual debate weighing the actual merits of the proposal, he's mostly gotten only frustrated rantings about a certain RL nation (see above (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10379809#post10379809)), trolling, disjointed reasoning, and pointless bickering over minutiae and "freedom fighters" and "state actors" and the such.

Once again, people, this proposal is about international terrorism. Not America. Not "freedom fighters." Not "state actors." Thank you.

Quite honestly, the slip into condescention was out of annoyance, and for that I am sorry. The "trolling, disjointed reasoning, and pointless bickering" however, is most certainly NOT over minutiae.

The concerns about who is covered by what in this resolution is of the utmost importance, and, in fact, seems to be the reason that has caused the most people to vote against it. The definition of "freedom fighter" and the tactics employed by same, as well as who constitutes a "state actor" are of vital importance to this discussion, and the attempt to dismiss such discussion out of hand as "bickering" is what brought me to my "lecture" in the first place.

The discussion of America is simply the easiest way to illustrate the points being made by those who have concerns and objections to wording in the proposal. As we have no in game examples to which we can all point and use as demonstration, it becomes almost impossible not to use RL examples.

In fact, if we were to stick entirely to in game examples, I would be forced to ask you to show me any examples that terrorism even exists at all, and if you have none, why do we even need this legislation?

Most people agree with you that terrorism is a bad thing. Those who don't may be doing so in a humorous way, but they are few and you can, if you so choose, simply ignore them, let their comments slide by and move on. The issue at hand is that many of us want clearer definition of what constitutes "terrorism" and "terrorist" as the definition provided about killing civilians and who gets to do it does not completely satisfy. These are NOT minor points, they speak to the heart of the matter. There has yet to be an adequate separation of what a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist" do. In fact, they often employ the same tactics, so how is one OK and the other not in this legislation? Who makes that determination? How does the making of these sorts of determinations impact a nation's decisions to help a group that they feel need help? It does affect national sovereignty if the UN calls someone a terrorist whom I have been funding as a freedom fighter.

These are points being "actually debated" and directly go to the "actual merits of the proposal". And that is the whole point of this sort of discussion. So if you cannot provide answers that are acceptable, those of us with concerns will continue to express them, and continue to vote no.

If you would like a perfect example of state-sponsored international terrorism in NS, just take a look at this (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Secular_Resistance). Now...there's no terrorism in NS?

The discussion of America is simply the easiest way to illustrate the points being made by those who have concerns and objections to wording in the proposal. As we have no in game examples to which we can all point and use as demonstration, ...You always have me ...

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/KennyCard-A.jpg

[/self-pimping]

You always have me ...

*pretty pic*

[/self-pimping]

State-actor, doesn't count. Now, if you take Cluich's phone-sex empire...

State-actor, doesn't count. Now, if you take Cluich's phone-sex empire...

Let's leave Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. out of this, okay? ;)

Let's leave Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. out of this, okay? ;)

For $500, the category is "Terrorist or freedom fighter."

For $500, the category is "Terrorist or freedom fighter."

Neither. Legitimate international business. Um...yeah... :cool:

If you would like a perfect example of state-sponsored international terrorism in NS, just take a look at this (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Secular_Resistance). Now...there's no terrorism in NS?

Quoting from the page you mention... "Some nations, like Ness Ziona, The Opressive Church and Soviet Trasa, refer to the organization as a terrorist organization and nothing more. The organization leadership, though, empathized the importance of referring to the DSRO as a liberation organization of freedom fighters, dedicated for democratic causes and demanding religious freedom."

OK, so we have "freedom fighters" in NS, thanks for showing me, however this perfectly illustrates my point that we need to be able to define the difference.

Quoting from the page you mention... "Some nations, like Ness Ziona, The Opressive Church and Soviet Trasa, refer to the organization as a terrorist organization and nothing more. The organization leadership, though, empathized the importance of referring to the DSRO as a liberation organization of freedom fighters, dedicated for democratic causes and demanding religious freedom."

OK, so we have "freedom fighters" NS, thanks for showing me, however this perfectly illustrates my point that we need to be able to define the difference.

The difference is defined in the proposal. I don't care what members of the DSRO call themselves. They are terrorists. Four attacks that claimed 1,059 civilian lives and injured thousands more -- that is terrorism, pure and simple.

man to pay for the expense of this act would cause smaller nations to go bankrupt or have no money for anything

Quoting from the page you mention... "Some nations, like Ness Ziona, The Opressive Church and Soviet Trasa, refer to the organization as a terrorist organization and nothing more. The organization leadership, though, empathized the importance of referring to the DSRO as a liberation organization of freedom fighters, dedicated for democratic causes and demanding religious freedom."

OK, so we have "freedom fighters" in NS, thanks for showing me, however this perfectly illustrates my point that we need to be able to define the difference.

International law, especially on international security issues, should never discriminate based on goals; their merit is highly subjective and depends on political rhetoric. This proposal does not attempt to do so, and clearly specifies the subject matter based on actions and actions alone. It aims to combat organisations who have innocent civilians as their primary targets. Whether you call them terrorists or freedom fighters, whatever they call themselves, they target civilians, and that fact alone should merit the strongest condemnation of this august assembly. We are deeply saddened by the disturbing positions of those who condone such barbaric methods, using pathetic arguments related to countries we never heard of, and adding a cynical "if their ultimate goals are nice enough" in the end.

Targetting the civilian population is an outrageous act. Supporting groups who target the civilian population is equally outrageous. I believe these principles are absolute and unqualified, and I dare members of the against camp to prove me wrong.

My .02 on this bill:

I voted against it. I think that it is too encompassing. I would probably vote for multiple bills that contained different aspects of this bill.

International law, especially on international security issues, should never discriminate based on goals; their merit is highly subjective and depends on political rhetoric. This proposal does not attempt to do so, and clearly specifies the subject matter based on actions and actions alone. It aims to combat organisations who have innocent civilians as their primary targets. Whether you call them terrorists or freedom fighters, whatever they call themselves, they target civilians, and that fact alone should merit the strongest condemnation of this august assembly. We are deeply saddened by the disturbing positions of those who condone such barbaric methods, using pathetic arguments related to countries we never heard of, and adding a cynical "if their ultimate goals are nice enough" in the end.

Targetting the civilian population is an outrageous act. Supporting groups who target the civilian population is equally outrageous. I believe these principles are absolute and unqualified, and I dare members of the against camp to prove me wrong.


Now THAT is a good answer! Thank you. I would, in that case, like to see "state actors" removed, as states, too, perform these sorts of deplorable acts.

I admire the immediate change of tone in here. Glorious Councillors, it is possible for world peace if it is possible for UN co-operation, and it seems it is.

Take heart all, here lay the seeds of progress.

Unfortunately, this bill is a rather poor one. It fails to define many key terms.

These proposals aren't meant to be dictionaries, if you don't know
what something means go look it up.

I support it.

The Federal Republic is pleased to announce that, in anticipation of this bill's passage, it has managed to offload (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10380827&postcount=127) a key terror suspect on an unsuspecting young nation in this body.

Alright I have a question.
If someone was supporting, terrorism I don't think that they would come out and say "Oh, just so everyone knows, We are giving terrorists weapons and money." No they would keep it under the table. I don't think that the answers lies in boosting the gov't and secruity. I think that we could answer all the threats with a peaceful discussion. Then if we don't come to a peaceful desicion, then we could just opprehend them. so basically I am against this thing however I am keeping an open mind. so yes.

My .02 on this bill:

I voted against it. I think that it is too encompassing. I would probably vote for multiple bills that contained different aspects of this bill.

Yes, because 12 smaller resolutions would be much better than one clear and concise one... :rolleyes:

These proposals aren't meant to be dictionaries, if you don't know what something means go look it up.

I support it.

Welcome to the UN. I sense that we will be friends. :)

The Federal Republic is pleased to announce that, in anticipation of this bill's passage, it has managed to offload (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10380827&postcount=127) a key terror suspect on an unsuspecting young nation in this body.

OOC: Freakin' genius as always, amigo! :D

We intend to invade every single nation that opposes this legislation. If they're not with us, they're against us. :mad: is that not terrorism? using force to make a nation believe what you do?

Now THAT is a good answer! Thank you. I would, in that case, like to see "state actors" removed, as states, too, perform these sorts of deplorable acts.

We encourage the Upper Botswavian representative to draft a separate proposal covering state actors.

Alright I have a question.
If someone was supporting, terrorism I don't think that they would come out and say "Oh, just so everyone knows, We are giving terrorists weapons and money." No they would keep it under the table. I don't think that the answers lies in boosting the gov't and secruity. I think that we could answer all the threats with a peaceful discussion. Then if we don't come to a peaceful desicion, then we could just opprehend them. so basically I am against this thing however I am keeping an open mind. so yes.

OOC: In RL, yes, something like that could happen. However, in NS compliance is automatic. This means that when this enlightened body passes this magnificent piece of legislation, all the national laws of UN members will automatically change. National governments will automatically stop supporting international terrorism, and will start chasing down individuals who do. Now tell me, won't that be a sight to remember?

OOC: In RL, yes, something like that could happen. However, in NS compliance is automatic. This means that when this enlightened body passes this magnificent piece of legislation, all the national laws of UN members will automatically change. National governments will automatically stop supporting international terrorism, and will start chasing down individuals who do. Now tell me, won't that be a sight to remember?

Ah...to have a hand in something so monumental and historic!

is that not terrorism? using force to make a nation believe what you do?

No, it's called a threat of military action -- i.e., war. This proposal specifically states it is not addressing acts of war.

Targetting the civilian population is an outrageous act. Supporting groups who target the civilian population is equally outrageous. I believe these principles are absolute and unqualified, and I dare members of the against camp to prove me wrong.

You still speak as though that were the only problem with this legislation. I'm still eagerly awaiting someone to go back to page 12 and respond to my concerns.

Yours,

The Ambassador of Taurains

"Change is the Crutch of the Weak."

is that not terrorism? using force to make a nation believe what you do?

Nop, it isn't. Follow me.

1. This resolution stops nations from supporting terrorism across borders.

Therefore,

2. Nations that oppose this resolution are interested in supporting terrorism across borders.

It follows that

3. Nations that oppose this resolution are terrorism-loving threats, and must be restrained as soon as possible. National security and all.

We conclude that

4. Invading those who oppose the current resolution is a legitimate act of self-defense, not a terrorist act.

Given the perfectly logical conclusion reached by the esteemed representative from Fonzoland, the people of Cluichstan have decided to ally ourselves with our friends in the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny. Should this proposal fail to become a resolution, we will actively defend ourselves using any and all means at our disposal. We encourage other nations wishing to protect themselves from the threat of international terrorism to join us should the need arise.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

1. This resolution stops nations from supporting terrorism across borders.
Therefore,
2. Nations that oppose this resolution are interested in supporting terrorism across borders.
It follows that
3. Nations that oppose this resolution are terrorism-loving threats, and must be restrained as soon as possible. National security and all.
We conclude that
4. Invading those who oppose the current resolution is a legitimate act of self-defense, not a terrorist act.

...

...

...ffs. And those who are calling for a rewrite?

...

...

...ffs. And those who are calling for a rewrite?

Also a threat. It's too late to rewrite it. It's up for vote. Had you voiced your concerns at any point during the four months it took to draft this proposal -- and everyone was given the opportunity -- they may have been addressed. You're out of time now.

...

...

...ffs. And those who are calling for a rewrite?

Those who dislike the wording should ask themselves the question: Will the world be a better place if this resolution, in the current wording, is passed or rejected? I have observed the drafting process, commented on it, and placed my objections there. Granted, your nation is young, so you were not around. But this thread is repetitive enough without turning the debate to minor wording issues, which have probably been addressed before.

EDIT: And yeah, knowing OMGTKK, you will probably get invaded anyway.

EDIT: And yeah, knowing OMGTKK, you will probably get invaded anyway.

Probably? ;)

Those who dislike the wording should ask themselves the question: Will the world be a better place if this resolution, in the current wording, is passed or rejected?


Rejected. If allowed to pass it opens the doors to all sorts of civil and legal rights issues.

Why you should vote against this legislation:

1) "Freeze WITHOUT DELAY funds or other financial assets…"

a. All member nations should have some form of due process for suspected criminals. In this case, due process should be observed before any punishments can be enforced.
b. The person or people who are suspected to be involved may have families that depend on the financial assets of the accused. To freeze these assets WITHOUT DELAY is to ignore due process in many countries.

2) "…persons who commit, INTEND to commit or facilitate the commission…"

a. I’ll just jump into the device that allows me to see what crimes people intend on committing.

3) "…entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons…"

a. If the person accused of being involved in or funding terrorist activities happens to own a number of businesses, freezing them could potentially put a great many jobs at risk. With the sorry state of social services in my country, I don’t think that increasing the unemployment rate is a good idea.

4) "…persons and entities acting on behalf of OR at the direction of…"

a. Taking orders that do not appear to be harmful and yet are directly related to sponsoring terrorism should not be punished. The language of this seem to indicate that we should punish people based on who they work for, report to, or associate with.

As I've stated, any legislation that passes into law in EVERY member nation cannot have holes in it.

You ask which I think is worse to pass this bill now, or maybe never to pass it. That is a good solid question. If this bill does what it says it is going to, then my civilians are safe(r) from international terrorists. The expense may be that innocent peoples lives will be severly disrupted (See 1b, 3a, and 4a).

Again, if anyone from the FOR side can convince me that these are not legitimate worries, I will concede my vote on this.

Should it pass in its current state, eventually (once I have a firmer grasp on the process) this may be repealed, with the language rewritten, and again put to vote (unless someone can explain to me why the language is better in its current incarnation).

Should it not pass in its current state, I would be willing to offer small language changes that will help it in its resubmission. I do think the cause is worthy.

Nop, it isn't. Follow me.

1. This resolution stops nations from supporting terrorism across borders.

Therefore,

2. Nations that oppose this resolution are interested in supporting terrorism across borders.

It follows that

3. Nations that oppose this resolution are terrorism-loving threats, and must be restrained as soon as possible. National security and all.


That's just asinine. There are plenty of people who have objected to the resolution for legitimate reasons, and the way you bring this black and white idea of with or against is just frightening. I fear for the NS world with the passage of this Resolution.

Rejected. If allowed to pass it opens the doors to all sorts of civil and legal rights issues.

Why you should vote against this legislation:

1) "Freeze WITHOUT DELAY funds or other financial assets…"

a. All member nations should have some form of due process for suspected criminals. In this case, due process should be observed before any punishments can be enforced.
b. The person or people who are suspected to be involved may have families that depend on the financial assets of the accused. To freeze these assets WITHOUT DELAY is to ignore due process in many countries.

No, it's not. It becomes part of the process, much as an arrest, bail hearing, etc. are.

2) "…persons who commit, INTEND to commit or facilitate the commission…"

a. I’ll just jump into the device that allows me to see what crimes people intend on committing.

I'm sick of you bringing this up. I've already answered it. It's not a mind-reading thing. Evidence of intent would still be required, according to the rules of evidence of individual nations. You're beating a dead horse.

3) "…entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons…"

a. If the person accused of being involved in or funding terrorist activities happens to own a number of businesses, freezing them could potentially put a great many jobs at risk. With the sorry state of social services in my country, I don’t think that increasing the unemployment rate is a good idea.

Hmm...a few jobs or potentially hundreds or even thousands of lives?

4) "…persons and entities acting on behalf of OR at the direction of…"

a. Taking orders that do not appear to be harmful and yet are directly related to sponsoring terrorism should not be punished. The language of this seem to indicate that we should punish people based on who they work for, report to, or associate with.

Interesting how you took that out of context... :rolleyes:

As I've stated, any legislation that passes into law in EVERY member nation cannot have holes in it.

You ask which I think is worse to pass this bill now, or maybe never to pass it. That is a good solid question. If this bill does what it says it is going to, then my civilians are safe(r) from international terrorists. The expense may be that innocent peoples lives will be severly disrupted (See 1b, 3a, and 4a).

See above. Your "concerns" are unfounded and, quite frankly, ludicrous.

Again, if anyone from the FOR side can convince me that these are not legitimate worries, I will concede my vote on this.

Frankly, screw your vote. I'm tired of arguing the same points with you over and over again.

Should it pass in its current state, eventually (once I have a firmer grasp on the process) this may be repealed, with the language rewritten, and again put to vote (unless someone can explain to me why the language is better in its current incarnation).

Go for a repeal if you like. The language of the current proposal has already been explained to you ad nauseam. You simply fail to grasp it.

Should it not pass in its current state, I would be willing to offer small language changes that will help it in its resubmission. I do think the cause is worthy.

Oh, it's going to pass...

Hmm...a few jobs or potentially hundreds or even thousands of lives?


That there could have been, and should have been worded more delicately. If every time the potential for something to happen led to a definite and negative occurence, then there would be far more harm being caused than prevented.

You also seem incapable of debunking another's argument without taking shots at them. Is it really that hard?

That there could have been, and should have been worded more delicately. If every time the potential for something to happen led to a definite and negative occurence, then there would be far more harm being caused than prevented.

You also seem incapable of debunking another's argument without taking shots at them. Is it really that hard?

Took no shots before, but "that there"? You're just asking for it. :p

Took no shots before, but "that there"? You're just asking for it. :p

I just happen to be well-traveled. Dun' make fun the way ah toke. :(

I just happen to be well-traveled. Dun' make fun the way ah toke. :(

OOC: Grew up in West Virginia mahself. Ain't one to throw no stones. ;)

OOC: Grew up in West Virginia mahself. Ain't one to throw no stones. ;)

Actually, I'm in Chicago, so if I weren't using odd word selections from around the country and world, then it would be the way I say my hard A's that people point out.

"Let's go and get some SAHsage." Admittedly not as bad as Boston though....

Actually, I'm in Chicago, so if I weren't using odd word selections from around the country and world, then it would be the way I say my hard A's that people point out.

"Let's go and get some SAHsage." Admittedly not as bad as Boston though....

OOC: Damn you! I live outside Boston now! LOL

OOC: Damn you! I live outside Boston now! LOL

Well you just can't get a linguistic bone thrown to you, can ya?

But hey, if it weren't Chicago, it'd be Boston. Word to the cities of misspelled socks.

Wouldn't this resolution be Resolution #1 more defined and detailed?
Well, the resolution says "A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." But, with the increased budgets, wouldn't those party to said resolution use this to start more wars, and use this resolution to justify it?

Edit: I looked, and this resolution has the same heading and everything as resolution #1..

OOC: The headings on resolutions are added by the game software. Each resolution category has its own "boilerplate" heading. It's best to just ignore them and focus on the text of the resolution.

We would like to respond to just two of the objections to the resolution raised by the representative of Taurains....



1) "Freeze WITHOUT DELAY funds or other financial assets…"

a. All member nations should have some form of due process for suspected criminals. In this case, due process should be observed before any punishments can be enforced.
b. The person or people who are suspected to be involved may have families that depend on the financial assets of the accused. To freeze these assets WITHOUT DELAY is to ignore due process in many countries.

We believe that to delay the impoundment of the assets simply gives the owner an opportunity to move them into a jurisdiction in which they cannot be touched. And, in the case of liquid assets, that can be done very quickly by electronic means. We do not believe that the resolution prohibits a nation from engaging in a reasonable and expeditious amount of due process before taking the action. The resolution does not say "immediately" or "instantly". It simply says "without delay".

2) "…persons who commit, INTEND to commit or facilitate the commission…"

a. I’ll just jump into the device that allows me to see what crimes people intend on committing.

Intent is an element of proof in the determination of guilt for many crimes. Like all other elements of proof, there is no device to determine it. The determination is based on the evidence adduced. There would have to be some convincing evidence of intent -- the nature and amount of which would be determined by national judicial systems -- before action could be taken.



Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Besides the many problems with the wording of this resolution, what it really comes down to is that it is a Nation's option to classify a group as terrorist or not. I do not believe it should fall to the UN to classify terrorist groups, escpecially with such language which may not to all encompassing to groups one might consider terrorist, while at the same time, it may classify a group as terrorist that an individual nation wouldnt consider to be so.

Besides the many problems with the wording of this resolution, what it really comes down to is that it is a Nation's option to classify a group as terrorist or not. I do not believe it should fall to the UN to classify terrorist groups, escpecially with such language which may not to all encompassing to groups one might consider terrorist, while at the same time, it may classify a group as terrorist that an individual nation wouldnt consider to be so.

No, it's not the UN's "option." Read the proposal. The definition of international terrorism is very clear.

We would like to respond to just two of the objections to the resolution raised by the representative of Taurains....



We believe that to delay the impoundment of the assets simply gives the owner an opportunity to move them into a jurisdiction in which they cannot be touched. And, in the case of liquid assets, that can be done very quickly by electronic means. We do not believe that the resolution prohibits a nation from engaging in a reasonable and expeditious amount of due process before taking the action. The resolution does not say "immediately" or "instantly". It simply says "without delay".



Intent is an element of proof in the determination of guilt for many crimes. Like all other elements of proof, there is no device to determine it. The determination is based on the evidence adduced. There would have to be some convincing evidence of intent -- the nature and amount of which would be determined by national judicial systems -- before action could be taken.



Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Thank you, Mr. Olembe, for this excellent statement. We couldn't (OOC: and, frankly, haven't been able to) put it better ourselves.

If nations we intend to telegram about this proposal raise either of those concerns, we will point them to the very excellent post proferred by Mr. Olembe.

We believe that to delay the impoundment of the assets simply gives the owner an opportunity to move them into a jurisdiction in which they cannot be touched.


Agreed. However in this case, we are not just talking about the liquid assets, we are talking about all economic resources, including legitimate business enterprises. The lives of countless stakeholders are potentialy involved. Remember, if these people are being accused of funneling money, it is probably vast sums, and therefore the potential accused players may be in control of vast enterprises. We aren't talking about people giving out spare change here.

Also, with regards to the liquid assets, I have a question. Is it generaly agreed upon that frozen assets cannot be touched for any reason? That goes back to my previous point, what of legal fees, money for the family, etc. Does the state assume the right to allow these funds to be used, or does UN law forbid any of this money from being spent once frozen?


We do not believe that the resolution prohibits a nation from engaging in a reasonable and expeditious amount of due process before taking the action. The resolution does not say "immediately" or "instantly". It simply says "without delay".


From my perspective, it would seem that my government hears of a potential terrorist or financial backer, they investigate. They believe they have sufficiant evidence, so they issue an arrest warrent. At the same time, they must also freeze all financial and economic assets to prevent said party from sending the funds out of the government's jurisdiction.

Does that seem like how events would unfold?

If we were to wait any longer, the sympathizer would be able to free his money from our grasp. However, at this point we have gathered evidence, but have NOT held trial. In most countries, this will not be a short trial, and until this person is convicted, what will happen to their dependants or businesses? Or those who depend upon these people's businesses. You cannot simply argue that these people are terrorists, because until they are found guilty by UNR#47 (Fair Trial) they are to be presumed innocent UNR#26 Article 7 (Universal Bill of Rights).


Intent is an element of proof in the determination of guilt for many crimes. Like all other elements of proof, there is no device to determine it. The determination is based on the evidence adduced. There would have to be some convincing evidence of intent -- the nature and amount of which would be determined by national judicial systems -- before action could be taken.


Agreed.
OOC: I'll concede I was looking at the word INTEND as in a preventative strike like in the Minority Report.

If you can answer my previous questions in this post, that'll be 2 down and 2 to go.

Hmm...a few jobs or potentially hundreds or even thousands of lives?


Yes. That's right. So you're saying that the ends justify the means?
Didn't we already have this discussion? ;)

Interesting how you took that out of context... :rolleyes:


Right, because in context it seems to mean a whole lot more. If my government has a case against them, I don't need to rely on an assoication clause. If they did something wrong they would face trial under the main clause of the legislation.


See above. Your "concerns" are unfounded and, quite frankly, ludicrous.
Frankly, screw your vote. I'm tired of arguing the same points with you over and over again.
Go for a repeal if you like. The language of the current proposal has already been explained to you ad nauseam. You simply fail to grasp it.


Nice. Your arguments are fluffy, your attitude disgraceful, and your inability to debate principles without resorting to this mess is assinine. If you don't care for what I have to say, feel free to ignore it. Those such as your collegue from Auserland seem to be able to at least argue your case for you.

We're pleased to be able to engage in this colloquy with the honorable representative of Taurains. We would caution, though, that we are providing only our interpretations of the proposal.

Agreed. However in this case, we are not just talking about the liquid assets, we are talking about all economic resources, including legitimate business enterprises. The lives of countless stakeholders are potentialy involved. Remember, if these people are being accused of funneling money, it is probably vast sums, and therefore the potential accused players may be in control of vast enterprises. We aren't talking about people giving out spare change here.

Also, with regards to the liquid assets, I have a question. Is it generaly agreed upon that frozen assets cannot be touched for any reason? That goes back to my previous point, what of legal fees, money for the family, etc. Does the state assume the right to allow these funds to be used, or does UN law forbid any of this money from being spent once frozen?

We see nothing in this proposal and are unaware of anything in other resolutions that would require a complete denial of use of the frozen assets. In Ausserland, assets that are frozen in criminal proceedings come under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Appellate Courts. The court may allow reasonable expenditures for living costs, upkeep of real property, payment of wages due employees, legal expenses, etc. The court, in effect, assumes trusteeship of the assets. We expect to continue this system should this resolution be adopted.


From my perspective, it would seem that my government hears of a potential terrorist or financial backer, they investigate. They believe they have sufficiant evidence, so they issue an arrest warrent. At the same time, they must also freeze all financial and economic assets to prevent said party from sending the funds out of the government's jurisdiction.

Does that seem like how events would unfold?

If we were to wait any longer, the sympathizer would be able to free his money from our grasp. However, at this point we have gathered evidence, but have NOT held trial. In most countries, this will not be a short trial, and until this person is convicted, what will happen to their dependants or businesses? Or those who depend upon these people's businesses. You cannot simply argue that these people are terrorists, because until they are found guilty by UNR#47 (Fair Trial) they are to be presumed innocent UNR#26 Article 7 (Universal Bill of Rights).

We think we have partially answered this question above. On the process.... We would expect it, in Ausserland, to be much as you have described. Law enforcement officials would present evidence to the District Court. If the court decides that probable cause exists, an order of impoundment would be issued. The subject would have the right to appeal to the Provincial Appellate Court of jurisdiction, seeking cancellation of the order. In Ausserland, the request for an order of impoundment is usually (but not always) concurrent with application for an arrest warrant.

Agreed.
OOC: I'll concede I was looking at the word INTEND as in a preventative strike like in the Minority Report.

If you can answer my previous questions in this post, that'll be 2 down and 2 to go.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

So, nobles, I am a young National. The Commonwealth of Aesthyra hardly has all of its own problems worked out, but just because I was not among your august ranks when this proposal was drafted, does not mean I am not permitted to oppose its nuances.

This proposal gives nations a monopoly on civillicide. It identifies the use of violence or the threat thereof - particularly its use upon civillians - as a vile act. This proposal exists to prevent civillians from being killed, or so the discussion goes. If the proposal won't prevent civillians from being killed, what is the point?

This proposal ought (yes ought, my philosophical adepts) to be aimed at preventing the use or threat of violence against civillians by ALL PERSONS. If this bill passes, then day after tomorrow the world is no less likely to see a nation bombing civilians than it currently is.

Why do none of you, the mighty beareaucrats who drafted this document, have the courage to limit yourselves from using violence agains civillians? Is it sometimes neccesary?

Not too long ago, if I may digress ascendant ones, Four distinguished Knights of the Aesthyra Overseas Peacekeeping Fraternity were bombed by a misinformed pilot from an unnamed neighboring state. At first I was enraged, prepared to demand an appology from my ashamed neigbor, until I realized that the intended target was a stadium near my Knight's post. This stadium was a makeshift HQ for a resistance cell, and the terrorists there were holding over 1000 hostages...

Had that pilot been given correct orders, he would have murdered over 1000 civillians just to eliminate a handful of internationally sought terrorists. His government was asking him to use violence upon non-combatants to aceive a military goal.

Until the UN is prepared to stand up to this kind of fear-mongering and brazen "Kill-our-enemies-at-any-cost" mentality, let us just stick to organizing international tea-and-tuxedo mixers.

This proposal is well intended, but lacks the commitment to civilian wellfare neccesary in a document which would prove effective.

I implore all national entities represented here to oppose this hasty bill. Let us send it back to the board such that it can be moulded into a courageous vessel of world shaping legislation.

Hey, Wussthyria, cry me a fucking river...Waa Waa Waa.

Killing 1000 civillians to stop some terrorists is a pretty fair price, and...IT IS THE JOB OF GOVERNMENTS TO DO JUST THAT!!!

As a national leader I am prepared to kill any number of people (say 'n' people) to prevent the murder of a greater number of people (say'n+1' people).

More to the point, aren't you? If dictators weren't exempt from this ban on "Civilianaside", how would we stop terrorists. Shit, the wellknown terrorist Osaka-been-Laid-in could walk through town with a baby attached to his belt and we couldn't touch him...

C'mon, pansy, get real. Lets cut all this Democrat-pussy-shit and deal with the issue: Terrorists kill people, so as long as we kill fewer than they do, the world is better off with us in charge.

Dear Mr "fancy senator", would you prefer a terrorist kills you because he dislikes your religeon, or I kill you to prevent a terrorist from killing five other people. Who's the coward now.

BRING IT

From Tauranus
Yes. That's right. So you're saying that the ends justify the means?
Didn't we already have this discussion?


Ya, no shit they do? Govenment isnt for the feignt of heart, man, its about producing ENDS. If the means seem rough, put on a helmet and pick up a fucking machette...THEY GOT IT COMING!!!

Oh yeah, and BTW, if anyone thinks telling me to shut up is a cool idea, well isnt that impearing my freedon of speche just to clear up some server space. Hows that for an MEANS/ENDS tradeoff.

did I mention...BRING IT

very ooc: its alot of work reading 400-odd replies.
anyone care to do a summary?
the fors and the againsts so we with little time can make an informed decision
[haha just thought - prob there is already - somewhere lost in 30 pages of thread - maybe i just need directions]

To resume, if this resolution pass :
If your country is a terrorist one or a dictatorship, move from the UN and you have no more problem, you can be terrorist forever. Very simple, isn't it ?

Turn this to the real world, it is like Afghanistan moves from the UN, USA would be unable to arrest Bin Laden because his country is no more affected by the UN law ! Ridiculous !

Gaiah,
Delegate of France.

I originally came up with the idea of anti-terrorism laws a couple of months ago, but my proposition was poorly written and thus did not make it as a UN resolution. In any case I am am against these laws.

Any 1 who votes 4 these laws sucks a big fat hairy cock :D

Are we at present not finding that to agree to this change in the terrorism act that we are committing our states to becomming embroiled in other areas conflicts?

Why should we get involved in others diputes? how do we know it's terrorism?

Ya, no shit they do? Govenment isnt for the feignt of heart, man, its about producing ENDS. If the means seem rough, put on a helmet and pick up a fucking machette...THEY GOT IT COMING!!!

Oh yeah, and BTW, if anyone thinks telling me to shut up is a cool idea, well isnt that impearing my freedon of speche just to clear up some server space. Hows that for an MEANS/ENDS tradeoff.

did I mention...BRING IT

You forgot to mention that you are quite the A-hole of this forum

did I mention...A-HOLE

Are we at present not finding that to agree to this change in the terrorism act that we are committing our states to becomming embroiled in other areas conflicts?

Why should we get involved in others diputes? how do we know it's terrorism?

GO SUCK YOUR MUMS HAIRY COCK ASSHOLE

I AM POSTING THIS TO GAIN RECOGNTION FROM ALL OTHER CRAPPY NATIONS OUT THERE TO FEEL THE MIGHT AND POWER OF CONOCIA AND THE MIGHTY PACIFIC :p

Just on the offchance that stupidity prevails;

What You Can Do To Help (http://www.terrorready.net/index.asp)

Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain
~ Friedrich von Schiller

This "You're either with us or you're a terrorist" thing I've seen pop up on the boards makes me more than ever more against this Resolution than ever. This Resolution is a tool I don't want falling into the hands of people who believe that it is their way or an invasion.

<snip>

I'm tired of flames and slander. Debate, people. If you don't like someone's reason for voting pro- or con- and can't think of anything to say aside from "Well you're stupid" or "You can't read" or "Oh yeah, THAT'S smart," or any other irrelevent statement that doesn't advance the debate.... Then don't say anything.
--- and ---
That's just asinine. There are plenty of people who have objected to the resolution for legitimate reasons, and the way you bring this black and white idea of with or against is just frightening. I fear for the NS world with the passage of this Resolution.

Norderia, your expectation of fairmindedness and reasonableness from everyone in NS is touching, especially as you're not new. Inaccurate but touching.

You just have to smile to yourself sometimes. Some people who discuss things on the forums believe they have a special right to do [I]whatever it takes to force people to agree with them. If we're lucky they restrict themselves to calling their opponents "trolls", "idiots" and the like. If we aren't lucky they post rubbish like Conocia's last post. We may speculate fairly that they suffer from the taint of a terrorist mentality even though they think they oppose terrorism. It's called "badgering" and "bullying" and sometimes it reaches beyond the bounds of civility. An example is in order.

Only two days ago, one of the supporters of this resolution created a puppet, sent it to my region, and tried to conduct this argument on our Regional Message Board. When a couple of my neighbours and our Delegate challenged his behaviour, he came up with a lame excuse that he thought it was unlikely that I kept reading this forum after I posted. He completely "forgot" that under NS rules you shouldn't really do that. At least he had the sense to leave before he got ejected.

It's a state of mind, Norderia: some people just don't let anyone disagree with them without a fight. Their opinions/ political party/ prophet/ profit/ clique/ flag/ [insert sacred cow or pet theory here] mean more to them than civility or reasonableness. The warm glow of "righteous" indignation is heady stuff. I'm sorry if you thought it would be any different here than in RL.

The good news is that some people on here from both sides have been able to remember the difference between "slanging match" and "debate". The rest probably aren't worth reading.

In times of war, state terrorism is sometimes necessary to achieve tactical objectives.

Yeah, even America used terrorism against the red coats in our revolution.

I'll agree that much of the arguement on here is mostly down to RL situations forming the basis of people's arguements on NS. Particularly the present situation in the middle-east.

But consider the ramifications of other less recent events that this act would have prevented in the RW.

A Democratic and representative South Africa would not exist for one. Outside state agencies were responsible for financing, equipping and training the ANC who primarily targeted the civilian population. Nelson Mandela was arrested for planting a bomb... that was why he was in prison in the first place.

It was 'international terrorism' terrorists were trained in Russia and Libya... they had connections with numerous other terrorist organisations, the Red Brigade, Al-Fatah, Baader-Meinhoff etc. Targets were also attacked outside of South Africa, so we are definately not talking domestic terrorism.

Despite all this I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that the end of apartheid was a bad thing.... but under this act it would most likely still exist. There would have been no UN embargo, and member states would have been required to assist the South Africans in preventing terrorism.

There are other examples from WW2 if you study your history... the Free French vs. The Vichy Government (The Legal French Government in unoccupied France) and Tito's Yugoslav's fighting the Royalists for example.

By all means get emotive about current issues, but this act could do as much harm as good within NS as it could in the RW if such an act was passed.

I urge you to vote against.

We the africaan nstates will vote for the legislation

Does anyone know exactly what time voting ends?

Does anyone know exactly what time voting ends?
Middle update on Thursday.

Probably around noon PST.

Eriadinii originally opposed this resolution, but then i took the time to read through the forum topic, and realized that my original objections have already been addressed (some multiple times). Thus, Eriadinii has changed its vote to FOR.

I urge you to reconsider, the bill does not define a number of key terms, rendering each nation to interpret on their own behalf. This is a problem because a "terrorist" to your country may just be a "freedom fighter" to another.

Yeah, even America used terrorism against the red coats in our revolution.

The Commonwealth of Greater Roanoke has reviewed the history of the War for Independence between the United States of America and what was then known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. I find no evidence that the Continental Army ever, at any time, deliberately targeted civilians during the course of that war. To the contrary, Continentals treated Loyalist civilians with the utmost courtesy. Actually, I find that over-familiarity between certain Continental officers and Loyalist civilians in cities they occupied might have cost the Continental Army the loyalty and services of one of its bravest and best general officers, to wit: Benedict Arnold, who commanded the occupying garrison in Philadelphia and there met, and married, a Loyalist who then prevailed upon him to change his own loyalties.

The Commonwealth of Greater Roanoke is also very much troubled when we observe the attempt to legitimatize terrorism as a form of political expression. I have seen it in the debate in this Assembly. (I will not name the names of any particular heads-of-state; you all know who you are.) And I have seen it in the popular media in real life, most notably hinted at in the motion picture Munich.

Remember what the resolution defines, and does not define. It clearly says that, to be called a terrorist, one must deliberately target civilians. It does not define "civilian," of course, because the authors no doubt regard that as an undefined term. I have no patience with actual terrorists, or the nation-states who harbor them, who seek to deny that any such class as "civilians" actually exists. I trust that no one in this Assembly actually takes such arguments seriously.

Nor does this resolution establish any sort of High Commission on Global Security, or Global Intelligence Directorate, or even a Global Army. It merely calls on all member nation-states to act as any statesman ought to act, to make sure that no terrorist will have safe haven for himself, his funds, or his cache of weapons or explosives. Concerns, therefore, about "global police states" are misplaced.

For all of these reasons, I strongly urge you all to lay aside the fear, uncertainty, and doubt that the opponents of this resolution have spread. Vote in favor, as I did.

I urge you to reconsider, the bill does not define a number of key terms, rendering each nation to interpret on their own behalf. This is a problem because a "terrorist" to your country may just be a "freedom fighter" to another.
Fortunately, "moron" is universal.

Have you ever read any proposal you've commented on? Because what you say never remotely correlates with what the proposal says. Also, aren't you in Gatesville? You're saying that we have sovereign right of definition is a bad thing? No no! The UN should micromanage what we think much more! That's the Gatesville ethic.

I urge you to reconsider, the bill does not define a number of key terms, rendering each nation to interpret on their own behalf. This is a problem because a "terrorist" to your country may just be a "freedom fighter" to another.

That is a common-enough mistake that the terrorists themselves want you to make. Freedom fighters do not attack civilians. And while a discussion of the merits of the casus belli that any particular terrorist or his sponsor might allege to have is beyond the scope of this debate, I see nothing in this resolution that would prevent someone, who really thought that his freedom was curtailed, from praying for political asylum in another land.

If you have a question about "key terms" that you feel should have been defined, but aren't, I'd like to hear it. Wire me, if you'd like, or reply here, and, Lord willing, I'll find the reply in the great mass of posts that this topic has already generated--thirty-one pages! Whew!

Temlakos

Eriadinii originally opposed this resolution, but then i took the time to read through the forum topic, and realized that my original objections have already been addressed (some multiple times). Thus, Eriadinii has changed its vote to FOR.

OOC: Finally, someone who actually put some thought into his vote! Thank you very much, Eriadinii! :D

I urge you to reconsider, the bill does not define a number of key terms, rendering each nation to interpret on their own behalf. This is a problem because a "terrorist" to your country may just be a "freedom fighter" to another.

There is no interpretation. The proposal defines terrorism. One who commits an act of terrorism is, then, a terrorist. It's that simple.

The dead line drawing nearer . The Republic of Tihan goes " For " this act though there will be strong protests in some areas of our nation .

Secretary of Tihan

I think we need a specific definition of what terrorism is. Gimme' that and then we'll talk.

I think we need a specific definition of what terrorism is. Gimme' that and then we'll talk.

It's stated pretty clearly at the very beginning of the proposal:

DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.

FURTHER DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, international terrorism as that which is conducted, organized and/or financed across international borders, as opposed to similar activities that might occur purely within the borders of a single state, with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.

The difference between 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' is entirely subjective and I don't feel it has a place in this debate.

Neither has the 'yeah well, governments kill civilians too' arguement.

My objection to this act is based entirely on the point that any country should be able to support an armed political movement in another, based on its own political viewpoint.

Naturally any such movement could be considered 'terrorists' by their opposition. They can be termed 'International terrorists' by attacking targets overseas, or by receiving any form of support from a foreign power.

Such support could range from printing leaflets to providing weapons grade plutonium and all points inbetween.

That any faction can claim support from such an act purely on the basis of them forming the 'legitimate' government (regardless of how they achieved this) gives me the belief that this act will be merely a tool to preserve the status quo. The result will be that dictators less benevolent than myself will be maintained in power against the wishes of their people with the support of the UN.

Vote Against!

Marech:
Neither has the 'yeah well, governments kill civilians too' arguement.


While I disagree that my point is not relevant, I respect your overall analysis. Congratulations, esteemed fellowes, we are nearing a rational resolution to this legislative conflict.

embrace progress: oppose resolutions which create inequality...as this one does. Oppose resolutions which impare national freedoms to aid movements with which the nation is moraly aligned.

The difference between 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' is entirely subjective and I don't feel it has a place in this debate.

Neither has the 'yeah well, governments kill civilians too' arguement.

My objection to this act is based entirely on the point that any country should be able to support an armed political movement in another, based on its own political viewpoint.

Naturally any such movement could be considered 'terrorists' by their opposition. They can be termed 'International terrorists' by attacking targets overseas, or by receiving any form of support from a foreign power.

Such support could range from printing leaflets to providing weapons grade plutonium and all points inbetween.

That any faction can claim support from such an act purely on the basis of them forming the 'legitimate' government (regardless of how they achieved this) gives me the belief that this act will be merely a tool to preserve the status quo. The result will be that dictators less benevolent than myself will be maintained in power against the wishes of their people with the support of the UN.

Vote Against!

We can agree with the honorable representative that countries should be able to support armed political movements in other countries if they believe that is proper. We cannot agree, though, that they should have license to support terorism as defined in this proposal:

the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order

To support such activity, we believe, is outside the bounds of civilized conduct. We cannot accept that those who support the killing and maiming of innocent civilians should be allowed to do so. The resolution does not state that countries are prohibited from supporting "any such movement [that] could be considered 'terrorists' by their opposition". The prohibition is founded on the conduct of the terrorists, not on some label applied to them. If their violence and threats target "primarily and deliberately the civilian population", they're terrorists, no matter what anyone chooses to call them. They are despicable criminals and do not deserve the support of any civilized society.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

In times of war, state terrorism is sometimes necessary to achieve tactical objectives.

That's not a good way of thinking, innocent citizens shouldn't have to die because you don't agree with their governments.

terrorism > you :sniper:

ill be voting for, and only due to one thing. if you wish to relieve the suffering of a civilian population or free a country, targeting civilian targets is not going to work. i am in support of funding and aiding in all ways a gurilla warfare against a military occupier, but running into a cafe and killing 20 probably innocent people does not count as freedom fighting, i would support it if it were a truck full of enemy troops though, after all i live in a country that won its independance through a gurilla war after 800 years of occupation so...... vote for

While I disagree that my point is not relevant, I respect your overall analysis. Congratulations, esteemed fellowes, we are nearing a rational resolution to this legislative conflict.

embrace progress: oppose resolutions which create inequality...as this one does. Oppose resolutions which impare national freedoms to aid movements with which the nation is moraly aligned.

How exactly does this proposal create inequality? You really need to quit spewing out your arse.

ill be voting for, and only due to one thing. if you wish to relieve the suffering of a civilian population or free a country, targeting civilian targets is not going to work. i am in support of funding and aiding in all ways a gurilla warfare against a military occupier, but running into a cafe and killing 20 probably innocent people does not count as freedom fighting, i would support it if it were a truck full of enemy troops though, after all i live in a country that won its independance through a gurilla war after 800 years of occupation so...... vote for

Congratulations, you have just summed up the difference between funding a terrorist group, and funding a guerilla/resistance group.

Shame there are other nations who won't make that observation.

Indeed, my fine Hirotan friend. It's about time someone understood that distinction.

Only two days ago, one of the supporters of this resolution created a puppet, sent it to my region, and tried to conduct this argument on our Regional Message Board. When a couple of my neighbours and our Delegate challenged his behaviour, he came up with a lame excuse that he thought it was unlikely that I kept reading this forum after I posted. He completely "forgot" that under NS rules you shouldn't really do that. At least he had the sense to leave before he got ejected.
The reason I did that is fairly obvious - approx 320 posts in about 3 years does not inspire me to think you'd really be on here often - thus it was not a lame excuse, it was a fair justification.

The only reason I went on your boards to counter your arguement was because your arguement was flawed. I did not abuse you, I did not abuse your region. All I did was correct you on some things you got wrong. You might disagree with the proposal, but I'd respect your disagreement more if you actually had a sound foundation for opposition.

The main reason your regional associates challenged me was primarily because they thought I was an invader, not because of some judgement that I was being abusive.

I know the difference full well on what debate is, and what a slanging match entails, do you?

Cluichstan:
How exactly does this proposal create inequality? You really need to quit spewing out your arse.


I have explained, oh zealous one, how this act creates an inequality between governments and non-governments, restricting the rights of some, but not all persons, to limit the killing of innocents.

If I may bachtrack through these dusty hallways of memory, I would also like to say that if you beleive that a "State-Actor using violence or the threat thereof" is essentially war, and therefore a neccesary component of governance, does it follow that state actors targeting civillians is also classified as war.

We need to prevent All-Actors from targeting civillians.

If you would take care to either read my past comments fully, OR refrain from insulting me while making genuine inquiry, I would be most greatfull.

I can't read your posts again. They make me ill, oh ostentatious one.

So write a proposal about state actors. This isn't it. Your argument is basically:

"I like cheese!"

"...but this is a proposal about carrots."

"I'm not voting for it until you put in a motion of support for cheese."

Picture a small country, in every way disadvantaged, the historical pariah, beaten, bruised and buggered. Its people simply want a peaceful life for themselves, in their homeland. And yet, even now, dark forces mass. To the south, squeaking dolphin commandos utter obscenities the like of which curl women's beards. To the west, sleekly turned out infantry units, their officers whipping their men up into CPESL-voucher-winning frenzies. To the east, nubile Stripper Commandos fasten camo thongs and anthrax-tipped whirly nipple bits. And in the north...the dreaded Mecha Goats of the 101st Baaatallion.

Because, if this proposal fails, we are going to invade. The country has done nothing wrong, has harboured us no ill, and poses no major threat. But by hell we're going to blow someone up, and if we're to be denied some juicy terrorist scalp, then we'll have to look elsewhere.



Please. Think of the Chechnyans. Vote FOR the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Picture a small country, in every way disadvantaged, the historical pariah, beaten, bruised and buggered. Its people simply want a peaceful life for themselves, in their homeland. And yet, even now, dark forces mass. To the south, squeaking dolphin commandos utter obscenities the like of which curl women's beards. To the west, sleekly turned out infantry units, their officers whipping their men up into CPESL-voucher-winning frenzies. To the east, nubile Stripper Commandos fasten camo thongs and anthrax-tipped whirly nipple bits. And in the north...the dreaded Mecha Goats of the 101st Baaatallion.

Because, if this proposal fails, we are going to invade. The country has done nothing wrong, has harboured us no ill, and poses no major threat. But by hell we're going to blow someone up, and if we're to be denied some juicy terrorist scalp, then we'll have to look elsewhere.



Please. Think of the Chechnyans. Vote FOR the Anti-Terrorism Act.

That...is one of the best posts of the year..and has changed my vote.

I have explained, oh zealous one, how this act creates an inequality between governments and non-governments, restricting the rights of some, but not all persons, to limit the killing of innocents.

If I may bachtrack through these dusty hallways of memory, I would also like to say that if you beleive that a "State-Actor using violence or the threat thereof" is essentially war, and therefore a neccesary component of governance, does it follow that state actors targeting civillians is also classified as war.

We need to prevent All-Actors from targeting civillians.

If you would take care to either read my past comments fully, OR refrain from insulting me while making genuine inquiry, I would be most greatfull.

If you think that's the case, then legislate on it. Because this resolution does not discuss state actors, you can do whatever you jolly well want with it.

If the resolution does not touch it, then what stops you doing something about it?

I have explained, oh zealous one, how this act creates an inequality between governments and non-governments, restricting the rights of some, but not all persons, to limit the killing of innocents.

If I may bachtrack through these dusty hallways of memory, I would also like to say that if you beleive that a "State-Actor using violence or the threat thereof" is essentially war, and therefore a neccesary component of governance, does it follow that state actors targeting civillians is also classified as war.

We need to prevent All-Actors from targeting civillians.

If you would take care to either read my past comments fully, OR refrain from insulting me while making genuine inquiry, I would be most greatfull.

We cannot accept the proposition that this proposal creates inequality between government and "non-governments". They are two different things: apples and oranges.

As we understand the representative of Aesthyra, his/her objection to the proposal is that it attempts to interdict terrorism which is not conducted by states but does not do so for state-conducted terrorism. He is entirely correct. But we fail to see why that is cause for opposing the resolution. We suggest that that is like opposing a law which outlaws murder because it doesn't outlaw rape. Another analogy would be throwing away a hammer because it doesn't work very well as a screwdriver. We believe that this proposal will have considerable effect in interdicting one form of terrorism. We will not deny support for it because it doesn't solve the whole problem at one fell swoop.

If the representative of Aesthyra would care to direct his/her energies into drafting a proposal to deal with state-conducted terrorism, we would certainly give it careful and open-minded consideration.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yea, this legislation has a good intent, don't get me wrong. But it's not what we need right now, I know that some nations in NationStates aren't democratic or have democratic traditions, however, those of us that do don't want our democratic traditions and the current state of our government corrupted because of ill-fated decisions on the behalf of others.

Yea, this legislation has a good intent, don't get me wrong. But it's not what we need right now, I know that some nations in NationStates aren't democratic or have democratic traditions, however, those of us that do don't want our democratic traditions and the current state of our government corrupted because of ill-fated decisions on the behalf of others.

How exactly is it going to corrupt your democratic traditions and current government?

Picture a small country, in every way disadvantaged, the historical pariah, beaten, bruised and buggered. Its people simply want a peaceful life for themselves, in their homeland. And yet, even now, dark forces mass. To the south, squeaking dolphin commandos utter obscenities the like of which curl women's beards. To the west, sleekly turned out infantry units, their officers whipping their men up into CPESL-voucher-winning frenzies. To the east, nubile Stripper Commandos fasten camo thongs and anthrax-tipped whirly nipple bits. And in the north...the dreaded Mecha Goats of the 101st Baaatallion.

Because, if this proposal fails, we are going to invade. The country has done nothing wrong, has harboured us no ill, and poses no major threat. But by hell we're going to blow someone up, and if we're to be denied some juicy terrorist scalp, then we'll have to look elsewhere.



Please. Think of the Chechnyans. Vote FOR the Anti-Terrorism Act.

*Senator Sulla looks up from his copy of Soldier of Fortune magazine.*
Hear! Hear!
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, my noble peers.

A wonderfully naive adage.

Prevention implies that the problem has not, as yet, arrived. We are somewhat past this point already.

i have read posts by some of the other nations and i am somewhat saddened by the reasons for voting for this resolution. The point is to help stop and or prevent terrorism from happening. Not to invade nations that don't agree with the bill. You need more reason than spectulation to invade. So don't vote this through to just get the ability to invade nation's under the assumption. So as leader of Shorefoll say know that facts before even voting this bill through or down.

i have read posts by some of the other nations and i am somewhat saddened by the reasons for voting for this resolution. The point is to help stop and or prevent terrorism from happening. Not to invade nations that don't agree with the bill. You need more reason than spectulation to invade. So don't vote this through to just get the ability to invade nation's under the assumption. So as leader of Shorefoll say know that facts before even voting this bill through or down.

This proposal doesn't give any nation the right to invade another. It doesn't have to. They already can.

So, my Antarctic Oasis brethren, shall we add this one to the list as well? :p

Picture a small country, in every way disadvantaged, the historical pariah, beaten, bruised and buggered. Its people simply want a peaceful life for themselves, in their homeland. And yet, even now, dark forces mass. To the south, squeaking dolphin commandos utter obscenities the like of which curl women's beards. To the west, sleekly turned out infantry units, their officers whipping their men up into CPESL-voucher-winning frenzies. To the east, nubile Stripper Commandos fasten camo thongs and anthrax-tipped whirly nipple bits. And in the north...the dreaded Mecha Goats of the 101st Baaatallion.

Because, if this proposal fails, we are going to invade. The country has done nothing wrong, has harboured us no ill, and poses no major threat. But by hell we're going to blow someone up, and if we're to be denied some juicy terrorist scalp, then we'll have to look elsewhere.



Please. Think of the Chechnyans. Vote FOR the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Thadbroxton Kornweasel III stomps in, smoking a vile cigar and says,
"Don't forget our War Ferrets!"

This proposal doesn't give any nation the right to invade another. It doesn't have to. They already can.

So, my Antarctic Oasis brethren, shall we add this one to the list as well? :p

WTH...The more the merrier.:D

How exactly is it going to corrupt your democratic traditions and current government?

Well for one, a nations government can label anyone who uses some form of violence to carry out their wishes as terrorist. Even if say what happened in Germany when the Fascist party took over and people had realized sooner that all they were were people aiming at total war, and the German people had tried to over throw them, the nazi's could just wipe them out without being subjected to any kind of punishment in the wake of this.

Well for one, a nations government can label anyone who uses some form of violence to carry out their wishes as terrorist. Even if say what happened in Germany when the Fascist party took over and people had realized sooner that all they were were people aiming at total war, and the German people had tried to over throw them, the nazi's could just wipe them out without being subjected to any kind of punishment in the wake of this.

OOC: This makes my brain hurt.

Well so far it looks like this resolution has a slight chance of passing.
If it passes it is sure that a repeal will be in the queue.
Round 2 will be no less as interesting as Round 1.

Tzorsland has decided to go against the decision of our regional deligate in Niftyonia and vote for this resolution on the provision that Cluichstan will be as vigiliant in defeating any future repeals as they have been in promoting the resolution in the first place.

Well so far it looks like this resolution has a slight chance of passing.
If it passes it is sure that a repeal will be in the queue.
Round 2 will be no less as interesting as Round 1.

Actually, the tally maybe deceiving. It currently lists the regional delegate from the North Pacific as voting both for and against. I have contacted her and have been informed that her vote is for the proposal, based on the voting in that region. It seems the system has yet to purge her original vote against. Once the original vote is purged, the "FOR" votes should number about 1,000 more than those "AGAINST."

Tzorsland has decided to go against the decision of our regional deligate in Niftyonia and vote for this resolution on the provision that Cluichstan will be as vigiliant in defeating any future repeals as they have been in promoting the resolution in the first place.

You can count on it. ;)

OOC: This makes my brain hurt.

The umm...Mountain Dew... is in the lower desk drawer, in the stone jug.

The Most Serene Republic is a strong supporter of this resolution, and expects to celebrate its passage soon. However, in light of current developments to which the current debate is not wholly foreign, we have regretfully been advised by our Minister of Health to avoid compliance with part of the optional clause 5.

Indeed, it seems that, in the current state of affairs, any "exchange of intelligence" with other UN member nations constitutes a serious public health hazard.

We thank the authors in advance for their understanding.

Indeed, it seems that, in the current state of affairs, any "exchange of intelligence" with other UN member nations constitutes a serious public health hazard.


Nah, you're just afraid you won't get anything in return. ;)

The Most Serene Republic is a strong supporter of this resolution, and expects to celebrate its passage soon. However, in light of current developments to which the current debate is not wholly foreign, we have regretfully been advised by our Minister of Health to avoid compliance with part of the optional clause 5.

Indeed, it seems that, in the current state of affairs, any "exchange of intelligence" with other UN member nations constitutes a serious public health hazard.

We thank the authors in advance for their understanding.

* HUGE GRIN*

Once this fucking thing passes, we can hire all the unemployed terrorists and legitimately use them to invade our neighbors (Asstyra, Hiroto, Norderrier etc..)

As I said, STRAP ON A HELMET AND GRAB YOUR MACHETTE