NationStates Jolt Archive

See? Everybody wins
:cool:

Anyway, The people of the People's Republic of Ebfan2 support you then so does our government. As stated this is a government by the people and for the people. And what the people want they get :)

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

Go right ahead. Once your government employs them legitimately as soldiers, they're no longer terrorists.

EDIT: And the government of Cluichstan is now considering offering military protection to Asstyra, Hiroto, and Norderrier.

This resolution strikes me as a needless waste of resources for merely symbolic purposes. My nation-state is certainly under no risk of terrorism, as indeed are the great many of our nation-states. It's time to stop going after red herrings. I vote AGAINST.

Pres. Armed Republic of Creechmark.

This resolution strikes me as a needless waste of resources for merely symbolic purposes. My nation-state is certainly under no risk of terrorism, as indeed are the great many of our nation-states. It's time to stop going after red herrings. I vote AGAINST.

Pres. Armed Republic of Creechmark.

I'm sure there are numerous terrorist organisations that are going to be happy to hear about your nation...

So every regional delegate who voted against this proposal got this message from OMGTKK:

"Greetings, Name of Your Nation Here:

We note that you have voted against the proposal currently at vote, Anti-Terrorism Act, and would like to relay some thoughts on widely held misperceptions about this legislation that may hopefully convince you to rethink your position:

Some have raised concerns that this proposal does not address social problems in many societies that breed terror. Addressing human rights and social justice concerns are certainly important and laudable goals, but they are not the focus of this proposal. This bill is focused on confronting the threat that already exists, not the threat may potentially emerge in the future. Adding human rights/social justice provisions to this bill would only have deemed it illegal. While there are plenty of excellent human rights and social justice proposals already on the UN books, we would be very interested in seeing what new legislation thoughtful nations can produce.

The same with the "state actors" concern. No, this proposal does not deal with state practitioners of terror, but rather private organizations that conduct terror operations across international borders to promote radical ideologies. While terror as practiced by government agents is a serious concern, it is a matter for a separate proposal, and a separate proposal category. A war crimes convention might be an interesting UN project for the future.

Some have also claimed that this proposal would deter legitimate operations by national liberation fronts, "freedom fighters," if you will. Nationalist organizations are not the target of this law, but international networks with no other purpose but to harm innocent civilians to promote their extremist agendas.

Finally, we respectfully feel that national sovereignty arguments are not relevant, as nations do not have the right to aid and abet international terror or groups which use such means to wreak havoc on innocent civilians in other nations.

We hope you will give this some thought, and eventually support this very worthy legislation. If you have any questions, please contact either myself or Cluichstan, or consult the Proposal FAQ:

forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9946816&postcount=183

Thank you for your time."

:eek: :gundge:

I can't believe you either took the time to create a spambot to hit everyone who voted against it or took the time to copy/paste this message to everyone. I got it, but it didn't answer to any of my concerns. (though not surprising, OMGTKK did say he didn't care about my vote.

I only hope that someone who is against this proposal has the time to spam all the for voters, because I'm sure not spending that much time on a game.

We routinely take the time to campaign via telegram for proposals we support (and no, there's a check in place in the system to prevent telegram spamming). We care about this game. Apparently, you don't.

I would like to thank Kenny for his tireless effort in support of this proposal. He deserves the utmost respect for his devotion to making this austere body better.

Northern Cannabistan disagrees with this resolution mainly because the definition of Terrorism excludes state terrorism.:headbang:

Northern Cannabistan disagrees with this resolution mainly because the definition of Terrorism excludes state terrorism.:headbang:

Then write one that covers it.

Did someone try talking about Norderia and misspell it?

Is someone trying to invade me?

Wait... Can we go back and try that again? I think I got misspelled and lumped into the wrong category!

Oh, and Hiroto, you is teh suck for going into other regions to start stuff under the faulty assumption that the other nation doesn't come to read the boards. I've been here for a long time, without too many posts. But I read threads I have interest in every day. I don't always have something to say though. The doctrine of "When in doubt, shut the fuck up" and other things about less doubt, and the same amount of shutting up are good doctrines. Just because someone isn't speaking, doesn't mean they aren't reading.

Norderia don't need no military aid.....

I wanted to make it clear that I vote against this Resolution because of the concept of terrorism as a whole is not one I accept. I'm too Taoist to be in a political forum... All nice about stuff.

Fuck y'alls.

Teach you to be nice.

WITH A KNIFE!

Swear to drunk I'm not god.

[/incoherent silly "I've got time to fuck around" post]

Greetings to all.

Allow me to properly introduce myself as I am new to the ruling class and the UN.

I am Oskar, democratically elected representative of the Master in Repose HRH Kivisto

We are a young nation and have not as yet felt the threat of terrorists or colonizers, however neither are we blind to our own vulnerability in the face of international guerilla warfare.
[ooc: if the most powerful army in RL can be bypassed, nobody is safe]

As such, and keeping in mind that we have not had opportunity to ally ourselves with anyone, we feel we may be able to represent some level of impartiality towards some of the issues presented (ad nauseum) in this debate.

At this point I will warn those that do not have an excess of time to read that I will be as thorough as I feel is rational on the many matters that I feel are actually relevant to the proposed legislation. Also, if you are unwilling to change your mind or re-evaluate the ATA at such a late date, please do not waste your time with this. You have nations to run. You should go do that.

Allow us to begin with a recap that I feel many may require. My commentary will be interspersed within text taken directly from the resolution in question.


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

{yes Greenpeace falls into this category. No your military does not. That has been covered and could well be the target of another resolution at another time. Until then please do not waste our time with these arguments. It's not that they're irrelevsant, simply not on point}

using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population

{this has inspired more dispute than I would have thought possible. Quite simply if the "terrorist group" only targets government or military locations then they fail to meet the criteria and are not terrorists for the sake of this resolution. NB - DELIBERATELY...proof of accidents may be difficult to come by at times, however it is even more difficult to come by forgiveness for airstriking a civilian location, accidentally or not}

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,

{this, one hopes, is self explanatory. If it does not seem so, forgive my boldness, but perhaps one should resign one's position as a UN representative and allow more learned minds to discuss the adult issues}

as opposed to similar activities that might occur purely within the borders of a single state,

{Once again, self explanatory}

with the exception of such activities that might occur during times of war.

{Some minor ambiguity is perceived by myself and a few of my fellow Kivistos. Does this mean that single state activities during wartime are considered terrorism? That seems more like High Treason to me. Alternately, is this to say that we might aid in said single state activities ONLY if they are in a situation of war? Simply a question. I'm sure the intent is clear to most, but the wording was unclear to me. A minor thing}

CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger people worldwide, as well as the peace and security of all states.

{How sweet. Seriously though, I appreciate knowing the motivation}

1. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.

{A good point to keep in mind. This implies that we are to do our best to act on these mandates whether our targets (ie-the terrorists) are stationed in UN nations or not}

2. SUPPORTS efforts to combat international terrorism, as well as developing new international instruments to counter international terrorism.

3. DECLARES that every state has the duty to refrain from organizing, assisting or participating in international terrorism

{The states participation etc in these activities would remove said activities from the scope of this resolution as they would now be perpetrated by "State Actors". Refer to the multitude of posts and arguments regarding the irrelevance of further posts towards this end.}

or acquiescing in activities within its territories

{That is the most salient point in this clause}

directed towards the commission of such acts.

4. MANDATES that member states shall:
A. Prevent, suppress and criminalize the financing of international terrorism

{Good. Unless you are running a terrorist government}

B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts;

{I don't beleive we need to rehash the necessity of proof as required by individual governments in this matter}

of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons or associated persons and entities

{Short answer-if you work for a mob boss (whether you know it or not) and he goes to jail, you will be out of a job. If said mob boss had any concern for his family or "legitimate" enterprises, he probably should have kept his face out of the mob scene. If the individual nation feels compelled to hash out their own system to take care of those adversely affected by the incarceration or indictment of an alleged terrorist, then that is their prerogative and we at the UN CANNOT stop them from doing so as in internal matter.}

C. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in international terrorism, including suppressing recruitment by international terrorist groups and eliminating the weapons stockpiles of such groups;

{Don't help them build their army, and don't let it happen on your land. Simple}

D. Deny, to the best of their knowledge and ability, safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organize, support or practice international terrorism;

{Don't let them or their backers stay with you. Once again, simple}

E. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts; and

{Make it illegal and severely punished. Simple, however this is the one point that I kept expecting to see brought up by those who continually howled National Sovereignty as it does ask individual nations to make changes to their individual legal systems that may be grand. And yet, they didn't. Pity. It might have helped them with their side of things}

F. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings related to the financing or support of international terrorism, including assistance in obtaining evidence necessary for said proceedings.

{Quite simply, if someone else wants to stop the terrorists through legal channels, try not to stop them}

5. URGES all member states to cooperate in preventing and suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against such acts,

{lend a hand}

through administrative and judicial means,

{lend your courts}

and the exchange of intelligence,

{lend your minds}

especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists;

{where'd they go}

forged or falsified travel documents;

{who are they now}

the use of communications technologies by international terrorist groups;

{A point that I wish to bring up and STRESS. This does not mandate the tapping of phones (for example). It more directly implies that we should share with each other information on HOW terrorist cells are intercommunicating. If you widh to tap your peoples' phones, it is quite honestly no concern of mine. If you do not wish to, then don't. END OF DISCUSSION}

and traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials -- particularly weapons of mass destruction -- by international terrorists.

{We would just like to know what they are going to blow us right to hell with}


All that being said, I realize that some of this has been repeated ad nauseum throughout the last five hundred and something posts. For this, I beg forgiveness. It has been difficult to keep on top of all of the arguments and felt it would be easier to simply restate the whole issue and only what I felt really was of issue. It is possible that I may have overlooked something in my own long windedness. Needles to say, I was chosen to represent my budding nation amidst these wondrous thinkers for some of my philibustering capabilities.

Nevertheless, if you feel I have missed the point somewhere then please feel free to open an honest and CIVILIZED discourse. Iwould be more than happy to discuss the ISSUES at hand.

Aside from those two simple things [civilized and issues], I will simply state that The Master in Repose has allowed my tongue a certain freedom as he knows it keeps some of my other appetites somewhat easier to manage.

One last thing. We have already cast our vote FOR the proposed resolution. If you wish to change our mind, there is little time left to do it, so please present NEW arguments. We do have a nation to run, after all.

I thank you for your time.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Representative to The nation Kivisto
chosen of HRH in Repose

Wow...the last two posts have come from people on crack. It really does kill brain cells! :eek:

someone please explain to me why the hell this resolution is so close it should pass in a landslide.

someone please explain to me why the hell this resolution is so close it should pass in a landslide.

Sure.

Because many nations are quite disturbed by the attitudes of the people pressing for the passage of this legislation. Thus, they are seeking to limit the kind of influence they have over the international world. Politics are funny. Captain Subtext likes politics.

Wow...the last two posts have come from people on crack. It really does kill brain cells! :eek:

For yo info mation...

It's heroin.

For yo info mation...

It's heroin.

Certainly explains a lot.

Certainly explains a lot.

Is you makin' fun of me?

I cutchoo.

Is you makin' fun of me?

I cutchoo.

I invade you. Enjoy!

I invade you. Enjoy!

All your soldiers die from extreme cold, like Napoleon's in Russia.

And my citizens spank your army, cuz they all know martial arts like damn.

"Who you?"
"Cluichstan's army."
"Get out."
"No."
"I CHOPPA YOU FACE!"

Except my people all speak with impeccable language, because they're all uber educated. I'm just feeling jolly, and have been waiting for the opportunity to say choppa you face all day.

Come back when you're not stoned.

Come back when you're not stoned.

I'm not stoned. But apparently one cannot be silly unless they agree with you. So I fart on your silly with my silly.

So you're voting against it because you don't like the poeple who wrote it, or because somebody insulted you.

Good policy, i'm sure many teenagers live by those ideals.

I too disagree with the first couple posts, the whole if you're not with
us you're against us thing but i didn't let that influence my vote.

I also disagree with the whole insulting people thing, but sometimes that's not to be taken so literally. It's just the frustration of people who have worked hard, produced something which seems to be common sense, and then have to put up with people who read half of it, or none of it, but just decided to come question or criticize it.

I read the proposal.

I'd like to point the bill's supporters in the direction of my region..

The South Pacific.

Where since a whopping 8 people voted no and 2 voted aye they are
probably going to add another two hundred some odd votes to the negative
side.

I'm pleading with the delegate Caer Railis to not be so irresponsible.

We thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the proposal.

Greetings to all.

Allow me to properly introduce myself as I am new to the ruling class and the UN.

I am Oskar, democratically elected representative of the Master in Repose HRH Kivisto

We are a young nation and have not as yet felt the threat of terrorists or colonizers, however neither are we blind to our own vulnerability in the face of international guerilla warfare.
[ooc: if the most powerful army in RL can be bypassed, nobody is safe]

As such, and keeping in mind that we have not had opportunity to ally ourselves with anyone, we feel we may be able to represent some level of impartiality towards some of the issues presented (ad nauseum) in this debate.

[snip, snip, SNIP!] :D

I thank you for your time.

Oskar Feldstein
UN Representative to The nation Kivisto
chosen of HRH in Repose

We would like to welcome the honorable Mr. Feldstein to this Assembly and thank him for his...er...somewhat long but thoughtful exposition of his views on the resolution. We look forward to his continued participation in debates in this forum.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

So you're voting against it because you don't like the poeple who wrote it, or because somebody insulted you.

Good policy, i'm sure many teenagers live by those ideals.

I too disagree with the first couple posts, the whole if you're not with
us you're against us thing but i didn't let that influence my vote.

I also disagree with the whole insulting people thing, but sometimes that's not to be taken so literally. It's just the frustration of people who have worked hard, produced something which seems to be common sense, and then have to put up with people who read half of it, or none of it, but just decided to come question or criticize it.

I read the proposal.

I'd like to point the bill's supporters in the direction of my region..

The South Pacific.

Where since a whopping 8 people voted no and 2 voted aye they are
probably going to add another two hundred some odd votes to the negative
side.

I'm pleading with the delegate Caer Railis to not be so irresponsible.

No, my reason for voting against it was listed back on like, page 20. But it looks like you're not referring to me, although it's a little unclear. You mention Caer Railis, but no quote, and it's right beneath my post, so if you're not speaking to me, then I am not responding to you.

Word.

Edit: Swear to Bob, I'll be more coherent tomorrow.

All your soldiers die from extreme cold, ...Really? You better have a look at the region Cluichstan represents. ;)

I too disagree with the first couple posts, the whole if you're not with us you're against us thing but i didn't let that influence my vote.We congratulate the members of this august assembly for not being ashamed of the fact that they lack a certain sense of irony. :rolleyes:

We would invade all nations that oppose this proposal, but if the bombast and illogic of their representatives is any indication of their employers' wisdom, it seems they're already doing a well enough job of destroying their own nations.

Really? You better have a look at the region Cluichstan represents. ;)


Pshhh. The Arctic Ocean rocks the Antarctic during February. Besides. We have a... Cold... Making... Machine.

For making it colder.

SO THEY ALL DIE! Except us.

Besides, Cold is in my nation's name.

Stupid Antarctic Region being all... Frigid... Makin me look less awesome than I truly am.

No one invades Norderia, 'cuz we have FJORDS! BEHOLD THE FJORDS!

I was referring to you Norderia.

It looks like in your current state it was quite pointless though.

I was referring to you Norderia.

It looks like in your current state it was quite pointless though.

Oh, nah, I'll respond in full.

I think it is page 20 that has my original response to the Resolution. I was bitching about the flames and such then as well, but my original point was that in my ideal little world, and it certainly has worked in my nation (crime being non-existent in a massive, and broke country, still with a top 1% ranking in population health and happiness), such things as terrorism are only the result of closed ears and goal-oriented individuals, on both sides of a conflict. There are always exceptions, of course, but as my hero, George Bernard Shaw said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man," existence without the force to 'progress' is an existence without the conflicting force against that 'progress.' Like I said, I'm very Taoist about it. Wu-wei, all the way!

I like how that rhymes...

If I voted for this Resolution, it would necessarily conflict with my idea of terrorism as a response, rather than a stimulus itself.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"This message is to inform you of the decision on this vote made by the honorable Sen. Horatio Sulla, the ambassador for our region's delegate nation, Palentine UN Office (www.nationstates.net/palentine_un_office). Over the past week, patriotic Palentinians have struggled over this resolution, but unfortunately they weren't alone. The commie peaceniks also had their say: As they made their dramatic march for peace down the picturesque glacial coast of the nation they hate so much but which they inexplicably continue to call home, they carried giant papier-mâché masks of their devilish Emperor Captain Spaulding I and his partner in crime, Omigodtheykilledkenny's Manuelo Fernanda. The irrepressibly evil Cluichstani sheiks were similarly lampooned. As they shrieked their "dissent" in the shape of chanted cliches such as, "War Is Not My Voice!", "No Blood for Fine Yeldan Oil™!", "Regime change begins at home!", and "Omigodtheykilledkenny is the real terrorist!", a few of the more buxom of their number were about to reveal themselves to the world in a courageous show of "patriotism," but were quickly spotted by a few of their nation's gallant naval protectors, who began to shout at them from the waters: "Yeah, baby, you got some killer *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep*!! I'd like to *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep*!!!!" "Yeah, take it off, baby!! Show us those *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep*!!!" The would-be nudist-demonstrators fainted, and their compadres fled in terror as the acquatic mammals began to zero in on new targets for barrages of trademark obscenities. Meanwhile, Sen. Sulla, having momentarily put down his faithful companion (http://pub.daikichi.net/menu/images/WILD_TURKEY.jpg), has informed his emperor, his regional founder and this esteemed body of his decision: He has cast his region's votes IN FAVOR (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10366671#post10366671) of this proposal.VICTORY IS MINE!!

*snip*

I wish I could say "No" as extensively as you said "Yes." I mean, I could, but blah, I'm so lazy.

If I voted for this Resolution, it would necessarily conflict with my idea of terrorism as a response, rather than a stimulus itself.

Then with all due respect might I suggest that your idea deserves all the conflict it encounters? Unless, of course, you postulate that unarmed men, women and children are all the stimulus a terrorist needs. You may also want to consider the possibility that to lose the awareness that some things *are* black and white is to lose the ability to distinguish between night and day. Just a thought.

In any event, I would claim that concerted effort against things of this sort is precisely the reason the UN exists. If we fail to make an effort in this direction then we go against our own charter to preserve world peace and the UN thus forfeits all legitimate claim towards being a world body.

Does this proposed resolution include extradition to the country in which the act of terrorism was perpetrated? I can't see anything about jurisdiction here.
That notwithstanding, we in Balsack agree with the proposal and its intent. It criminalizes terrorism internationally, which is the approach we should take. But it seems that some legal wrangling could end up taking place when it comes to jurisdiction and extradition. So the resolution may create more problems in its application.
Nevertheless, we'll support it and hope for the best.

Then with all due respect might I suggest that your idea deserves all the conflict it encounters? Unless, of course, you postulate that unarmed men, women and children are all the stimulus a terrorist needs. You may also want to consider the possibility that to lose the awareness that some things *are* black and white is to lose the ability to distinguish between night and day. Just a thought.

In any event, I would claim that concerted effort against things of this sort is precisely the reason the UN exists. If we fail to make an effort in this direction then we go against our own charter to preserve world peace and the UN thus forfeits all legitimate claim towards being a world body.

All ideas deserve conflict. Mine is no different.

However, if you've ever stayed up to see both a sunrise and a sunset, you'll notice that between night and day there is a transitional period known as twilight. And between twilight, there is the transitional period known as day and night. Depending on how you orient yourself will determine which you see as a transition, and which you see as substance. The only place you truly find black and white is in the physical world. Even then, there are grays, however rare. Heads and tails are the two common results of a coin toss, but it is not impossible for the coin to land on its side (the only way that could possibly have been any cooler is if I were stoned). I have yet to see an abstract concept be looked at in only two ways by reasonable people.

A concerted effort is certainly required, but the effort you believe in, and the one I believe in are quite different from one another. This is really a chicken or the egg debate here. You operate on the idea that the terrorist is there to cause damage. I operate on the idea that the damage makes the terrorist, who then makes more damage which gets reacted to by an OpFor which makes more damage, which makes more terrorists, and so you see. So my concerted effort requires the removal of the damage that makes terrorists, whereas your effort requires the removal of terrorists that make damage.

To sum that up, this Resolution defines terrorism as something to be combatted, taking the stance that terrorism is the entity to target.

My philosophy as related to this issue runs counter in that it removes terrorism as an entity altogether with the idea that force applied in one direction will be met with an equal and opposite force in the other. Newton's Laws, I find, are applicable to more than just the physical universe. Lao Tzu had the same ideas of opposing forces even before they were applied to physics, so it is not an unheard of concept.

This is really a chicken or the egg debate here. You operate on the idea that the terrorist is there to cause damage. I operate on the idea that the damage makes the terrorist, who then makes more damage which gets reacted to by an OpFor which makes more damage, which makes more terrorists, and so you see. So my concerted effort requires the removal of the damage that makes terrorists, whereas your effort requires the removal of terrorists that make damage.

To sum that up, this Resolution defines terrorism as something to be combatted, taking the stance that terrorism is the entity to target.

My philosophy as related to this issue runs counter in that it removes terrorism as an entity altogether with the idea that force applied in one direction will be met with an equal and opposite force in the other. Newton's Laws, I find, are applicable to more than just the physical universe. Lao Tzu had the same ideas of opposing forces even before they were applied to physics, so it is not an unheard of concept.


Even with twilight though you will always have a preponderance of day or night and it deserves to be noted that at any twilight one is gaining at the expense of the other. I am both Aristotlean and Confucian enough to argue that humans being creatures of flesh are not exempt from the physical world no matter where their aspirations may lead them.

I hold that to say that the terrorists come from damage rather than causing it is the same as to say that gangrene merely comes from a wound and that there is a danger that cleansing the gangrene away will cause a system shock from antibiotics and the possible loss of a limb. Such may be true but pragmatically it is still better to go with the cleansing away of the gangrene than to permit the poison to kill the body. Note incidentally that while what you mention may indeed be found in Lao Tzu there were other passages that contradicted this notion and that pacifism was never a part of the Taoist doctrince as a whole. Were it otherwise would Sun Tzu have risen to prominance or have been remembered? Protection of the citizens is the first duty of any state and the UN would be remiss if we were not to use our ability to take concerted action to take cleanse away those who threaten the peace of the world. The gangrene must be removed before the wound may be bandaged.

Even with twilight though you will always have a preponderance of day or night and it deserves to be noted that at any twilight one is gaining at the expense of the other. I am both Aristotlean and Confucian enough to argue that humans being creatures of flesh are not exempt from the physical world no matter where their aspirations may lead them.

I hold that to say that the terrorists come from damage rather than causing it is the same as to say that gangrene merely comes from a wound and that there is a danger that cleansing the gangrene away will cause a system shock from antibiotics and the possible loss of a limb. Such may be true but pragmatically it is still better to go with the cleansing away of the gangrene than to permit the poison to kill the body. Note incidentally that while what you mention may indeed be found in Lao Tzu there were other passages that contradicted this notion and that pacifism was never a part of the Taoist doctrince as a whole. Were it otherwise would Sun Tzu have risen to prominance or have been remembered? Protection of the citizens is the first duty of any state and the UN would be remiss if we were not to use our ability to take concerted action to take cleanse away those who threaten the peace of the world. The gangrene must be removed before the wound may be bandaged.

Well there we see, we are of differing opinions by virtue of you being Confucian, and I being Taoist (surely not entirely, by either account). I don't blame you for suggesting it, but understand that I get my pacifistic ideals from other sources than Taoism. But in regards to Sun Tzu, Taoism was not overwhelmingly embraced to prevent the prominence of Sun Tzu (The Art of War is on my reading list, I need to get some inspiration for my Airsoft hobby). To relate the terrorism to gangrene, however, is to say that once terrorism is in the world, the only way to get it off is to fight it, such in the way that gangrene must be treated once it is on the skin, and not beforehand. The comparison may suit your idea, but mine is of a different sort. Imagine spilling a substance in your home that attracts ants. Some may have the idea of destroying the ants. Mine is more to the effect of cleaning up the water, the encouragement that brought the unwanted residents.

Human beings may be of flesh, but there are no physical manifestations of my thoughts, dreams, and emotions. Humanity may be rooted in a more intrinsically black and white (minimal, not nonexistent, gray) world, but those ideas, thoughts, dreams, and emotions are not so clear cut. There is a broader twilight between the two extremes, and that is where I believe the answer to the concern of terrorism lies.

I have to wake up for school in 5 hours. It was nice getting some good philosophical debate done. Tata

I dont think there is any possible way of cutting down the variety of people defined as 'terrorists' though, because if you start talking about the right to fight 'corrupt' governments, you would have to define corrupt. Some religious extremists may think that a nation which we class as normal is 'corrupt' to them because we go against their different religious beliefs. So anyone could use the loophole of 'freedom fighter' or 'corrupt government' in order to carry out attacks on civilians.

If the definition of "corrupt government" is cleared up, and the terrorist/freedom fighter debate are resolved, I will vote in favour of it.

Until then, I must respectfully vote NAY.

Wow...the last two posts have come from people on crack. It really does kill brain cells! :eek:


I hope that that post was drafted before the representative of Kistivo's thoughtful -- and favourable -- analysis of the proposal was posted...

As search for on Dictionary.com:

4 Entries found for corrupt.
cor·rupt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-rpt)
adj.
1.Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved.
2.Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor.
3.Containing errors or alterations, as a text: a corrupt translation.
4.Archaic. Tainted; putrid.

Theres ya definitions of Corrupt for ya - and anyone else... Corrupt simply means wrong :) ... ---> :mp5: thats not nice, but against a 'wrong' person its good! :fluffle: is wrong in some peoples eyes, but to those who have a life and dont follow religion its good!

...enough playing with the smilies eh... Voted For

Any **** who tries an Act of Terrorism on my country will get an ass full of nukes and many forms of Space Weaponary shot at their nation.... :sniper: i like that one, he shoots the baddies :D

Peace
The Kingdom of RectifieD

I dont think there is any possible way of cutting down the variety of people defined as 'terrorists' though, because if you start talking about the right to fight 'corrupt' governments, you would have to define corrupt. Some religious extremists may think that a nation which we class as normal is 'corrupt' to them because we go against their different religious beliefs. So anyone could use the loophole of 'freedom fighter' or 'corrupt government' in order to carry out attacks on civilians.

If the definition of "corrupt government" is cleared up, and the terrorist/freedom fighter debate are resolved, I will vote in favour of it.

Until then, I must respectfully vote NAY.

The resolution makes no judgments regarding the aims of terrorists. Whether the be fighting a "corrupt" regime or not, targeting innocent civilians is WRONG. Thus, if a so-called "freedom fighter" takes it upon himself to bomb innocent civilians, he is a terrorist. Debate resolved.

By and large we support the law except for two very fundamental concerns:

Article 4B "...intend to commit..." is a violation of our judicial presumption of innocence, but more importantly violates judicial procedure by asking courts to interpret intent before a crime is committed. This is unacceptable. You will find that the majority of objections can be addressed by the removal of this phrase.

The claimed that this proposal deters legitimate operations by national liberation fronts, freedom fighters, et al is legitimate. While these organizations are not the intended target of this law, they are not excluded from the legislation. Laws should state what they mean, or they will be presumed to mean what they state. This very law would mean that "legitimate" resistances (ANC, PLO, etc.) have no bases of operation outside of their own country where they are the targets of oppressive regimes. They would also be deprived of sources of income other than from the economy of their home nation or the very force the are fighting. This is a ludicrous proposition, and a morally questionable position to assume. It calls all nations to turn a blind eye to the suffering of others to ensure their own safety.

Trying to classify which organisations may or may not be legitimate is an excercise in futility and a display of enormous hubris and condescention to clearly aggrieved people.

His Majesty Majester in his capacity as protector of the Principality of Majester and Chancellor of the NationStates of Middle Europe is not prepared to defend illegitimate regimes through inaction, turn a blind eye to oppression for social convenience, nor undermine legitimate struggles for freedom because of discomfort. Our position remains a firm NO.

While it unfortunately seems this resolution is about to pass, we are still awaiting a valid response to the concerns we voiced a number of pages back, that the passing of this resolution would create a legal conflict with our constitution, and thereby severely infringe on our national sovereignty (and the sovereignty of other nations with constitutionally established welfare systems).

Should this bill pass, and if any other nation(s) were subsequently to approach us (with or without evidence), claiming that one of our citizens was funding or intended to fund a terrorist organization, and requesting that we "freeze without delay" all assets of said citizen, then we would under this resolution be obligated to comply.

This would however at the same time be in conflict with one of the basic provisions of our constitution, which establishes that the state must provide for its citizens.

One of the essential parts of the Frestonian constitution is the "Instrument of Government".

The Instrument of Government contains the basic principles of Frestonia's form of government, how the Government is to work, and what the fundamental freedoms and rights of the Frestonian people are.

One of the essential parts of the "Instrument of Government" is the "Social Services Act", the first clause of which is as follows:

Entitlement to assistance

Section 1

Persons unable to provide for their needs or to obtain provisions for them in any other way are entitled to assistance from the social welfare committee towards their livelihood and for their living in general.

Through the assistance, the individual shall be assured of a reasonable standard of living. The assistance shall be designed in such a way as to strengthen his or her resources for independent living.


(N.B. OOC: The above is in fact adapted from the actual, RL "Social Services Act" of the Swedish consitution.)


Should we be required to freeze the assets of Frestonian persons other nations claim are funding or intending to fund terrorist organizations, while judicial procedures are undertaken to prove the claims are true, then we would be legally obligated according to decree of an external body to break a central decree of our own constitution, since it would be illegal according to this resolution for us to provide for said individuals while their assets are frozen.

If we did, we would effectively be in violation of this resolution, but if we didn't, we would effectively be in violation of our own constitution.

This creates a hopeless, conflicting legal situation and constitutes a severe breach of our national sovereignty.

/The Frestonian UN Delegation

UN law takes precedence over national law. The End.

The concerns of the Frestonian representative have been addressed numerous times. It appears he is incapable of listening and, instead, chooses to continue repeating himself.

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?


To get your numbers game out of the way, the number of posts I make is no reflection of the number I read, just as in RL the number of books I've written is no reflection of the number I've read. Also, you never attempted to correspond with me personally about it. So, your "reason" is your over-simplification and presumption, and perhaps your anger that some people are willing to express disagreement. Lame.

Your urgent need to correct me where you think I'm wrong is your problem, as long as you don't behave inappropriately while doing it. What I hear you saying is that you think you have the right to force other people to listen to you.

What makes you imagine your attitude is different from the attitude of the kind of people you want to oppose with this resolution? They are people who think that they're so right that they are free to force others to listen to them by burning their embassies or bombing their buses or destroying their sky-scrapers. They feel they have the right to do whatever it takes to make the point; that's what you did. The difference IMO is only of degree, or perhaps of opportunity. I see in your actions a similar attitude. You behave as if you can't distinguish between a difference of opinion and personal anger and hatred.

You don't have to respect another person's opinions if that's the kind of person you are, but common decency requires that you respect their right to disagree with you, and that you respect the people themselves. You act as if you prefer to make excuses why you don't have to respect someone.

Your reason for taking the argument off this forum and into my region doesn't matter. What matters is that you don't have the right to do it. You followed a nation with whom you disagreed here, where the argument belongs, for the purpose of continuing the argument somewhere else where it didn't belong. All you did was annoy people, even those who were inclined to agree with you about the resolution. You don't seem to get it; you have the right to disagree with me and express that disagreement here. You don't have the right to pursue me wherever else I go to carry on that disagreement. You acted like someone who disagrees with another person in a pub, then follows the person out of the pub to keep arguing.

The region my neighbours challenged me was because they *compared your spamming us to an invader*. Get it right and don't misrepresent them. The words were:
You've just told us you aren't really here to be a good citizen of California. You're just here to make a fight you should do somewhere else. That makes you a spammer. You don't belong here. Frankly I don't give a **** what you think of our region or one my neighbors. Compared to him you're just an outsider here you may as well be an invader.
Our Delegate also upbraided you at length for your conduct and warned you that you risked ejection by himself or the Founder. If you hadn't been so full of your own indignant purpose you might have read what they said more carefully. Folks were still posting against you after you left, and at least one of them is threatening to report you to the Moderators in spite of my request that he refrains.

If you really weren't abusing me or the region, and if you really knew the difference between a debate and a slanging match, my Delegate wouldn't have felt the need to write to you:
Your third line is not only a direct insult to our esteemed nation Pure Thought, but an insult to all of us. Especially that you are a new nation here, we may forgive you, but we do not tolerate direct attacks on our nations. We should not be teaching you basic etiquette here.

You, not Pure Thought, should reduce your flat-out arrogance when posting, as evidenced by the sixth line in your message.

He also corrected one of my neighbours for using discourtesy to oppose you, but my neighbour subsequently apologized for it. Something you lacked the politeness to do.

As for what you claimed you were trying to do, defend the resolution, you don't convince people of anything by trying to bully them into submission. To quote Fonzoland's sig:
If both of us thought alike, one of us would not be necessary.

that the passing of this resolution would create a legal conflict with our constitution, and thereby severely infringe on our national sovereigntyThe UN trumps national law. This happens with every Resolution; this is nothing new. That's rather the point.

then we would under this resolution be obligated to comply.Why yes, you would.

Should we be required to freeze the assets of Frestonian persons other nations claim are funding or intending to fund terrorist organizations, while judicial procedures are undertaken to prove the claims are true, then we would be legally obligated according to decree of an external body to break a central decree of our own constitution, since it would be illegal according to this resolution for us to provide for said individuals while their assets are frozen.Yup. That's how it works. Why you think this is unique to this Resolution is beyond me.

If we did, we would effectively be in violation of this resolution, but if we didn't, we would effectively be in violation of our own constitution.That's the nice thing about the Gnomes. Your constitution will be changed as needed. No worries.

This creates a hopeless, conflicting legal situation and constitutes a severe breach of our national sovereignty.Welcome to the UN.

snipWhile there's no need to drag forum events into a regional board, there's no need to bring regional problems to this forum.

If you two want to go at each other, do so elsewhere. If you want to file a formal complaint, use the Getting Help Page.

There's no need for this to continue here.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

UN law takes precedence over national law. The End.

Of course, but coming from a nation that is - along with the author of this resolution, Cluichstan - a member of the NSO (National Sovereignty Organization), that is a very interesting response, and that is also why we brought the issue up.

It is very paradoxical that nations which usually resort to the national sovereignty argument in their opposition to resolutions, so casually ignore it in this discussion when they are in support of a resolution.

In this particular discussion, it could be argued whether a resolution that so blatantly interferes with, and explicitly prohibits, many of the fundamental principles and policies of welfare states is a resolution that is worthy of such a noble legal body as the UN.

We are continually inclined to say NO.

While it unfortunately seems this resolution is about to pass, we are still awaiting a valid response to the concerns we voiced a number of pages back, that the passing of this resolution would create a legal conflict with our constitution, and thereby severely infringe on our national sovereignty (and the sovereignty of other nations with constitutionally established welfare systems).

Should this bill pass, and if any other nation(s) were subsequently to approach us (with or without evidence), claiming that one of our citizens was funding or intended to fund a terrorist organization, and requesting that we "freeze without delay" all assets of said citizen, then we would under this resolution be obligated to comply.

We disagree completely with this statement. Ausserland will certainly not freeze the assets of anyone based on the unsupported assertions of some other nation. Nothing in the resolution would require us to do so. Any claim by anyone that a person or organization is supporting or intending to support international terrorism will have to be accompanied by sufficient evidence to establish probable cause before the court of jurisdiction.



This would however at the same time be in conflict with one of the basic provisions of our constitution, which establishes that the state must provide for its citizens.

One of the essential parts of the Frestonian constitution is the "Instrument of Government".

The Instrument of Government contains the basic principles of Frestonia's form of government, how the Government is to work, and what the fundamental freedoms and rights of the Frestonian people are.

One of the essential parts of the "Instrument of Government" is the "Social Services Act", the first clause of which is as follows:

Entitlement to assistance

Section 1

Persons unable to provide for their needs or to obtain provisions for them in any other way are entitled to assistance from the social welfare committee towards their livelihood and for their living in general.

Through the assistance, the individual shall be assured of a reasonable standard of living. The assistance shall be designed in such a way as to strengthen his or her resources for independent living.


(N.B. OOC: The above is in fact adapted from the actual, RL "Social Services Act" of the Swedish consitution.)


Should we be required to freeze the assets of Frestonian persons other nations claim are funding or intending to fund terrorist organizations, while judicial procedures are undertaken to prove the claims are true, then we would be legally obligated according to decree of an external body to break a central decree of our own constitution, since it would be illegal according to this resolution for us to provide for said individuals while their assets are frozen.

If we did, we would effectively be in violation of this resolution, but if we didn't, we would effectively be in violation of our own constitution.

This creates a hopeless, conflicting legal situation and constitutes a severe breach of our national sovereignty.

Again, we believe the representative of Frestonia is not correct in this assertion. There is nothing in the resolution that would preclude assistance under his nation's Social Services Act. In fact, a more practical approach, which we intend to implement, would be to place the frozen assets under the trusteeship of the court of jurisdication and allow living expenses to be paid out of these funds.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Of course, but coming from a nation that is - along with the author of this resolution, Cluichstan - a member of the NSO (National Sovereignty Organization), that is a very interesting response, and that is also why we brought the issue up.

It is very paradoxical that nations which usually resort to the national sovereignty argument in their opposition to resolutions, so casually ignore it in this discussion when they are in support of a resolution.

In this particular discussion, it could be argued whether a resolution that so blatantly interferes with, and explicitly prohibits, many of the fundamental principles and policies of welfare states is a resolution that is worthy of such a noble legal body as the UN.

We are continually inclined to say NO.
Right. Except you're looking at this the wrong way.

First, is this an international issue? Yes. The resolution goes to great pains to be clear on that. So national sovereignty is less of an issue anyway.

Second, when we plead NatSov, do we suggest that the fact that the resolution clashes with our beliefs, laws, constitution, renders it illegal? No. We say we disagree with it, and move on.

So you are right: this does breech your sovereignty. But you're also suggesting there is a 'loophole' - some confusing ambiguity. There is none. You agree - just as we do - that national law is subject to international law. We may often not want that to be the case, but it undeniably is.

Imperiux has voted against this because we see it as an attempt to undermine forces already combating terroism.

It seems to me many members of this assembly are more caught up in what this resolution is not than what it is. I'd urge you to reconsider, and think about whether we as a UN should be seen to be sanctioning terrorist atrocities.

Imperiux has voted against this because we don't understand it.

Fixed for accuracy.

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

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

Fixed for accuracy.
Thank you, but I'm secure in the knowledge that we still oppose it because we a) do understand it
b) because we see it as an attempt to undermine forces already combating terrorism
c) believe that if a nation must use scare tactics to win votes it is a worthless resolution
d) that governments are doing an already acceptable job at their standards and their peoples

Now it's fixed for accuracy.
:p

Thank you, but I'm secure in the knowledge that we still oppose it because we a) do understand it
b) because we see it as an attempt to undermine forces already combating terrorism
c) believe that if a nation must use scare tactics to win votes it is a worthless resolution
d) that governments are doing an already acceptable job at their standards and their peoples

Now it's fixed for accuracy.
:p

No, now it simply proves the point I was making when I fixed your previous post for accuracy.

What, that you like making jokes that are considerably funny, and have a good reason to do so, but prefer not to mention?

We intend to invade every single nation that supports this legislation. If they're not against us, they're with us.Ho-ho! Ain't you clever? :rolleyes:

Ho-ho! Ain't you clever? :rolleyes:

Reminds me of someone. I wonder who..?

Right. Except you're looking at this the wrong way.

First, is this an international issue? Yes. The resolution goes to great pains to be clear on that. So national sovereignty is less of an issue anyway.

Second, when we plead NatSov, do we suggest that the fact that the resolution clashes with our beliefs, laws, constitution, renders it illegal? No. We say we disagree with it, and move on.

So you are right: this does breech your sovereignty. But you're also suggesting there is a 'loophole' - some confusing ambiguity. There is none. You agree - just as we do - that national law is subject to international law. We may often not want that to be the case, but it undeniably is.

We are glad Gruenberg concedes this resolution does indeed infringe on our national sovereignty in the respect we pointed out. We are also glad both Gruenberg and Ausserland displayed courtesy and civility in their replies to our statements and thank you for that. There has been far too much bickering and condescending remarks in this debate, and we would be glad to see it end in a more civilized manner to ameliorate relations.

We'll leave this at that, since further debate is unlikely to change the outcome of the vote at this late stage.

The national sovereignty issues frequently brought up in debates, and for that matter the very existence of a National Sovereignty Organization, is one we feel is generally problematic.

The debate about the recent repeal of the "Rights of Labour Unions" for example, revolved heavily around arguments of national sovereignty to exempt certain parts of the national workforces from the right to industrial action.

Since that debate involved arguments of national sovereignty to the effect that governments should have the right to restrict the rights of certain workers, then similarly this current debate could as well involve arguments of national sovereignty to the effect that governments should have the right not to restrict the rights of its citizens.

The question of national sovereignty is a double edged sword, and one that leads to double standards.

The way we see it is that either national sovereignty could and should be invoked at all times - in which case the UN in the end wouldn't be able to legislate about anything - or it should never be invoked at all.

The latter is probably the ideal, but the workings of this body of late tend to lean towards the first.

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


Yes, yes...and one man's terrorist is another man's Yorkshire pudding. :rolleyes:

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

Oh goody. Then it will be World War <unspecified number>! :)

The question of national sovereignty is a double edged sword, and one that leads to double standards.

The way we see it is that either national sovereignty could and should be invoked at all times - in which case the UN in the end wouldn't be able to legislate about anything - or it should never be invoked at all.

The latter is probably the ideal, but the workings of this body of late tend to lean towards the first.
I don't think you understand what we're arguing, though.

Firstly, a myth: that if national sovereignty is an absolute, the UN won't do anything. Not true. There are plenty of optional systems - The Microcredit Bazaar would be a good example - into which nations buy, and equally choose not to. There, a UN established scheme will accomplish a goal, and the state has full say in its participation. There are many similar resolutions. It is possible for resolutions to be respectful of sovereignty and effective.

Secondly, a distortion: regardless of the above, that all sovereigntists advocate absolute sovereignty. Not true. We certainly don't - something which has stood us in opposition to the Economic Sovereignty Coalition, for example. The question of national sovereignty is at what level legislation is effective, and whether something is an international concern. For example: it is not enough for a contagious biological weaponry protocols resolution to be sovereignty-friendly; it needs to be international in order to be effective. There, there is a clear case of international concern trumping national concern. But then consider landmines. Nasty things, but can the UN account for every invasion possibility, and be sure that landmines would not be in the long run a more humane deterrent? No - that must be a regional or national consideration.

So, I think your 'all or nothing' attitude misrepresents the sovereignty movement. If it were that simple, then sovereigntists would simply resign, and stop annoying everyone. But it's not, and we're not done whining yet. ;)

Hmmm...landmines...

One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
This is our government's position succinctly stated. A clause of non-intervention into the internal affairs of sovereign nations must be added. Popular insugency should be defined as something quite separate from terrorism. We here in Smarxsh owe everything to popular insurgencies.:

This is our government's position succinctly stated. A clause of non-intervention into the internal affairs of sovereign nations must be added. Popular insugency should be defined as something quite separate from terrorism. We here in Smarxsh owe everything to popular insurgencies.:

OOC: If you'd read the thread, you'd know Gruenberg was being sarcastic. It's a shite argument against the proposal that has been refuted over and over again here because lazy sods like you can't be bothered to fucking read.

My government supports this Act, as for the time being we don't think it is something that hinder's our citizen's freedom, while protecting them from evildoers.

And for those who can be bothered to read are split into two parts regardless.
For:mad:
Against:D

Edit: Swear to Bob, I'll be more coherent tomorrow.
Why the hell are you swearing to me?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Thank you, but I'm secure in the knowledge that we still oppose it because we a) do understand it
b) because we see it as an attempt to undermine forces already combating terrorism
c) believe that if a nation must use scare tactics to win votes it is a worthless resolution
d) that governments are doing an already acceptable job at their standards and their peoples

Now it's fixed for accuracy.
:p

Perhaps the representative of Imperiux would be good enough to explain just how this resolution undermines forces already combatting terrorism. We see absolutely no rational basis for this statement.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Perhaps the representative of Imperiux would be good enough to explain just how this resolution undermines forces already combatting terrorism. We see absolutely no rational basis for this statement.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
You should perhaps be aware that Imperiux is a protectorate of Optischer. I would advise Minister Olembe not to expend too much time and energy looking for a rational basis.

You should perhaps be aware that Imperiux is a protectorate of Optischer. I would advise Minister Olembe not to expend too much time and energy looking for a rational basis.

We are not under optischerian influence, and wish to cast thatimage to the pit. Also optischer would like to notify it has resigned in favour of Imperiux and will retain itself to it's grave.
Imperiux is a fresh start which would like to be friendly with everybody and be a more less extreme place.

Thank you for your time.

Ausserland:
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


This post is a greatly advanced version of Gruenburg's cheese and carrots analogy, and both raise a good point. Correct me if I am wrong, honourable representative from Cluichstan, but was it not you who sarcastically told someone that:

"making 12 small resolutions would be much more effective than one, large, concise one" [not exact wording]

Well, lunargent peers, on this, the eve of this mighty resolution's fate, I would like to explain, from a point of enlightenment, my reservations.

You all know my concern over state-conducted-terrorism. Many of you feel that the primary effect of this resolution will be to reduce the instances of civillians being targeted as a tactic in warfare. I agree it will, but, I want to see this document applied unilaterally, that is, for everyone to be banned from targeting civilians.

I would like to avoid making multiple bills to deal with the rights of civilliand during warfare etc... for the same reason Cluichstan chastised [someone] for suggesting breaking this bill into multiple resolutions. HOWEVER, I think it would be impossible to get an even lengthier version of this bill to pass given the trouble its proponents are having now.

So I am changing my vote to FOR, in the hopes that the UN will someday recognise the evil that nations do to civiliands and limit them as well. I will draft a proposal to equalize the feild, so to speak, and I welcome the input of all, assuming I have been clear about my goals. In particular I welcome the input of those nations so vehemntly commited to this act, as I see the wisdom in what you do.

Archmage Rheshven, Magister and Delegate (Hon.) for the UN, Aesthyra

You might want to check how many of your concerns are answered by this resolution. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680087&postcount=84) It is not exactly about state terrorism, but genocide covers a great deal of it.

This post is a greatly advanced version of Gruenburg's cheese and carrots analogy, and both raise a good point. Correct me if I am wrong, honourable representative from Cluichstan, but was it not you who sarcastically told someone that:

"making 12 small resolutions would be much more effective than one, large, concise one" [not exact wording]

Well, lunargent peers, on this, the eve of this mighty resolution's fate, I would like to explain, from a point of enlightenment, my reservations.

You all know my concern over state-conducted-terrorism. Many of you feel that the primary effect of this resolution will be to reduce the instances of civillians being targeted as a tactic in warfare. I agree it will, but, I want to see this document applied unilaterally, that is, for everyone to be banned from targeting civilians.

I would like to avoid making multiple bills to deal with the rights of civilliand during warfare etc... for the same reason Cluichstan chastised [someone] for suggesting breaking this bill into multiple resolutions. HOWEVER, I think it would be impossible to get an even lengthier version of this bill to pass given the trouble its proponents are having now.

So I am changing my vote to FOR, in the hopes that the UN will someday recognise the evil that nations do to civiliands and limit them as well. I will draft a proposal to equalize the feild, so to speak, and I welcome the input of all, assuming I have been clear about my goals. In particular I welcome the input of those nations so vehemntly commited to this act, as I see the wisdom in what you do.

Archmage Rheshven, Magister and Delegate (Hon.) for the UN, Aesthyra

We appreciate the distinguished Archmage's thoughtful consideration of our argument. As we stated before, we would be happy to give careful consideration to a proposal addressing state-conducted terrorism.

On the issue of multiple proposals versus single, large ones.... One of the problems we've seen during our time in the NSUN has been the tendency of some proposal authors to cover too much ground in a single proposal. We believe that a good proposal should address one specific issue or aspect of an issue and do it well. It's difficult enough to properly cover a limited issue in the space allowed for proposals.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Enlightened, both Ausserland and Fonzland.

Fonzland, I am glad that such a resolution exists, but I am still deeply troubled by the frequent casuality with which nations can sometimes dispatch citizens who "get in the way" of their wars. I will likely use the reccomended act as a referance for constructions an anti-civilicide act. Thank you.

Ausserland, thank you for the support. Your insight into my concern is both flattering and hopeful.

Thank you all

Archmage Rheshven, Magister and Delegate (Hon.) for the UN, Aesthyra

So, I think your 'all or nothing' attitude misrepresents the sovereignty movement. If it were that simple, then sovereigntists would simply resign, and stop annoying everyone. But it's not, and we're not done whining yet. ;)

If there is any such material available anywhere, we would appreciate studying some detailed descriptions of the purpose, ideology, official stance etc. of the NSO.

We feel it would probably be beneficial if we could familiarize ourselves with the sovereignty movement and its ambitions.

If there is any such material available anywhere, we would appreciate studying some detailed descriptions of the purpose, ideology, official stance etc. of the NSO.

We feel it would probably be beneficial if we could familiarize ourselves with the sovereignty movement and its ambitions.

OOC: I can tell you where to find it if you change your vote on this proposal... ;)

I voted against this resolution! Maybe that's because I am a terrorist. Ha ha ha ha.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis (www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"This message is to inform you of the decision on this vote made by the honorable Sen. Horatio Sulla, the ambassador for our region's delegate nation, Palentine UN Office (www.nationstates.net/palentine_un_office). Over the past week, patriotic Palentinians have struggled over this resolution, but unfortunately they weren't alone. The commie peaceniks also had their say: As they made their dramatic march for peace down the picturesque glacial coast of the nation they hate so much but which they inexplicably continue to call home, they carried giant papier-mâché masks of their devilish Emperor Captain Spaulding I and his partner in crime, Omigodtheykilledkenny's Manuelo Fernanda. The irrepressibly evil Cluichstani sheiks were similarly lampooned. As they shrieked their "dissent" in the shape of chanted cliches such as, "War Is Not My Voice!", "No Blood for Fine Yeldan Oil™!", "Regime change begins at home!", and "Omigodtheykilledkenny is the real terrorist!", a few of the more buxom of their number were about to reveal themselves to the world in a courageous show of "patriotism," but were quickly spotted by a few of their nation's gallant naval protectors, who began to shout at them from the waters: "Yeah, baby, you got some killer *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep*!! I'd like to *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep*!!!!" "Yeah, take it off, baby!! Show us those *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep* *beep*!!!" The would-be nudist-demonstrators fainted, and their compadres fled in terror as the acquatic mammals began to zero in on new targets for barrages of trademark obscenities. Meanwhile, Sen. Sulla, having momentarily put down his faithful companion (http://pub.daikichi.net/menu/images/WILD_TURKEY.jpg), has informed his emperor, his regional founder and this esteemed body of his decision: He has cast his region's votes IN FAVOR (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10366671#post10366671) of this proposal.VICTORY IS MINE!!

*Sen. Sulla looks over at the repesentaive from LMD, stands at attention, salutes and says,*
"You've got a way with words, mate. As Cousin Butch and Cousin Luke would say. Its Bloody lovely!":D
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

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


Deputy UN Ambassador, for the Palentine UN Office,Texas Jack Funk, stands up with his barbed wire wrapped baseball bat and says,

"Bring it on, Fanboy! Time for a Texas Death-Match!"

Why the hell are you swearing to me?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Don't have him wacked, Don Flibble. He probally wasn't aware of his transgression.

Excelsior,
Sen.Horatio Sulla

I voted against this resolution! Maybe that's because I am a troll. Ha ha ha ha.

Fixed for accuracy.

The resolution "Anti-Terrorism Act" was defeated 8,034 votes to 7,275.

If there is any such material available anywhere, we would appreciate studying some detailed descriptions of the purpose, ideology, official stance etc. of the NSO.

We feel it would probably be beneficial if we could familiarize ourselves with the sovereignty movement and its ambitions.

OOC:

I'd suggest you start by looking over an essay on the subject by Texas Hotrodders which is included in "The Great Big Consolidated United Nations Sticky" in this forum.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681146&postcount=4

You'd also be more than welcome to visit the NSO Forum and browse the public areas. I think you might find the diversity of views on issues interesting.

http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx

Hope that helps.

OOC: I can tell you where to find it if you change your vote on this proposal... ;)

Nice try there. ;)

Too late now though, but my vote would have stood regardless.

Please feel free to telegram me with such information if you wish. I still feel it would be beneficial - for all involved. More knowledge and understanding always is beneficial.

EDIT: Sorry, Ausserland posted at the same time as me. Thanks.

I would very much like to encourage Cluichstan to take the points discussed here in the past days and incorporate them into his resolution and resubmit.

The resolution "Anti-Terrorism Act" was defeated 8,034 votes to 7,275.

Time to invade Chechnya.

The resolution "Anti-Terrorism Act" was defeated 8,034 votes to 7,275.

Time to invade Chechnya.

After Chechnya time, Stats time.

Donno why, something remember me the Worldwide Media Act

http://test256.free.fr/ata.jpg


EDIT: With 15 309 votes, this is the proposal which get the more total votes (for+against) since #110 United Nations Security Act (16 553 votes)

The resolution "Anti-Terrorism Act" was defeated 8,034 votes to 7,275.

Time to invade everyone.

Fixed. :p

Fixed for accuracy.
How dare you call us, "trolls". Such racial slurs of Tyrannicalopians will not be tolerated.

Tyrannicalopia hereby formally demands an apology for this blatant insult.

I would very much like to encourage Cluichstan to take the points discussed here in the past days and incorporate them into his resolution and resubmit.

Trust me, the Anti-Terrorism Act will be back.

How dare you call us, "trolls". Such racial slurs of Tyrannicalopians will not be tolerated.

Tyrannicalopia hereby formally demands an apology for this blatant insult.

Don't make me invade you.

Mr. Otterby:

Terrorism is no issue to play politics with. Combatting it is of the utmost importance to our citizens and to the assurance of their safety, and this proposal will serve as a key instrument in the ongoing fight against international terror. Paradise City is in a state of paralyzing disrepair; it is subject to repeated assaults by mobsters and suspected terrrorists, and is constantly under the threat of terrorist strikes. This will not stand. For the sake of free people everywhere, the United Nations must take action against these thugs, and it must do so now.

You must understand, as our people are in immediate danger of terrorist attack, we must view any nation opposed to fighting terror on an international scale as a potential threat to our own nation. As we already stated, in this fight, you're either with us or against us. Please don't be against us, especially when you don't even have a military! :p (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=compadria)

We are strongly in favor of this proposal, and will proudly campaign for it once it is resubmitted.


Seems like you're a bigger threat to other nations here than any terrorist could hope to be!

Well done,, you're quite a terrific nation.

My Deputy and I chose to remain silent bystanders in this debate, for reasons that are not worth divulging. However, we are relieved to see this resolution defeated. That said, the sponsors of this bill have my sympathy and well wishes; I believe that, in most cases, their intentions are honourable. We simply disagree, perhaps, on means rather than ends.

Lata Chakrabarti
Speaker to the UN

Ladies and gentlemen of these here fine United Nations:

In light of the continuing terrorist threat on our nation, and in particular our embattled capital city, we are very disappointed in this body's lack of perspective and callous refusal to confront with all due diligence and resolve the very real threat of international terrorism. When schools and hospitals and the Playboy Headquarters are being destroyed by lunatics, we would expect a show of solidarity on the part of the international community. This body's indifference to our plight and rejection of a resolution that would have committed all member states to stand squarely with us against the terror menace will not soon be forgotten, and has in fact proved a watershed moment for the Federal Republic.

We cannot remain in an international organization that refuses to take the threat of terrorism seriously. Our withdrawal will be forthcoming. As such, we play our final hand:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad46lz.pnghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/KennyCard-A.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/chechnya.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/office.jpg

Don't have him wacked, Don Flibble. He probally wasn't aware of his transgression.

Excelsior,
Sen.Horatio Sulla

No no, see, Bob is like deified in my nation. We ALL swear to him.

Go Bob!



Frankly, I am surprised as to the outcome of this Resolution. I was certain it was going to pass.

To Member Cluichstan: I recommend that if you wish to continue fighting for this cause, that you do so in smaller pieces. The more actions a Resolution contains, the more likely someone will find something objectionable (righteously or not) within it. I am in favor of the idea of granting civilians complete protection from being attacked, by sovereign nations, fringe groups, and individuals. I would be willing to vote in favor of measures that aid in the prosecution of and extradition of such groups or individuals who would target civilians. The word terrorist and terrorism means nothing to me, however, and thus, an Act like this was unfavorable to me. Reintroduce some of the ideas that I was fond of in their own individual Resolutions, and I surely will vote for them, as they will be less likely to contain issues I object to.

I also want to say for shame for your behavior in this forum. Your frequent flames and pointless posts of whiny accusations of illiteracy, and the whole temper losing thing that you and OMFGKenny do was just ridiculous. Let's see some more cool heads in the next debates, ja?

To the Members who were willing to be civil (most notably Ausserland), I shake hands with you worthy ladies and gentlemen, and look forward to discussing future Resolutions with you.

Norderia
UN Delegate
North Sea

Don't make me invade you.

Idle threats. You are a kitten that looks in the mirror and sees a lion. Deafening wails of your widows and heartbroken mothers will fill your nation.

Once again, we demand an apology or possible economic sanctions may be under way.

Ladies and gentlemen of these here fine United Nations:

In light of the continuing terrorist threat on our nation, and in particular our embattled capital city, we are very disappointed in this body's lack of perspective and callous refusal to confront with all due diligence and resolve the very real threat of international terrorism. When schools and hospitals and the Playboy Headquarters are being destroyed by lunatics, we would expect a show of solidarity on the part of the international community. This body's indifference to our plight and rejection of a resolution that would have committed all member states to stand squarely with us against the terror menace will not soon be forgotten, and has in fact proved a watershed moment for the Federal Republic.

We cannot remain in an international organization that refuses to take the threat of terrorism seriously. Our withdrawal will be forthcoming. As such, we play our final hand:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad46lz.pnghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/KennyCard-A.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/chechnya.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/office.jpg


Sounds to me like you're in no position to be threatening invasions in other countries if you admit to being unable to keep the peace in your own.

ZING!

Deafening wails of your widows and heartbroken mothers will fill your nation.

Shots fired! That made me say "Ohhhhh damn" IRL...

Man down! Yowsa!



Edit: Behold my awesome three digit post count.

Sen. Sulla stands up from his chair and adresses the UN.

"Today is a sad day for international relations. Today the forces of chaos and evil have won the day. Terrorism is a growing and dangerous threat, yet this august body in its infinite wisdom*sarcasm* has decided to put its collective head in the sand and ignore the menace. I wish to thank those who supprted the legislation, Cluichstan for writing this legislation, Kenny, Asserland, Gruenberg and the others who TG'ed and helped defend the merits of this bill in debate. Now I am instructed to give a statement on behalf of my Emperor, and government.

We, the Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine/Palentine UN office, state that since we are firm believers in the doctrine of Pre-emption, and will not wait to be attacked by terrorists, we will strike at those who harbor and support these terrorists wherever they reside,(without regard to international outrage) if we have evidence that our nation or its allies are targets of said terrorists. The main purpose of a government is to protect its citizen's from harm. We believe it is better to fight the enemy of foreign soil, insted of waiting to be attacked in our own nation like sheep. We also wish those who do not see terrorism as a threat Good luck when your nation is attacked by those same forces of evil. Good Day!

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Ladies and gentlemen of these here fine United Nations:

In light of the continuing terrorist threat on our nation, and in particular our embattled capital city, we are very disappointed in this body's lack of perspective and callous refusal to confront with all due diligence and resolve the very real threat of international terrorism. When schools and hospitals and the Playboy Headquarters are being destroyed by lunatics, we would expect a show of solidarity on the part of the international community. This body's indifference to our plight and rejection of a resolution that would have committed all member states to stand squarely with us against the terror menace will not soon be forgotten, and has in fact proved a watershed moment for the Federal Republic.

We cannot remain in an international organization that refuses to take the threat of terrorism seriously. Our withdrawal will be forthcoming. As such, we play our final hand:

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad46lz.pnghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/KennyCard-A.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/chechnya.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/office.jpg

I bagsy your office, mate.:D But only until your associates show up. don't worry I'll keep the hordes here at bay. Texas Jack is there as we speak with his barbed wire bat.

I can't believe what happened here. All i can say is thank god none of you who voted against the anti terrorism act are in power in real life.

Sen. Sulla stands up from his chair and adresses the UN.

"Today is a sad day for international relations. Today the forces of chaos and evil have won the day. Terrorism is a growing and dangerous threat, yet this august body in its infinite wisdom*sarcasm* has decided to put its collective head in the sand and ignore the menace. I wish to thank those who supprted the legislation, Cluichstan for writing this legislation, Kenny, Asserland, Gruenberg and the others who TG'ed and helped defend the merits of this bill in debate. Now I am instructed to give a statement on behalf of my Emperor, and government.

We, the Evil Conservative Empire of the Palentine/Palentine UN office, state that since we are firm believers in the doctrine of Pre-emption, and will not wait to be attacked by terrorists, we will strike at those who harbor and support these terrorists wherever they reside,(without regard to international outrage) if we have evidence that our nation or its allies are targets of said terrorists. The main purpose of a government is to protect its citizen's from harm. We believe it is better to fight the enemy of foreign soil, insted of waiting to be attacked in our own nation like sheep. We also wish those who do not see terrorism as a threat Good luck when your nation is attacked by those same forces of evil. Good Day!

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Norderia spits on the floor at "Today the forces of chaos and evil have won the day," and turns around to face the opposite direction of the speaker in a show of defiance against the monster in the closet speech.

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


Yeah, you do that, give the opposers a reason to fight you, aside from the obvious one.

Norderia spits on the floor at "Today the forces of chaos and evil have won the day," and turns around to face the opposite direction of the speaker in a show of defiance against the monster in the closet speech.

A transmission from the High Offices of Grafhitus, Supreme Overlord of the Protectorate of Graidus:

Good show Norderia, your defiance in the face of this tyrannical, souless, beast that assumes the guise of a peaceful and just collective, is truly admirable. I consider you a comrade in arms against this threat to our way of life, our prosperity, our future.

Millions flood the cities of United Briton in celebration at the rejection of an attempt to use the U.N. to spread authoritarianism. :D :D :D

I hope that another proposal isn't introduce. :sniper:

I can't believe what happened here. All i can say is thank god none of you who voted against the anti terrorism act are in power in real life.

Don't be foolish, we would govern without the taint of corporate taint or the flaw of shifting policies due to changes in government authority.

Millions flood the cities of United Briton in celebration at the rejection of an attempt to use the U.N. to spread authoritarianism. :D :D :D

I hope that another proposal isn't introduce. :sniper:


Ha ha ha, don't worry, if it is, we'll just beat it down again.

Those silly democrats, they must be like this right now :headbang:

I love it !

The citizens and delegate of the People's Republic of Ebfan2 are sadened by this resolution's defeat. But we ask the creator not to be dettered and he and his nation is to be commended in his attempt to make this world a better place for it's inhabitants. To try again but tweak it up. Take the criticisms and learn from them. We may have lost this round but we will be back side to side with you!

Signed
S.D.F.
Honorale Representative of the Honorable citizens of the People's Republic of Ebfan2

The Supremely democratic states of Hirota, disappointed by the show of fluffy idiocy, remains committed to ensuring this legislation is introduced.

Lessons shall be learnt, hopefully those too naive and too dumb too appreciate the importance of this resolution will learn more than others. Hopefully the other contributors will work together once more to improve this proposal, and hopefully in the future common sense and intelligence will prevail within the UN when this legislation is passed.

On the upside, I did not hear one serious complaint about Nat sov, which was nice.

Oh, I've already got a few ideas...

I think if the resolution worked to only eliminate people (or punish them) from targeting large amounts of innocent civilians and non-combatants it would be approved without much trouble.

Norderia spits on the floor at "Today the forces of chaos and evil have won the day," and turns around to face the opposite direction of the speaker in a show of defiance against the monster in the closet speech.

[Count Anaresh Suntower of Solarlandus applauds Horatio Sulla's speech and sneers when Norderia turns his best face towards the podium. Awaiting his appointed turn he rises to make his final speech for the day]

Be it noted that Solarlandus endorses everything the good senator has said but wishes to add that we consider this vote to be for the best. There were those who once argued that terrorism should be fought on a multilateral basis. There were those who argued that unilateral actions are wrong and that premptive attacks against nations are evil when the United Nations exist as a forum for collective action by the sovereign nations of the world. Well, here and now these people were given their chance to prove their case. Here and now these people were given their chance to prove their sincerity. Here and now these people were given their chance to prove the truth of their transnationalist values. Here and now these people were given their chance to prove the viability of the United Nations as a world state.

And here and now they threw that chance away!

Nations WILL defend themselves. No international body can ever prevent that. If the international body in question proves itself an obstacle to that defense then the international body has no right to complain when it learns the hard way that obstacles are for smashing. A diplomat's powers are only as good as that of the men with guns who stand ready to support him. Those who voted against this measure threw away the ability to the UN to be relevant. Do you doubt me? Then ask yourselves this: If the multilateral approach failed within the United Nations of Jennifer Government then why should we think that such an approach would have worked in the larger world outside either? If those who count themselves as supporters of the UN in the larger world outside move to block a multilateral approach within the framework of Jennifer Government then why should any of us think that their support of such a multilateral approach in the world outside had ever been sincere? By their fruits shall ye know them and the supporters of transnationalism and of multinationalism have brought forth their fruits today.

The United Nations and what it stands for has now been weighed in the Balance and found wanting.

Nations WILL defend themselves and if they cannot do it through the UN then they will do so in spite of the UN and that UN no longer has any moral authority to bid them nay in the way they will do it. The President who launched a premptive attack upon a desert tyrant has now been justified by this vote. If the UN cannot bring itself to agree that terrorism is worth fighting then why should he wait upon the UN? If a nation chooses to declare suspected terrorists nonpeople and sends them away to indefinite inprisonment upon an island how dare a UN that will not fight terrorism object? If certain desert shrines become glass parking lots that glow in the dark in retaliation for acts of mass terrorism can a UN that would not act to stop the terrorism have any moral authority to object to what happens to those shrines? Nations will defend themselves and those who will not help that defense have no voice in what it is they will do.

And yet, I say unto all who voted against this, the proponents of this bill gave you your chance. If the UN had voted for this UN would certainly have been in a position to say *how* the war against terrorism would be conducted. You had your chance and you threw it away. From now on what happens happens without you and you will be helpless to stop it. Is that as good a thing as you deemed it at the time you cast your vote? Of what use is a world state that will not defend its citizens? Of what use is an alliance that will not act against a common foe?

I thank those who voted against this bill for showing the true value of the UN. The fact that this value is of a negative sum was not unexpected by me but I consider such a public display of this fact to have been a valuable service all the same.

[Bows and resumes his seat].

[Count Anaresh Suntower of Solarlandus applauds Horatio Sulla's speech and sneers when Norderia turns his best face towards the podium. Awaiting his appointed turn he rises to make his final speech for the day]

Be it noted that Solarlandus endorses everything the good senator has said but wishes to add that we consider this vote to be for the best. There were those who once argued that terrorism should be fought on a multilateral basis. There were those who argued that unilateral actions are wrong and that premptive attacks against nations are evil when the United Nations exist as a forum for collective action by the sovereign nations of the world. Well, here and now these people were given their chance to prove their case. Here and now these people were given their chance to prove their sincerity. Here and now these people were given their chance to prove the truth of their transnationalist values. Here and now these people were given their chance to prove the viability of the United Nations as a world state.

And here and now they threw that chance away!

Nations WILL defend themselves. No international body can ever prevent that. If the international body in question proves itself an obstacle to that defense then the international body has no right to complain when it learns the hard way that obstacles are for smashing. A diplomat's powers are only as good as that of the men with guns who stand ready to support him. Those who voted against this measure threw away the ability to the UN to be relevant. Do you doubt me? Then ask yourselves this: If the multilateral approach failed within the United Nations of Jennifer Government then why should we think that such an approach would have worked in the larger world outside either? If those who count themselves as supporters of the UN in the larger world outside move to block a multilateral approach within the framework of Jennifer Government then why should any of us think that their support of such a multilateral approach in the world outside had ever been sincere? By their fruits shall ye know them and the supporters of transnationalism and of multinationalism have brought forth their fruits today.

The United Nations and what it stands for has now been weighed in the Balance and found wanting.

Nations WILL defend themselves and if they cannot do it through the UN then they will do so in spite of the UN and that UN no longer has any moral authority to bid them nay in the way they will do it. The President who launched a premptive attack upon a desert tyrant has now been justified by this vote. If the UN cannot bring itself to agree that terrorism is worth fighting then why should he wait upon the UN? If a nation chooses to declare suspected terrorists nonpeople and sends them away to indefinite inprisonment upon an island how dare a UN that will not fight terrorism object? If certain desert shrines become glass parking lots that glow in the dark in retaliation for acts of mass terrorism can a UN that would not act to stop the terrorism have any moral authority to object to what happens to those shrines? Nations will defend themselves and those who will not help that defense have no voice in what it is they will do.

And yet, I say unto all who voted against this, the proponents of this bill gave you your chance. If the UN had voted for this UN would certainly have been in a position to say *how* the war against terrorism would be conducted. You had your chance and you threw it away. From now on what happens happens without you and you will be helpless to stop it. Is that as good a thing as you deemed it at the time you cast your vote? Of what use is a world state that will not defend its citizens? Of what use is an alliance that will not act against a common foe?

I thank those who voted against this bill for showing the true value of the UN. The fact that this value is of a negative sum was not unexpected by me but I consider such a public display of this fact to have been a valuable service all the same.

[Bows and resumes his seat].


The eloquence is laudable, but the premise you have about the vote against this Resolution being a vote for terrorist action is downright foolish.

If my neighbor promises to make a bomb shelter for the neighborhood, and he presents a plywood structure with thumb tacks and scotch tape holding it together with an old beach towel as the door, I am going to object to using it. When that neighbor gets mad and says to me, "Would you rather get blown up by the bombs!? Use my shelter!" I sigh and turn around, going back into my house. He sees it as essential, and sees my refusal to use it as a statement that I would rather be blown up. Such is the nature of your premise. That voting against the Resolution is saying I am for terrorism and all its woes. Opponents to the Resolution just, quite simply, don't see it that way. That's just it.

You make me sigh and go home.

The eloquence is laudable, but the premise you have about the vote against this Resolution being a vote for terrorist action is downright foolish.

If my neighbor promises to make a bomb shelter for the neighborhood, and he presents a plywood structure with thumb tacks and scotch tape holding it together with an old beach towel as the door, I am going to object to using it. When that neighbor gets mad and says to me, "Would you rather get blown up by the bombs!? Use my shelter!" I sigh and turn around, going back into my house. He sees it as essential, and sees my refusal to use it as a statement that I would rather be blown up. Such is the nature of your premise. That voting against the Resolution is saying I am for terrorism and all its woes.

You make me sigh and go home.
You won't mind that shipment of Hirota weapons grade plutonium which appears to have accidentally fallen into the hands of Norderian freedom fighters then.

You make me sigh and go home.

Well, at least something good came out of it...

You won't mind that shipment of Hirota weapons grade plutonium which appears to have accidentally fallen into the hands of Norderian freedom fighters then.

What freedom fighters? Ain't a smidgen of crime or rebellion in my country!

But hey, since you've given me the heads up, I'll make a note of your rather hypocritical gesture.

Well, at least something good came out of it...

Stop crying because you lost again. I don't know if you've ever responded to any of my serious posts with something more than a childish snide remark.

You is a sucka.

I thought you said you were going home.

I thought you said you were going home.

It was a reference to my allegory. It is what the narrator in my allegory did. I am home.

So there. :p

What freedom fighters? Ain't a smidgen of crime or rebellion in my country!Considering your nations investment on law and order and defence is nil, it seems even our special needs soldiers would be able to walk into Norderia and take power.

http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Norderia

Seeing as your people would probably just try and fluffy-talk their way out of it, I think our stout clubs and antique catapults will do the job quite nicely.

Congratulations Norderia, you are now a protectorate of Hirota.

Thar's why he can't go home, government in exile.

Considering your nations investment on law and order and defence is nil, it seems even our special needs soldiers would be able to walk into Norderia and take power.

http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Norderia

Seeing as your people would probably just try and fluffy-talk their way out of it, I think our stout clubs and antique catapults will do the job quite nicely.

Congratulations Norderia, you are now a protectorate of Hirota.

Thar's why he can't go home, government in exile.

Oh please, I've got allies practically falling out of my ass. You ain't invading shit, especially the way my peoples love me and this government. They all know martial arts too, so fuck guns.

Congratulations Hirota. You ain't marching on shit.

Edit: I never knew about that tracker thing, that's actually pretty cool.

Man.... My nation is UBER Zen.

The government and people of Ausserland are dismayed and disgusted at the failure of this resolution to pass. We recognize that some members of this Assembly had reasonable objections to certain portions of the legislation, some of which were raised during the debate. We did not agree that their objections were sufficient reason to vote against the resolution, but we must respect their right and duty to vote their consciences.

On the other hand, for those who expressed their support of terrorism or the view that maiming and killing innocent civilians was fine as long as it was done by so-called "freedom fighters", we have nothing but contempt.

Ausserland will not allow this issue to die. International terrorism is a deadly threat to the people of our nations and requires concerted international action to thwart it. We will support any efforts undertaken to revise this resolution to accommodate some of the reasonable objections made. We will support the effort to pass sound, substantial legislation combatting international terrorism. And we will continue to do so until this body recognizes and accepts its responsibility to take action against this menace.

By direction of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I am FULLY FOR this so I'm against the fact that it was defeated.

I would definitly like this to be overturned.

Oh please, I've got allies practically falling out of my ass. You ain't invading shit
My nation stands beside you and your nation even if it may mean making a actual defense budget.....

Definitely a good outcome. Now, my state terrorism can continue.

My nation stands beside you and your nation even if it may mean making a actual defense budget.....

I thank you for your support. An augmentation of your defense budget is unnecessary. Norderia is a giant standing amongst giants from many regions worldwide. No one would get away with an invasion of a country so peaceful and serene.

It would look rather similar to phlemish peasants whooping a batallion of knights with their goedendags back in the day.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/danishmission_cp_9453405.jpg
Terrorists win!

The Honorable citizens of the People's Republic of Ebfan2 thank you for the kind words. Our opinions may be different on certain issues but we respect your right to disagree with us. That is the beauty of democracy. The different views, the different ideals, and the choice of any of them.....

I am FULLY FOR this so I'm against the fact that it was defeated.

I would definitly like this to be overturned.

The result can't be overturned, however the resolution can resubmitted and voted on again.

Just so you know, your founders UN voted against this. I'll put a post up on our offsite forum later today explaining why ;).

To those that are disappointed that the resolution failed, remember nothing is stopping you from following the steps laid out in the resolution yourselves. In fact one of the reasons I did vote against it is because all my nations, UN or not, follow most of them now, and the bits they don't are ignored because we feel the impact on civil liberties is too severe.

Wow...the last two posts have come from people on crack. It really does kill brain cells! :eek:


Was that necessary? I offer up nothing but constructive criticism and commentary and I am responded to with ridicule. One had hoped that the primary author of the resolution that I SUPPORTED would manage a slightly better level of civility that that.

Thankfully, I keep my personal feelings separate from the issues and supported the Anti Terrorism Act based on ITS merits and not those (or lack thereof) of the author.

I do hope to see a new version of such a resolution in the near future as I do believe it to be beneficial to the international community as a whole.

Regards,

Oskar Feldstein
Representative Elect of Kivisto
Basking in the Master's Juices

[snip, snip, SNIP!] :D



We would like to welcome the honorable Mr. Feldstein to this Assembly and thank him for his...er...somewhat long but thoughtful exposition of his views on the resolution. We look forward to his continued participation in debates in this forum.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs


I thank you for your kind advise. I will endeavor to to limit the length of future tirades....er....I mean....speeches.

While there's no need to drag forum events into a regional board, there's no need to bring regional problems to this forum.

If you two want to go at each other, do so elsewhere. If you want to file a formal complaint, use the Getting Help Page.

There's no need for this to continue here.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

My apology to the others on this board for my inappropriate post. My thanks to The Most Glorious Hack on the correct approach in such situations.

*snip*

In fact one of the reasons I did vote against it is because all my nations, UN or not, follow most of them now, and the bits they don't are ignored because we feel the impact on civil liberties is too severe.

An impact on civil liberties that this proposal would have caused -- servere or otherwise -- still has yet to be shown. Simply repeating over and over again that there would have been such an impact doesn't make it so.

Nations WILL defend themselves and if they cannot do it through the UN then they will do so in spite of the UN and that UN no longer has any moral authority to bid them nay in the way they will do it. The President who launched a premptive attack upon a desert tyrant has now been justified by this vote. If the UN cannot bring itself to agree that terrorism is worth fighting then why should he wait upon the UN? If a nation chooses to declare suspected terrorists nonpeople and sends them away to indefinite inprisonment upon an island how dare a UN that will not fight terrorism object? If certain desert shrines become glass parking lots that glow in the dark in retaliation for acts of mass terrorism can a UN that would not act to stop the terrorism have any moral authority to object to what happens to those shrines? Nations will defend themselves and those who will not help that defense have no voice in what it is they will do.



Hear Hear (applaud)

Definitely a good outcome. Now, my state terrorism can continue.


State terrorism was never affected by the resolution. You'd have known that if you pulled your head out of your rhetoric and dogma long enough to have an original thought. In short... Are you done? The grown ups are talking.

Oskar Feldstein
Representing HR Master's Loins

Was that necessary? I offer up nothing but constructive criticism and commentary and I am responded to with ridicule. One had hoped that the primary author of the resolution that I SUPPORTED would manage a slightly better level of civility that that.

Thankfully, I keep my personal feelings separate from the issues and supported the Anti Terrorism Act based on ITS merits and not those (or lack thereof) of the author.

I do hope to see a new version of such a resolution in the near future as I do believe it to be beneficial to the international community as a whole.

Regards,

Oskar Feldstein
Representative Elect of Kivisto
Basking in the Master's Juices

My apologies to Mr. Feldstein. I have had a bit of a short fuse of late, what with having to reply repeatedly to silly remarks such as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and "my country fully supports terror," not to mention people claiming that the proposal would have restricted civil liberties or infringed upon national sovereignty without offering any substantiation for those claims and absurd complaints about how it "condoned" or "legitimised" state terrorism.

There will indeed be a new version of the proposal very soon. In fact, work on a new draft got underway the moment this one was defeated (well, maybe not immediately, but right after I had several glasses of Cluichstani whiskey, smashed the desk in my office into splinters and received a much needed visit from a CPESL servicewoman).

In addition, we will soon be announcing the establishment of a new UN organisation devoted to promoting international security measures and greater awareness of issues related to international security.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

There will indeed be a new version of the proposal very soon. In fact, work on a new draft got underway the moment this one was defeated (well, maybe not immediately, but right after I had several glasses of Cluichstani whiskey, smashed the desk in my office into splinters and received a much needed visit from a CPESL servicewoman).


Let me know when you post a draft of this. I'll be interested to see what changes have been made, and look forward to the evolution of this document. The close vote obviously indicates that you don't need to make many concessions from your last submission.

Let me know when you post a draft of this. I'll be interested to see what changes have been made, and look forward to the evolution of this document. The close vote obviously indicates that you don't need to make many concessions from your last submission.

Indeed, we shouldn't. However, I fear that some of the vitriolic ranting seen in this "debate" will resurface with any anti-terrorism proposal.

Indeed, we shouldn't. However, I fear that some of the vitriolic ranting seen in this "debate" will resurface with any anti-terrorism proposal.

Only if you don't promise to fix the root cause of terrorism and discourse with the poor misunderstood terrorists, insted of giving them a .45 caliber headache:p
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla,
Palentine UN office

P.S. The Ol' Gipper must be spinning in his grave now.

Indeed, we shouldn't. However, I fear that some of the vitriolic ranting seen in this "debate" will resurface with any anti-terrorism proposal.
Well... OMGTKK did quit the UN...:p

However, as much as people were up in arms about the proposal, they did not make up the majority of voters. Add a catchy title that doesn't even talk about terrorists and you won’t have fifty posts of people claiming they are terrorists, nor will you have fifty posts of people talking about freedom fighters. In fact, just call the bill something really complicated like, "The Rhodesian Dichotomy of Aberrant Solids." People won't have a strong opinion, because quite frankly it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Well... OMGTKK did quit the UN...:p

And that is a great loss to this austere body. :(

However, as much as people were up in arms about the proposal, they did not make up the majority of voters. Add a catchy title that doesn't even talk about terrorists and you won’t have fifty posts of people claiming they are terrorists, nor will you have fifty posts of people talking about freedom fighters. In fact, just call the bill something really complicated like, "The Rhodesian Dichotomy of Aberrant Solids." People won't have a strong opinion, because quite frankly it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Amusing idea. I will have to consider how to rename the proposal.

Definitely a good outcome. Now, my state terrorism can continue.
Haha, mine too.

My apologies to Mr. Feldstein. I have had a bit of a short fuse of late, what with having to reply repeatedly to silly remarks such as "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and "my country fully supports terror," not to mention people claiming that the proposal would have restricted civil liberties or infringed upon national sovereignty without offering any substantiation for those claims and absurd complaints about how it "condoned" or "legitimised" state terrorism.

There will indeed be a new version of the proposal very soon. In fact, work on a new draft got underway the moment this one was defeated (well, maybe not immediately, but right after I had several glasses of Cluichstani whiskey, smashed the desk in my office into splinters and received a much needed visit from a CPESL servicewoman).

In addition, we will soon be announcing the establishment of a new UN organisation devoted to promoting international security measures and greater awareness of issues related to international security.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN


Ah. Fully understandable all things considered. I greatly look forward to perusing any new documents or proposals that you issue regarding these matters. I hope we shall be able to work together today for a brighter tomorrow.

Oskar Feldstein
Elected Representative of Kivisto
Named so by The Master In Repose

An impact on civil liberties that this proposal would have caused -- servere or otherwise -- still has yet to be shown. Simply repeating over and over again that there would have been such an impact doesn't make it so.

Under the laws of my nation, they do conflict with civil liberties, but I'm not going into details in this thread as that could just make me the latest victim of ridicule and insults and quite frankly, I don't intend to line myself up as the for side's next target.

I have been reading this thread, and what I've seen in it, mostly from the for side, has put me off posting, except for that one post I put in early in the voting as a bit of fun. In fact, the way things have been going on this forum lately, I'm about ready to stop posting here all together (not that anyone would notice :p).

Under the laws of my nation, they do conflict with civil liberties, but I'm not going into details in this thread as that could just make me the latest victim of ridicule and insults and quite frankly, I don't intend to line myself up as the for side's next target.

I have been reading this thread, and what I've seen in it, mostly from the for side, has put me off posting, except for that one post I put in early in the voting as a bit of fun. In fact, the way things have been going on this forum lately, I'm about ready to stop posting here all together (not that anyone would notice :p).

Fuh rail. Takes all the fun out of the game when people piss and moan and "have short fuses of late." I would say, "Professionals in the real world don't act so childish and petty," but that isn't true. One of the reasons I pay more attention to politics as a harmless roleplaying game than in real life. But with the amount of infantile penis waving that goes on here as well, I'm as off-put as I am by real politics.

"I have had a bit of a short fuse of late, what with having to reply repeatedly to silly remarks such as..."

The point, then, would be not to reply to them! That is not a hard concept to grasp! If you can do nothing but be petty and trivial, then shut the fuck up! Please! For all of us who are trying to ESCAPE the real world of politics! This game is a fantasy intended to entertain and spark intellectual growth! So please, please, please, the lot who won't, grow UP. In a verticle direction!!! Away from single-digit year-oldedness!

Can I get an amen? Or am I the only one who's sick of it?


Edit: Wow... All I need to do is come up with some lewd references to washed up celebrities or analogies involving some stereotype, and this would come awful close to sounding like a 2 Rant.

I loves him so...
http://www.ranting-gryphon.com/rants.htm

Fuh rail. Takes all the fun out of the game when people piss and moan and "have short fuses of late." I would say, "Professionals in the real world don't act so childish and petty," but that isn't true. One of the reasons I pay more attention to politics as a harmless roleplaying game than in real life. But with the amount of infantile penis waving that goes on here as well, I'm as off-put as I am by real politics.

"I have had a bit of a short fuse of late, what with having to reply repeatedly to silly remarks such as..."

The point, then, would be not to reply to them! That is not a hard concept to grasp! If you can do nothing but be petty and trivial, then shut the fuck up! Please! For all of us who are trying to ESCAPE the real world of politics! This game is a fantasy intended to entertain and spark intellectual growth! So please, please, please, the lot who won't, grow UP. In a verticle direction!!! Away from single-digit year-oldedness!

Can I get an amen? Or am I the only one who's sick of it?


Amen. Seriously.

EDIT: Although, on second thought, since Cluichstan is the author of the resolution, he does have a sort of obligation to reply.

Amen. Seriously.

EDIT: Although, on second thought, since Cluichstan is the author of the resolution, he does have a sort of obligation to reply.

There comes a time when one must restrain themselves from replying if they cannot reply with something worthwhile.

Some morons don't need to be replied to. The transient type who say something inflammatory and then leave. Let them be, no need to reply, no minds to change there.

There comes a time when one must restrain themselves from replying if they cannot reply with something worthwhile.

Some morons don't need to be replied to. The transient type who say something inflammatory and then leave. Let them be, no need to reply, no minds to change there.

Then there are also the morons who continue to post...

Then there are also the morons who continue to post...

Even though they may continue to post, the fact remains that there are no minds to change there ;)

Then there are also the morons who continue to post...

Avast.

Such would be the whole "worthwhile" part of my statement.

Even though they may continue to post, the fact remains that there are no minds to change there ;)

Point well made and taken. ;)

Personally, I think that the Anti-Terrorism was a good idea. Who wants a bunch of bloody terrorists running around? I mean seriously. People portray themselves as people who do things purely for the good of society. Is it good to have terrorists? It would be ok if they only attacked military organizations, but they dont. Ever.
:mp5:

Sounds to me like you're in no position to be threatening invasions in other countries if you admit to being unable to keep the peace in your own.

ZING!Not if we hold you responsible for the chaos in our capital city.

Ba-ZING-ZANG-ZOW-ZOOPETY-POW!!!!

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/danishmission_cp_9453405.jpg
Terrorists win!Indeed.

Not if we hold you responsible for the chaos in our capital city.

Ba-ZING-ZANG-ZOW-ZOOPETY-POW!!!!

Indeed.

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind. ~John F. Kennedy, 1961

Not if we hold you responsible for the chaos in our capital city.

Ba-ZING-ZANG-ZOW-ZOOPETY-POW!!!!

Blaming pacifists for your inability to satisfy your peoples is like blaming a mute man for an offensive radio broadcast.

One thing: this is the second longest discussion thread in UN history. Only Repeal "Legalize Prostitution" had more replies.

One thing: this is the second longest discussion thread in UN history. Only Repeal "Legalize Prostitution" had more replies.That's because the drafting thread is the first 8 or so pages. Imagine if the drafting thread had been combined with the "debate" for "Repeal "Gay Rights""...

That's because the drafting thread is the first 8 or so pages. Imagine if the drafting thread had been combined with the "debate" for "Repeal "Gay Rights""...
No, there were at least two other drafting threads for this proposal, and the drafting for Repeal "Gay Rights" (Kenny's version, not Dresophila Prime's) wasn't that long.

Still, a lot of people complaining freedom fighters really adds up.

No no, see, Bob is like deified in my nation. We ALL swear to him.

Go Bob!
A entire nation that considers me something like a god? Cool!

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Great, inflate his already oversized ego. That's the last thing I need to have to deal with.

Timothy Schmidt
PA to Bob Flibble

How about rewording it like so the next time you submit it?

Environmental Protection Act

Environmental: All Industries

The United Nations:

NOTING the increase in global temperatures

BELEIVING that this is a threat to mankind

EMPHASISING that there is a significant amount of carbon released by the burning of buildings, and a significant amount of other environmentally damaging chemicals released by the use of explosives

RECOGNISING that terrorism is a major cause of explosions and fire

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.

CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger people worldwide, as well as the peace and security of all states.

1. CONDEMNS all acts of international terrorism, irrespective of wherever and by whomever they are committed.

2. SUPPORTS efforts to combat international terrorism, as well as developing new international instruments to counter international terrorism.

3. DECLARES that every state has the duty to refrain from organizing, assisting or participating in international terrorism or acquiescing in activities within its territories directed towards the commission of such acts.

4. MANDATES that member states shall:
A. Prevent, suppress and criminalize the financing of international terrorism
B. Freeze without delay funds or other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, intend to commit or facilitate the commission of international terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons or entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons or associated persons and entities
C. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in international terrorism, including suppressing recruitment by international terrorist groups and eliminating the weapons stockpiles of such groups
D. Deny, to the best of their knowledge and ability, safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organize, support or practice international terrorism
E. Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of international terrorism is brought to justice, and that such acts are established as serious criminal acts in domestic law and that the punishment reflects the gravity of such acts
F. Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or proceedings related to the financing or support of international terrorism, including assistance in obtaining evidence necessary for said proceedings.

5. URGES all member states to cooperate in preventing and suppressing international terrorism and in taking action against such act, though administrative and judicial matter, and the exchange of intelligence, especially regarding actions or movements of international terrorists; forged or falsified travel documents; the use of communications technologies by international terrorist groups; and traffic in arms, explosives, or sensitive materials -- particularly weapons of mass destruction -- by international terrorists.

Co-authored by Hirota.

How about rewording it like so the next time you submit it?

Or, another preamble....

NOTING that cute widdle bunny rabbits, and kittens can be the victims of big bad terrorists.

No, there were at least two other drafting threads for this proposal, and the drafting for Repeal "Gay Rights" (Kenny's version, not Dresophila Prime's) wasn't that long.

Still, a lot of people complaining freedom fighters really adds up.

Including you. :p

I'm glad it was defeated.

I'm glad it was defeated.

Oh really? Well, then I suppose you are also glad that incidents like the recent attack (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469402) on Euroslavia continue to take place. Will you still be glad when school children from Imperiux are targeted?

I would create a terrorism act that includes the concept of State Terrorism, and that is why I would not support the last act.

Either way, the only way to tackle terrorism is not by increasing military budget or the police force, but eliminating the whole reason of existance of terrorism: Opression, discrimination and misery amongst the populations most prone to participate in terrrorist organizations.

I would create a terrorism act that includes the concept of State Terrorism, and that is why I would not support the last act.

Either way, the only way to tackle terrorism is not by increasing military budget or the police force, but eliminating the whole reason of existance of terrorism: Opression, discrimination and misery amongst the populations most prone to participate in terrrorist organizations.

:rolleyes:

Oh really? Well, then I suppose you are also glad that incidents like the recent attack (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=469402) on Euroslavia continue to take place. Will you still be glad when school children from Imperiux are targeted?

Gravedigger... :p