United Zululand
03-02-2006, 04:58
Tired of resolution, silly anyway.
Gruenberg
03-02-2006, 05:12
Draft: UN Resolution: Defending Peoples Right to Rise Up
Change the title. Good Wena change the title. You're making it sound like a Hallmark greeting.
This resolution acknowledges that in this day and age, terrorism is a serious crime and it effects civilians, government employees, heads of state, police officers, rescue workers and the military of most nations, U.N or not. However, terrorism and calling someone a terrorist has been so diluted that it has worked into the hands of corrupt dictators themselves, and they use this world as a way to quell dissent within their nation.
Don't use 'in this day and age' (hackneyed). Besides, UN resolutions need to be durable. Suggesting it's only suited to one situation won't sell it. Then, it should be 'affects' not 'effects'. The list is a shopping list: there's no point. In his terrorism proposal, the representative of Cluichstan used: "CONCERNED by acts of international terrorism that endanger people worldwide, as well as the peace and security of all states". That, to me, is a much better wording.
Therefore human rights should not be trampled by a dictator or leader of a nation for his or her own betterment over their people. The circumstance surrodunding the cases of terrorism and acts of disobdience should be looked before it is concluded that is an actual act of terrorism, and not a way for people to cry out for change from within their own nation.
Run this through a spell-check. It won't sort the grammar, but that can be worked on. Also, there's no 'therefore' about it. Whether terrorism exists or not, your proposal should be making a case for Human Rights. You're basically saying 'people should investigate crimes to ensure they really are terrorism'. Well...duh.
Therefore, before United Nations members, other than the nation that the act was committed in, call these acts a terrorist act they should look at the circumstances surrounding the incident itself.
I disagree. If someone blows up a building, it's terrorism. I don't care if they had legitimate reasons: it's terrorism.
Therefore, when an act of terror/disturbance is committed within a U.N member nation; fellow U.N members should look at if the act was committed against
(1) civilians and only civilians themselves
(2) At the disregard for civilian life
(3) If it was financed by a third party from outside the nation where the act was committed
(4) If it targeted military or police forces
(5) And what kind of environment is within the nation that this act was committed in
You're an apologist. Nothing excuses acts of terrorism. An act of violence in an oppressive regime is still an act of violence. Of course, these are all good indicators of terrorism; but the fifth, especially, leads to a suggestion that in some way certain environments justify terrorist actions. I disagree.
After these five points are examined, then U.N members then can conclude if it was an act of terror and can proceed along the lines set out in other U.N resolutions that regard terrorism alone.
What point? There's only one (to my knowledge) resolution which deals with terrorism, and that concerns organizations, not actions. The queued proposal has its own definition. This sounds like a 'definition of terrorism' proposal. It's not a very good definition.
Or act accordingly to the facts set out if it is a cry for help from a group of people trying to fight off tyranny.
Tyranny or no tyranny, murder is murder. A terrorist group fighting an oppressor still should not be committing acts of violence and destruction.
Incidentally, this shouldn't be Human Rights, and it's certainly not Strong.