NationStates Jolt Archive

The peaceful people of Ley Land have elected to vote for this resolution, at a pinch. There are concerns about

"8. SUPPORTS the commitment to address significant causes of terrorism, such as poverty, inadequate education, etc."

As we are concerned that this throw away comment attached to the end of the document is insufficient and implies complacency as to the causes of International Terrorism. We believe that the single biggest cause of terrorism is the imposed will of more powerful nations upon less powerful ones and therefore feel that significant steps towards combatting terrorism should be to increase diplomacy, educate those in powerful nations to give them a greater understanding and hopefully respect for other cultures and other such actions that take emphasis away from violent solutions to political, social and religious problems.

I'd have thought it'd be Intangelonan, without the "i", since most adjectives that end that way are because the nations themselves have an "i" at the end. Telidian, Arridian, Norderian, whereas Gruenberg is probably Gruenbergan (or maybe Gruenbergi)...

Eh, not that there's a necessarily proper method.
True.

Besides "Intangeloni" sounds like pasta.

Environmental and cyber terrorism would be carried out, normally, to cripple civilian operations or to create situations (i.e. poisoning the environment) where the health and well-being of civilians is severely threatened. I think this would qualify as terrorism under the existing definition, although it's an interesting point of debate.

In RL, Michael Crichton published a book two years ago called "State of Fear," which follows an extremist environmental group that resorts to terrorism to achieve their objectives. Their objectives were not the liberation of a people from an oppressive regime, but to create environmental disasters that would prompt the nations of the world to enact environmental policies that would end or counter-act their perceived impending global environmental crisis.

Freedom Fighters Are Not Terrorists


Screaming, in red nonetheless, is, in fact, terrorism, though.

But this "freedom fighter" issue, in which we are not to speak of, does make some interesting problems. Who's to say what exactly is a freedom fighter, and who is just a terrorist? It all seems to exist in a wholly rhetorical realm. Are my poor guerillas (The Great Forces of Grape Ape (or GFoGA)) terrorists?

Freedom Fighters Are Not Terrorists


Screaming, in red nonetheless, is, in fact, terrorism, though.

But this "freedom fighter" issue, in which we are not to speak of, does make some interesting problems. Who's to say what exactly is a freedom fighter, and who is just a terrorist? It all seems to exist in a wholly rhetorical realm.

Surely people "terrorize" for a reason, and this reason probably transcends the purely materialistic causes endorsed by the resolution. I don't think it possible to actually retify these primal causes of terrorism.

This bill just raises the cost of fighting non-existant issues. Out of our modest population of 420 million only a handful have died of "terrorism", a small number vastly outweighed by more "domestic and mundane" issues such as unsafe commercial products and petty crime.

Adding to this that I really don't see what the lack of national affiliation has to do with the issue. Couldn't this just be seen as the "big boys", my fellow member of the sage body we call the UN, protecting their own at the expense of smaller actors whose only voice is (by necessity) violence?

Our own modest nation was formed via "terrorism", in that we had to fight a larger and more organized body for our independance as a republic, and we also had to strike out at other larger bodies whose institutional oppression and support helped the resistence to our independence. I'm sure other perceived "terrorist" groups have simular aims, and it should be no crime to support their own acts of liberation and activism.

If I was to go into a neutral nation to deal with terrorists that threatened my nation's security, without the neutral nation's knowledge, and used questionable tactics, would that be recognized as terrorism on the information in the resolution?

Freedom Fighters Are Not Terrorists


Screaming, in red nonetheless, is, in fact, terrorism, though.

But this "freedom fighter" issue, in which we are not to speak of, does make some interesting problems. Who's to say what exactly is a freedom fighter, and who is just a terrorist? It all seems to exist in a wholly rhetorical realm. Are my poor guerillas (The Great Forces of Grape Ape (or GFoGA)) terrorists?


Simply put, the distinction is made by the definitions in the proposal itself. Take the time to read them. Understand them. Come to know them in your soul. This particular tangent of debate got old in February when the previous version of this came up.

If I was to go into a neutral nation to deal with terrorists that threatened my nation's security, without the neutral nation's knowledge, and used questionable tactics, would that be recognized as terrorism on the information in the resolution?
Please read the resolution, and compare its definitions, in article 1 to 3, to your 'questionable tactics', and you should have an answer.

Surely people "terrorize" for a reason, and this reason probably transcends the purely materialistic causes endorsed by the resolution. I don't think it possible to actually retify these primal causes of terrorism.

Good thing the entirety of the rest of the bill is geared towards eradicating terrorism itself, then.

This bill just raises the cost of fighting non-existant issues. Out of our modest population of 420 million only a handful have died of "terrorism", a small number vastly outweighed by more "domestic and mundane" issues such as unsafe commercial products and petty crime.

So what you're saying is that you don't feel you need to worry about terrorism until all of your domestic issues are cleared up. Somewhat understandable, I guess. But will you really stand in the way of those who wish to make an international change to improve the entirety of the world?

Adding to this that I really don't see what the lack of national affiliation has to do with the issue.

It's not the lack of national affiliation that is of concern, it is the extra national nature of things that are being addressed. Being international terrorism and all.

Couldn't this just be seen as the "big boys", my fellow member of the sage body we call the UN, protecting their own at the expense of smaller actors whose only voice is (by necessity) violence?

1) Violence is never a necessity. It is easier than other avenues, and certainly more fun, but never necessary.

2) Unless you actually have some justification for slandering a large number of those who have worked on this proposal, I kindly ask for a retraction of that statement.

Our own modest nation was formed via "terrorism", in that we had to fight a larger and more organized body for our independance as a republic,

Unless you left one nation to go take out the government of another nation which you were not native to for the intent on furthering your political ideological, or religious goals, then this bill would not recognize your acts as terrorism. You would be considered what we call freedom fighters. As has already been mentioned before, this does not cover freedom fighters and we're sick to death of hearing about them. Also as has been previously suggested, these little tangents could be avoided by the participants of the debate reading the subject matter before getting involved.

and we also had to strike out at other larger bodies whose institutional oppression and support helped the resistence to our independence.

That just doesn't change the fact that that was in internal national affair, not covered by this resolution.

I'm sure other perceived "terrorist" groups have simular aims, and it should be no crime to support their own acts of liberation and activism.

Liberation from a corrupt regime is freedom fighter action. Crashing a plane into a crowded mall is a terrorist action. Note the differences. They are many and subtle. Target: government/military vs innocent civilians Location: local vs international.... Well, those are the most important two.

Please read the resolution, and compare its definitions, in article 1 to 3, to your 'questionable tactics', and you should have an answer.

OOC: He won't bother. He's just here to troll about RL crap. :rolleyes:

Would Mr. Feldstein from Kivisto kindly address our previous query regarding "hostile forces" "setting up shop" in the Kawaiian capital?

Would Mr. Feldstein from Kivisto kindly address our previous query regarding "hostile forces" "setting up shop" in the Kawaiian capital?


Greatest apologies for the delay. I assure you that there was no direct offense or situation being referred to with our comments. Simply making referrence to The Eternal Kawaii's continual appearance to complain about other nations militaries whenever international conflict comes up as a topic of conversation. Figured Kawaii might be more interested in fielding that particular tangent so that we could leave the actual debate to the rest of us. I sincerely apologize if any offense was construed.

The Federation of Myso-Kamia supports and will gladly comply with this resolution. Were terrorists who were harming our nation hiding out in any of your nations we would expect you to make a concerted effort to stop them, and so in good faith we must logically expect ourselves to do the same for any other country.

However, it should be noted that the scope of this resolution is very broad and vague. We have a minimalist form of government that is very limited by our Constitution. While we will pledge to do our utmost with the police, intelligent, and security resources we already have to bring terrorists within our borders to justice, no extra resources can be created for this purpose.

"1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population;"

According to this resolution, Israel combatting Hezbollah is a terrorist act, because Hezbollah is not officially a governmental organisation. Sure, that can be debated, because the organisation practically governs the south of Lebanon, but the fact remains that the irony of this resolution at vote is, that it marks violence against terrorist organisations as terrorism, because terrorist organisations are explicitly non-national and non-governmental (as is stated - more irony - in the same resolution.

So please withdraw all your yes-votes before the struggle against terrorism will be lost in paradox.

Shepherd
Delegate for Poetry and Song

"1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population;"

According to this resolution, Israel combatting Hezbollah is a terrorist act, because Hezbollah is not officially a governmental organisation. Sure, that can be debated, because the organisation practically governs the south of Lebanon, but the fact remains that the irony of this resolution at vote is, that it marks violence against terrorist organisations as terrorism, because terrorist organisations are explicitly non-national and non-governmental (as is stated - more irony - in the same resolution.

So please withdraw all your yes-votes before the struggle against terrorism will be lost in paradox.

Shepherd
Delegate for Poetry and Song

OOC: You fail at reading. You also fail at separating NS from RL.

The peaceful people of Ley Land have elected to vote for this resolution, at a pinch. There are concerns about

"8. SUPPORTS the commitment to address significant causes of terrorism, such as poverty, inadequate education, etc."

As we are concerned that this throw away comment attached to the end of the document is insufficient and implies complacency as to the causes of International Terrorism. We believe that the single biggest cause of terrorism is the imposed will of more powerful nations upon less powerful ones and therefore feel that significant steps towards combatting terrorism should be to increase diplomacy, educate those in powerful nations to give them a greater understanding and hopefully respect for other cultures and other such actions that take emphasis away from violent solutions to political, social and religious problems.

Tommo the Stout stands up from his hammock and waves away the swarm of representatives rushing to address this comment.

Welllllity wellity wellity. This throw-away comment you speak of was added to address the following concern.

(Wow, I got lucky, the old thread is the third longest one in the forum behind the Stranger's Bar and the silly proposals zOMG. Made searching for it pretty damn easy!)

(Now if Jolt would stop lagging....)
Found it:

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.

Now, nodding to that, the "etc." in Clause 8 would include the causes you listed. Although much of what you mentioned would fall under the "unadequate education" part of the clause. I don't see what your concern is.

Some people cite fundamentalist, scary people who indoctrinate other people as a source of terrorism. But what caused those people to become fundamentalist, scary people who incite violence? You can say that terrorism begets terrorism, but terrorism cannot be the mother of terrorism, since terrorism would have to exist before it existed.... Chicken/egg thing...

Yeah, this post was rushed, I gotta go before I'm late to work.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

I CHOPPA YOU FACE!

"1. DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence by persons or organizations other than national governments for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population;"

According to this resolution, Israel combatting Hezbollah is a terrorist act, because Hezbollah is not officially a governmental organisation. Sure, that can be debated, because the organisation practically governs the south of Lebanon, but the fact remains that the irony of this resolution at vote is, that it marks violence against terrorist organisations as terrorism, because terrorist organisations are explicitly non-national and non-governmental (as is stated - more irony - in the same resolution.

So please withdraw all your yes-votes before the struggle against terrorism will be lost in paradox.

Shepherd
Delegate for Poetry and Song

Actually, Hezbollah is a governmental organization. They were voted in. Just like Hamas.

.
According to this resolution, Israel combatting Hezbollah is a terrorist act, because Hezbollah is not officially a governmental organisation. Sure, that can be debated, because the organisation practically governs the south of Lebanon, but the fact remains that the irony of this resolution at vote is, that it marks violence against terrorist organisations as terrorism, because terrorist organisations are explicitly non-national and non-governmental (as is stated - more irony - in the same resolution.

To start with, Israel is a government and this resolution does not apply to government actors.

So please withdraw all your yes-votes before the struggle against terrorism will be lost in paradox.

The only paradox here is that you managed to get 20 pages into a thread without actually grasping anything about the material at hand.

Shepherd
Delegate for Poetry and Song

Thanks for coming out.

Been taking lessons from Senator Sulla, have you? ;)

Aye. Indeed I have. ;)

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Quote: OOC: You fail at reading. You also fail at separating NS from RL.

If real life cannot be brought in as an example of these things, then we can only talk about the billuiobns of hyperthetical situations that could occur. Surely the point in this UN its to learn from the mistakes of the real world.

Thus we must look at other nations and was has happened and how our legislation would change things.

Also alot of nations within the game, probably over half are based in some way on existing nations, thus using the real world as examples makes sense.

Thus vote no to the legislation.

: OOC: You fail at reading. You also fail at separating NS from RL.

If real life cannot be brought in as an example of these things, then we can only talk about the billuiobns of hyperthetical situations that could occur. Surely the point in this UN its to learn from the mistakes of the real world.

It's confusing to begin with. Things that have happened on earth but not in NS are generally based on the politico-economic state of things on earth. This will include laws that are ineffect there that we do not have here, as well as religious sects and sub-sects that don't exist within NS, as well as a million other factors that are not replicated within the confines of the NS universe.

On another tack, were we to follow the lessons learned from the mythical land of RL, there would be no UN as it tends to be completely ineffectual as anything other than a place for the whiners to voice their complaints about the tyrannical <capitalist> overlords of the world. Strange how remarkably similar and different things can be at the same time.

Thus we must look at other nations and was has happened and how our legislation would change things.

Let common sense be you guide. Assume that what is stated in the law will come to pass to at least a marginal degree. The UN Gnomes take their jobs quite seriously, after all.

Also alot of nations within the game, probably over half are based in some way on existing nations, thus using the real world as examples makes sense.

Basing your political philosophy on myth and legend is perfectly fine. There are many who base their governmental styles on the teachings of fictional greater powers that they place their faith into. It's all relative, of course, but there comes a point when you must begin to think for yourself instead of letting a fictional character ruling a fake nation from the mythical land of RL make your decisions for you.

Thus vote no to the legislation.

Or vote yes. Both options are available. One of these choices will help put a dent into the international scourge of terror, the other will not.

The problem with this bill, particularly the freedom fighter vs. terrorist concept of the bill, is the presumption of innocence on the part of a civilian population.

Let's take a hypothetical example. Country A is on that obtuse piece of toilet paper known as the World Heritage List. Law-abiding to a fault, it uses political pressure to meet it's lumber needs by exploiting Country B. That lumber is then used to make log cabins, the primary form of residence used by every civilian in Country A.

Could not Organization C, a subculture of Country B that abhors the destruction of their environment, not consider every member of Country A culpable in this action? For that matter, are they /not/ culpable?

The proposal goes even further, to identify an off-duty military or law enforcement officer as a civilian. So now I'm a member of Organization C, and I discover that Country A's military intelligence division has been sending operatives to spy on my secret meetings. I get the upper hand by creeping the right computer and getting some photos of the operatives, and I happen to catch one having dinner in a restaurant in my capital city. So I rub him out, gangsta style. If he was wearing his uniform I'd be a freedom fighter, but now I'm a terrorist? Or even better, same scenario, but now I'm an insurgent and he's a high-ranking military officer occupying my country, but still off duty. By stepping across my national borders, how is he not fair game?

A more effective way of combating terrorism would be to establish that a reasonable link must exist between the target and the cause being fought for. One cannot reasonably claim to fight the concept of irrigation, for example, by blowing up a windmill. More basically, there could be the requirement that the organization /have/ a cause, as opposed to violence for it's own sake. And, of course, a clause requiring such organizations to take violent action only after exhausting all other forms of nonviolent protest to redress their grievances.

On the whole, the government of Kuraurisand doesn't see a necessity for this: conventional criminal law would seem to apply to the actions of such people, upon capture, and if they remain uncaptured, then what use is a resolution in catching them?

When this law is implemented. It will be a heroic blow against peopel - nations really - that tak up arms. The surprise will be in those nations now with terrorist agendas. so called invaders. are they in for a big surprise.

Back into this morass of unnecessary tripe.

The problem with this bill, particularly the freedom fighter vs. terrorist concept of the bill,

Let's take a pause right here, shall we. There is no freedom fighter vs. terrorist concept to this bill. This bill does not address freedom fighters at all. The only reason that freedom fighters are a part of this discussion is because there are an unfortunate number of individuals who completely fail to comprehend what is presented to them.

is the presumption of innocence on the part of a civilian population.

The wonderful part about that is this: the only place in the proposal where civilians are referred to as innocent is this -
BELIEVING that the deliberate killing and maiming of innocent civilians by terrorists is a despicable and heinous crime;
A wonderful line which expresses sentiment. No definitions to adhere to. No operative clauses. Nothing. Just that statement that deliberately killing innocents sucks.

The rest of what followed in your post is a development on the innocent tangent. Completely irrelevant. Completely useless. A complete waste of time. I can't even be bothered to address it.

The only exceptions to this are derogatory remarks about another resolution which, again, have no place in this discussion; reference to trade exploitation, which is covered by other resolutions (or will be in the future) and still has nothing to do with UNCTI other than a half-assed attempt at supporting clause 8; a statement that essentially says that groups should look to assassination and violence before diplomacy; some more rhetoric about Clause 8 (which you clearly do not understand).

There is your final statement.

On the whole, the government of Kuraurisand doesn't see a necessity for this: conventional criminal law would seem to apply to the actions of such people, upon capture, and if they remain uncaptured, then what use is a resolution in catching them?

In international matters, your laws may differ from mine and create conflict on the resolution of such matters. As such, conventional criminal law will not suffice. As for the use of a resolution in catching them, and I mean this sincerely from the bottom of my cynical soul when I say this:

READ THE BLOODY PROPOSAL!

It enforces the cooperation of all UN nations in the capture of such terrorists, as well as forbidding the offer of any assistance, asylum or succor of any nature to said international criminals.

Unless you actually have something that is even remotely on topic (meaning you might actually have to read and attempt to comprehend the proposal - failing that, have someone explain it to you), please stop wasting our time and yours.

Not sure if this decisions means much to anyone, but it was a big deal for the region of Change that believes in a more limited United Nations. As the delegate I just voted:

Pro-Sovereignty Babes's position: FOR

We were a little troubled by the last clause, but concluded it merely "supports"; and doesn't encourage, require, demand, order or even suggest.

This is a piece of international legislation we can get behind and support.

When this law is implemented. It will be a heroic blow against peopel - nations really - that tak up arms. The surprise will be in those nations now with terrorist agendas. so called invaders. are they in for a big surprise.
:confused:

Votes For: 6,215

Votes Against: 2,977

With just over 24 hours to go. :D

I have voted against this resolution and I would like to explain the reasons, briefly.

The proposed text does not help resolve the ambiguities of the concept of terrorism at all - even worse, the idea of a 'terrorist state' is also lurking between the lines.

Since the resolution does not identify of establish any mechanisms for the coordination of international action/enforcement, each state will remain the judge of its own actions, and, more importantly, of its neighbours.

To put it simply, who is to judge whether a state violates the provisions of the resolution?

Therefore, THE RESOLUTION ENCOURAGES UNILATERAL ARBITRARY ACTION BY INDIVIDUAL STATES.

I have voted against this resolution and I would like to explain the reasons, briefly.

The proposed text does not help resolve the ambiguities of the concept of terrorism at all - even worse, the idea of a 'terrorist state' is also lurking between the lines.

The idea of a "terrorist state" only lurks between the lines because you imagine it to be there. This proposal doesn't deal with terrorist acts committed by state actors. If you want a proposal to do so, feel free to write one yourself.


Since the resolution does not identify of establish any mechanisms for the coordination of international action/enforcement, each state will remain the judge of its own actions, and, more importantly, of its neighbours.

No, each state will have to end any support of terrorist organisations that kill innocent civilians in other nations.

To put it simply, who is to judge whether a state violates the provisions of the resolution?

The UN gnomes. But the only way a state could violate the terms of this proposal would be if they continue supporting criminals that target innocent civilians in another nation.

Therefore, THE RESOLUTION ENCOURAGES UNILATERAL ARBITRARY ACTION BY INDIVIDUAL STATES.

Does nothing of the sort. This proposal encourages international cooperation. You fail at reading.

[QUOTE=Cluichstan]The idea of a "terrorist state" only lurks between the lines because you imagine it to be there. This proposal doesn't deal with terrorist acts committed by state actors. If you want a proposal to do so, feel free to write one yourself.

Let's not play with words here. Could you please let me know what a state that violates the resolution's provisions would be called?

Your idea of a 'terrorist state' is totally hilarious.

The idea of a "terrorist state" only lurks between the lines because you imagine it to be there. This proposal doesn't deal with terrorist acts committed by state actors. If you want a proposal to do so, feel free to write one yourself.


Let's not play with words here. Could you please let me know what a state that violates the resolution's provisions would be called?

Your idea of a 'terrorist state' is totally hilarious.

Let's not play with words here. Could you please let me know what a state that violates the resolution's provisions would be called?

Your idea of a 'terrorist state' is totally hilarious.

It would be called a non-compliant state. Thank you. Drive though.

It would be called a non-compliant state. Thank you. Drive though.

Ah, sorry. It is your idea of international politics that suffers really.

The proposed text does not help resolve the ambiguities of the concept of terrorism at all - even worse, the idea of a 'terrorist state' is also lurking between the lines.
What's ambiguous about the definitions this Resolution uses? Remember Dick and Jane? We don't like Dicks, but we like Janes. Or if you didn't read that far (I wouldn't blame you) the definitions used in the Resolution are the only definitions this Resolution does something for. So, if you want, go ahead and use the full definition in place of the word it is defining, every time it's used. The killing of civilians, etc. etc. does not to me sound ambiguous.

And what's a terrorist state (since you don't seem to think Cluich has the right idea about what you mean)?

Since the resolution does not identify of establish any mechanisms for the coordination of international action/enforcement, each state will remain the judge of its own actions, and, more importantly, of its neighbours.
Sure, it's supposed to allow the state remain the judge of its own actions. Just so long as they are appropriate. The neighbor thing, I don't get. I think you're reading more than what is just written.

To put it simply, who is to judge whether a state violates the provisions of the resolution?
OOC: If you're asking what I think you're asking, then its a game mechanics issue, in which case, the states can't violate the provisions, and it would be the gnomes making sure of it.

Therefore, THE RESOLUTION ENCOURAGES UNILATERAL ARBITRARY ACTION BY INDIVIDUAL STATES.
Use bold, or italics to add emphasis, not caps.

Ah, sorry. It is your idea of international politics that suffers really.
Now, I will probably be one of the last to ever think that Cluich's politics are shiny happy fun good... But what art thou saying here?

Well, don't mince words, Ambassador, please, tell us what you really think. *smirk*

Back into this morass of unnecessary tripe.

There is no such thing as unnecessary tripe when life and liberty are at stake, good sir. One would think you'd welcome the opportunity to sway misinformed governments to your cause as opposed to looking on the situation as a nuisance you must contend with. More flys with honey, as they say.


Let's take a pause right here, shall we. There is no freedom fighter vs. terrorist concept to this bill. This bill does not address freedom fighters at all. The only reason that freedom fighters are a part of this discussion is because there are an unfortunate number of individuals who completely fail to comprehend what is presented to them.

Quite frankly, sir, the freedom fighter vs. terrorist concept is at the heart of your legislation. If you wish to make a resolution denying terrorists safe harbor or assistance, then you must deal with the basic issue - what constitutes a terrorist? History is so often written by the victor, and we are familiar with the histories of nations which won their independence from mother countries by the point of the sword. Had their initiative failed, they would certainly be terrorists by your definition in section 1, which calls a terrorist "persons or organizations other than national governments" who "use or threaten... use of violence... for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population." Since they won, they're freedom fighters, revered by the society that they created.

Underneath that cause-effect distinction is a moral one - if someone is the "good guy" in a terrorist situation, fighting for a cause that is righteous and proper, would they not be a freedom fighter? Suppose, for example, my government began harboring the government-in-exile of a neighboring state. Many other nations in the world acknowledge the new government as legitimate, but my nation acknowledges the correctness of the previous administration, and allows them safe harbor to plan guerilla attacks against the civilian supporters of the new regime, perhaps civilian-owned munitions plants, a strategy designed by them to retake their homeland. Would we not be in violation of this resolution, harboring "terrorists", even though we believe in their cause ourselves?

The wonderful part about that is this: the only place in the proposal where civilians are referred to as innocent is this - A wonderful line which expresses sentiment. No definitions to adhere to. No operative clauses. Nothing. Just that statement that deliberately killing innocents sucks.

The rest of what followed in your post is a development on the innocent tangent. Completely irrelevant. Completely useless. A complete waste of time. I can't even be bothered to address it.

So, in essence, you're telling me that you cede that civilians can be culpable for actions against an organization, hypothetically let's say gas guzzling SUV owners who repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the concerns of an environmental organization in their neighbor's country, and yet that organization still has no business considering them as legitimate targets for retaliation.

That is sheer nonsense.

The only exceptions to this are derogatory remarks about another resolution which, again, have no place in this discussion; reference to trade exploitation, which is covered by other resolutions (or will be in the future) and still has nothing to do with UNCTI other than a half-assed attempt at supporting clause 8; a statement that essentially says that groups should look to assassination and violence before diplomacy; some more rhetoric about Clause 8 (which you clearly do not understand).

Hmmm, what's the most diplomatic way to put this... what the hell are you talking about?


In international matters, your laws may differ from mine and create conflict on the resolution of such matters. As such, conventional criminal law will not suffice. As for the use of a resolution in catching them, and I mean this sincerely from the bottom of my cynical soul when I say this:

READ THE BLOODY PROPOSAL!

Perhaps you should write less ambiguous proposals in the future. You should certainly get off your arrogant, self-righteous nonsense and stop assuming that those who don't understand every nuance of your thinking must not have taken the time to read your work. I certainly gave your proposal much more attention than you gave my initial response. It's called respect, sir - learn it.

In any case, you have obviously missed the nuance of /my/ point. One presumes that the sort of activity you would quantify as terrorism from a foreign citizen is the same kind of behaviour you would find reproachable in your /own/ citizens - or are your laws so twisted that they would normally allow a Kuraurisandian to plant a bomb where a Kivistonian would be subject to arrest? Therefore, if my citizens in your country break or attempt to break your laws, then by all means, arrest and try them by the same standards as you would one of your own. You do not need my permission or cooperation in order to do so, and in fact, if they did manage to flee back to Kuraurisand, we would honor a request for extradition if the evidence against them was sufficient.

Your legislation would attempt to go further, to force every UN member state to engage in a witch-hunt against groups while they are still idle, the moment one of them utters that they might even think of violence at some point if they are not given redress.

Frankly, you're dreaming - I don't give a damn if the Union for the Elimination of Kvisto holds regular meetings in my country where they talk about how easy it would be to nuke your capital for some petty wrong they perceive that you've done to them. Until they move past hypothetics and actually state that they intend to carry /out/ such a plan, they will be protected by the right to free speech within my national borders - even if chapters of the group in other nations have actually committed acts of terrorism.

Unless you actually have something that is even remotely on topic (meaning you might actually have to read and attempt to comprehend the proposal - failing that, have someone explain it to you), please stop wasting our time and yours.

Again, such arrogant presumption. Perhaps it is you who should stop wasting our time, until you can get to a local dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "diplomacy".

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is the target. Period.

There is no such thing as unnecessary tripe when life and liberty are at stake, good sir. One would think you'd welcome the opportunity to sway misinformed governments to your cause as opposed to looking on the situation as a nuisance you must contend with. More flys with honey, as they say.Whining about a perceived lack of decorum in legislative sessions is such worthless bullshit, and it only serves to distract from the topic at hand. One's tone does not dilute the strength of his arguments, and it is primarily the latter that must be attacked, not the former. We're not baking cookies here; we're crafting international law, and there's no reason on Earth why we shouldn't express the positions of our respective governments with all due clarity, and bluntness. One wonders why you bothered sticking your neck out at all if you didn't want to be criticized. You wanna make friends? Go visit the Strangers' Bar -- and as long as we're tossing out cliches, if ya can't take the heat, buddy, get the fuck out of the kitchen!

Underneath that cause-effect distinction is a moral one - if someone is the "good guy" in a terrorist situation, fighting for a cause that is righteous and proper, would they not be a freedom fighter? Suppose, for example, my government began harboring the government-in-exile of a neighboring state. Many other nations in the world acknowledge the new government as legitimate, but my nation acknowledges the correctness of the previous administration, and allows them safe harbor to plan guerilla attacks against the civilian supporters of the new regime, perhaps civilian-owned munitions plants, a strategy designed by them to retake their homeland. Would we not be in violation of this resolution, harboring "terrorists", even though we believe in their cause ourselves?There would be absolutely no moral reason for your government to harbor such individuals, even if you agree with their politics. Deliberately attacking civilians is not, I repeat, not, mere "guerilla" warfare, and there is no justification whatsoever for trying to bring down a government by targeting innocent civilians. These are the people this exile government intends to rule, aren't they? How could you possibly endorse their claim of sovereignty over people they would treat as mere capital, to be spent or discarded, as a means to achieve political ends? Were your government to harbor such animals, the Federal Republic would condemn you, and rightly under this article, so would the United Nations.

If these people want to rule their nation again, they should target the government and its infrastructure. That is perfectly legal under this bill.

Your legislation would attempt to go further, to force every UN member state to engage in a witch-hunt against groups while they are still idle, the moment one of them utters that they might even think of violence at some point if they are not given redress.

Frankly, you're dreaming - I don't give a damn if the Union for the Elimination of Kvisto holds regular meetings in my country where they talk about how easy it would be to nuke your capital for some petty wrong they perceive that you've done to them. Until they move past hypothetics and actually state that they intend to carry /out/ such a plan, they will be protected by the right to free speech within my national borders - even if chapters of the group in other nations have actually committed acts of terrorism.You are dead wrong. Read the proposal, beyond the definitions with which you take such issue:

The United Nations ...

6. MANDATES that all member states shall:

A. Criminalize and suppress the financing, solicitation of, planning, preparation for, aiding, and perpetration of international terrorism;

B. Freeze, without unnecessary delay, funds and other assets of persons who commit, conspire to commit, or demonstrably 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 their direction in this regard. Nations shall develop legal mechanisms to ensure that proper due process is provided in such cases where appropriate, but shall ensure that action is taken quickly enough to prevent removal of liquid assets from their jurisdictions.

C. Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons participating in international terrorism;

D. Deny, to the best of their ability, safe haven or refuge to those who finance, organize, support or engage in international terrorism; ...See the red? That means you prosecute, seize the assets of, refrain from supporting, and refuse safe harbor to active participants in international terrorism, not merely members of an organization with a bad reputation. Barring any laws in your nation outlawing incitatory spoeech against foreign governments, grousing about Kivisto is perfectly legal under this resolution; actively plotting against Kivistan civilians is not.

Moreover, it seems Kivisto was correct in assuming your reading skills were subpar: this is not, as you repeatedly claim, Kivisto's bill. Look at the name on the freakin' proposal. It is Cluichstan's.

Cmdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache for the Kenny UN Mission

Well, don't mince words, Ambassador, please, tell us what you really think. *smirk*

OOC: sorry, don't feel like getting banned today. btw-such flamebaiting is not generally accepted etiquette on these forums.

IC: I'd love to. Unfortunately, we are in mixed polite company and I fear that there are some members who would take offense at some of the language that would be employed for such a purpose.:P

There is no such thing as unnecessary tripe when life and liberty are at stake, good sir.

I beg to differ. Tripe, when referring to conversation, is incredibly unnecessary, no matter what the subject matter.

One would think you'd welcome the opportunity to sway misinformed governments to your cause as opposed to looking on the situation as a nuisance you must contend with.

We are more than willing to correctly inform those who have been misinformed or don't understand. That's one of the reasons why the definitions are in place in the proposal to clear up any ambiguity or confusion that may exist. What we are not willing to do is tolerate those unwilling to see logic.

More flys with honey, as they say.

Actually, you'll catch more flies with with a slightly decompsed corpse. Or a large pile of feces. But I'm sure you already knew the second one of those.

Quite frankly, sir, the freedom fighter vs. terrorist concept is at the heart of your legislation.

I know you're about to try, but that statement really needs justification before it can be seriously considered.

If you wish to make a resolution denying terrorists safe harbor or assistance, then you must deal with the basic issue - what constitutes a terrorist?

The definition is clearly displayed in the proposal.

History is so often written by the victor,

History is an irrelevant matter, under the circumstances. This resolution will deal with situations as they occur. How they are viewed 200 years from now is a silly point to even bring up.

and we are familiar with the histories of nations which won their independence from mother countries by the point of the sword.

That covers a great many nations. Those would have been called revolutionaries or freedom fighters by this proposal.

Had their initiative failed, they would certainly be terrorists by your definition in section 1, which calls a terrorist "persons or organizations other than national governments" who "use or threaten... use of violence... for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by primarily and deliberately targeting members of the civilian population." Since they won, they're freedom fighters, revered by the society that they created.

Actually, you seem to selectively reading the text. You are completely omitting the part that refers to the international flavour of this law. Revolutionaries and freedom fighters fight within their own nation. This law applies to those who attack foreign lands. Your whole tirade here is based upon a dyslexic misrepresentation of the facts of the resolution.

Underneath that cause-effect distinction is a moral one - if someone is the "good guy" in a terrorist situation, fighting for a cause that is righteous and proper, would they not be a freedom fighter?

If they target military or governmental agencies within their own nation, quite possibly. Completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, however, as this is targetting those who attack civilians internationally. Simply put, attacking those who don't have the power to protect themselves nor improve your situation.

Suppose, for example, my government began harboring the government-in-exile of a neighboring state.

Harbouring a government.

Many other nations in the world acknowledge the new government as legitimate,

Good for them, the previous government has been overthrown.

but my nation acknowledges the correctness of the previous administration,

Why?

and allows them safe harbor

No doubt to keep them safe, since returning to their homeland would result in persecution and possibly death. Very commendable of you.

to plan guerilla attacks

At this point you are either on the verge of declaring war on said nation or you are advocating and assisting terrorist activities.

against the civilian supporters

Why choose civilians? What have they done except try to live their lives as best they saw fit? You pass moral judgement on a foreign nations people and sentence them to death. Despicable.

of the new regime, perhaps civilian-owned munitions plants, a strategy designed by them to retake their homeland.

By inciting terror into the populace. Congrats! You officially qualify for the title of Terror Supporter of the Year. The only thing that will be accomplished by retaking the government this way is ensuring that the people are too terrified to ever again attempt to improve their lot in life by making a change in the government.

Would we not be in violation of this resolution, harboring "terrorists", even though we believe in their cause ourselves?

Yes. You would be in violation. You believe in their cause? Grant it some validity by making it official governmental action. Declare war on the new government. Institute embargoes against them. Bring the case before your allies within the UN to see if there might be something that the international community can do. Appeal to associates outside of the UN to see if they might be able to assist as well. Hell, assist them in targetting military forces, or create chaos within the structure of the permitted targets. The moment you aid in violent acts towards the civilian population, you will be in non-compliance with this law. After that last bit, you can rest assured that there are many nations who will be carefully watching your activities in regards to such in the future as well.

So, in essence, you're telling me that you cede that civilians can be culpable for actions against an organization, hypothetically let's say gas guzzling SUV owners who repeatedly refuse to acknowledge the concerns of an environmental organization in their neighbor's country, and yet that organization still has no business considering them as legitimate targets for retaliation.

In short: yes. If there are civilian groups doing things that another group finds despicable, there are any number of legal mechanisms in place for the international community to utilize the attempt to rectify the situation. For that matter, this law is one of those things that is being done to help rectify what some view as a despicable thing. That environmental group thinks that SUV's are too polutting, they should consider lobbying to have laws enacted, or try protesting (peacefully) at the plants and factories where such things are made. Killing, maiming, threatening, torturing, imprisoning civilians are not viable options for these groups. That Eco-friendly group could even put pressure on their government to roll out the tanks at these gas guzzling SUV owners. That would make it a legitimate governmental act, by the definitions provided within UNCTI.

That is sheer nonsense.

The only nonsense here is the fact that you haven't grasped the difference between terrorist and non-terrorist as yet. The definition is quite clear. Which part of it don't you understand.

Hmmm, what's the most diplomatic way to put this...

The most diplomatic way? Shutting up and letting this debate continue without all the unnecessary interruption.

what the hell are you talking about?

*sigh*

Your previous tirade went on and on and on and on and on about a bunch of things that were completely irrelevant to the subject matter at hand. I simply paraphrased them into the core drivel they were so that we could move past them.

Perhaps you should write less ambiguous proposals in the future.

What is ambiguous about this proposal? You keep claiming that it doesn't define things the way that it should without actually demonstating where such issues lie. The definitions are solid.

You should certainly get off your arrogant, self-righteous nonsense and stop assuming that those who don't understand every nuance of your thinking must not have taken the time to read your work.

Firstly, it's not my work. The only part I took in the drafting of this was goofy comic relief. I offered the compromise between significant causes and root causes by suggesting a melding of the words into "rootificant causes" or "rootificauses". I was more or less ignored (with good reason).

Secondly, what you are being met with from me is not arrogance or self-righteousness. It is a complete inability to understand how you repeatedly fail to comprehend the simple common sense logic that is being presented to you over and over and over and over and over again. There are very few nuances here. It's really quite straight-forward. Define what is being targetted, and detail what shall be done about it. That's it. There aren't any subtleties that your average preshooler wouldn't catch.

I certainly gave your proposal much more attention than you gave my initial response. It's called respect, sir - learn it.

Respect is not freely granted. It is earned. You claim to have given the proposal due consideration. If such is true, how is it that you continually fail to grasp the very simple defintions outlined therein.

Here, I'll simplify it for you.

Terrorist: not government, attacks civilians.
International: Across National borders

International Terrorist: non-government attacking civilians from across, or being supplied or funded across, national borders.

There. Better?

In any case, you have obviously missed the nuance of /my/ point.

Oh, good god. I don't really care what your point is. You have a flawed view of this proposal and it is obvious that there isn't anything that can be done to correct it.

One presumes that the sort of activity you would quantify as terrorism from a foreign citizen is the same kind of behaviour you would find reproachable in your /own/ citizens

Correct. Good job. You've cracked the code. We support legislation that we think is good.

- or are your laws so twisted that they would normally allow a Kuraurisandian to plant a bomb where a Kivistonian would be subject to arrest?

Nope. If we assume the bomb was in Kivisto, the Kivistan would be subject to our national laws and put to death, the Kuraurisandian would be subject to UNCTI and be dealt with accordingly.

Therefore, if my citizens in your country break or attempt to break your laws, then by all means, arrest and try them by the same standards as you would one of your own.

The inherent difficulty being that there are disparities between the laws of various different nations and issues such as extradition may arise. There is also the potential threat of international incident if I threaten someone else's citizens with the death penalty.

You do not need my permission or cooperation in order to do so,

There are many cases where permission would be required to proceed with the trial.

and in fact, if they did manage to flee back to Kuraurisand, we would honor a request for extradition if the evidence against them was sufficient.

Allow me to say that that is commendable. Unfortunately, there are some nations within the UN who might not be so honourable. In such cases, UN legislation may be required to resolve the matter.

Your legislation would attempt to go further, to force every UN member state to engage in a witch-hunt against groups while they are still idle, the moment one of them utters that they might even think of violence at some point if they are not given redress.

Incorrect. The proposed legislation URGES all mamber nations to cooperate in the suppression of blah blah blah. There are no witch hunts advised, suggested, or endorsed.

Frankly, you're dreaming - I don't give a damn if the Union for the Elimination of Kvisto holds regular meetings in my country where they talk about how easy it would be to nuke your capital for some petty wrong they perceive that you've done to them. Until they move past hypothetics and actually state that they intend to carry /out/ such a plan, they will be protected by the right to free speech within my national borders - even if chapters of the group in other nations have actually committed acts of terrorism.

So noted and recorded. That will be passed on to the compliance gnomes for examination. Assuming that this legislation passes, you can expect regular visits from compliance inspectors to ensure that such things do not occur. Thanks for the tip, you may have just saved us all a few investigations as to where terrorist cells may be hiding.

Again, such arrogant presumption. Perhaps it is you who should stop wasting our time, until you can get to a local dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "diplomacy".

I am more than willing to remain diplomatic with those who are willing to put forward the effort to understand the world around them. You continually bring up points that have already been dealt with and fail to bring up any new argument or information, simply harping on and on and on and on about the people's right to go kill innocent civilians in other countries for some real or imagined slight. Such spurious notions are past the point of diplomacy; past the point of contempt, even. They are childish foolishness that, frankly, the author pointed out in the first three lines of the first post of the first page of this thread would not be treated rationally or diplomatically:

Okay, let's have at it. Word of warning: the stupid "freedom fighter" argument is going to be ignored by me. If you want to spew that garbage, don't expect me to engage you in a rational debate, because you've already proven yourself incapable of one.

As I've mentioned before, these are things you would know had you taken the time to actually read it. You know? The first post? Where the text of the proposal is? Read it? You do know how to read, don't you? Attaboy. Run along now. Go read it. It's good to learn new things. Try it out. It's good legislation, you may even like it. There's a good boy.

Come back when you're ready to contribute something new and useful to the debate.

How can you expect anyone to understand or accept your viewpoints if you belittle their intelligence? It seems like you refuse to accept that anyone could hold a viewpoint different from your own, which seems rather counter-productive. If you want to work toward a positive engagement and convincing your opponents that your way is the right way, then use persuasive arguments - don't bash them.

Show some class man... your side of the debate is winning the vote rather handily. There will be other days, other resolutions where you may find yourself in the minority and will appreciate your esteemed opponents showing you a little dignity and respect to your viewpoint.

How can you expect anyone to understand or accept your viewpoints if you belittle their intelligence?

When I belittle someone, it isn't in an attempt to make them understand. It's in an attempt to show my disdain for them or their arguments.

It seems like you refuse to accept that anyone could hold a viewpoint different from your own,

This isn't a matter of viewpoint. It's a matter of comprehending a very simple and clear definition. There's not much room for interpretation granted by those definitions that are being debated.

which seems rather counter-productive.

Almost as counter-productive as hijacking a thread about the UN's efforts to combat terrorism to gripe about my debate style.

If you want to work toward a positive engagement and convincing your opponents that your way is the right way, then use persuasive arguments - don't bash them.

Such efforts have been tried. When simple, calm, rational logic fail, I will resort to demonstrating to the world the stupidity of the individual and their arguments. In such I way I will help to dissuade some of the undecided from siding with those who insist on fighting against effective legislation because they don't understand the situatiuon.

Show some class man...

No.

your side of the debate is winning the vote rather handily.

Correct. The voting is not over, however, and to give up the race before crossing the finish line is tantamount to conceding defeat.

There will be other days, other resolutions where you may find yourself in the minority and will appreciate your esteemed opponents showing you a little dignity and respect to your viewpoint.

Actually, it has happened in the past where I have been on a certain side of a debate and was attacked rather strongly for my position. In almost all of those situations, it was the arguments that were blunt, to the point, and clearly demonstrated where my error in logic was that swayed my vote. Don't pansy ass around with euphemisms. We're grown-ups and should be able to accept when we've been made to look a fool, or when we've made a fool of ourselves.

This is a debate. This is not a negotiation, nor is this a diplomatic situation. This is one side taking the oppositions arguments to the cleaners. If you feel that you have been unduly dumped upon because your statements have been ripped to shreds and thrown back at you, perhaps you should take the advice of the honourable delegate from OMGTKK :

if ya can't take the heat, buddy, get the fuck out of the kitchen!

You want to play with the big dogs, learn to bark. You want to act like a puppy licking it's wounds, crawl back into the doghouse and do so. Just be quiet about it.

Whining about a perceived lack of decorum in legislative sessions is such worthless bullshit, and it only serves to distract from the topic at hand. One's tone does not dilute the strength of his arguments, and it is primarily the latter that must be attacked, not the former.

You're quite wrong about that, you know. When I take the time to look past your bluster and /identify/ your argument, I am forced to cede a great many things. However, it is in the nature of most humans to turn a blind eye to arguments when they are presented so distastefully, and to skew their interpretation of the facts presented based on their anger.

We're not baking cookies here; we're crafting international law, and there's no reason on Earth why we shouldn't express the positions of our respective governments with all due clarity, and bluntness.

Tact is not the enemy of bluntness. And you're right, we're not baking cookies - too much crap in the mix is going to have much more serious consequences than a ruined afternoon snack, so you'd think there'd be a little more willingness to talk to the other cooks and make sure the recipe's perfect.

One wonders why you bothered sticking your neck out at all if you didn't want to be criticized. You wanna make friends? Go visit the Strangers' Bar -- and as long as we're tossing out cliches, if ya can't take the heat, buddy, get the fuck out of the kitchen!

The temperature's fine, thanks. I felt compelled to point out that it's not the best debate strategy, but I'm not about to run home to Kuraurisand at the first sign of a bloody nose.

There would be absolutely no moral reason for your government to harbor such individuals, even if you agree with their politics. Deliberately attacking civilians is not, I repeat, not, mere "guerilla" warfare, and there is no justification whatsoever for trying to bring down a government by targeting innocent civilians. These are the people this exile government intends to rule, aren't they? How could you possibly endorse their claim of sovereignty over people they would treat as mere capital, to be spent or discarded, as a means to achieve political ends? Were your government to harbor such animals, the Federal Republic would condemn you, and rightly under this article, so would the United Nations.

If these people want to rule their nation again, they should target the government and its infrastructure. That is perfectly legal under this bill.

Well, in our hypothetical scenario, the purpose of hitting the civilian weapons depot would be to deny supplies to the military. However, upon reconsideration, we can see the absurdity of such a scenario, as long before it reaches that point, if we /truly/ and wholeheartedly supported their cause, we would be honor-bound to take up arms, and there would be no terrorism issue since it would be a standard military conflict.

You are dead wrong. Read the proposal, beyond the definitions with which you take such issue:

See the red? That means you prosecute, seize the assets of, refrain from supporting, and refuse safe harbor to active participants in international terrorism, not merely members of an organization with a bad reputation. Barring any laws in your nation outlawing incitatory spoeech against foreign governments, grousing about Kivisto is perfectly legal under this resolution; actively plotting against Kivistan civilians is not.

Mmmm. An interesting point, and certainly a sound idea, as far as international security is concerned. I participated in a conference call with the Chancellor and the Minister of Security to clarify why they would find such a clause objectionable. Theoretically, they have no objection, but their concern stems from a national law, one which exists in UN resolution #26 as well, regarding the presumption of innocence. How can we justify the seizure of assets, or any other action besides the obvious (incarceration and extradition to the country in which criminal charges have hopefully been filed) without due process of law?

The Chancellor's proposed solution, at least for our country, would be to have the "target" nation try the terrorists ex abstentia. Once a conviction was in place, we could certainly justify taking all of the actions required by the resolution.

One presumes that it's too late to add such a clause to the resolution, which leaves us to wonder whether a practice like that would be considered adequate compliance.

Moreover, it seems Kivisto was correct in assuming your reading skills were subpar: this is not, as you repeatedly claim, Kivisto's bill. Look at the name on the freakin' proposal. It is Cluichstan's.

The two look so /similar/, though, perhaps I need glasses?

Alas, a truly reprehensible error, one which will not be repeated.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Tact is not the enemy of bluntness. And you're right, we're not baking cookies - too much crap in the mix is going to have much more serious consequences than a ruined afternoon snack, so you'd think there'd be a little more willingness to talk to the other cooks and make sure the recipe's perfect.
True, however, to continue with the culinary metaphors, it's a little late to be debating the receipe when the dish is about to come out of the oven.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You're quite wrong about that, you know. When I take the time to look past your bluster and /identify/ your argument, I am forced to cede a great many things. However, it is in the nature of most humans to turn a blind eye to arguments when they are presented so distastefully, and to skew their interpretation of the facts presented based on their anger.

That is an unfortunate side effect of the human condition. It is true that many are incapable of filtering out their rage or offense to the method of delivery and simply respond to the message itself. By the same token, realize that there is, most likely, a reason for the tone of the message that, in all likelihood, stems from that same limitation.

Tact is not the enemy of bluntness.

To be properly tactful, one must take into consideration the possibly feelings that one's statement will create in one's audience. To be truly blunt, one must dismiss consideration of such things to simply make the statement.

And you're right, we're not baking cookies - too much crap in the mix is going to have much more serious consequences than a ruined afternoon snack, so you'd think there'd be a little more willingness to talk to the other cooks and make sure the recipe's perfect.

My turn to pull out the cliche bag. Too many cooks spoil the broth. If every cook has a different recipe, those cookies are gonna suck. That's why we offer a single recipe for all to use. This is everybody's chance to vote for or against the cookies that will combat terror. We're being bogged down by people that are saying that these cookies are bad because they will have some unintended effect towards the muffins. Muffins which aren't even being made in this kitchen.

The temperature's fine, thanks. I felt compelled to point out that it's not the best debate strategy, but I'm not about to run home to Kuraurisand at the first sign of a bloody nose.

I'm oddly comforted by that fact. Good.

Well, in our hypothetical scenario, the purpose of hitting the civilian weapons depot would be to deny supplies to the military. However, upon reconsideration, we can see the absurdity of such a scenario, as long before it reaches that point, if we /truly/ and wholeheartedly supported their cause, we would be honor-bound to take up arms, and there would be no terrorism issue since it would be a standard military conflict.

Marvelous.

Mmmm. An interesting point, and certainly a sound idea, as far as international security is concerned. I participated in a conference call with the Chancellor and the Minister of Security to clarify why they would find such a clause objectionable. Theoretically, they have no objection, but their concern stems from a national law, one which exists in UN resolution #26 as well, regarding the presumption of innocence. How can we justify the seizure of assets, or any other action besides the obvious (incarceration and extradition to the country in which criminal charges have hopefully been filed) without due process of law?

A valid concern. Thankfully, it has been covered by :

B. Freeze, without unnecessary delay, funds and other assets of persons who commit, conspire to commit, or demonstrably 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 their direction in this regard. Nations shall develop legal mechanisms to ensure that proper due process is provided in such cases where appropriate, but shall ensure that action is taken quickly enough to prevent removal of liquid assets from their jurisdictions.


The Chancellor's proposed solution, at least for our country, would be to have the "target" nation try the terrorists ex abstentia. Once a conviction was in place, we could certainly justify taking all of the actions required by the resolution.

An interesting idea, one that could possibly be worked out between your nation and the prosecuting nation whenever such a situation occurs.

One presumes that it's too late to add such a clause to the resolution, which leaves us to wonder whether a practice like that would be considered adequate compliance.

I'm going to leave this one to those more versed in Creative Solutions to UN Resolutions, but I think it might be adequate, though there may be an issue with the defendant not being able to defend him/herself at their own trial.

The two look so /similar/, though, perhaps I need glasses?
Alas, a truly reprehensible error, one which will not be repeated.

For some reason, I find that mildly humourous, I'm not entirely sure why.

[EDIT: BTW- You attributed that quote to Compadria, it was OMGTKK that said it. ;)]

The USSM will not allow the UN to choose who it sees as a terrorist and who is not.

Against.

OOC: sorry, don't feel like getting banned today. btw-such flamebaiting is not generally accepted etiquette on these forums.

OOC: Geez, it was a joke. And I would /hope/ your IC anger is not reflective of any OOC emotion. There are certainly no hard feelings on this end.


I beg to differ. Tripe, when referring to conversation, is incredibly unnecessary, no matter what the subject matter.

Well yes, if you want to play with the semantics, then all tripe is, by definition, unnecessary. The point was that debate is never tripe, but given that we've gone back and forth three times over that concept, I am obviously in error on that idea, and I cede that point to you. :)

Actually, you seem to selectively reading the text. You are completely omitting the part that refers to the international flavour of this law. Revolutionaries and freedom fighters fight within their own nation. This law applies to those who attack foreign lands. Your whole tirade here is based upon a dyslexic misrepresentation of the facts of the resolution.

Mmmmm. That's true, that example was horribly domestic. Well, actually, it /becomes/ international if the mother country acknowledges it's colony as sovereign, which ironically is what the whole war is about, so that paradox would seem to make the application of this resolution a moot point. I withdraw the argument.

If they target military or governmental agencies within their own nation, quite possibly. Completely irrelevant to the matter at hand, however, as this is targetting those who attack civilians internationally. Simply put, attacking those who don't have the power to protect themselves nor improve your situation.

But do civilians not have the power to improve the situation of any organization with a grievance against them or their nation? Isn't the very /point/ of a terrorist action forcing the population to take notice of their grievances and see that they get addressed?

On that basis, we would prefer to see a less firm resolution, one that requires a "checklist" of other options be explored before a terrorist attack can be considered valid. However, we recognize that it's a fairly weak argument, and admittedly, those who would seek to use surprise violence as their recourse are unlikely to even consider diplomacy.

In short: yes. If there are civilian groups doing things that another group finds despicable, there are any number of legal mechanisms in place for the international community to utilize the attempt to rectify the situation. For that matter, this law is one of those things that is being done to help rectify what some view as a despicable thing. That environmental group thinks that SUV's are too polutting, they should consider lobbying to have laws enacted, or try protesting (peacefully) at the plants and factories where such things are made. Killing, maiming, threatening, torturing, imprisoning civilians are not viable options for these groups. That Eco-friendly group could even put pressure on their government to roll out the tanks at these gas guzzling SUV owners. That would make it a legitimate governmental act, by the definitions provided within UNCTI.

Mmmm. I hope you are aware of the tremendous irony involved in an environmental group requesting that a fleet of environmentally-unfriendly, fuel-mongering tanks be dispatched in response to a gripe with SUV fuel consumption. :)

That aside, you raise a lot of good points. With the exception of the concern we expressed to OMGTKK, we can line up in support of this proposal. Not that our support means much, mind you, since we are still participating in these discussions as a non-voting party of interest, but, at least you have evidence that it /is/ possible to sway debate opponents by taking the time to cut through the misunderstandings and clarify your positions.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

OOC: Geez, it was a joke. And I would /hope/ your IC anger is not reflective of any OOC emotion. There are certainly no hard feelings on this end.


OOC: No, no real hard feelings, I just have a foul mouth on me :)

But do civilians not have the power to improve the situation of any organization with a grievance against them or their nation? Isn't the very /point/ of a terrorist action forcing the population to take notice of their grievances and see that they get addressed?

The issue taken with terrorist action to draw peoples attention to their plight is that it is very much like the 5 year old who wants a candy and throws a tantrum in the grocery store when they are told no. There's better ways of doing it.

Hmmm. I hope you are aware of the tremendous irony involved in an environmental group requesting that a fleet of environmentally-unfriendly, fuel-mongering tanks be dispatched in response to a gripe with SUV fuel consumption. :)

Strangely enough, I wasn't. That's pretty funny.

That aside, you raise a lot of good points. With the exception of the concern we expressed to OMGTKK, we can line up in support of this proposal. Not that our support means much, mind you, since we are still participating in these discussions as a non-voting party of interest, but, at least you have evidence that it /is/ possible to sway debate opponents by taking the time to cut through the misunderstandings and clarify your positions.

Glad to hear that we could get you behind it.

The USSM will not allow the UN to choose who it sees as a terrorist and who is not.

Against.


Care to explain why you have an issue with an internationally recognized definition of terrorist?

Care to explain why you have an issue with an internationally recognized definition of terrorist?

During the vietnam war US newspapers called the vietcong a terrorists group, but in reality they were fighting for vietnamese unity

What seperates freedom fighters, or people who are fighting for something they belive in, and terrorists?

During the vietnam war US newspapers called the vietcong a terrorists group, but in reality they were fighting for vietnamese unity

Exactly the point! I've never heard of this "US" you're talking about, but with this new resolution, a nation won't be able to use such propoganda tools like that to subvert thier intentions, because everyone will have a definition of terrorist that they can agree on.

Clearly these "vietnamese" (where do you make up these crazy nation names?) were operating within their own national borders at the time? That would make them not terrorists by this resolution, as the definition requires the perpetrators to be nationals of a country other than the one the terrorist act takes place in.

What seperates freedom fighters, or people who are fighting for something they belive in, and terrorists?

Well, terrorists /are/ fighting for something they believe in, most of the time. No one here would argue otherwise. What makes them terrorists are their methods: the use of surprise violence against an unprepared civilian target in another nation which may or may not even have anything to do with thier cause.

The reason that's not freedom-fighting behaviour is because they're not being oppressed by civilians of a foreign nation, at least not in any sense that would require an immediate and bloody act of retaliation.

Hmmm.... I seem to have switched sides.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

During the vietnam war US newspapers called the vietcong a terrorists group, but in reality they were fighting for vietnamese unity

What seperates freedom fighters, or people who are fighting for something they belive in, and terrorists?

I'll begin by stating that RL=\=NS.

If you would care to read the definitions in the proposal itself, the VC would not have been recognized as terrorists by the UNCTI. They were attacking military units primarily within their home area. Were they travelling into ,say, Japan or the US itself and attacking civilians, then they would considered terrorists. Such is not the case.

I hope that allays your concerns.

Exactly the point! I've never heard of this "US" you're talking about, but with this new resolution, a nation won't be able to use such propoganda tools like that to subvert thier intentions, because everyone will have a definition of terrorist that they can agree on.More importantly, who gives a shit what the newspapers call someone? North Hack News regularly calls me a terrorist.

Buncha cranks.


I swear... too many people have been playing that "RealStates" game that they're blending their definitions. I mean, the definitions are right there in the proposal!

Maybe you folks should work on a Reading Comprehension proposal... it's clearly lacking in these halls.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Maybe you folks should work on a Reading Comprehension proposal... it's clearly lacking in these halls.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
Wouldn't help, no one would read it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I noticed that there have been some concerns regarding extradition of international terrorists. I've read over the proposed resolution a couple of times and the language concerning extradition is rather vague. However, after sifting through previous resolutions, I found one that applies to this situation.

UN Resolution #103 grants Member-States the right to deny extradition if they believe the extradited individuals face capital punishment. My reading of this resolution and its application to the proposed resolution is that you can deny extradition if you believe the alleged terrorists will be executed if found guilty.

So this should provide some relief to those nations concerned over issues regarding extradition should they have concerns or principles regarding capital punishment.

I've included a copy of the resolution below to any who would like to have easy access to it.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #103

Right to Refuse Extradition
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Saint uriel

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that capital punishment (the death penalty, execution) is a contentious issue, with many different viewpoints

ACKNOWELDGING ALSO that situations involving international fugitives may be very diplomatically delicate

ENCOURAGING nations to resolve matters of international fugitives through discussion and diplomacy

AFFIRMING that a nation should not be forced to be a party to execution against its will

AFFIRMING ALSO that this resolution shall not affect each nation's sovereign right to allow or ban capital punishment within its own borders

BE IT RESOLVED that UN member nations shall have the AFFIRMED RIGHT to refuse, if they so desire, extradition (deportation) of international fugitives to any UN member nation IF the extraditing nation may reasonably believe that the fugitive may face capital punishment if extradited

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that UN member nations may exercise this right without fear of military reprisal from any other UN member nation

Votes For: 10,746
Votes Against: 4,468

Implemented: Fri May 20 2005

OOC: Damn, Hack, now I'm curious. :)

Maybe you folks should work on a Reading Comprehension proposal... it's clearly lacking in these halls.

OOC: H'mm. Into which 'category' would you suggest placing any such proposal? Wouldn't it be banned for reference to Game Mechanics, like [for example] some of the passed resolutions that were "removed" during the move to Jolt such as 'Resolution 245A, Proper Grammar'?

OOC: H'mm. Into which 'category' would you suggest placing any such proposal? Wouldn't it be banned for reference to Game MechanicsWhile it was just an IC jest, I wager it could be placed under one of the Education categories. And as long as it targeted UN citizens, it wouldn't be metagaming. ;)

Official Message
From The
Texas Department of UN Affairs
As the current Secretary of United Nations Affairs for the region of Texas, it is my duty to infom you that NewTexas (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/06089/page=display_nation/nation=newtexas), the Delegate for our region, has cast his vote FOR the current resolution in accordance with the wishes of the majority.
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs
Sam I Am

Frankly, you're dreaming - I don't give a damn if the Union for the Elimination of Kvisto holds regular meetings in my country where they talk about how easy it would be to nuke your capital for some petty wrong they perceive that you've done to them. Until they move past hypothetics and actually state that they intend to carry /out/ such a plan, they will be protected by the right to free speech within my national borders - even if chapters of the group in other nations have actually committed acts of terrorism.

You're going to have to start giving a damn in a little under three hours, or the gnomes will be in your nation to ensure that you care. :cool:

Just two hours to go. :p

You're going to have to start giving a damn in a little under three hours, or the gnomes will be in your nation to ensure that you care. :cool:Have I told y'all lately just how much I hate gnome-wanking? :p

Have I told y'all lately just how much I hate gnome-wanking? :p

I have never once jerked off a gnome. :p

You're going to have to start giving a damn in a little under three hours, or the gnomes will be in your nation to ensure that you care. :cool:

Meh! We of the Rogue Nation of Razat, don't believe in gnomes, and will :mp5: any that venture inside our land.

OOC: But it will be interesting loopholing my way out of this when I rejoin the UN.

Have I told y'all lately just how much I hate gnome-wanking? :p

Gnome-wanking?

Y'all just gave me a horrible mental image. :(

Y'all just gave me a horrible mental image. :(
Good, I'm not the only one with that image.http://bak42.notworksafe.com/images/NationStates/Smilies/puke2.gif

Funny yet disturbing.

Gotta love what passes for an intelligent response to a proposal around here. Some of the TGs I've received since this hit the queue and later the floor:

From The Democratic States of Bul-Katho:
Received: 20 hours ago
You're the reason why I don't want to be in the U.N.

Well, I'm rather glad a dumbass like that isn't in the UN.

From The Free Land of Hughesington:
Received: 3 days ago
tell me you don't think this resolution is a good idea?

Um...why else would I have proposed it?

From The Most Serene Republic of Logic---land:
Received: 4 days ago
in your proposition does it condone acts by goverment so on................

Oh ffs... :rolleyes:

And my favourite...

From The Republic of Rssuussr
Received: 7 days ago
you capitlist mother fu*k*r i hate you

But they weren't all bad. I did get some goats out of it. :cool:

From The Sultanate of Kraggystan
Received: 2 days ago
The Compassionate Sultan of Kraggystan presents to you, 50 Mountain Horny Goats as a gesture of good will.

I bet Gruen's jealous. :p

WOOHOO!

Last UN Decision
The resolution UN Counterterrorism Initiative was passed 8,359 votes to 3,910, and implemented in all UN member nations.

http://70.85.169.212/6802/45/emo/tv%2520%288%29%5B1%5D.gif

Take that, ya damn fluffies! heh-heh

And there was much rejoicing.

:) :) :D :D :fluffle: :fluffle: :p :cool: :mp5: :sniper:

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

His Holiness Pope Otterby I
Supreme Holy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

http://70.85.169.212/6802/45/emo/tv%2520%288%29%5B1%5D.gif

BOO creepy dancing man!

Hooraaaay beer!



Take that, ya damn fluffies! heh-heh

BOO porcupines!

Hooraaaay beer!

Hooraaaay beer!

Yet another point on which we agree, my friend. ;)

Yet another point on which we agree, my friend. ;)

This is unsettling. Can we go back to disagreeing now?

This is unsettling. Can we go back to disagreeing now?

Nah, I enjoy unsettling you. :p

Nah, I enjoy unsettling you. :p

No you don't.

No you don't.

An argument isn't the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person says...

An argument isn't the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person says...

Yes it is.

Yes it is.

No, it isn't!

(Well played. :D )

No, it isn't!

(Well played. :D )

Monty Python, ftw!

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Some hours earlier.

"Our new role as delegate of Antarctic Oasis, a great blessing and yet a great responsibility, brought about through tireless endeavour and the favour of All-Seeing, All-Knowing, All-Except-The-Gurglestanis-Loving High Mother Wena, brings with it a duty to the international community to offer the greatest opulence of our views in times of regional importance. The submission of vital legislation in the war on terror by a long-standing comrade in the struggle for international security and national sovereignty, the first legislation from a region member to reach quorum during our tenure, provides us with a momentous opportunity, and a momentous task. Your father, His Grand High Holiness the Sultan, wishes you to address the General Assembly, and commune Gruenberg's resolve to stand behind this resolution and its supporters."

The Sub-Vizier turned to Princess Jianna Woltzten, Ambassador to the UN and First Holy Heir to the High Throne of the Holy Sultanat of Gruenberg, awaiting a response.

"Fuck, I am like soooo hungover," she moaned, crawling back beneath the expansive duvet splayed over her bed.

The Sub-Vizier sighed. He had thus far managed to keep her away from the Strangers' Bar, but now the empty, ravaged carcass of the room mini-bar - why did the ambassadors' lodgings even have them fitted - stared at him.

"Highness, I must insist..."

"I'll get up later. Now go and get me some ice water."

"Highness..."

"Now!" she shrieked, suddenly, before collapsing back down, head in hands, ears ringing from her own voice. She groaned, somewhat pathetically, "Pleeeease..."

The Sub-Vizier silenced the doubts at the back of his mind that such a child could be the spawn of the Holy Sultan, and edged out of the room, sighing.

And now...

The Ambassador swayed uncertainly up the central aisle of the GA. Few heads turned - such an entrance was not uncommon, and the chamber was fairly empty anyway - but those that did were predominantly male, and casting their eyes a good twelve inches lower than might have been thought dignified. As befitted a UN mission with a 2:1 ratio of fashion and cosmetic advisors to legislative researchers, the Ambassador had been turned out well - but had not a thing prepared to say.

"What the fuck is she doing?" hissed Pyandran. The senior staff were sprawled across the desk, bored by the debate but unwilling to leave for fear of being shepherded into the Deputy Ambassador's office to discuss cranial measurements of the Purebloods.

"From her innuendo I'd circumcise that she's about to emancipate the-"

"Shut your stupid fat face, you stupid fat fuck," Pyandran snapped to Korbitz. For good measure, he punched the stupid fat fuck in his stupid fat face.

"I think she's going to give a speech," offered Lurs Lennto.

"The Sultan wants her to speak out on this topic - show we're behind the region," said Jiffjeff, tiredly, whilst shifting through some documents.

Pyandran froze, but the others continued on regardless - Lennto exploiting some children, Jiffjeff sorting her documents and wiggling around on the chair, Korbitz just sitting there like the bloated sack of shit he is, ugh, look at him, it's disgusting, McXiminez vomiting copiously.

"Her...speak...here? Oh dear no."

The Ambassador had almost reached the front, and was motioning for the microphone to be lowered slightly, and Pyandran had to weave his way through a series of desks, running full tilt, and stopping only to catch his breath, readjust his tie, and play an enjoyable nine-hole of mini-golf with some dwarves from the Ausserland delegation, to catch her in time.

He thrust some papers into her hand. "Highness, have you prepared a speech?"

"No...but Daddy says I have to, or else he's withholding my allowance. He is, like, so gay."

"...yes. Well. That as it is, I really don't think -"

She rolled her eyes and pushed his shoulder playfully. "Come on, I'll manage fine."

"Sure. But...if not, here are some old speeches. If you can use them..."

She nodded. "Ok."

As Pyandran settled back in his seat, she began.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I come to you today to present a single, simple message. Dolphins are..."

"Nooo!" he stage-whispered, vigorously shaking his head. She leafed through.

"Very well. I just want to reaffirm to you all that in no way will this repeal remove any rights for gay and lesbian -"

Whisper, shake.

"...fine. Hold on. Ah! I think it's important to note that this is a resolution about individual choice: and local governments are best placed to tell women what acceptable parameters for that choice are..."

She needed no prompting this time as she trailed off. She sighed, and continued.

"Whilst we respect the role we have to play in protecting the environment, the requirement to -"

"TERRORISM!" Pyandran shouted, standing up suddenly. "The resolution is about TERRORISM. You were meant to adapt the old speeches, not simply reuse them, for fuck's sake. TERROR. ISM. Just say we're against it, and why, and praise Wena and all that shit, and that's it, Daddy's happy, we're all happy." He sat down. "TERRORISM."

To her credit, Jianna remained unruffled. "Of course - I was just coming round to it. Ladies and gentlemen of this fine Assembly, we are indeed against it. We are against this proposal. For, I would like to put it to you, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter..."

Pyandran's head hit the desk.

Some hours later.

The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg
Official Press Release

The Holy Wenaist Sultanate of Gruenberg, in its position as Delegate of Antarctic Oasis and Member of UN DEFCON, wishes to clarify its position as FOR this fine proposal, emphatically. On noting its passage, we enthusiastically commend the General Assembly for this welcome return to common sense, and congratulate the sponsors of this legislation, Cluichstan, as well as those who have aided in its passage, such as the representatives of Ausserland, Hirota, Kivisto and Omigodtheykilledkenny, to name but a few.

We also note that this resolution represents the first major success of the UN DEFCON organization - and we hope for many more - and yet another reason as to why our region, like, owns all of yours.

~Princess Jianna Woltzten
Holy Heir to the Sultanate of Gruenberg
Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Oh god! I think I peed myself! LOLOLOLOLOL

Repeal "UN Counterterrorism Initiative"
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #168
Proposed by: Immortal Utnapishtim

Description: UN Resolution #168: UN Counterterrorism Initiative (Category: International Security; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: We believe that the term "terrorism" is just a tool in the hands of high-ups. The initiative gives a lot of opportunities to the selfproclaimed anti-terrorist demagogue to manipulate the public opinion to threat the social and political freedoms. There is no terrorism: these are just criminal acts on different scale and the use that media make of them. The tools to counteract "terrorism" are all already available to any national force: intelligence and police.
:rolleyes:

Congratulations on the passage of this resolution :).

:rolleyes:
Is his flag (http://www.nationstates.net/immortal_utnapishtim) even legal?

Is his flag (http://www.nationstates.net/immortal_utnapishtim) even legal?
Lol.

Repeal "UN Counterterrorism Initiative"
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #168
Proposed by: Immortal Utnapishtim

Description: UN Resolution #168: UN Counterterrorism Initiative (Category: International Security; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: We believe that the term "terrorism" is just a tool in the hands of high-ups. The initiative gives a lot of opportunities to the selfproclaimed anti-terrorist demagogue to manipulate the public opinion to threat the social and political freedoms. There is no terrorism: these are just criminal acts on different scale and the use that media make of them. The tools to counteract "terrorism" are all already available to any national force: intelligence and police.

That really didn't take long. :rolleyes:

Knee jerk repeal attempts are par for the course with pretty much every newly passed resolution. ISD had three within 24 hours, but the record is 7 I think, just can't remember which resolution that was.

Knee jerk repeal attempts are par for the course with pretty much every newly passed resolution. ISD had three within 24 hours, but the record is 7 I think, just can't remember which resolution that was.

Christ on a cracker! :eek: Sorry if that statement offended anyone, but my gawd! I have no idea why I'm so astounded by this. I'm almost speechless.
I guess I really shouldn't be surprised. Maybe it's because I'm new to this. Meh. I'm sure I'll get over it.

OOC: Oh god! I think I peed myself! LOLOLOLOLOL

OOC: Same here. :D

Christ on a cracker! :eek: Sorry if that statement offended anyone, but my gawd! I have no idea why I'm so astounded by this. I'm almost speechless.
I guess I really shouldn't be surprised. Maybe it's because I'm new to this. Meh. I'm sure I'll get over it.

Perhaps it's a moral imperative. Certainly one would hope no one seriously believes a bill that just passed 2-to-1 on the floor is going to get repealed any time soon. It'll be amazing if he gets enough endorsements to go to quorum.

Congratulations on the passage of this resolution :).

And thank you for your support, my friend.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Is his flag (http://www.nationstates.net/immortal_utnapishtim) even legal?

OOC: No. Obscene flag. I have no doubt that he will be dealt with by our friendly neighbourhood mods. :p

Perhaps it's a moral imperative. Certainly one would hope no one seriously believes a bill that just passed 2-to-1 on the floor is going to get repealed any time soon. It'll be amazing if he gets enough endorsements to go to quorum.

I do not, for one second, believe that the UNCTI will be repealed any time soon. I was merely stating my disbelief. I was honestly surprised when I saw the repeal. I also have no doubts that this repeal will not reach quorum, and if it does, I will oppose it as strongly as I supported the UNCTI.

repeal attempts are par for the course with pretty much every newly passed resolution. ISD had three within 24 hours, but the record is 7 I think, just can't remember which resolution that was.

Your thinking of Right to Divorce. Repealed as soon as it passed :D

We wish to congratulate the Cluichstani delegation on getting this thing through, which we supported, albeit mildly.

Although its more because we are looking forward to seeing World Heritage List burn than anything else. ;)

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Knee jerk repeal attempts are par for the course with pretty much every newly passed resolution. ISD had three within 24 hours, but the record is 7 I think, just can't remember which resolution that was.
I remember Right to Divorce racked up 10-15 in the couple of days before my version was submitted - Nuclear Armaments also got a fair few.

I remember Right to Divorce racked up 10-15 in the couple of days before my version was submitted - Nuclear Armaments also got a fair few.
If I remember correctly, the most I ever had at one time for Nuclear Armaments was six.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Knee jerk repeal attempts are par for the course with pretty much every newly passed resolution. ISD had three within 24 hours, but the record is 7 I think, just can't remember which resolution that was.

Even 'Meteorological Cooperation' got 1, from (if I remember correctly) somebody who was scared that it would give the UN a network of spy satellites...

WOOHOO!

Last UN Decision
The resolution UN Counterterrorism Initiative was passed 8,359 votes to 3,910, and implemented in all UN member nations.

http://70.85.169.212/6802/45/emo/tv%2520%288%29%5B1%5D.gif

Take that, ya damn fluffies! heh-heh

Congratulations!


(Did you happen to get a complete list of the delegates who voted for this resolution? I took a copy of the list as it was at about 11.30am yesterday, because it occurred to me that they might be good candidates to lobby for 'Suppression of Piracy' too, but presumably there were a few more supporters added after that...)

We wish to congratulate the Cluichstani delegation on getting this thing through, which we supported, albeit mildly.

Although its more because we are looking forward to seeing World Heritage List burn than anything else. ;)

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

We thank our Ceoranan friends for their support of this resolution and look forward to continued support from the Ceorana delegation for our proposed repeal of the "World Heritage List."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Congratulations!


(Did you happen to get a complete list of the delegates who voted for this resolution? I took a copy of the list as it was at about 11.30am yesterday, because it occurred to me that they might be good candidates to lobby for 'Suppression of Piracy' too, but presumably there were a few more supporters added after that...)

Thanks, mate, and yes, I got a complete list of the delegate voting seconds before it passed. You can find it in the official thread on the DEFCON forum.

Thanks, mate, and yes, I got a complete list of the delegate voting seconds before it passed. You can find it in the official thread on the DEFCON forum.

Thanks. I was heading over to DEFCON soon anyway...

Thanks. I was heading over to DEFCON soon anyway...

Good, just make sure you're not followed to the secret underground bunker. ;)

Good, just make sure you're not followed to the secret underground bunker. ;)

Tommo the Stout, wearing a red and white striped scarf, a pair of goggles, and a leather helmet/hat, looks down from the open air cockpit of the old bi-plane, with a surprised look on his face.

It's underground?! SHIT!

Tommo the Stout, wearing a red and white striped scarf, a pair of goggles, and a leather helmet/hat, looks down from the open air cockpit of the old bi-plane, with a surprised look on his face.

It's underground?! SHIT!

OOC: :D

Congrats guys, finally. :D

Congrats guys, finally. :D

Finally, indeed. I first started work on this since I joined the UN in October of last year.

Finally, indeed. I first started work on this since I joined the UN in October of last year.I started on something along these lines back in July 05, but you ran with it, so congratulations :)

Ah. The old "I thought of it first!" line. Same shit LAE pulled on me with Repeal FFRA.

Congratulations already, Cluichstan.

Gracias to you both.

Yeah? Well I thought of it back in aught-three!

Damn whippersnappers...