NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: International Security


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Atrigea

Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS and CIVIL FREEDOMS.

The World Assembly hereby,

REALIZING of the importance of expanding and improving international co-operation among WA States, on a bilateral and multilateral basis, which will contribute to the elimination of acts of international terrorism and their underlying causes and to the prevention and elimination of this criminal scourge,

NOTICING the principle of the inalienable right to self-determination and independence of all peoples under rogue regimes and other forms of alien domination, and upholding the legitimacy of their struggle, in particular the struggle of national and regional liberation movements, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Nationstates in accordance with the World Assembly,

1. Unequivocally condemns, as criminal, all acts, methods and practices of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed, including those which jeopardize friendly relations among WA States in their regions and their security;

2. Deeply deplores the loss of innocent human lives which results from such acts of terrorism, the pernicious impact of acts of international terrorism on relations of co-operation among WA States, including co-operation ;

3.Invites all WA States to take all appropriate measures at the national level with a view to the speedy and final elimination of the problem of international terrorism, such as fulfilment of assumed international obligations, and the prevention of the preparation and organization in their respective territories of acts directed against other WA States and Regions;

4.Calls upon all States to fulfil their obligations under international law to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in terrorist acts in other WA States, or acquiescing in activities within their region directed towards the commission of such acts;

5.Urges all WA States not to allow any circumstances to obstruct the application of appropriate law enforcement measures provided for in the relevant conventions to which they are party to persons who commit acts of international terrorism covered by those conventions;

6.Further urges all WA States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other WA States, as well as World Assembly, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including situations involving mass and flagrant violations of fundamental human rights and civil freedoms and those involving alien occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;

The Holy Empire of Bakamyht is pleased to perform the administrative task of distributing copies of this proposal to the members of the World Assembly. We do not necessarily endorse this proposal. Further copies can be obtained from the WA Secretariat's Printing Office.

The Great Empire of Amur Panthera Tigris was fully in support of this measure, right up until section 6 and I quote:

"6.Further urges all WA States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other WA States, as well as World Assembly, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including situations involving mass and flagrant violations of fundamental human rights and civil freedoms and those involving alien occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security; "

As a nation of warriors and a world economic leader, we cannot support any measure that would call for us to "care" why criminals turn to terrorist activities.

When they do, we kill them.

Flat, blunt, simple. No need for hand-holding, no need for worrying that some backwater 4th world potentate mistreats his citizens. That's his problem in his country. If they venture into ours uninvited, they become worm-food.

That said, we cannot support this measure as written. Remove the 6th section and we can consider it.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve wonders just what this Resolution would do with regards to preventing terrorism. As worded, this Resolution:

1. Condemns
2. Deplores
3. Invites
4. Calls
5. Urges, and
6. Urges.

The only clause in this Resolution with any strength is clause 4, which calls all States to fulfill their obligations under international law. WA members will, by nature of membership in the World Assembly, convert Resolutions into national law. Non WA members are not required to do this so a call to do so is a gesture with no force behind it.

While the intent behind this Resolution is understandable and even noble the Holy Empire does not see any need for essentially empty Resolutions.

The Most Serene Republic of Aelithria wishes to register its disappointment at the projected outcome of this resolution:

¨...to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.¨

As a nation that seeks to provide an environment of peace through the continual search for wisdom, we wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments surrounding this resolution; however it is unfortunate that these cannot be achieved non-violently, through the power of thought and words rather than with guns and bombs.

*Rises alone, unaccompanied by the usual Narnian gathering of supporting chancellors, lords, governors, lawyers, and secretaries.*

Good representatives, I stand without an entourage today for a good reason...

*Pauses as someone shouts something almost unintelligible, the word 'asleep' resounding from the auditorium's walls*

No, they're absent because this requires very little preparation and almost no common sense at all - and we'd like to echo what the prudent representative for New Illuve stated.

The intention is commendable. But thats as much as we'll admit. "Prevention of Terrorism":

1) Fails to define what 'terrorism' is at all.
2) Fails to make genuine terrorism illegal. "Condemns terrorism", or as far as this proposal is concerned - "condemns eating scones with jam".
3) Fails to give us any action plan whatsoever, because nothing is defined and nothing is made illegal.

In fact, I can't see that anything at all is going to change if this proposal passes, which I certainly hope won't happen. Perhaps if the author brought this before the WA for drafting beforehand? It would have saved everyone alot of frustration.

Our region's vote will be cast AGAINST "Prevention of Terrorism".

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

The Republic of Serahk does not endorse this resolution. We agree with The Great Empire of Amur Panthera Tigris wholeheartedly. Terrorism is a crime against humanity and must be fought with determination and hatred; the perpetrators of which must be erased from both physical and historical reality. We take the same stance with vile felonic offenders, who are, essentially, of the same vein.

The Seniors of Zion will vote against this resolution. Given the way that the word "terrorism" is misused in discourse between nations, it is vital that it be possible to tell whether or not some specific action is in fact terrorism. All we learn about terrorism from this resolution is that it's, like, really, really bad.

Even apart from that, the resolution is truly incoherent. Have a look at item 2:

2. Deeply deplores the loss of innocent human lives which results from such acts of terrorism, the pernicious impact of acts of international terrorism on relations of co-operation among WA States, including co-operation ;

Is this the output of BabelFish, or a random poetry generator?

If the WA wants to retain the respect of the community of nations, it must reject this meaningless muddle.

The Dominion of Terra Novian Atlantis support this resolution. Recently we had a terrorist attack that killed countless of lives. We have endured a time of bloodshed and I hope this funds can aid us to continue our fight for our freedom.

Our neighbouring nation helped to fund them.Which eventually led to our ongoing invasion.


Fight for the dominion!

The Emperor of Valkier has instructed me to relay the following statement;

"The Empire of Valkier laughs at your pathetic attempt to curb terrorism. There is only one type of justice these fanatics understand. To this end I have created an elite branch of the armed forces who will fight this scum in the way they wish to fight. Not only will they covertly attack and destroy any terrorist threat but they shall deliver the same swift justice to ANY person or organisation that is known to aid them. Additionally the family members of any terrorist shall be treated as enemies of the empire, and they can expect the same degree of retribution."

This legislation is worthless in it's current form, and so we shall vote against this proposal and await a more comprehensive proposal that allows WA member states to pursue retribution in ANY form they choose.

"We share the concerns of the New Illuve delegation. In addition, as brought to my attention by The Seniors of Zion's comment, the loss of human life is regrettable but in no way exclusive you don't actually care...

What? Ahem. Opposed."

-Raymond Gardner
Plutonian ambassador

I rise to day to oppose this resolution and echo the sentiments of my colleagues who oppose it. this resolution, while good in it's intention is lacking any true action.

I also once again pause to relay my dismay that apparently all it takes for a measure to reach quorum is for the measure to have a frilly title.

Clause 4 is really the only function part and we don't feel as though the members of this body require a resolution to remind us to obey international law.

I urge all nations to vote on the substance of this measure not the title, passing this will only make passing more substantial litigation nearly impossible.

Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Chief Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

Salzland agrees that the prevention of terrorism is a noble goal, but is slightly confused as to why a definition as to what would consist of a "terrorist act" is not contained in this resolution? As the saying goes, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," which prompts our nation to request for clarification as to precisely what types of actions this resolution will seek to counteract.

Thank you

*Rises alone, unaccompanied by the usual Narnian gathering of supporting chancellors, lords, governors, lawyers, and secretaries.*

Good representatives, I stand without an entourage today for a good reason...

*Pauses as someone shouts something almost unintelligible, the word 'asleep' resounding from the auditorium's walls*

No, they're absent because this requires very little preparation and almost no common sense at all - and we'd like to echo what the prudent representative for New Illuve stated.

The intention is commendable. But thats as much as we'll admit. "Prevention of Terrorism":

1) Fails to define what 'terrorism' is at all.
2) Fails to make genuine terrorism illegal. "Condemns terrorism", or as far as this proposal is concerned - "condemns eating scones with jam".
3) Fails to give us any action plan whatsoever, because nothing is defined and nothing is made illegal.

In fact, I can't see that anything at all is going to change if this proposal passes, which I certainly hope won't happen. Perhaps if the author brought this before the WA for drafting beforehand? It would have saved everyone alot of frustration.

Our region's vote will be cast AGAINST "Prevention of Terrorism".

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia



the government of the emperor of urgench wishes to associate itself with the comments of the noble delegate for the Narnian council, as a nation who have ourselves recently been blighted by heinous acts of terrorist barbarity and who are infact still in a state of official national mourning we feel that this resolution would absolutely fail to address the causes of terrorism and prove useless in the prosecution of it's irradication should these causes be un-remedied.


yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

*Rises alone, unaccompanied by the usual Narnian gathering of supporting chancellors, lords, governors, lawyers, and secretaries.*
_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

*Fotar, King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia, comes in and takes up a position next to the Lord Chancellor. He turns to him and says:*

Now I wouldn't quite say that Lord Chancellor! I, afterall, am here! :p

*Now turning to the other WA members present, the fox echoes the statements of his region's leader:*

As I read through this proposal, I thought to myself: "Why did I just waste my time reading this?" This proposal is totally incompetent in dealing with the very serious problem of terrorism. Namely, this proposal does nothing.

I believe the honorable delegate from the Holy Empire of New Illuve summed it up quite nicely when he said

As worded, this Resolution:

1. Condemns
2. Deplores
3. Invites
4. Calls
5. Urges, and
6. Urges.

As can be expected, My Kingdom will strongly support any movement to see that this proposal does NOT pass. We vote against it.

And yes, Lord Chancellor, you are right. Submitting a draft ahead of time would have been very wise. That way we wouldn't be wasting our time with this!
________________
Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/42513/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

On Behalf of his Majesty,
Lord Asriel,
the King of the Holy Allied Empire of Pasier Rise

We applaud the efforts and the intentions to draft this resolution. Sadly, we do not believe this proposal, if passed will work. Definition of terrorism is unclear and vague. What actually defines terrorism or any of such acts? The only passage that I can find in the resolution that attempts to define terrorism is this passage.

Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS and CIVIL FREEDOMS.

This doesn't even define terrorism well. This is really too broad. If someone attempts to pass a law in our Kingdom, that jeopardize most of the people's civil freedom, would that be international terrorism?

We urge that this law be redraft before it passed. We like this resolution. But the flaws would actually defeat its purpose. We voted AGAINST this proposal.

Yours Sincerely,
Ahmad Firdaus,
Prime Minister of the Holy Allied Empire of Pasier Rise

I must reenter my vote is AGAINST.

This is poorly issued.

You give way to countries to corruptly accuse rebel factions of being terrorists when protecting their country.

I must reenter my vote is AGAINST.

This is poorly issued.

You give way to countries to corruptly accuse rebel factions of being terrorists when protecting their country.


Exactly. I hope the sheep notice that the resolution doesn't actually define terrorism. Vote against this, people! :headbang:

*The talking-fox king once again speaks up*

I get the feeling that others are seeing the name of the proposal, see it is long, and just assume it is a worthy proposal because they are too lazy to read it. I urge you all to contact the other WA members in your regions and show them how bad this proposal is. So far those in support outnumber those against, which is just another reason for a lazy nation to vote for this. Lets get those No votes ahead of the Yes ones!
________________
Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/42513/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

The People's Republic of Inca Kolastan echoes the concerns of those who see in this resolution a fundamental flaw in its failure to define what constitutes terrorism or a terrorist act. The wording of this entire resolution is so loose as to allow any interpretation a state may desire, including the justification of occupation and repression on the grounds of asymmetrical warfare wrongly defined as terrorism. Furthermore, it says little about what can actually be done to combat terrorism beyond a bunch of vague "recommendations".

Our vote is against.

Exactly. I hope the sheep notice that the resolution doesn't actually define terrorism. Vote against this, people! :headbang:

Let me elaborate.

Terrorism is viewed two ways primarily in times of war. The Victor describes it as people who endanger any and all people. The Defender defines it as a way to retaliate because they wish not to be assimilated. This bill does not clearly stop corrupt nations of putting it on the line and maganimously deeming any defenses of another nation 'terroristic'. DONT VOTE 'FOR' IT PEOPLE! Retract your votes and send this puppy back so they can rewrite this, big words and long sentence cant be used as a criteria to judge if it is worthy of passing our judgements!

The Grand Duchy of Miltovia wishes to point out, for what it's worth, the shameless extra-dimensional plagiarism which this act has enabled, in that it has derived, in its entirety, its very existence from UN Resolution 42/159, and should it be adopted, would reflect poorly on the World Assembly.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/a42r159.htm

We hope all those present will note the passage by that organization whose name cannot be spoken of a document (http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=690&Itemid=141) eerily similar to this one. One could even accuse the author of stealing the text ... but since the United Nations no longer exists, we won't go that far. We will, however, not be surprised if this organization also goes up in flames in a "cataclysmic collision with reality." Eat your heart out, Max Barry.

the government of the emperor of urgench has lodged a message at our regional head quarters encouraging all w.a. members including our regional delegate to vote NO to this resolution. we urge others to do the same, to avoid our being burdened with the laws of utter simpletons.


yours Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench

The Republic of Hameria proudly rises in support of this legislation We voted for the resolution and are one of a thojusand to do so. Many on this forum are opposed to this legislation but i implore those who have not yet voted to vote and affirm this proposal onthe basis of international stability security and ethics.

Reword to include definition of "terrorist acts".

Vote against, but will reconsider.

The Republic of Hameria proudly rises in support of this legislation We voted for the resolution and are one of a thojusand to do so. Many on this forum are opposed to this legislation but i implore those who have not yet voted to vote and affirm this proposal onthe basis of international stability security and ethics.

Honorable Hameria...just how does this proposal enhance international stability, security or ethics? It is a hollow document. It does nothing to further those areas you mentioned. Strike down this proposal so something can be drafted that does those things! If you care about those principals like you imply you do, you must change your vote!
________________
Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/42513/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

We commend the desire to address the scourge of terrorism, as we are a nation that has had to deal with it in our own recent history. But our reading of this document has left us with the firm belief that it is one of the most toothless resolutions we have ever seen, either in the WA or in its predecessor body. It neither defines terrorism, nor does anything whatsoever to address terrorism (unless you count vigorous finger-wagging as doing something to fix a problem, which we do not).

The Trilateral Federation votes against.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Honorable Hameria...just how does this proposal enhance international stability, security or ethics? It is a hollow document. It does nothing to further those areas you mentioned. Strike down this proposal so something can be drafted that does those things! If you care about those principals like you imply you do, you must change your vote!
________________
Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/42513/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

First of all i disagree with your premise i believe it takes a strong position against terrorism in an efficient way and i willvote for what i believe works and this does and i will not be pressured into changing my vote!

The Republic of Hameria proudly rises in support of this legislation We voted for the resolution and are one of a thojusand to do so. Many on this forum are opposed to this legislation but i implore those who have not yet voted to vote and affirm this proposal onthe basis of international stability security and ethics.

This is despicable, have you read and fully understand this proposal? It simply states and states again that terrorism is a 'bad' thing, it does not assert the solution in a suitable and an understandable way. This proposal is simply lackadaisical and seems to not take in account all terms of terrorism and the author probably doesnt understand 'Terrorism is claimed by the Victors'...

Ladies and gentlemen, I rise in opposition to this "International Security" resolution of "significant" strength proposed by the nation from the great feeder region of the North Pacific. Significant? That is a laugh, the verbage use is barely mild at best, "invites, calls, urges," is hardly the stuff of significant strength. Such garbage should have been caught eariler in the process, but I digress. It is up for a vote and we are now at the mercy of the fluffies.

Without a proper definition of terrorism, without a single action clause that would indicate a reason for this being significant I cannot and will not support this resolution.

We applaud the efforts of this young nation in terms of resolution writing, but they appear not to be in the building. We hope that someone from the North Pacific region can take this message to this young nation, "BAD BOY."

The United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden votes AGAINST. We invite the "author" of the resolution to speak before this assembly to defend the proposal. (as if it will change our vote)

Thank you.

C.T.S.

We are currently inclined against this proposal for much the same reasons that the New Illuve delegation laid out so plainly; in categorising itself as Significant, we believe that this proposal greatly overstates its relevance. We are not particularly opposed to any of the clauses of the proposal, though if they had the weight of true Significance behind them most would need considerable tightening.

The issue of the lack of definition of "terrorism" bothers us not at all. The duties forced upon member nations by this proposal are essentially non-existent, so having no definition is irrelevant.

As a nation of warriors and a world economic leader, we cannot support any measure that would call for us to "care" why criminals turn to terrorist activities.
Then the honoured ambassador's nation will continue to have terrorist activity. Strange as it may seem, killing people is at best a temporary solution and has a marked tendency to make matters worse. Besides, the honoured ambassador is only being urged to this; if he truly wishes to bury his head in the sand, this proposal does not prevent him from doing so.

The Holy Empire of AngelGaidin will be voting against this resolution, for its failure to define terrorism.

We will go on to say that at the very least, it is not necessary to worry if this resolution passes, given its hollow nature.

We will go on to say that at the very least, it is not necessary to worry if this resolution passes, given its hollow nature.

The danger of passing this is, that in order to pass more relevant legislation it will be necessary to repeal it, which given the frilly title will be very difficult to do.

Ambassador Nigel S Youlkin
World Assembly Lead Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

The danger of passing this is, that in order to pass more relevant legislation it will be necessary to repeal it, which given the frilly title will be very difficult to do.
Hmm, but I think this is worth considering. Clause 4 mentions 'their obligations under international law', but the proposal doesn't really delineate any such obligations. This proposal doesn't mention financing of terrorism, or non-proliferation of WMD, or various other issues relating to terrorism. I think there's probably room to legislate while ignoring this one.

-- Samantha Benson
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

The Grand Holy Empire of Imota proudly rises to strongly OPPOSE this resolution. We feel that this is nothing more than a paper tiger for the cause of international justice, and that it would block more effective legislation by its bloated, incompetent presence. It is said that "the perfect is the enemy of the good". To co-opt this phrase, "the incompetent, misguided, and completely ineffectual are the enemies of the good."

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the WA for the GHEoI

Someone kidnapped Lars for the evening and let me out to play.

FOR.

More socially progressive than anything that the usual suspects would have come up with.

It passed moderation, I checked in the zOMG! thread when QuOD brought it up.

Hassle Frisbeeteria on letting it pass on the strength.

If anyone needs a definition of terrorism, then I'll post you a pipe-bomb wrapped in a CNN screenshot attached to a dictionary. Care of George Bush...with a Baghdad postmark.

The people are voting, and they're voting FOR. They just don't happen to post in here.

I can hear the clack-clacks (Pratchett!) of a concerted repeal, which will also be successful, and a future proposal from an approved source, which again will be successful.

Cynical? Moi? :fluffle:

The People's Republic of Zapataland will vote against this resolution. As previously stated by others, there is no clear definition of whom a Terrorist is, or for that matter what a Rogue nation is. The People's Republic of Zapataland tends to go it's own way when it comes to protecting the environment and the less fortunate. That may result in a lack of civil liberties and freedoms. This is in the best interests of the common Zapatalander.

The People's Republic of Zapataland is agaisnt this resolution and urges our delegate, The Socialist Worker's State of Minyos to change there vote to NO.

the government of the emperor of urgench cannot believe the comments of the wise and respected delegate for minyos, this resolution does nothing and is of the greatest inconvenience to actually doing something else in the future.
we are aware that the wise regional delegate voted for this resolution to be brought before the generality, are they perhaps vindicating that decision?

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench.

First of all i disagree with your premise i believe it takes a strong position against terrorism in an efficient way and i willvote for what i believe works and this does and i will not be pressured into changing my vote!

If that's the case, could you please explain the "strong position" it takes against terrorism? I was not aware that "urging, urging again, urging once more, strongly urging, urging yet again (and we really mean it this time, maybe)" constitutes a strong position.

Alternatively, could you please explain how, exactly, this "works"? Works to do what?

We will agree with you that it's efficient....I've never seen a resolution that so efficiently accomplished not a damn thing and did nothing whatsoever other than tickle fluffies' hearts in my entire time here.

More socially progressive than anything that the usual suspects would have come up with.

It's not socially progressive. It's not anything. It doesn't do anything.

I can hear the clack-clacks (Pratchett!) of a concerted repeal, which will also be successful, and a future proposal from an approved source, which again will be successful.

You're partially correct, because if this thing passes, I can promise that my nation will be submitting a repeal the very next second, if we're not beaten to it by nations that also believe that legislation that does something is preferable to legislation that accomplishes sweet FA other than making its authors and the nations that vote for it feel warm and gooey.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The Serene Republic of Galentea, while applauding what we see as the noble intentions of this proposed motion, questions what it actually intends to do by way of realaction againist possible threats. However, what is our major issue with regard this proposed motion is the loose definition it places on the notion of "Terrorisim". What must be remembered, we feel, is that the soverigenty of many of our great nations, indeed Galentea's own is founded on this, is the notion of reveloution and rebellion when people feel their respective goverment's have violated their part of the Social Contract. What one may consider a "terrorist", another may consider a freedom fighter. However, those that cause terror and undue chaos and strife without any justification must be bunished, we realise, but placing strict definitions on such things must be done.

We would suggest, instead, that the World Assembly makes no resoloution forcing countries to interfer with another Soverigen Nation's affairs. Rather each nation may act upon their own iniative in such a situation, if they so wish. However, exception may be made where a terrorist group threatens countries upon an international level, where we recomend coeperation between countries take place againist this.

Yours respectfully,
Asraell Dawnbringer,
Consul of the Galentean Senate./ Supreme Chancellor of the Galentean Chancellory Assembly.

Is it me, or is everything in this resolution urged, recommended, or asked, and nothing is actually enforced?

Chocolate bavarian dessert (eaten frozen): check.

Kitten trying to distract me from the keyboard 'cos it isn't her: check.

Outraged, shocked, appalled hyperbolic blah-blah from various posters about something or other that is soooo important on the PC screen: check.

Uh huh...it must be the "at-vote" thread. (sigh, and I'd given this up months ago as an exercise in futility, note to self, listen to kitten next time OK?)

Here we go, second and LAST post:


we are aware that the wise regional delegate voted for this resolution to be brought before the generality, are they perhaps vindicating that decision?

(Robotic voice) "Yes...I...am...merely...vindicating...my...endorsement...of...this...proposal...by...voting...FOR... I regret...it...now...but...cannot...back...down"

Is that what you wanted to hear?



....I've never seen a resolution that so efficiently accomplished not a damn thing and did nothing whatsoever other than tickle fluffies' hearts in my entire time here.

Ah, multi-post right-wing raving. I do love it so. Enjoy.


You're partially correct, because if this thing passes, I can promise that my nation will be submitting a repeal the very next second, if we're not beaten to it by nations that also believe that legislation that does something is preferable to legislation that accomplishes sweet FA other than making its authors and the nations that vote for it feel warm and gooey.


You do that. Hell, I'll even send over three, four, no five frozen Chocolate Bavarians, just don't let them get warm and gooey y'hear?


It's most intriguing why one is expected to justify why one endorses and votes the way one does. Even more intriguing is that y'all get sooooo strung out...next time I'm listening to the kitten.

Yeah... when you deign to argue with members of this assembly, actual arguments might suit you better. It shouldn't really surprise anyone that your flea-infested pet has more insight than you do. Next time, take her advice. Please.

~Shemp #3

the government of the emperor of urgench would like the highly esteemed delegate for Minyos to know that, yes that is almost exactly what we wanted to hear. but that in truth we could have done without the references to your cat and the bad robot impression. we suspect that you are posting from some sort of secure mental facility and that that might explain your endorsement choices.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, delegate to the world assembly for urgench.

I am at current lobbying against this resolution, and REFUSE to put its title in our Regions vote.. Only what it will do..the meat of it if will though there isn't much meat. To often do TITLES like this get resolutions passed and im tired of it. The writer can't even SPELL CHECK.

As previously pointed out, this resolution does nothing. Therefore, the Borderlands of Geektique feel obligated to vote against. Our apologies.

Ceatus votes AGAINST this resolution...

Let me give you a brief example of how 'Terrorism' works..

1. Something involving the Terrorist's heppens
2. We find a Reason to invade country housing terrorists
3. We invade country...
4. War on Terror..

Basically, fighting will take place, and there'll be losses for both sides. BUT, for every 'Terrorist' we kill, 3 more take his place for revenge on we, the 'murderers' or 'invaders'. Secondly,, they may be 'Terrorist', 'Extremists' or 'The Bad Guys'. To them, the 'Terrorists' are seen as 'the Resistance' 'Liberaters' or 'Freedom Fighters' and us as 'The Bad Guys'

So really, a War on Terror, or anti-Terror operation won't end until everyone in the selected country, is dead, every building razed to the ground, and every crop, squished into the ground.

Is the Resolution really worth accepting?

Vote No. This proposal lacks clarity and action.

Sintar Maxem, the newly appointed Ambassador from Zarquon Froods, entered the assembly with his bodyguard Joebot™ closely behind. He approached his Lay-Z Delegate 9000™ and took his seat. The large disk lifted itself off the ground and began circling the room. Joebot handed Sintar a copy of the proposal. He read it carefully. He began to chuckle. The chuckle turned to a giggle. The giggle turned to a laugh. The laugh turned into uncontroled fits of histeria. He held his head to his left arm upon his desk and slammed his right hand down beside laughing maniacally all the while.

"This is the best you can come up with? This is what your solution to terrorism is? If this is the best this body can come up with, then I'd hate to see the proposal that would attempt to stop all forms of violence in general." His eyes were teary from all the laughing. "That was a good one, you had me going for a minute. I thought this was actually a real proposal, as it looks to be an ill fated attempt at comedy, The Empire of Zarquon Froods hereby votes AGAINST. And shall eagerly await a justifiable and reasonable argument that should convince us to vote otherwise."

I would be most grateful if the author of this ludicrous proposal step up and assert his position on Terrorism instead of writing up a poem filled with piety descriptions and 'urging' slogans. It seems this person does not notice that in the event of voting for Resolutions, we need to gather to discuss our views. I dont think this guy deserves his delegate position if you ask me.

Is it me, or is everything in this resolution urged, recommended, or asked, and nothing is actually enforced?

If it's you, it's me and the rest of the sane world as well. The only thing actually enforced is that all WA members must obey international law. To call this empty rhetoric is an insult to empty rhetoric.

I speak for Sabbat78 in support of the resolution at hand. We think it could use more beefing up around the military and police parts of the resolution. We are in agreement of removing Section 6 of the resolution. We should not allow them to burden our nation resources with empathy to them. Civil Rights for them is pointless and a waste of time and resources.


Lord Jack Griffith
Leader and Representative for the People of Sabbat78:sniper:

The Great Empire of Amur Panthera Tigris was fully in support of this measure, right up until section 6 and I quote:

"6.Further urges all WA States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other WA States, as well as World Assembly, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including situations involving mass and flagrant violations of fundamental human rights and civil freedoms and those involving alien occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security; "

As a nation of warriors and a world economic leader, we cannot support any measure that would call for us to "care" why criminals turn to terrorist activities.

When they do, we kill them.

Flat, blunt, simple. No need for hand-holding, no need for worrying that some backwater 4th world potentate mistreats his citizens. That's his problem in his country. If they venture into ours uninvited, they become worm-food.

That said, we cannot support this measure as written. Remove the 6th section and we can consider it.

I speak for Sabbat78 in support of the resolution at hand. We think it could use more beefing up around the military and police parts of the resolution. We are in agreement of removing Section 6 of the resolution. We should not allow them to burden our nation resources with empathy to them. Civil Rights for them is pointless and a waste of time and resources.


Lord Jack Griffith
Leader and Representative for the People of Sabbat78:sniper:

The Democratic Republic of Kenneland, as small as we currently are, will also not be voting in favor of this resolution.

The term "terrorism" is, at best, ill-defined in the resolution. This leaves an open door of interpretation for any WA nation to define terrorism as they see fit. Without a universal definition, this resolution will have only one impact: to foster an air of unfounded hostility. Without a sound definition, there is nothing to protect one nation from unfair and biased scrutiny by another.

Furthermore, without defining terrorism, any particular nation will have no means to recognize that they may be committing a terrorist act by another nation's personal interpretation.

In other words, innocently walking into an ice creme shop with a cup of hot coffee could be justified as terrorism.

I would implore the author of this resolution to include a section which clearly defines terrorism and acts thereof. And if such revision will not be made, I would implore every other nation to vote against this resolution - to do otherwise would be setting everyone up for potential problems.

The delegacy of the Most Holy Empire of Lich King Azrael opposes this measure, in accordance with the wishes of our Undying Lord. The acts opposed by this proposal are not only acceptable in the Empire, but a necessary part of the daily goings on. The Holy Lich King does not brook resistance to His Authority in any fashion, but acts of terrorism are a common occurrence in His Colonies and Fiefdoms. Such acts serve to keep the populace in the necessary state of fear, to wit, terror. The perpetrators are summarily executed, but the fear remains, and this serves our Lord's goals.

Furthermore, the delegates would like to bring to the attention of the author of this proposal and its supporters this statement, issued by our Deathless Master's foreign affairs attaché this morning:

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

End transmission.

As previously pointed out, this resolution does nothing. Therefore, the Borderlands of Geektique feel obligated to vote against. Our apologies.

Scotchpinestan agrees and must also vote AGAINST. Because if there's one thing we hate in Scotchpinestan more than terrorism, it's useless WA resolutions.

Someone kidnapped Lars for the evening and let me out to play.

FOR.

More socially progressive than anything that the usual suspects would have come up with.

It passed moderation, I checked in the zOMG! thread when QuOD brought it up.

Hassle Frisbeeteria on letting it pass on the strength.

If anyone needs a definition of terrorism, then I'll post you a pipe-bomb wrapped in a CNN screenshot attached to a dictionary. Care of George Bush...with a Baghdad postmark.

The people are voting, and they're voting FOR. They just don't happen to post in here.

I can hear the clack-clacks (Pratchett!) of a concerted repeal, which will also be successful, and a future proposal from an approved source, which again will be successful.

Cynical? Moi? :fluffle:

The "usual suspects?"

Resolutions passed by Minyos: 0
Resolutions passed by people who are not Minyos: 255

Are the "usual suspects" anyone but you?

Hassle Frisbeeteria on letting it pass on the strength.Even though I gave the ruling, huh?

This resolution is about nothing. It doesn't even give the definition of a "terrorism".

Our greatest fear is that due to the vagueness of the description of terrorism that any nation using covert action as a legitimate strategy may fall foul of this overtly liberal legislation.

Member states MUST be allowed to combat terrorism in the way that they see fit, and not as directed by bleeding heart do-gooders. These terrorist heretics must be cleansed in the righteous flame of military action NOT by sending them flowers.

Assassination, sabotage, covert surveillance and operations are legitimate strategies in the war against terrorism and this legislation would hamper these types of retaliation. We would much rather see a stronger condemnation of terrorist acts from this assembly which further allows member states to retaliate as they see fit.

The Most Serene Republic of Salharia opposes this for reasons of not defining what exactly terrorism is. For my nation is very strong when it comes to the our right of Free Speech, Press, Petition, and Rally; and we must know how this bill is to define Terrorism so that my nations freedoms are still held and that no rights shall be taken away.

I am also upset at how a few of my colleages have been talking. In my nation no man, woman, beast, plant, protsist, archaebacteria, eubacteria, or fungi shall be killed no matter what charge is against him, and that goes the same for Terrorists. No one deserves to die, no matter what charge is against them, becuase death is something that no one should have the power to give!

There is nothing to suggest that the title contains typo errors. Atrigea uses good words in its proposals. However, the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg won't decide until Monday due to a series of public holidays, but it seems it is leaning towards a Yes vote.

Stay tuned.

After reading this I, the Emperor of Kekova decided to come down here in person.

I would like to first say that I am AGAINST this proposal. This in my opinion is not a well put together proposal.

Here are his reasons:

1. As stated by others before it does not give a definition to what ‘Terrorism’ is. It could be anything depending on what a Nations thinks it means.

2. It does NOT make terrorism illegal in any way.

3. If you want to be taken seriously don’t make spelling mistakes in your proposal.

4. Me I like to take up arms and combat Terrorism. I believes Terrorism needs be made an example of too any one wishing harm on other nations.

*Stands next to the Lord Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor and says*

Neither of you are alone. You have my support.

Emperor Kekova
Knight of Aslan, Participant of Operation Lion's Roar

Listen,
We were violently attacked by terrorists the day are nation achieved independence. Because of this, we are locked in a deadly war against terrorism. We think that this reso would make are sacrifices worth it. Please vote "Yes" or else:
:eek::sniper:
humbly:
The Armed Republic of the Screaming Otters

Against. It doesn't clearly define what terrorism is so one nations idea of terrorism would mean all nations must aid that country in its fight against 'terrorism'.

Furthermore, one nation's idea of terrorism could be another nation's idea of freedom fighting :headbang:



AGAINST

We read this over and got to the final clause and think it gives light for certain nations to declare war on alien nations.


6.Further urges all WA States, unilaterally and in co-operation with other WA States, as well as World Assembly, to contribute to the progressive elimination of the causes underlying international terrorism and to pay special attention to all situations, including situations involving mass and flagrant violations of fundamental human rights and civil freedoms and those involving alien occupation, that may give rise to international terrorism and may endanger international peace and security;This is suppose to be a proposal against terrorists not for humans and against aliens. The use of these terms leave it clear the intent to us of this. To remove all aliens under this as terrorists from human worlds and make humans the prime being in the universe. All in the name of saying they are 'alien' occupiers and thus under this terrorists so it is the duty of all human nations to stop them and get rid of them. If the intent is to end terrorists actions not get rid of aliens then say it... Also instead of human use individual rights as not all members are human but are individuals with rights.


Listen,
We were violently attacked by terrorists the day are nation achieved independence. Because of this, we are locked in a deadly war against terrorism. We think that this reso would make are sacrifices worth it. Please vote "Yes" or else:Be carefull what you wish with terms like 'or else' as many nations here and outside the WA would have hit you and the war be over before it started. Also the display of arms following your comments suggests you fall near to being terrorist and thus the WA needs to look at your actions.

They're not talking about extraterrestrials, dumbass. ~Shemp #3

They're not talking about extraterrestrials, dumbass. ~Shemp #3They are talking about terrorists so say it don't add words or subject to the issue not related to it. Immigation of aliens from one nation to another is not the same as terrorism between nations.

And my third wife said the same thing to me the other day about my ass but she didn't leave our bed.

To paraphrase Nathan Hale...I only regret that I have only one vote to cast against this atrocious and toothless resolution.

Excelsior,
Senator Hoatio Sulla

My government would like to reaffirm it's stance.. that the only reason this resolution has gained ANY votes. Is due to its title. We believe the WA must cease with making titles so prominent if you are unable to READ the resolution then you shouldn't be voting anyways..We are so tired of seeing ..BAD..POINTLESS..and otherwise MEANINGLESS ... resolutions passed into law because of the TITLE and nothing more.

AGAINST and the voting in our region is likely going against as well I can only hope..We left the title out of the voting so people just had to read it.

Since no clarification as to what actions would be considered "terroristic" under this resolution have been provided, Salzland stands against it.

We will agree with you that it's efficient....I've never seen a resolution that so efficiently accomplished not a damn thing and did nothing whatsoever other than tickle fluffies' hearts in my entire time here.
Speaking as one who is frequently accused of being fluffy, and quite frequently proud to plead guilty to it, we can assure Ambassador Krytellin that our heart has remained resolutely untickled by this proposal.

--
Ambassador Prince Rhodri Mawr

Listen,
We were violently attacked by terrorists the day are nation achieved independence. Because of this, we are locked in a deadly war against terrorism. We think that this reso would make are sacrifices worth it. Please vote "Yes" or else:

Admit it, you read as far as the word "Terrorism" in the title and stopped, didn't you?

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

Admit it, you read as far as the word "Terrorism" in the title and stopped, didn't you?

You're not assuming that anyone does any different, are you? The WA is full of voters who couldn't care less about spending even 10 seconds of their time reading proposals...

OOC: Perhaps I'll just write up a proposal called "Outlaw Kidnapping" and fill it with a long excerpt from Shakespeare's Hamlet - ten to one it'll pass by a substantial majority.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Almost all nations who care enough to respond to the proposed resolution recognize its failures. Unfortunately 2/3 of voting nations (as of posting) approve this waste of WA resources. Please do not just vote against this resolution but urge your region's WA members and delegates to vote against it as well.

You're not assuming that anyone does any different, are you? The WA is full of voters who couldn't care less about spending even 10 seconds of their time reading proposals...
You have evidence of this? If that's so, why did the old UN defeat the 'Anti-Terrorism Act'? Why would it ever vote for repeals of successful resolutions? There's nothing to prove that most WA nations vote based on cursory readings of proposals, however convenient it might be to assume that.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve wonders just what this Resolution would do with regards to preventing terrorism. As worded, this Resolution:

1. Condemns
2. Deplores
3. Invites
4. Calls
5. Urges, and
6. Urges.

The only clause in this Resolution with any strength is clause 4, which calls all States to fulfill their obligations under international law. WA members will, by nature of membership in the World Assembly, convert Resolutions into national law. Non WA members are not required to do this so a call to do so is a gesture with no force behind it.

While the intent behind this Resolution is understandable and even noble the Holy Empire does not see any need for essentially empty Resolutions.


But even calling on states to fulfill the obligation fails to create any real action. You need proactive resolutions that are enforceable, otherwise this body will fail where the league of nations and the united nations have failed. The inability to create resolutions that are seen as more than mere puff will lead to the demise of any world body. We vote no!

You have evidence of this?

OOC: Actually that was said out of stark sarcasm - distinguished by the rather extreme suggestion given in the second paragraph.

Although we don't believe the entire voting body acts in this way, we are certain many most definitely do. Particularly for the 'trickier' proposals that require extra careful reading to be understood. To be perfectly honest: its simply human nature.

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

OOC: Actually that was said out of stark sarcasm - distinguished by the rather extreme suggestion given in the second paragraph.

Although we don't believe the entire voting body acts in this way, we are certain many most definitely do. Particularly for the 'trickier' proposals that require extra careful reading to be understood. To be perfectly honest: its simply human nature.
So that would be 'no'. Fair enough.

it needs to better define terrorism. it needs to not only describe what counts as terrorism, but what does not count. if you think about it, this law could be used in a manipulative way. nations could claim minor things to be terrorism.

for example, lets say a person pisses off a bunch of hackers and the hackers mess with him. he could claim his minor discomforts to be the results of terrorism. this becomes relevant when it is a person of influence who suffers the pranks. if the person has enough power, he could have the simple pranksters tried as full fledged terrorists by manipulating this law.

while it is implied that this mostly applies to the killing (you did not include simply hurting in a non fatal way) it could be used by arguing what a "basic human right" is.

You have evidence of this? If that's so, why did the old UN defeat the 'Anti-Terrorism Act'? Why would it ever vote for repeals of successful resolutions? There's nothing to prove that most WA nations vote based on cursory readings of proposals, however convenient it might be to assume that.

Unfortunately we have not been able to get a proper study to see whether the majority of the delegates even read the damn proposal in the first place, never mind give it a full ten seconds. I do have an official report on the proposal approving habbits of one specific representative from WZForums, where the chiarman of the committee ended his report with, "My gods, does there exist a proposal that this idiot will not approve? I swear he would probably approve his own death warrant if it appeared on the proposal list."

Bear in mind that the will of the fluffies can be overturned by the unity of the feeders and the great regions, which is why on occasion common sense prevails. Currently I see that the feeders have not spoken. The largest region so far (viting against) is Australia with 70 votes.

Will a nation that supports this proposal tell me why we should vote for it?

I have seen reasons why not to support this proposal, which I believe are very strong reasons.

Know tell me what makes this proposal so good that people vote yes!


As an added bit, I asked around to see if people would vote yes to this proposal just by looking at the title of it. Four out of ten said yes they would. Now that is a big percent of people who would say yes just by looking at the title.

Yes, I spent the time to do that because I want some proof to show why there are so many yes’s in this proposal.


Kekova
Knight of Aslan, Participant of Operation Lion's Roar

OOC: Perhaps I'll just write up a proposal called "Outlaw Kidnapping" and fill it with a long excerpt from Shakespeare's Hamlet - ten to one it'll pass by a substantial majority.OOC: Assuming that the plagiarism manages to slip past the mods' notice.

Unfortunately we have not been able to get a proper study to see whether the majority of the delegates even read the damn proposal in the first place, never mind give it a full ten seconds. I do have an official report on the proposal approving habbits of one specific representative from WZForums, where the chiarman of the committee ended his report with, "My gods, does there exist a proposal that this idiot will not approve? I swear he would probably approve his own death warrant if it appeared on the proposal list."Boy, wouldn't that be an interesting experiment.

My region and I are voting against this resolution, mainly because it does not define what it sees as an act of terrorism, which would mean any nation could declare any criminal act as a terrorist attack.

If it was rewritten with this definition we would surely gladly vote 'yes' on it.

And what is it with all the 'yes' drones?

it needs to better define terrorism. it needs to not only describe what counts as terrorism, but what does not count. if you think about it, this law could be used in a manipulative way. nations could claim minor things to be terrorism.

for example, lets say a person pisses off a bunch of hackers and the hackers mess with him. he could claim his minor discomforts to be the results of terrorism. this becomes relevant when it is a person of influence who suffers the pranks. if the person has enough power, he could have the simple pranksters tried as full fledged terrorists by manipulating this law.

while it is implied that this mostly applies to the killing (you did not include simply hurting in a non fatal way) it could be used by arguing what a "basic human right" is.

Very good point, in fact this has already technically happened in the "real world" here is an article: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/07/31/elsalv16545.htm
and a shorten version for those of you which don't want to read that much:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15185094

It is imperitive also that there be a clear cut definition of what "terrorism" actually entails. A rebel group fighting against a corrupt and dictatorial government, a minority group fighting for equal treatment or even those people who are being occupied by a foreign army or government would be classified as terrorists.
and that brings up another question if a group of people are being occupied and then another nation helps them, who would the terrorists be? the occupation force or the people who have their own right to govern themselves?

How many nations would never have existed had it not been for a group who rose up and fought for independence, and the right to self government? How many of those nations which voted "yes" for this resolution exist, because "terrorists" fought against their oppresors?

The government of Onalos is compelled to vote "no" on this resolution. and implores that all other nations do the same.

Alexander Silva
High Officer of Exterior Relations of The Social Democratic Republic of Onalos

A rebel group fighting against a corrupt and dictatorial government, a minority group fighting for equal treatment or even those people who are being occupied by a foreign army or government would be classified as terrorists...

The KSPP would like to point out that it is this kind of mentality which allowed for terrorism to allow real-world territories such as Kosovo to break away from Serbia or indeed for Yugoslavia to dissolve in the first place. We are fervently against this school of thought.

We agree that there has to be one standard for terrorism but we do not agree with the suggestion given by Onalos. The very concept of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" has led us to adopt the stance that attempts by "ethnic groups" or "oppressed minorities" to split away from the motherland will be treated as sedition.

The WSK government has ruled in favour of supporting this resolution because we feel that it is in the interests of not only our nation but the world as a whole. Perhaps some of the elements of the resolution are somewhat flimsy, but clause 4 has won over our people and the message is clear and understandable.

Charlotte Ryberg has reluctantly decided to vote FOR, because the fight against terrorism is just as essential as preventing crime. However, there are some incorrect wording and a lack of definition of terrorism.

My region, excepting one discontent who is likely going to use this and call us terrorists, has voted against this.

However, we of the executive branch of Vivianne the Lovely propose that immediately after this bill is signed into law(for no force except a terrorist attack on the WA could stop it) another bill is created that defines terrorism. Or simply repeal it at a later date.

That'd be nice too.

World Assembly Delegate for the Commonwealth of Vivianne the Lovely,
Max Power

Why not simply assume that forceful and violent opposition to the government is terrorism?

Your nation, simply by existing, is forcefully and violently resisting my nation's government's right to occupy your territory and build the world's largest day spa within it. You are a terrorist, I call the WA to bring the hammer of 20,000 nations on you.

Get it now? "Terrorism" is a term used to condemn another group's actions, and they might consider you terrorists in return. Then the WA, who has been called to act(yet does not have to) has an interesting decision to make. Who, exactly, is the terrorist? The one who struck first? But were they simply defending a freedom or right that their opponent was about to squash?

~World Assembly Delegate for the Commonwealth of Vivianne the Lovely
Max Power

The KSPP would like to point out that it is this kind of mentality which allowed for terrorism to allow real-world territories such as Kosovo to break away from Serbia or indeed for Yugoslavia to dissolve in the first place. We are fervently against this school of thought.

We agree that there has to be one standard for terrorism but we do not agree with the suggestion given by Onalos. The very concept of "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" has led us to adopt the stance that attempts by "ethnic groups" or "oppressed minorities" to split away from the motherland will be treated as sedition.

The WSK government has ruled in favour of supporting this resolution because we feel that it is in the interests of not only our nation but the world as a whole. Perhaps some of the elements of the resolution are somewhat flimsy, but clause 4 has won over our people and the message is clear and understandable.


Wurmald agrees with the KSPP and endorses the KSPP's decision

Speaking as one who is frequently accused of being fluffy, and quite frequently proud to plead guilty to it, we can assure Ambassador Krytellin that our heart has remained resolutely untickled by this proposal.

You are quite correct, Ambassador, and I apologize. I should have said "the hearts of nations whose idiot ambassadors don't read anything other than the title of resolutions they're voting on".

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Charlotte Ryberg has reluctantly decided to vote FOR, because the fight against terrorism is just as essential as preventing crime. However, there are some incorrect wording and a lack of definition of terrorism.

Some incorrect wording? The entire resolution is incorrect wording. It defines nothing, does nothing, and blocks better legislation that might, you know, do something to prevent terrorism. Please consider changing your vote.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Why not simply assume that forceful and violent opposition to the government is terrorism?


because, WSK, the WA HATES everything that is simple and easy
:headbang:

because, WSK, the WA HATES everything that is simple and easy
:headbang:

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to point out that by the definition given by the respected ambassador for Western Serb Krajina for terrorism the recent riots in our nation over a controversial official visit by a neighbouring countries president who's nation is accused of war crimes would have been defined as terrorism. this would have criminalised thousands of our nations otherwise law abiding citizens who were angry simply because they had a concience. it is worth pointing out that in matters of law, simple is not always better and easy is not always most usefull.
in fact it is the very brevity and lack of subtelty combined with lack of effectiveness that makes the current resolution at vote so injurious to the nations of this organisation.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench


we would like to point out that the official visit in question was cancelled at the last minute due to the violent nature of our peoples objection to it.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

Charlotte Ryberg has reluctantly decided to vote FOR, because the fight against terrorism is just as essential as preventing crime. However, there are some incorrect wording and a lack of definition of terrorism.
We would urge the respected Charlotte to change her mind. The fight against terrorism is indeed important, and this proposal does nothing to advance that fight. Indeed, it could well be regarded as an impediment to the fight, due to its awesome lack of force.

Why not simply assume that forceful and violent opposition to the government is terrorism?
The General Secretary is entitled to make such an assumption. Another nation is entitled to assume that any opposition to the government is terrorism, and call on your to fulfil your international obligations to prop up their regime. A third nation is entitled to assume that any action of your nation is an act of terrorism against them. Such is the folly of inadequate definition in law.

Why not simply assume that forceful and violent opposition to the government is terrorism?
... because sometimes the government is wrong yet prohibits peaceful solutions, and it's the responsibility of the citizenry to correct that injustice?
The KSPP would like to point out that it is this kind of mentality which allowed for terrorism to allow real-world territories such as Kosovo to break away from Serbia or indeed for Yugoslavia to dissolve in the first place.
We would like to point out that it is the kind of mentality which allowed for terrorism to allow real-world territories such as the United States of America to break off from Great Britain, and as such don't particularly care for blanket statements that assume they're all the same.

You have evidence of this? If that's so, why did the old UN defeat the 'Anti-Terrorism Act'? Why would it ever vote for repeals of successful resolutions? There's nothing to prove that most WA nations vote based on cursory readings of proposals, however convenient it might be to assume that.

The Confederacy of Tredong stands with its regional delegate in saying that many members may in fact read proposals in the WA, and the Narnian Council's pessimism has no reasoning.

The Confederacy of Tredong has voted FOR this resolution, in contrary to its region. The Confederacy strongly supports the 6th clause in identifying causes of terrorism and stopping them at the source. May it be known that all forms of terrorism in the Confederacy are repudiated. The Confederacy does not tolerate any forms of destructive resistance, which it views as treasonous to mankind.

*The venerable President Judy L. Streisand approaches the podium, clears her throat, and speaks*

The Sprawling Verdant Utopia of The Gay Pagans would first like to recognize the deep compassion that went into the formulation of this resolution.

We are impressed by the recognition of that old standby of economists known as "cause-and-effect." The concern that is paid to the supposed causes of terrorism is touching, and its inclusion in the resolution shows a deep thoughtfulness.

We can not, however, support this resolution as it is written.

We echo the concerns that many of our fellow WA members have voiced. The lack of terrorism's defining characteristics leaves a large hole in the resolution, and it is our fear that some nations may use this resolution to violate civil- and human-rights in the name of counter-terrorism. While we fear this sort of abuse is, in many respects, inevitable, we do not wish for the WA to tacitly "endorse" these actions because they are done in the name of a Resolution.

The fact is, there can not be an overlying definition of terrorism, because different nations, depending on their national policies, will view terrorism differently. For instance we are a nation that prizes, above all things, civil freedoms and environmental preservation. We would go so far as to consider large-scale poaching a terrorist act, because it violates the very core values that our nation holds dear. Many other countries would not consider poaching to be a terrorist act. Conversely, a country whose economic growth and stability is their flagship concern would have a very different definition of terrorism, and may feel highly threatened by things at which we would barely bat an eye.

Furthermore, while some concern is given to the causes of terrorism, the primary objective of the resolution is to deal with the effects of terrorism and the prevention of terrorist acts. It is our experience that terrorists continue to find newer, more horrifying methods of terrorizing, and the very nature of terrorism evolves over time in tandem with the societies it hopes to enslave. A more thoughtful and complete approach would be to address the supposed causes directly, with the implication that terrorism itself and its effects would be addressed in the long-run.

We also would like to address these "causes underlying international terrorism." Civil- and Human-rights violations, as well as alien occupation are supposed to be major causes of terrorism. While this is probably true, there is not sufficient evidence that these are the underlying motivators behind terrorist groups, and it's also a rather narrow supposition.

Why does the resolution fail to address things such as radical religious fundamentalism? Many of the worst terrorist acts in recent memory have been expressly in the name of a "God" or church. The resolution also makes no mention of separatist insurgencies, fueled by regional militias. The desire for secession is often a huge motivator for terrorism. Again, there is no way to create a blanket of concern to address all causes of terrorism, as the possibilities are virtually endless.

I do believe, however, that we can all recognize the seeds of discord when planted in our societies, and regardless of a nation's priorities, the danger they represent to our citizens will be apparent.

The resolution tries to hard to be all things to all nations. I think a better way for the WA to address our concerns regarding terrorism would be to approve a string of anti-terrorist resolutions, each of them addressing a specific "cause." This may not eliminate terrorism, but it will help ensure that all members nations are doing everything they can to minimize their direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional contribution to terrorist acts and regimes.

No definition, no vote. AGAINST.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Ambassador

The Republic of Afresion has come to the conclusion that the resolution gives no promise in preventing terrorism and only complicates matters more. We have voted AGAINST the treaty and urge our fellow nations to do the same.

We are gratified that so many members of this assembly now approve of international definitions of terrorism, after witnessing so many hysterical protestations that defining and outlawing international terrorism would limit the ability of "freedom fighters" to function. We take it, then, that these same members would not be averse to future legislation further defining international terrorism, and forbidding members from aiding and abetting any groups or individuals who engage in it? This is most reassuring. We'll be sure to note all the objections to this proposal when subsequent anti-terror legislation is introduced to this body. Thank you all for your constructive input; we will report back as more information on the feasibility of an anti-terror treaty becomes available.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA

In representation of The Nomadic Peoples of Gammoria, the WA delegate of Slavic Polynesia is confused as to how this proposition, if passed. will affect his country.
"This seems to answer none of the cries heard from my people to prevent terrorism. Until we see a clear definition of 'terrorism' or 'terrorists' and see the actual resolution proposed, we vote AGAINST this proposal."

We are gratified that so many members of this assembly now approve of international definitions of terrorism, after witnessing so many hysterical protestations that defining and outlawing international terrorism would limit the ability of "freedom fighters" to function. We take it, then, that these same members would not be averse to future legislation further defining international terrorism, and forbidding members from aiding and abetting any groups or individuals who engage in it? This is most reassuring. We'll be sure to note all the objections to this proposal when subsequent anti-terror legislation is introduced to this body. Thank you all for your constructive input; we will report back as more information on the feasibility of an anti-terror treaty becomes available.

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the WA


the government of the emperor of urgench would welcome any resolution that actively and substantively dealt with the causes, prevention and irradication of terrorism. THIS RESOLUTION DOES NONE OF THOSE THINGS, and this is why we have opposed it.
surely the respected delegate for schuttegod is suggesting a repeal of this resolution before another anti terrorism bill can be brought before us?

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

the government of the emperor of urgench would welcome any resolution that actively and substantively dealt with the causes, prevention and irradication of terrorism. THIS RESOLUTION DOES NONE OF THOSE THINGS, and this is why we have opposed it.
surely the respected delegate for schuttegod is suggesting a repeal of this resolution before another anti terrorism bill can be brought before us?We would welcome any repeal of this bill, but we agree with the Quodite delegation that a repeal is not necessary for further legislation on the subject. When substantive legislation against international terrorism is introduced, we will remind you of the stance you have adopted today. Thank you.

!!OMG!! What is it with the 'YES' drones?!
There has been far more people on here slating this resolution, as with many other resolutions, then praising it. Yet more people are voting FOR than AGAINST!
It doesn't add up! Many many people need to see sense to read into it, rather then just the title, and think 'Ahh that sounds like a good resolution' scrolling to the bottom, past all the important bits, and clicking FOR.

Prime Minister of the Holy Allied Empire of Pasier Rise Ahmad Firdaus has it right when he stated

"This doesn't even define terrorism well. This is really too broad. If someone attempts to pass a law in our Kingdom, that jeopardize most of the people's civil freedom, would that be international terrorism?

We urge that this law be redraft before it passed. We like this resolution. But the flaws would actually defeat its purpose. We voted AGAINST this proposal."

Redraft it before its passed!

We would welcome any repeal of this bill, but we agree with the Quodite delegation that a repeal is not necessary for further legislation on the subject. When substantive legislation against international terrorism is introduced, we will remind you of the stance you have adopted today. Thank you.

the government of the emperor of urgench would like to assure the noble ambassador for Schuttegod that they are welcome, though we do not know what we could have possibly done to deserve your great nations thanks.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

... Did it ever say what terrorism was? In fact, with the first part, all it says is terrorism is illegal. Well obviously. The problem is what is or is not terrorism. Violent protestors? Terroristic threats? Suicidal/psychotic youth? There's a fine line between mass murder and terrorism. In fact, so fine that sometimes you can't even see it.
This is why I am voting against this resolution. I don't think there's any debate as to whether terrorism is illegal; it's all about what is terrorism. And this just doesn't do anything about that.

I would like to state that the Holy Republic of RyanBrum and through us the region of the Country of Fire supports this resolution, though it does not make terrorism illegal. But it will put a choke on it.:D

The voting ends June 17 and as of now the votes FOR this resolution exceed the votes against it by roughly 1700 votes. Not to assume this is true, but I highly doubt enough incompetent voters will actually read these arguments and find out what is really going on, instead of just reading the title. I still fail to see the true sense in this proposition.

... because sometimes the government is wrong yet prohibits peaceful solutions, and it's the responsibility of the citizenry to correct that injustice?

The General Secretary recognises the theory of John Locke's "right to rebellion" but suggests that it is important not to have a free-for-all in the streets. The KSPP has already acknowledged that the opposition must be VIOLENT. The KSPP is also the party that represents the people and we accordingly believe that it is in the government's BEST INTERESTS to serve the people well. A solid government and reasonably popular government will always last longer that a corrupt, inefficient, and brutal one.

We would like to point out that it is the kind of mentality which allowed for terrorism to allow real-world territories such as the United States of America to break off from Great Britain, and as such don't particularly care for blanket statements that assume they're all the same.

The General Secretary rejects your point here by saying that the United States had no right as a collection of British-funded colonies to secede from the Empire in 1776. The American Revolution was nothing more than greedy "Americans" (in truth, these were simply expat Brits) tricking the majority of the American people into thinking that independence was a better solution. The King should have sent Cornwallis more soldiers! But I digress...

We feel that the resolution will at least form the basis of a new resolution which may be more effective in future. The General Secretary has ALREADY stated that it is simply Clause 4 which makes the KSPP vote in favour of this resolution. Our minds have not changed.

Hello all,

When I saw the title for this proposal, I imagined that my vote, (and the vote of my region,) would be FOR this resolution. After reading the proposal though, I was greatly disappointed. This resolution, while making a noble attempt at preventing the awful terrorism that has often plagued the NationStates world, I have some of the problems that some of my fellow delegates and nations appear to have.

This resolution fails to describe terrorism, and, aside from Clause 4 calls for NO action. It seems to only discourage terrorism, and while I share this idea, I fail to see ANY reason for the World Assembly to be muddled by a proposal that effectively does nothing. My region, New Schuyler Kingdom, was recently plagued by a bizarre "Animalist Revolution;" headed by a terrorist group that wanted control of our region handed over to animals. For three days they ran wild in some of our regions cities, one of them the border city of Crowngrad, which had fourty-four civilian deaths. After our army supressed this strange militarsitic "Animalist Revolution," the Queen, myself, and our House of Lords met to discuss this awful incident. We came to the conclusion that terrorist acts needed to be passed in our own region. After thouroghly analizing this proposal, our House of Lords decided to denounce the proposal and encouraged our citizens to vote AGAINST the act.

My, and the vote of New Schuyler Kingdom is AGAINST.

Additionally, if this act passes, I would join any attempt to repeal the resolution, and submit and pass a proposal on the floor that would actually prevent terrorism.

Good Day,

Roddyville
Prime-Minister/W.A. Delegate
New Schuyler Kingdom

The voting ends June 17 and as of now the votes FOR this resolution exceed the votes against it by roughly 1700 votes. Not to assume this is true, but I highly doubt enough incompetent voters will actually read these arguments and find out what is really going on, instead of just reading the title. I still fail to see the true sense in this proposition.

On another note, perhaps we should get more people to either READ THE PROPOSAL!!! or use the W.A. forums...

!!OMG!! What is it with the 'YES' drones?!
There has been far more people on here slating this resolution, as with many other resolutions, then praising it. Yet more people are voting FOR than AGAINST!
It doesn't add up! Many many people need to see sense to read into it, rather then just the title, and think 'Ahh that sounds like a good resolution' scrolling to the bottom, past all the important bits, and clicking FOR.




It is very simple make the titles not in massive bold stand out font.. and the resolution itself in small plain ignore me and only read the title font. It makes it so easy for the idiots.. make them read it or flip a coin im so tired of titles deciding what passes.

The Supreme Commander of The Protectorate Organization of NERVUN has ordered me to state our opposition to the above proposal, mostly for the same reasons as already stated by my honored colleagues. We furthermore feel that, while its heart is in the right place, it infringes too much upon our national sovereignty and freedom of action to deal with terrorism as we see fit. NERVUN will vote no.

Thank you,
Captain Masayuki Ross
NERVUN World Assembly Liason
3rd Branch

We furthermore feel that, while its heart is in the right place, it infringes too much upon our national sovereignty and freedom of action to deal with terrorism as we see fit.Um, this proposal doesn't do anything. It doesn't mandate anything. How could it possibly be infringing upon your "national sovereignty"?

*A tired, worn looking fox walks into the Halls and plops down in the first seat he can find.*

I have done all I can do to fight this worthless proposal. I just sent hundered of telegrams to the WA delegates who voted for it, but I am not expecting any results. One can hope though. *The fox then falls asleep while waiting for the final vote count to come in.*
_______________

Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice-Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/58762/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

*A tired, worn looking fox walks into the Halls and plops down in the first seat he can find.*

I have done all I can do to fight this worthless proposal. I just sent hundered of telegrams to the WA delegates who voted for it, but I am not expecting any results. One can hope though. *The fox then falls asleep while waiting for the final vote count to come in.*
_______________

Fotar,
~King of the Talking Foxes of Narnia
~Vice-Chancellor of The Council of Narnia (http://www.nationstates.net/58762/page=display_region/region=the_council_of_narnia)

the government of the empror of urgench is sure it speaks for all right thinking and sensible nations when it thanks the highly respected and esteemed ambassador, his majesty the King of the Narnian Foxes for his great exertions in this matter. we only regret that such effort was so vital, since right thinking and good sense seem to be in such scarcity as regards this appalingly awful resolution.
the government of the emperor of urgench hopes that the horde of the King of the Narnian foxes will ride swiftly across the plain for all time.

yours e.t.c. Mongkha, khan of kashgar, ambassador to the world assembly for urgench

Although I like the intent of the measure, it does not define what terrorism. What would prevent a rebel group that only attacks military targets from being labeled as a terrorist group? This why the Republic of The State of New York will be voting against the measure.

Terrorism is one of the greatest threats to the world, something must be done fast to try and reduce this growing threat, if you could just edit the resolution a little bit then the resolution would be better

As long as A.H.L. can decide who is or is not a threat, without outside intervention.
If we find that a suspect is just pretending to be a threat, or not a seriouse threat, then we will deal with them on our own.

Says the damn hippies :headbang:

Terrorism is one of the greatest threats to the world, something must be done fast to try and reduce this growing threat, if you could just edit the resolution a little bit then the resolution would be better


Unforunately unless a miracle happens, the only way to get a good, comprehensive resolution about terrorism is to repeal the damned thing.
Excelsior,
Senator Horatio Sulla

(just to let you know mate, you cannot edit or amend a resolution once it is up for vote. The whole thing must either be voted down or repealed.)

The Nation of Coleslaw Dinner fully supports the prevention of terrorism.

We feel that it will ensure the safety of our fellow nations and the nations to come from unwanted attacks.

Great job!

Your Resolution just passed at 5,660 votes to 3,853!

Fail.

Um, this proposal doesn't do anything. It doesn't mandate anything. How could it possibly be infringing upon your "national sovereignty"?
Points 3, 4, 5, and 6. While calling, urging, etc, it still provides the force of the voice of the WA into how we deal with terrorism. That is unacceptable.

OOC: It also sounded good. :p

Points 3, 4, 5, and 6. While calling, urging, etc, it still provides the force of the voice of the WA into how we deal with terrorism. That is unacceptable.

May we tentatively suggest that the honoured ambassador's nation withdraw forthwith from the World Assembly, since we can imagine no resolution passing into law which is less intrusive to their sovereignty.

Corrently we have a resolution to cancel this resolution on vote. I have to say, that I agree that resolution #12 is far from perfect, and want to urge all WA members to support the resolution to cancel resolution 12, but I must say that we need a resolution about world terror, and we need to pass a replacement as soon as possible, on that condition I support it.

Corrently we have a resolution to cancel this resolution on vote. I have to say, that I agree that resolution #12 is far from perfect, and want to urge all WA members to support the resolution to cancel resolution 12, but I must say that we need a resolution about world terror, and we need to pass a replacement as soon as possible, on that condition I support it.

A proposed replacement has been drafted here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=568863), and will be submitted as soon as the repeal passes. We hope this is sufficient to gain your support. We also encourage you to comment on the proposed repeal here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=570063).

I disagree completely with the whole issue of terrorism. As someone else has here said and in the words of Nelson Mandella, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

As an example just look at Northern Ireland. The Deputy First Minister was labelled a terrorsit and imprisoned for it but, at the time, America saw it as freedom fighting and supplied the paramilitary organisation he was in with weaponry. Terrorism is not the huge issue it is being made out to be.

Terrorism is not the huge issue it is being made out to be.

your nation has clearly never been subject to terrorism. however, to all nations who have been subject to this ruthless form of warfare, terrrorism is a very large issue.

our replacement hopes to better fight and eliminate it through all possible ways and more efficiently make the world a safer place.

we also not that we recognize that there are some who are called terrorists but are fighting for their freedoms recognizing their efforts.

Wachichi