NationStates Jolt Archive

Our commitee of wise folk is updating our criminal law. We intend to do our share in eliminating terrorism. First though, we need a very clear, rock-solid definitio of the crime. Not just examples of what terrorism is and what not. So, we call upon the rest of NS to help us.

We need a clear definition, because the punishment will be very horrible, and rule of law dictates that the law be understandable to all.

Bring it on!

P.S. It is especially important that the line between self-defense, or national defense, and terrorism, be clear.

Violent means used by people that those in power (i.e. those doing the defining) oppose, or to further aims that they do not support.

Violent means used by people that those in power (i.e. those doing the defining) oppose, or to further aims that they do not support.

...if an objective and just and righteous third party is doing the defining?

...if an objective and just and righteous third party is doing the defining?
That is what an objective third party would say

Purposeful targetting of non-combatant civilians to foster an atmosphere of fear with the intention of utilizing that fear and its associated coverage to further political ends unacheivable through direct confrontation with armed targets.

Or something like that...hopefully somebody can make it shorter and less wordy.

For what it's worth, I think the commonly held idea about terrorism is all wrong. It's just a phrase people have picked up.

A terrorist is someone who uses tactics of terror (really...), not someone who uses attacks against the public. So for me, 9/11, however disgusting and awful, is debatlable as to it was terrorism. I mean, sure it's scary to see a plane in your city in that sense, but it was otherwise a civilian attack.

On the opposite side, an army who only attacks other soldiers, but who wear skull masks and play scary music over loud speakers at night when they attack (it IS done) are, in my mind, using terror-tactics.

So it really depends on which example you're talking about - attacks on civilians, or attacks using the psychology of terror. Sorry to be pedantic, but I hope it helps.

:mp5:

terror is "harm civilians to make them fear from you, and act the way you want them to act".
I think it could include explode their holy places or something like that, even if nobody had been hurt.

"Acts of aggression against living or non-living (usually but not exclusively civillian) targets which are intended to foster an atmosphere of fear in the target state with a view to disrupting the normal processes and culture of the state targeted."

I know it's cumbersome, but then again legalese quite often is ;) . Hope it's useful.

"Acts of aggression against living or non-living (usually but not exclusively civillian) targets which are intended to foster an atmosphere of fear in the target state with a view to disrupting the normal processes and culture of the state targeted."

I know it's cumbersome, but then again legalese quite often is ;) . Hope it's useful.
Didn't Shock and awe that US government did qualifies?
So are we terrorist loosely?

So it really depends on which example you're talking about - attacks on civilians, or attacks using the psychology of terror. Sorry to be pedantic, but I hope it helps.

:mp5:

We are not talking about a particular example, but terrorism in general. We agree that terrorism is bad and we want do join in the war on terror, but we need to know the enemy. Our just, righteous and objective body of legislation insists that the definition be clear, because once the law is redy, justice will be swift and merciless!

Come on, it can´t be that difficult. Everone hates terrorism, right, so there must be somone who knows exactly what it is, and what it is not!

OK, I give up. It is apparently only a matter of opinion. Maybe terrorism should be renamed. Alternative politics. Terrorists = alternative politicians.

How about guerilla warfare?

Hmm. How about those financing it? ´Fraid not. We can´t go arresting and punishing those. Too many governments have been doing that lately. But thanks :)

Didn't Shock and awe that US government did qualifies?
So are we terrorist loosely?


I'm not sure what you mean with the first bit. Could you rephrase? I am not making or starting any accusations about the US or its govt. I just thought this might be a usable definition of terrorism for the purposes of NS.

terrorism is the political tactic of bringing your grievance to the world's notice by purposely killing innocent unrelated people in a flashy manner.

it is NOT terrorism when an iraqi blows up a US military convoy. those soldiers are a legitimate target for anyone fighting to get the US out of iraq.

it IS terrorism when they blow up a school bus full of children. those tactics are a way of keeping the civilian population in line and to get the people of the US and other countries who support our war there to reconsider our involvement in the region.

terrorist tactics have become so effective that its hard now to know just what is "terrorism" and what is an asshole with meglomania. given bin ladens changing story of why he decided to target the world trade center, was it terrorism or just his way of making himself more important in the moslem fundamentalist world? was tim mcveigh a terrorist or just an asshole who was hoping to start a new american revolution?

Our commitee of wise folk is updating our criminal law. We intend to do our share in eliminating terrorism. First though, we need a very clear, rock-solid definitio of the crime. Not just examples of what terrorism is and what not. So, we call upon the rest of NS to help us.

We need a clear definition, because the punishment will be very horrible, and rule of law dictates that the law be understandable to all.

Bring it on!

P.S. It is especially important that the line between self-defense, or national defense, and terrorism, be clear.
Terrorism is:
An act of war against the civillians and government of a soverign power by unaffiliated parties who seek to further a political agenda.
An act of war against the civillians and government of a soverign power by citizens of that soverign power who seek to further a political agenda wherein the act is isolated or of infrequent occurrance so that is not in fact a full blown rebellion or when it is politically inexpedient to call such acts a revolution.
It is not to be confused with crimes against humanity which are only committed by the losing side of any given conflict.

...
It is not to be confused with crimes against humanity which are only committed by the losing side of any given conflict.

Is terrorism then not a crime against humanity? A matter of scale perhaps?

Is terrorism then not a crime against humanity? A matter of scale perhaps?
Is a ball a sphere? At what point does intentional killing become murder?

Is a ball a sphere?

eeh...is it not? Pardon my denseness...would you perhaps care to elaborate?

eeh...is it not?
It is a sub group at best. Legal definitions are precise. I might kill a person and have various legal outcomes ranging from execution to exoneration. Notwithstanding a person lies dead.

It is a sub group at best. Legal definitions are precise. I might kill a person and have various legal outcomes ranging from execution to exoneration. Notwithstanding a person lies dead.

Right, but defining the crime is one thing, deciding punishment is another

...
It is not to be confused with crimes against humanity which are only committed by the losing side of any given conflict.

the losing side only? is this in line with ´victors write history´?

]
It is not to be confused with crimes against humanity which are only committed by the losing side of any given conflict.

Not to be picky, but in this statement you basically imply that (for instance) the death camps of the nazis were only crimes against humanity after they started losing. Or is it the fact of losing that makes it a crime agqinst humanity? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are you saying that these are not crimes against humanity because the US didn't lose that conflict? What about agent orange and napalm in Vietnam? Are they only crimes because the US lost that one?

Sorry but IMO your logic is flawed.

Right, but defining the crime is one thing, deciding punishment is another
Historically, all end up in execution. It's really a nuance that mobilizes the masses.

Historically, all end up in execution. It's really a nuance that mobilizes the masses.

What do you mean? Speak up, please!

I've seen some interesting ideas, but once you get literal, it has a whole new meaning.

"Terrorisim", literally, is the tactics of terror, as heard before. But the slang "terrorisim" is the more guerilla, attacking (mostly) civilians, type of definition we are used to. In that more everyday sense, the literal terrorisim would be more like scare tactics, psycological warfare, ect.

Not to be picky, but in this statement you basically imply that (for instance) the death camps of the nazis were only crimes against humanity after they started losing. Or is it the fact of losing that makes it a crime agqinst humanity? How about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are you saying that these are not crimes against humanity because the US didn't lose that conflict? What about agent orange and napalm in Vietnam? Are they only crimes because the US lost that one?

Sorry but IMO your logic is flawed.
What stance are you taking? A moralistic or a legal one? You are obviously missing my tone in addressing the initial question posted by the thread author.

So I'll do a twofer here.

At the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials who tried who for what?

What do you mean? Speak up, please!
see above -

PS - Try to be more patient. I have a home life in addition to the time spent here.

see above
ok, got it ;)

I've seen some interesting ideas, but once you get literal, it has a whole new meaning.

"Terrorisim", literally, is the tactics of terror, as heard before. But the slang "terrorisim" is the more guerilla, attacking (mostly) civilians, type of definition we are used to. In that more everyday sense, the literal terrorisim would be more like scare tactics, psycological warfare, ect.

So, when people speak of ´war on terror' they are referring to what? Exactly?

I am questioning your assertion that winning or losing a conflict defines whether actions are crimes against humanity. This is spurious reasoning on your part. Obviously history is written by the winners and (not wanting to be the bad guys in the eyes of future generations) they put their own bias onto the acts they committed. This does not change the acts themselves or the effect on the world. I notice that you completely ignored my questions regarding specific incidents and whether they are crimes against humanity or not and threw out a question regarding the Nuremburg Trials. I ask you this - Do you think that those trials would have occurred if Germany had won? Of course not! Does that make what happened in the death camps any less of a crime against humanity? Of course not!

ok, got it ;)
I am not suggesting anything but an examination of how these things are handled historically. Should Truman have been brought up on charges for Hiroshima or, even moreso, Nagasaki? Should LBJ be charged for the atrocities in Viet Nam? Should Bush be charged with (along with a myraid of other things) having the civillian population (including young children) of Lower Manhattan return to their homes, schools and places of business knowing full well that the area was filled with contaminants that will shorten their lives?

One of the things about power is that it exonerates the powerful of any and all wrong doing. Had the Allies lost WWII you can be quite certain that Germany & Japan would have had quite a field day with the horrors inflicted on them.

So it goes.

I am questioning your assertion that winning or losing a conflict defines whether actions are crimes against humanity. This is spurious reasoning on your part. Obviously history is written by the winners and (not wanting to be the bad guys in the eyes of future generations) they put their own bias onto the acts they committed. This does not change the acts themselves or the effect on the world. I notice that you completely ignored my questions regarding specific incidents and whether they are crimes against humanity or not and threw out a question regarding the Nuremburg Trials. I ask you this - Do you think that those trials would have occurred if Germany had won? Of course not! Does that make what happened in the death camps any less of a crime against humanity? Of course not!

Why select one atrocity? Is it your favorite? Thare are many examples of many more people being exterminated than that. Your question is OT and my answers are sufficient.

So, when people speak of ´war on terror' they are referring to what? Exactly?
they are referring to the dream world that will come about when you can find a way to prevent the politically disenfranchised (as well as the criminally meglomaniacal) from using violence to get their grievances noticed by those in power.

they think that we can use violence to prevent violence. that if we just squish those "bad people" harder they will fall into line and come to love us. that if we kill enough the rest will not seek vengance. that there are people in the world who can be convinced by bombs to accept their lot at the bottom.

As me being the leader as the Commenwealth of Irelandville say that terroism is an illegal act of our constitution and i think that if there is ever a problem that we should join as one "E Plurbius Unum" to fight against these terror acts

Sincerely,The leader of the Commenwealth of Ireland

...
they think that we can use violence to prevent violence. that if we just squish those "bad people" harder they will fall into line and come to love us. that if we kill enough the rest will not seek vengance. that there are people in the world who can be convinced by bombs to accept their lot at the bottom.
´Bomb them into democracy´, well if democracy is not the ultimate, all-encompassing solution, what is? if anything?

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
That covers idiots who call in bomb threats, to guys who actually plant bombs.

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.
That covers idiots who call in bomb threats, to guys who actually plant bombs.

It covers a lot more

Of course there are many many more issues that I could raise. I just chose readily recognisable ones for convenience of conversation. I agree that Germany and Japan would have done the same thing and with reason. I was going to mention that in my last post but edited it out for brevity.

As for having a favourite atrocity, that's a really sad attempt at character assassination to imply that I am a "fan" of such things and I had hoped that it might not degenerate into this but I suppose I give people too much credit.

My question is not really OT as it relates to your assertion that the victors of a conflict are incapable of committing crimes against humanity. Your answers are not sufficient as you cite historical references in the real world as your reasons for allowing powerful nations in NS the theoretical freedom to commit acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity if they are the "winners".

That may be how it works in the real world and I won't argue this but I thought the point of this thread was to define what would be considered to be terrorism in the world of NS. There are many things that are run differently here.

That may be how it works in the real world and I won't argue this but I thought the point of this thread was to define what would be considered to be terrorism in the world of NS. There are many things that are run differently here.

Still, what is NS but a reflection of RL? That is where the players come from, and from where they draw their experience and knowledge. There is a strong connection. Inseverable too.

Of course but one example that springs readily to mind is that in NS the UN can arbitrarily take weapons away from countries. THAT doesn't happen in the real world. You can say "but that's just one example" but that's all I need to show that there is a difference.

OK this is getting really pointless. I just wanted to state my opinion, not hijack the thread. I'll agree to disagree if you want. :) . Exchange over from my end.

Bottom line seems to be that law against terrorism would be pointless because it could never be enforced against powerful nations. No matter what definition we use, it will never exclude actions seen to be legitimate by some big and important government. :(

So it goes. Exactly. #%#%$&*!!!!

For months the US news media have accepted the term "insurgents" for
those fighting against the US-installed Vichy-type government in Iraq,
rather than using the usually accepted term "the resistance" for those
fighting against foreign occupation. On October 23, Army
propagandists went a step further: In an Associated Press article run in Gannett newspapers under the heading "U.S. Marines, insurgents clash again in Fallujah" it was reported that "The U.S. command said it had no
information on 'anti-Iraq forces' killed."
The U.S. Army referred to native Iraqis fighting against foreign
occupation as "anti-Iraq forces", and the Associated Press first put
quotations around the term. Later in the article it was reported that
"Multiple secondary explosions were seen but the military said it had no
information on anti-Iraq forces killed", and this time "anti-Iraq forces"
were not in quotations, so it is possible that we will be seeing more
of this term. Using these new, Orwellian definitions, those in Holland
fighting against German occupation during WW II were not "the Dutch
Resistance", but "anti-Holland insurgents".

(passed on from a friend)

´Bomb them into democracy´, well if democracy is not the ultimate, all-encompassing solution, what is? if anything?

im all for democracy but it doesnt seem to make much sense to me to think you can cram it down peoples throats. besides there are many non-democratic countries in the world who dont have terrorists and many democratic ones who DO.

the best solution to the problem is RESPECT. if we treated the rest of the world with respect no matter how politically weak they are, it would go a long way toward cooling off the heated emotions that spawn terror against us. the biggest solvable cause of terror can be mitigated by having legitimate grievances taken into consideration without forcing people to resort to killing innocent people just to get noticed.

there is of course no real solution to terrorism just as there is no real way to prevent all murder. no matter how fair we are, someone will be on the losing end and some of those on the losing end will be willing to resort to terror in an effort to get things to go their way. just as there are people who feel justified in killing some little old lady in order to take her pension check. but we can bring it to a minimum where terrorists are considered criminals instead of freedom fighters.

For months the US news media have accepted the term "insurgents" for
those fighting against the US-installed Vichy-type government in Iraq,
rather than using the usually accepted term "the resistance" for those
fighting against foreign occupation. On October 23, Army
propagandists went a step further: In an Associated Press article run in Gannett newspapers under the heading "U.S. Marines, insurgents clash again in Fallujah" it was reported that "The U.S. command said it had no
information on 'anti-Iraq forces' killed."
The U.S. Army referred to native Iraqis fighting against foreign
occupation as "anti-Iraq forces", and the Associated Press first put
quotations around the term. Later in the article it was reported that
"Multiple secondary explosions were seen but the military said it had no
information on anti-Iraq forces killed", and this time "anti-Iraq forces"
were not in quotations, so it is possible that we will be seeing more
of this term. Using these new, Orwellian definitions, those in Holland
fighting against German occupation during WW II were not "the Dutch
Resistance", but "anti-Holland insurgents".

(passed on from a friend)
at least we stopped caling them terrorists

Terrorism is basically anything that threatens the Powers that Be. All governments are based on the principle of might-makes-right.

Of course there are many many more issues that I could raise. I just chose readily recognisable ones for convenience of conversation. I agree that Germany and Japan would have done the same thing and with reason. I was going to mention that in my last post but edited it out for brevity.

As for having a favourite atrocity, that's a really sad attempt at character assassination to imply that I am a "fan" of such things and I had hoped that it might not degenerate into this but I suppose I give people too much credit.

My question is not really OT as it relates to your assertion that the victors of a conflict are incapable of committing crimes against humanity. Your answers are not sufficient as you cite historical references in the real world as your reasons for allowing powerful nations in NS the theoretical freedom to commit acts of terrorism and crimes against humanity if they are the "winners".

That may be how it works in the real world and I won't argue this but I thought the point of this thread was to define what would be considered to be terrorism in the world of NS. There are many things that are run differently here.

Good gravy! You sure do have an active imagination! So then I take it you want to run NS as your vision of utopia. Was this thread marked as RP? I didn't see that if it was. I avoid those threads as I make an earnest attempt to live in the real world.

I related examples from the real world to note the inherent pitfalls. Note the text marked in bold in your quote above. That is not what I said but perhaps what you heard or desire me to have said. The comment was made tongue in cheek, as were the definitions.

Favorite? That does not necessarily imply that you take pleasure from it or have a pride in it. It was used as a favorite example of genocide. By making a point of your misreading of my comments you assassinate your own "character" - or at least wit.

If after all my further commentary you can still find fault, then you are beyond the reach of reasoned exchange.

:rolleyes:

For months the US news media have accepted the term "insurgents" for
those fighting against the US-installed Vichy-type government in Iraq,
rather than using the usually accepted term "the resistance" for those
fighting against foreign occupation. On October 23, Army
propagandists went a step further: In an Associated Press article run in Gannett newspapers under the heading "U.S. Marines, insurgents clash again in Fallujah" it was reported that "The U.S. command said it had no
information on 'anti-Iraq forces' killed."
The U.S. Army referred to native Iraqis fighting against foreign
occupation as "anti-Iraq forces", and the Associated Press first put
quotations around the term. Later in the article it was reported that
"Multiple secondary explosions were seen but the military said it had no
information on anti-Iraq forces killed", and this time "anti-Iraq forces"
were not in quotations, so it is possible that we will be seeing more
of this term. Using these new, Orwellian definitions, those in Holland
fighting against German occupation during WW II were not "the Dutch
Resistance", but "anti-Holland insurgents".

(passed on from a friend)
Excellent! This how the war for "belief" (aka Hearts & Minds) goes. The case can be made for the use of terrorism as a tactic. After all what would you call the "Shock & Awe" approach?