NationStates Jolt Archive


Redhawks Confrence on Terrorism (Private RP)

17-01-2004, 22:01
OOC: Here is the list of "attendies", anyone else who posts here will be ignored.

The Burnsian Desert
Austar Union
United Microstates
CorpSac
Exonerate
Dr_Twist
The Last Anarchy Order
Free Pacific States
Credonia
Daistallia
Corneliu
Harlekin
Crossman
Ficelle
Horizon Island
Free Roman Citizens
Cousin Eddie
Trinis

IC:


An Army officer addresses the gathered delegates.

"Welcome to RFB Kamai. You will be transported to Birkitt International Airport by helicopter, after clearing the security check point. I ask any member who is armed to surrender your weapons to the Military Police Captain, you will get them back as you leave from here after the confrence."

The delegates and their escorts are cleared at security, and board helicopters bound for the confrence.

The helicopter lands at the airport, and the delegates are greeted by Army General Jennifer Jackson.

"Welcome to The Armed Republic or Redhawks. The confrence shall begin shortly. If you have any questions [IC or OOC], just let me know."
Crossman
18-01-2004, 00:24
My guards and I will comply with your regulations and have checked our weapons with your staff.

-Darth Azrael, Secretary of State, Holy Empire of Crossman
The Burnsian Desert
18-01-2004, 00:26
Does my security attache have to surrender the bamboo poles?
Dr_Twist
18-01-2004, 00:37
I have SAS troops Protecting my Prime Minister.....

Is there somwhere they can be Stationed just incase?

Also he has Secret Service men with him as well.
18-01-2004, 08:49
I have SAS troops Protecting my Prime Minister.....

Is there somwhere they can be Stationed just incase?

Also he has Secret Service men with him as well.

Yes, RFB Kamai. This is as close as we can allow them, armed.

Does my security attache have to surrender the bamboo poles?

If they can be used as weapons, then I;m sorry, but yes, but do not worry, the area is very well secure, and there are armed troops in the confrence halls themselves. Security is tight.

Now, if you'll follow the General, she shall show you to your accomendations at the Five-Star, Airport Hotel.
18-01-2004, 08:59
The Horizon Island Prime Minister approches the Redhawks Prime Minister.

"Well George, I like what you've done to the place." The Horizon PM says as the two shake hands.

"Make as many jokes as you want, old friend, but you're still the fool that let us go." The Redhawks PM joked back.

The Horizon PM continued, "Well, you seem to be doing well on your own, excelent job on this."

The Redhawks PM replied, "Well, thank you, and thank you for sending guards to ease the concerns of other nations."

"Don't mention it, George, now, shall we move on, they will be waiting for us inside."

With that, the two men entered the terminal.
Inner Heaven
18-01-2004, 14:32
OOC: Its a closed rp - terrorist cells aren't even allowed to make an attempt on your representitives lives...which is a shame - this could have been a good rp with alot of talking and some minor action.
Free Pacific States
18-01-2004, 17:28
OOC: lol, yea, that's true. But I'm sure if the need arose, we could always "talk" GLA Terrorists, Terristan, or Guerillistan into sending a team to attack the conference.
IC:
The two military pilots stayed with the plane at the army base, and the three diplomats left them, taking the helicopters to the airport. They would stay there for the duration of the day, making sure the plane was shut down safely and properly. Not that they didn't trust the RedHawks' personell, but the mechanics had enough planes to check on as it was, and the two pilots didn't want to make them work any longer than needed. They plan to request passage to the airport later in the day.
_________________________________________________________
Ambassador Kurten immediatly walked up and shook hands with the General. "It is truly a pleasure to finally be able to discuss terrorism. Let me thank you, on behalf of my nation, for hosting this conference. I do have one question....where will we be staying? Hotel room wise."

OOC:
Again, the list of those who are attending from my nation:
Ambassador Christopher(Chris) Kurten, FPS Diplomatic Corps.
Diplomat 3rd Class Katie Nistens, FPS Diplomatic Corps.
Diplomat 3rd Class Joshua(Josh) Marks, FPS Diplomatic Corps.
Luitenant Sandy Burns, FPS Air Force
Ensign Brian Maverns, FPS Navy

NOW LETS GET THIS BABY ROLLING!
Credonia
18-01-2004, 17:36
The Credonian Secretary of Defense Lauren Smith arrives onboard her personal Boeing 737 business jet. She is accompanied off the plane by four armed secret service agents.

Hmm, looks nice here. I wonder where the welcoming party is" she comments.

Taking a look around, the secret service agents scan the area to ensure it is safe.
18-01-2004, 21:31
Minister Gregory Olp, his aide Charlie Chitter, and their unarmed bodyguard Derrick Delvy stepped out of the helicopter and onto the airport strip. The three all shook hands and greeted the other representatives, and then General Jackson. "It's really a step towards peace to acknowledge and discuss terrorism. I'm glad Redhawks held this conference." said Olp to the General. "Now, where will we be until the conference?"
18-01-2004, 21:31
EDIT: Double Post
19-01-2004, 08:17
Minister Gregory Olp, his aide Charlie Chitter, and their unarmed bodyguard Derrick Delvy stepped out of the helicopter and onto the airport strip. The three all shook hands and greeted the other representatives, and then General Jackson. "It's really a step towards peace to acknowledge and discuss terrorism. I'm glad Redhawks held this conference." said Olp to the General. "Now, where will we be until the conference?"

"You are free to wander the airport grounds, and, if you wish to travel into the city, we can provide an armed escort." The General replied. "And Horizon Island will be setting up a military tech. showing in the hangers tomorrow if you wish. The confrence will be starting momentarly though, so I shall show you to the confrence hall."

She lead the group into the largest terminal, down hallways, and into a large room, decorated as if it was a room in the Paraliment. "These soldiers will show you to your seats." She said as she pointed towards a group of soldiers dressed in cerimonial dress, carrying assault rifles with bayonets and shiny white slings. The soldiers took each member to their seat. The Redhawks Prime Minister stood.

"Welcome, ladies and gentlmen. I am glad to see so many showed up for this event. Shall we begin?"
Corneliu
19-01-2004, 15:03
I, Minister Franklin, has one Secret Service Agent with me at all times! He is supposed to be next to me at all meetings. I would hope that this doesn't cause any inconvience. Please tell me, how long is this meeting going to last?
Credonia
19-01-2004, 15:10
Due to recent developments within credonia (the entire credonian first family family assasinated- President Kaimoni Sutton, First Lady Echo Sutton, and Chassidy Sutton their daughter) Credonian Secretary of State Lauren Smith will REMAIN escorted by her armed secret service agents
Free Pacific States
19-01-2004, 18:34
The three diplomats of FPS leaned forward, all quickly pulling out notes and information on terrorism. Ambassador Chris Kurten finally sat back, and said, "I don't see why not."
Free Pacific States
19-01-2004, 18:35
The three diplomats of FPS leaned forward, all quickly pulling out notes and information on terrorism. Ambassador Chris Kurten finally sat back, and said, "I don't see why not."
Credonia
20-01-2004, 20:22
IC Update: Lauren Smith is now the Credonian president
20-01-2004, 21:19
Chitter and Olp pulled out various papers and sat at attention.
21-01-2004, 10:15
"Very well, we shall begin the first day of disscussions. Redhawks proposes the creation of an international terrorism watch list for terrorists, terrorist nations, and nations supporting, supplying, and funding known terrorist. Is there any input from the floor? Which nations should be on this list? Please provide evidence."
Credonia
21-01-2004, 10:38
Madam President Smith stands.

"The first and top most nations that shoud be added to this list are GLA Terrorist, Terristan, Cuddlebugs, and Guerrillistan. They are the masterminds behind the assasination of the late presidential first family. They have admitted to it and are now in a conflict with Credonia that may possibly involve the use of nuclear weapons which they openly stated that they will use on their own people if we donot withdraw our forces from their territory. Already terrorist camps have been found by countless nations within Guerrillistan. Coalition military units are in place to take them out, but because the terrorist have threatened the use of nuclear weapons at any cost, we are forced into inaction at this time."

She takes her seat and passes the attemnding parties strong and undeniable evidence of their self admitted terrorism.

Evidence #1: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=115456
Evidence #2: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=115676
Evidence #3: http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=112644
21-01-2004, 10:43
Credonia, agreed.

Furthermore, the list should include the following:

Dr. Evil (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=115085)
Inner Haven (do I really need to post evidence on this one?)
Belem (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=115616)
The Corrupt and Lazy (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116530&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20)
Holy panooly (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116530)
21-01-2004, 10:58
Vice President Walter Williams of the Federation of United Microstates raised his hand and began to speak as soon as he was given the go-ahead signal...

"Hello and thank you for the invitation and the gracious welcome I've received ever since I arrived here in Redhawks.

"If we're going to draw up a list of terrorists, I think we should start by dealing with the GDODAD/Reich/Arda issue. As you may know, our government created a resolution, the Points of Condemnation, with the goal of bringing attention to the absolute atrocity in the Burnsian Desert commited by the nation of TROUSRS. I assume at this point we're all aware of the fact that a Trouseran general, a rogue general if the TROUSRS government is to be believed, used nuclear weapons against civilian targets in the Burnsian Desert and ended up killing nearly all of the Burnsian's 6 million citizens. Now, while it is true that TROUSRS has paid monetary "reparations," I think a further inquiry should be made into this issue of the rogue general, if an inquiry has not already been made. And it has not, so far as the Microstates government is aware.

"What concerns me here is that the 'rogue general' was just an excuse used by TROUSRS to escape the harsher punishment that was due. And even if it were the case that the attack was not ordered by the TROUSRS government, why were the attacking planes equipped with nuclear weapons in the first place?

"And one last question, before I pass this on to anyone else who wishes to speak. What kind of nation is TROUSRS that a genocidal maniac is promoted to such a leadership position within its military? If you ask me, this 'rogue general' excuse is just that - an excuse.

"Thank you."
21-01-2004, 11:05
I would be careful on the GDODAD issue, they, as a whole, have not issued any threats to anyone, and shouldn't be considered a threat. Yes, the actions of Trousers were nothing short of an act of terrorism, but the issue has been delt with and there is no other evidence to suggest they are engaged in terrorist actions. Currently, it is my nation's opinion that GDODAD, and it's member nations, should be left off the list. Individual nations from that group may be added, if more evidence comes to light that suggests that they are engaging in terrorist actions or supporting terrorists.
Dr_Twist
21-01-2004, 11:46
I would be careful on the GDODAD issue, they, as a whole, have not issued any threats to anyone, and shouldn't be considered a threat. Yes, the actions of Trousers were nothing short of an act of terrorism, but the issue has been delt with and there is no other evidence to suggest they are engaged in terrorist actions. Currently, it is my nation's opinion that GDODAD, and it's member nations, should be left off the list. Individual nations from that group may be added, if more evidence comes to light that suggests that they are engaging in terrorist actions or supporting terrorists.

I agree with this 100% GDODAD have done nothing wrong as an Organization and should not be added to such a list at this time, But Memeber nations of GDODAD that have done terrorist attacks on other Nations SHOULD NOT be left of this list becaues they have links to GDODAD.
Danneland
21-01-2004, 11:51
-tag-
Free Pacific States
21-01-2004, 16:19
Ambassador Kurten stood up, and looked around. He knew he should have researched the GDODAD issue, but hadn't thought it would come up this soon.

"GDODAD as a whole most likely did not order terrorist actions. However, it's nations still have done so, and I believe they should be added to the list. In fact, it is the opinion of my nation that anyone, no matter what their alliance, and no matter what their position with the nations in this conference, should be added. That is, should they have in the past commited terrorist actions."

"First off though, before we even compile the list, we need to define 'Terrorism'. Through the years, many actions have been attributed to terrorists. From bus bombings, to attacks by Guerillas. I think, before we can even make this list, that we need to clearly define terrorism. Personally, my nation defines it as an attack centered on civilians. This includes police and federal agencies, but not the military."

"What is the floors opinion on this?" he asked, sitting back down. Both his aides nodded, and Kurden got the idea he hadn't made any offensive comments.

OOC: By the way, I'm not saying my nation is pro-GLA or anything, I'm just saying we need a definition first, and I hope you all see that.
Crossman
21-01-2004, 20:57
Secreatary of State, Lord Darth Azrael, stood up in repsonse to Ambassador Kurten's (OOC: or is it Kurden, you spelled it both ways) idea.
"I agree with the Ambassador that we must first define what we should consider to be terrorism or terroist nations. My nation regards a nation as being a terrorist nation if it commits terrorist acts, supports terrorist groups or actions, or harbors known terrorists or terrorist groups."
Lord Azrael then sat back down, waiting for a response from those gathered.
CorpSac
21-01-2004, 21:33
The CorpSac Ambassador walks to the front of the Airport, escorted with 4 troopers in power armor the troops deativeated the assult rifles and handed them to the Secrity Guards the Shock troopers stayed outside.

The Ambassador and her asstant was escorted to there seats, she raised her hand to speak and was given the go,
"many nations harbor terrorists or terrorist groups with out knowing it does that make them a terrorist nation, i know for a fact that CorpSac has at least 3 Terrorist cells within its borders we try and stop them but no nation can be 100% free of terrorists you will always have cival terrorist within your borders people how do not like the way the nation is being run" she cleared her throut "what we need to is define a terrorist and what makes a nation a terrorist nation its not always black and white" she sat back down
CorpSac
21-01-2004, 21:35
muti post
Crossman
21-01-2004, 21:46
Lord Azrael responds, "The Ambassador from CorpSac makes a very valid point. I am sorry that I did not realize it when I said it, but yes many nations have terrorist organizations within their borders and don't know it. In that case there is an except to what I said, but I said harbored, as in knowing allowing terrorists to be within your borders. In the event that a nation does not know they are there, then the nation is not giulty of harboring them, but when they know it and allow it, there is a problem.
A nation that has terrorists within its borders, but does not allow or support them, would not be called a terrorist nation in our book. In that case it is up to the nation itself or an international taskforce if called upon to eliminate the terrorist infestation."
The Secretary then took his seat once again.
21-01-2004, 21:47
Yes, agreed. I would argue that a group who diliberatly attacks the civilan population should be considered a terrorist group. When freedom fighters and gurrillas attack, they tend to strike military and government targets, of course, understandibly, there are some civilan casulties as a result of these attacks, but civilans are rarely the intended target.
CorpSac
21-01-2004, 22:01
"freedom fighters, terrorist whats the difference both act in the same way you can gloss it over with paint there still the same. Freedom fighters and terrorists do the same job look at the UK in the 1980s and 1990s with the IRA they attack milltary targets and civilan what does that meke them Freedom fighters or Terrorists? freedom fighters is jsut a fancy way to say terrorists with nations who dont want to be told there surpporting terrorist, in our nation any Freedom Fighter is a Terrorist and is treated as one." the Ambassador sat back down
Free Pacific States
21-01-2004, 23:33
OOC: It's Kurten. Wow, that's such a newbie RP screwup. Sorry about that. And sorry to bring Iraq into this, I don't want to debate it's invasion, but it's a good backup point.
IC:
This time, Diplomat Katie Nistens stood, and, recieving a quick nod from Kurten, started. "I realize that, in the IRA's case, they did target terrorists. However, other freedom fighting groups in the past have not. The Resistance Forces in France, which are, pretty much by textbook definition, freedom fighers, did not target civilians. While they mainly did sabotaging work, when it did come down to their killing someone, they only targeted Hitler's men and their armed direct supporters, not civilians.
This can again be seen in Iraq. When the United Nations initially invaded, many Iraqi citizens picked up arms and helped the UN. Yet, I doubt anyone would call them Terrorists. Nonetheless, they fought for their countries freedom, making them freedom fighers. While some other examples are out there, I'd rather not drag on."

With that, she sat down, and waited for a response. She doubted it would be a good one.
Crossman
21-01-2004, 23:58
Lord Azrael nodded his agreement, then stood

"The Holy Empire of Crossman concurs with the statements of the Free Pacific States once again. Freedom fighters can be considered different from terrorists. The farmers and minutemen of the American Revolution are also much like the French Resistance. (OOC: Like Mel Gibson in The Patriot) Freedom fighters oppose a nations government and military, not the civilian population."
CorpSac
22-01-2004, 00:22
the ambassador raised her hand and waited the rose.

"in all of them exsamples you have given the "freedom fighters" were fighting in a war if there is no war how can you be a freedom fighter is that not what a terrorist clams to be? the GLA globle Liberation Army sounds like a crazy freedom fighter to me. CorpSac will always maintian that Freedom Fighters are Terrorist" she drank so water the carryed on "you say Freedom fighters oppose a nations government and military well guess what thats what the IRA opposed the UKs Goverment and army but they still attacked civilian targets its the only way a Goverment will take actions. attack a military convoy you just send another blow up a school and you have the whole nation asking who and why? freedom fighters only crop up druing war time anther then that they are Terrorists"

at that she sat down.
Crossman
22-01-2004, 00:46
Lord Azrael nodded to Under Secretary of Defense Franze Piett to give him a break and respond for him. Piett stood.

"We agree also thatin some cases, "freedom fighters" could be terrorists, but maintain that true "freedom fighters" do not attack civilians, terrorists attack whom they please regardless whether the targets are civilian or military."
Crossman
22-01-2004, 00:46
Lord Azrael nodded to Under Secretary of Defense Franz Piett to give him a break and respond for him. Piett stood.

"We agree also thatin some cases, "freedom fighters" could be terrorists, but maintain that true "freedom fighters" do not attack civilians, terrorists attack whom they please regardless whether the targets are civilian or military."
Crossman
22-01-2004, 00:46
Lord Azrael nodded to Under Secretary of Defense Franz Piett to give him a break and respond for him. Piett stood.

"We agree also thatin some cases, "freedom fighters" could be terrorists, but maintain that true "freedom fighters" do not attack civilians, terrorists attack whom they please regardless whether the targets are civilian or military."
Credonia
22-01-2004, 09:17
President Smith raises her hand then stands after being called upon.

"You must also remember thta "Freedom Fighters" are rogues in a way. They may be civil, but that doesnt mean some of their acts cant be considered as terrorist actions. And the fact of the matter is that they go unsupervised by their government. Its something that little control is exerted over."

She returns to her seat
Austar Union
22-01-2004, 09:23
Deputy Kenney stands up. We have been preparing a dossier over the past few days, defining the three types of terrorism. We will publish it to the meeting tomorow.
CorpSac
22-01-2004, 11:44
The corpsac rases her hand then she stands and speaks:

"i give you a quote by Boaz Ganor it reads
The statement, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” has become not only a cliché, but also one of the most difficult obstacles in coping with terrorism. The matter of definition and conceptualization is usually a purely theoretical issue—a mechanism for scholars to work out the appropriate set of parameters for the research they intend to undertake. However, when dealing with terrorism and guerrilla warfare, implications of defining our terms tend to transcend the boundaries of theoretical discussions. In the struggle against terrorism, the problem of definition is a crucial element in the attempt to coordinate international collaboration, based on the currently accepted rules of traditional warefare.
so is one mans terrorist anothers freedom fighter"
22-01-2004, 12:17
Walter Williams, Vice President of the United Microstates:

"I strongly disagree with this idea that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. A terrorist, to my mind at least, is someone who specifically chooses to attack non-military targets, and non-governmental civilians particularly.

"What bothers me about these comparisons is that in order to find no distinction between these two very different things, we're forced to draw a blind moral equivalency between the intentions of all fighters, if not the methods they use. For example, let's suppose that a government is blatantly oppressive towards those it governs. If ending that government oppression requires assassinating a certain non-military figure, particularly someone who is a part of the oppressive system, then I don't see how we could call this a bad thing or describe it as 'terrorism.' But if the same act were to happene in another nation and involved a different set of individuals and the reasoning behind the act was not legitimate, then the killing of this non-military figure should be viewed as an act of terrorism.

"To sum up my thought on this, we cannot make the assumption that terrorism is defined by a superficial methodology of action. We should not make room at the table of serious discussion for any point of view that embraces the actions of the GLA or other terrorists as 'freedom fighting.' Thank you."
23-01-2004, 00:24
Minister Olp clears his throat.
"To catch up, Trinis agrees with the others a terrorist is one who targets civilians purposely. On the freedom fighter-terrorist issue, Trinis agrees very much with United Microstates. What do you call someone who targets government or military officials who partake in a tyrannical government? I say, a freedom fighter. Thank you for your time."
Austar Union
23-01-2004, 06:02
Deputy Kenney sips his glass of water, "I believe that terrorism can be classified into three catagories:

1) Offensive Terrorism: To cause death and destruction

2) Reasoned Terrorism: To use death and destruction to highlight an issue

3) Defensive Terrorism: To terrorist tactics onto an enemy, which is launching an offense or occupation onto the terrorists, or their allies.

Terrorism is terrorism, but there is a difference whether it is good or bad.

For example, would you condemn a man blowing himself up, to help liberate Palistine from the Israeli Occupation?

Now would you condemn a man blowing himself up because he hates and wants to kill his targets?

I think there is a difference."
Free Pacific States
23-01-2004, 17:29
Ambassador Kurten stood up again, wondering how they had gotten so side tracked from terrorism. "Ladies and gentleman, we cannot simply clasify a group so large as 'freedom fighters' as terrorists...there are simply too many examples of them (RL and NS). Rather, I believe we should define terrorism, and then see which freedom fighters fit the criteria. Quite frankly, to do otherwise would be rather.....dumb. I mean, we're calling all freedom fighters terrorists...and we haven't even clearly defined a terrorist yet! I think we need to finish doing that before we start making other decisions in this conference."

"To go with that, I'd like to offer this definition for it. Agree with it or debate it, but I really think we need to do either of those before we continue."

"Terrorist: A civilian or soldier who attacks his/her government not only through military targets, but by deliberately killing civilians. They do not follow the rules of the Geneva Convention in many ways, and see human suffering as a 'good thing.' They usually justify their actions through a religous belief, and only the highest members of a terrorist group truly know what they are doing. Lower members do not, and simply think their doing the right way due to propoganda."

"I realize some of you may want to shorten that definition, and I don't blame you, but consider it a starting point."

The ambassador sat down. He had other plans about freedom fighters later in the conference, but for now, he wanted to put the issue aside so they could define terrorism. That would make the debate much easier.

OOC: They break the Geneva convention in far too many ways for me to list. They attack civilians, medics, surendured troops, tortur surrendur troops, never raise a flag before an attack, and use civilian hostages. Those are the most major breaks, there are perhaps another 100 of them I could list off, but I'm sure you all get the idea.
Sorry about the length of the post, but it was necesary.
Corneliu
23-01-2004, 17:49
"Hold on everyone." Minister Franklin said. "Let us remember that in some circles, a terrorist can be considered a Freedom Fighter. However, anyone that kills civilians is not a freedom fighter but a coward. The only legal targets are Government Buildings and military bases. Anything outside of that can be construed as terroristic. That is what we need to fight. In war though, civilians do get killed, no denying that, but when you kill civilians just because you want to promote your cause, that is not acceptable. My colleagues, we are here to discuss ways to confront this. Fighting Terrorism isn't an easy thing. We have to Identify the states that are terroristic and those that support them. Those are the things that we need to root out."
24-01-2004, 04:10
Minister Olp spoke. "Yes, we totally agree with the above statements. To paraphrase:A terrorist purposely targets civilians or non-military targets to acheive a goal. They do not follow conventional rules of warfare."
Corneliu
24-01-2004, 04:18
Minister Olp spoke. "Yes, we totally agree with the above statements. To paraphrase:A terrorist purposely targets civilians or non-military targets to acheive a goal. They do not follow conventional rules of warfare."

"No they don't." Minister Franklin responded. "The only way to defeat them is too cut off they're supplies. Yes its going to be difficult but I know we can do it. There are always going to be nations that support them, not much, short of attacking them, we can do about it. However, we can go after the Terrorists directly with the weapons of Economics, diplomacy, war, etc."
24-01-2004, 04:27
"Indeed. We are very willing to pursue the problem of terrorism, despite resources needed."
27-01-2004, 06:54
bump...
27-01-2004, 07:00
---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---
Dr_Twist
27-01-2004, 07:01
I would add somthing, but i don't have anything to add at this time, rather sad isn't it.....
Austar Union
27-01-2004, 07:05
Deputy Kenny leans forward, "Gentlemen, my definition of the three classes of terrorism has not been addressed. What do you all think of it?"
27-01-2004, 08:27
AU, I believe yours is the best definition I have heard yet. I propose that this be the one we adopt for the purposes of this meeting.
Corneliu
27-01-2004, 13:37
"There is no such thing as Offensive Terrorism or Reasoned Terrorism. As for Defensive Terrorism, yes I can see that. On that one I agree but the other two, ABSOLUTELY NOT. I nor my country will support that. Terror is murder no matter what you might try to put into a definition."

Foreign Minister Franklin
The Armed Republic of Corneliu
Free Pacific States
27-01-2004, 13:50
Deputy Kenney sips his glass of water, "I believe that terrorism can be classified into three catagories:

1) Offensive Terrorism: To cause death and destruction

2) Reasoned Terrorism: To use death and destruction to highlight an issue

3) Defensive Terrorism: To terrorist tactics onto an enemy, which is launching an offense or occupation onto the terrorists, or their allies.

Terrorism is terrorism, but there is a difference whether it is good or bad.

For example, would you condemn a man blowing himself up, to help liberate Palistine from the Israeli Occupation?

Now would you condemn a man blowing himself up because he hates and wants to kill his targets?

I think there is a difference."

"The definitions put forth by AU are quite enlightening, and I must agree that they should be used. But could Deputy Kenney pehaps become a little more specific? I'm not sure I see the diffirence between Offensive and Defensive."

"I do have another question, supposing we accept these three definitions....which is worse than which? Or would we charge Resasoned, Offencive, and Defensive Terrorists the same?"
Cousin Eddie
27-01-2004, 14:56
Cousin Eddie
27-01-2004, 14:56
Corneliu
28-01-2004, 00:14
Why do we have to accept those Definitions. A terrorist act is a terrorist act no matter what. By recognizing at least one of them, wouldn't we be defeating the whole purpose of this conference?

Foreign Minister Franklin
The Armed Republic of Corneliu
28-01-2004, 04:09
Why do we have to accept those Definitions. A terrorist act is a terrorist act no matter what. By recognizing at least one of them, wouldn't we be defeating the whole purpose of this conference?

Foreign Minister Franklin
The Armed Republic of Corneliu

Terrorism is NOT a black and white subject. That is what this meeting is about, defining terrorism, and determining what can be done about the various types.
Corneliu
28-01-2004, 04:50
Yes you are right. However, how would you define terrorism. A school bully in and of himself is a terrorist. Diplomats can be considered Terrorists for disrupting national policy. So however you define it, your going to have to spell it out to where it leaves no room for doubt. One shred of doubt and the definition is destroyed.

Foreign Minister Franklin
The Armed Republic of Corneliu
The Burnsian Desert
28-01-2004, 05:13
"TBD defines a terrorist as a person who diliberately harms other people, either mentally or physically, to change a government or government policy," said Sojurn Ugunda, who had been eating his M&M cookie for the most of the meeting.
Cousin Eddie
28-01-2004, 09:57
High above the meeting, a small business jet swoops into view.

"Greetings Redhawks air control. This is Bruce Dickinson, representative of The Empire of Cousin Eddie. I'm sorry I'm late. Permission to land?"

The plane circles the runway, waiting for permission.
Dr_Twist
28-01-2004, 10:02
The Kingdom of Dr_Twist Proposes an Alliance between all Members here to setup a Terrorist based Alliance? Where the Alliance can go around the world and rid the world of Terrorists.

This is still a basic idea and I am sure would be approved on if it is approved......?
28-01-2004, 10:08
High above the meeting, a small business jet swoops into view.

"Greetings Redhawks air control. This is Bruce Dickinson, representative of The Empire of Cousin Eddie. I'm sorry I'm late. Permission to land?"

The plane circles the runway, waiting for permission.

Premission granted.

I also support AU's definition. It shows that there are diffrent forms of terrorism, that can be interpreted diffrently.
Cousin Eddie
28-01-2004, 11:26
The plane approached for its final circle, and glided neatly down onto the runway.

Escorted by two of his five guards, Bruce approaches the nearest Redhawks staff.

"I'm here for the conference. Where do I go now?"
30-01-2004, 05:48
Vice President Walter Williams:

"Look, I think Austar Union's definitions, while well-meaning, only serve to add unnecessary complications. The official position of the United Microstates government is that terrorism is defined by the intention of murdering non-military persons for an unjust cause - nothing less, nothing more. If any action is justified, then it does not fall into the category to begin with.

"It is up to each individual government, and each individual person, to excercise his or her own God-given ability to apply the moral standards that transcend all humanity in order to determine which causes are just and which causes are not."
Free Pacific States
30-01-2004, 19:55
Free Pacific States
30-01-2004, 19:59
"So killing innocents is okay as long as it's for a good cause? And just what makes it a good cause? My nation believes that anyone who intentionally kills innocent civilians, no matter what their cause, is a terrorist."
31-01-2004, 05:25
"We are also unsure of the need to classify terrorism into such categories."
Inner Heaven
31-01-2004, 12:52
BUMP from a helpful terrorist.
Corneliu
31-01-2004, 15:52
"So killing innocents is okay as long as it's for a good cause? And just what makes it a good cause? My nation believes that anyone who intentionally kills innocent civilians, no matter what their cause, is a terrorist."

We totally agree with the Free Pacific States! However, if there is a war, innocent civilians get killed so that can be debateable. The definition has to take that into account though the leaders will call the deaths of civilians by a stray bomb or something, a terrorist act which in someways it is but not. A terrorist is one who kills civilians intentionally with no regard for there own life.
Free Pacific States
31-01-2004, 16:04
"Please note how I said 'intentionally' kills civilians. Civilians always get killed in war. But there is a diffirence between intentionally and accidentaly. I mean, if a bomber misses a military base and hits a house, kiling two civilians, he's not a terrorist. He wasn't ordered to hit that house...though he problably shouldn't be flying a bomber if he can miss a military base...."

"On the other hand, a bomber group which is instructed to destroy the local hospital and child care center...that is a terrorist group."
Corneliu
31-01-2004, 16:11
"Please note how I said 'intentionally' kills civilians. Civilians always get killed in war. But there is a diffirence between intentionally and accidentaly. I mean, if a bomber misses a military base and hits a house, kiling two civilians, he's not a terrorist. He wasn't ordered to hit that house...though he problably shouldn't be flying a bomber if he can miss a military base...."

"On the other hand, a bomber group which is instructed to destroy the local hospital and child care center...that is a terrorist group."

I can buy that arguement my friend. If that is the case then whoever ordered it needs to be brought up not on only on terrorism charges, which in our country is punishable by death, but crimes against humanity.