"freedom fighters" or "terrorists"? UN says ...

[Almighty Colin]

Last year, the UN created "the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change " to reform the UN. Its mandate is to examine today's threats, identify the collective action that can address those threats and recommend the changes necessary to ensure colletive actions against those threats.

On Thursday the panel will present its results to the UN. The paper states that the UN must send "an unequivocal message that terrorism is never an acceptable tactic, even for the most defensible of causes". Are Palestinians, Iraqis or al Qaeda "freedom fighters"? The report concludes that "there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians".

Some more quotes:

"lack of agreement on a clear, well-known, definition … has stained the UN's image".

"any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act".

(the problem of defining terrorism is) "not so much a legal one as a political one ...
Achieving a comprehensive convention on terrorism, including a clear definition, is a political imperative."

[Mike AI]

The UN and Democratic party are both becoming so extreme and corrupt they are destroying themselves.

It is important we stand back, and enjoy the show!!

[PornoDoggy]

Pull the string, the dolly talks ...

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2004, 09:30 AM
Pull the string, the dolly talks ...

The UN is infinitely more corrupt them democratic party - so that should make you feel better. But until the Dems stop trying to put out Nationa Defense in the hand of these Turkeys, the will continue to be out of power....

and dare I say....



Bitter?


Stings doesn't it PD? It's ok I am sure there will be a Dem President in your lifetime....

[PornoDoggy]

Raw Mike ... the idea that the Democrats want to put the defense of the U.S. into the hands of the U.N. is absurd, although it appeals to certain simple-minded people such as yourself.

Pavlov was right - replace the ding of the bell with mention of the U.N., and the dog still salivates ...

[Almighty Colin]

I, for one, am happy that Annan has realized that the UN must come to some common ground on exactly what the terrorist threat is, who are terrorists and what will be acceptable or non-acceptable means to deal with them. I'd like to see the same questions asked of proliferation - and maybe they are in the paper too.

If the world can agree on these things, the future will be much brighter than if it cannot. If it cannot and if there are future attacks on US soil, the UN will lose it's relevance and is it will be unable to moderate in the dispute of how terrorism and proliferation should be handled and even what constitutes terrorism or proliferation.

What we're witnessing is an extremely limited war being fought right now. A nuclear terrorist attack on US soil would in all likelihood lead to total war in the Middle East.

[PornoDoggy]

Oh, you mean you actually want to talk about the substance of the article instead of merely parrotting a few lines of text from the handbook?

I agree in substance that a definition of terrorist would be useful. The problem, of course, is that the definition would provide something for those who regard "Group X" as "freedom fighters" to quibble over with those who regard them as terrorists.

Can a state commit terrorism and disguise it as collateral damage? If the Palestinians confined their attacks to Israeli military forces, would they cease to be terrorists? Don't see how a definition is going to clarify much.

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Nov 30 2004, 10:20 AM
I agree in substance that a definition of terrorist would be useful. The problem, of course, is that the definition would provide something for those who regard "Group X" as "freedom fighters" to quibble over with those who regard them as terrorists.

Can a state commit terrorism and disguise it as collateral damage? If the Palestinians confined their attacks to Israeli military forces, would they cease to be terrorists? Don't see how a definition is going to clarify much.

I think there are always problems with definitions. They are never complete. The intent of the panel is not just to define the security problems of the 21st century but also to identify the collective actions that can solve them and set up an apparatus to do just that.

Hopefully this will start the process of a dialogue that will lead to an agreement on what the major problems of today are and what are acceptable solutions rather than the problems of 1945 which the UN was chartered for. The UN needs an overhaul in that regard.

Unfortunately, The UN Security Council can only be effective when all 5 permanent members are in agreement. And then it works through intimidation and bullying tactics. "Stop that or we'll invade and/or slap sanctions on you".

Can't say I'm hopeful but we should at least have the dialogue. If the UN is to play a key role in the future of security issues it will have to tackle these questions. Otherwise it will be ignored.

[Nickatilynx]

"any action that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or compel a government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act".

ummmmm

Couldn't the invasion of Iraq be considered terrorism under this definition?

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Nov 30 2004, 11:11 AM

ummmmm

Couldn't the invasion of Iraq be considered terrorism under this definition?

Demunist .... er, Comocrat ....