Time to get tough on terrorism, UN warned

[Keevan_Colton]

I love the "it's infrastructure, so it's OK!" argument. By that token, since the World Trade Centre was the financial hub of North America, it was a legitimate infrastructure target, hence not really terrorism. It's "night and day", really ...

Yes, nice way to ignore the hijacking of multiple airliners, which does
qualify as terrorism.

Planes, trains...'s all good.

[Elfdart]

Could someone define "terrorism"? Or is it just a nonsense term like "political correctness" -a catch-all for anything certain people don't like.

[Petrosjko]

Additionally, the RAF was targeting whole towns, not factories. Night time bombing raids make for no precision whatsoever, or did in that era anyway.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Could someone define "terrorism"? Or is it just a nonsense term like "political correctness" -a catch-all for anything certain people don't like.

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

[Col. Crackpot]

I love the "it's infrastructure, so it's OK!" argument. By that token, since the World Trade Centre was the financial hub of North America, it was a legitimate infrastructure target, hence not really terrorism. It's "night and day", really ...

no, because it was an act of agression.

Bombing the infastructure of a country that has declared war on you and is trying to kill you is a hell of a lot different than ROUNDING UP A POSSEE OF LIKE MINDED MORONS, HIJACKING CIVILIAN PLANES, AND FLYING THEM INTO BUILDINGS FULL OF PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE!

Sometimes Mike, I swear to fuck you get sexual gratification out of pissing people off.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I think the main problem here is simply the definition of terrorism and who's a terrorist. I foresee a lot of semantic debates going on from now on if these definitions aren't agreed on.

[Stravo]

I think the main problem here is simply the definition of terrorism and who's a terrorist. I foresee a lot of semantic debates going on from now on if these definitions aren't agreed on.

Agreed. The single greatest problem here is that the UN, being an international body has to come to an accord on what the word means and by that definaition it would have to be watered down to the point of being meaningless thus becoming a self fullfilling prophecy on the uselessness of the UN.

Terrorism will always have the side issue of the sliding goalposts because of prior history. Americans in the Revolutionary War killed or drove out Loyalists with what could be defined as terrorists tactics. Hell one of the reasons why we won that war was because we temded to fight unconventionally. The Brits of the time sure as hell would have categorized the Revolutionary government as bordering on terrorists with some of their tactics.

Definitions that border on intent will always get washed away by rhetoric.

Deifnitions that include attacks on civilians will bump up against just about every military action by the West for centuries. This is an issue that humanity has been wrestling with ever since the attempts by the church to create a 'just war' policy to ease some ruffled Christian consciences.

[Darth Wong]

I love the "it's infrastructure, so it's OK!" argument. By that token, since the World Trade Centre was the financial hub of North America, it was a legitimate infrastructure target, hence not really terrorism. It's "night and day", really ...

Yes, nice way to ignore the hijacking of multiple airliners, which does qualify as terrorism.

So if the planes were hijacked but not crashed into the WTC, you would have just as much outrage?

[Darth Wong]

I love the "it's infrastructure, so it's OK!" argument. By that token, since the World Trade Centre was the financial hub of North America, it was a legitimate infrastructure target, hence not really terrorism. It's "night and day", really ...

no, because it was an act of agression.

So now the definition of terrorism hinges not upon the type of victim, but on perceived "aggression"?

Bombing the infastructure of a country that has declared war on you and is trying to kill you is a hell of a lot different than ROUNDING UP A POSSEE OF LIKE MINDED MORONS, HIJACKING CIVILIAN PLANES, AND FLYING THEM INTO BUILDINGS FULL OF PEOPLE YOU DON'T LIKE!

Wow, an emotional outburst in lieu of an argument. In order to prove it's totally different, just say so in big letters! Wow, I'm bowled over by the strength of your logic.

Sometimes Mike, I swear to fuck you get sexual gratification out of pissing people off.

Sometimes, I swear you think that "I'm really mad" is actually a valid substitute for a logical argument.

[MKSheppard]

So if the planes were hijacked but not crashed into the WTC, you would have just as much outrage?

Considering that about 300~ americans would be dead at the hands
of foreign terrorists, uhm...yes.

[Keevan_Colton]

So was the first bombing of the world trade centre ok then?

[Darth Wong]

So if the planes were hijacked but not crashed into the WTC, you would have just as much outrage?

Considering that about 300~ americans would be dead at the hands of foreign terrorists, uhm...yes.

Ah, so it's not hijacking itself, but the killing that you object to. If that's the argument, then realize that these civilians were not the real objective; they were just "collateral damage" incurred in pursuit of the real objective, which was America's financial centre.

[Coyote]

Emotional responses aside, lok at it dispassionately. What Mike says is 100% accurate. That I don't like it any more than anyone else does not detract from the truth.

Osama bin-Laden stated that the WTC was a financial hub for New York, which al-Qaeda views as the "financial capital" of the West. In his latest video he outlines his plan to bleed America financially, because he figures finances to be our weak spot.

So looking at it solely from that perspective, a hit on the WTC makes sense from the point of view of someone like that. The atacks on thePentagon and wherever-that-last-plane-was-going would have been nothing more but a twisting of the knife.

What we'er arguing here is precisely what the UN is going to have to face when it comes down to determining what Terrorism is in all its legal minutae.

I still say that the overall definition of terrorism will have to focus on the goals of the terrorists as much as the means they use. Partisans trying to overthrow an unjust regime... or guerrillas trying to establish a corrupt junta?

If the UN is making the legal definition, then it will determine the yardstick of morality based on other UN definitions. The UN Declaration of Human Rights will be one. When it comes time to declare whether a group is a terrorist group or a freedom-fighter group, they'll have to ask-- do these rebels want to establish a government that goes against theDHR? If so, then they are terrorists.

If they are fighting a government that ignores the DHR, in an attempt to establish a government that respects the DHR, then they are not terrorists.

Of course, the methods the terrorists use will color the perception one way or another. I may join a partisan group to fight Nazis, for example, but if my definition of "fighting Nazis" means going into hiospital nurseries and killing every blond-haired, blue-eyed infant then that would be terrorism, despite how noble the goals may seem at first.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

I don't know about America, but in Asia, corporeal punishments for kids were not only allowed but often seemed like recommended move until maybe 20-30 years ago.

Couldn't help noticing this. It's off topic, and I'm not usually a spelling-nazi, but I thought this was too funny a typo to pass up.

Corporeal punishments? Is this as opposed to, say, incorporeal punishments, where a kid is flogged with a paddle from the ethereal plane?

-Damien.

[Illuminatus Primus]

How can the UN universally condemn terrorism when every nation has used it in some form or other during warfare? Can you name a warring nation in the last century that has not engaged in attacks against euphemistically named "infrastructure" targets in civilian centres during wartime?

Doesn't mean we shouldn't start to get a rid of it now. What country did not have gross violations of civil rights - particularly on racial basis in the past and continuing often today? And these things are certainly broadly condemned.

[Joe]

Terrorism will always have the side issue of the sliding goalposts because of prior history. Americans in the Revolutionary War killed or drove out Loyalists with what could be defined as terrorists tactics. Hell one of the reasons why we won that war was because we temded to fight unconventionally. The Brits of the time sure as hell would have categorized the Revolutionary government as bordering on terrorists with some of their tactics.

So could have the Revolutionary government regarding the Brits. The Revolutionary War was an unusually savage conflict for its time, on both sides.

[Stravo]

Terrorism will always have the side issue of the sliding goalposts because of prior history. Americans in the Revolutionary War killed or drove out Loyalists with what could be defined as terrorists tactics. Hell one of the reasons why we won that war was because we temded to fight unconventionally. The Brits of the time sure as hell would have categorized the Revolutionary government as bordering on terrorists with some of their tactics.

So could have the Revolutionary government regarding the Brits. The Revolutionary War was an unusually savage conflict for its time, on both sides.

Partly because the Revolutionary war in many ways was like a British civil war save that we won and were not reintegrated into the government as the Confederacy was. Civil wars tend to be quite brutal and nasty.

[PainRack]

Isn't the thread topic misleading?

This is a panel set up by the UN, in order to discuss about terrorism, and not say....... US State Department demanding the UN define what is a terrorist and so on and forth.

[Korvan]

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

[/quote]
That definition is pretty straightforward, but one word in it is open for debate, "unlawful". This one word can turn freedom fighters into terrorists and vica-versa. Who determines what is lawful and what is unlawful. In the past it has usually been the winners of the conflict.

Take the American Revolution, an arguebly unlawful act of rebellion on behalf of the colonists against their lawful, but remote government. If they had lost, I have little doubt that the leaders would've been rounded up and treated like criminals. But they won, and became heros.

With the Iraq conflict, what would happen if the UN officially declares the US led invasion to be unlawful? By the above definition that would make the US and it's colition of the willing into state sponsers of terrorism. Which is why it is vital for the US to "win" in Iraq since its invasion could then be viewd as lawful.

If the UN had "balls", I'd bet the US wouldn't have been so quick to invade without approval.

[Coyote]

Or, perhaps, if the UN Had any balls, then the regime of Saddam Hussein would have been denounced as a despotic regime long ago.

There is this odd tendency among many to assume that if there is anything "wrong" in this world, it must be the fault of the West. THe only thiong I think we can be held accountable for in this case was not stopping the rot sooner.

People of color around the world also do wrong, bad, and cruel things-- the West by no means has a monopoly on this, or on bad judgement. There is not some automatic ethical high ground that comes from being a non-Westerner.

True, the best way to handle this would have been, long, long ago when the West and the East first started making busines deals together, for the Westerners to try to use their influence to spread the wealth and improve conditions for the citizens of the kings, dictators, general, princes, sheikhs, etc...

But the rulers of these nations have to do some of the work too-- they hold the reigns of power in their countries and if they spend Western oil money on Swiss banks, palaces, yachts, Mercedes, callgirls and so on instead of hospitals, schools and power plants... the West can only do so much. The rulers have to provide for the people and the people have to demand accountability of their rulers.