UN Attacks Terrorism

[johnc]

With a committee...

 

http://www.un.org/terrorism/a57273.htm

 

... In general terms, the United Nations should uphold, bolster and reassert the leading principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, the core of which are undermined and threatened by terrorism. The Organization's activities should be part of a tripartite strategy supporting global efforts to:

 

(a) Dissuade disaffected groups from embracing terrorism;

( Deny groups or individuals the means to carry out acts of terrorism;

© Sustain broad-based international cooperation in the struggle against terrorism.

 

In efforts at dissuasion, the Organization has made and ought to continue to make its contribution through norm setting, human rights and communications. The United Nations has a primary role in preparing for the adoption and effective implementation of legal instruments. It should institute a periodic review of the existing treaty regime, and must underscore the linkages between instruments of international criminal law and counter-terrorism conventions.

 

I feel safer now that the UN is using "norm setting" to "dissuade" terrorists from acting.

 

9. It is important to state what the Policy Working Group did not attempt to do. Rather than taking a comprehensive approach, the Group focused specifically on areas in which the United Nations would have a comparative advantage and could make a fresh and tangible contribution to the international anti-terrorism effort. The Group has not attempted to devise a definition of terrorism, identify its diverse roots or address specific instances of terrorist activity...

 

Funny... how can you prevent or combat something if you won't even make an effort to define it?

 

16. Just as terrorists seek to undermine the core principles and purposes of the United Nations, so it is through a determined effort to bolster and reassert these guiding principles and purposes that the world body can best contribute to the struggle against terrorism. The lack of hope for justice provides breeding grounds for terrorism. Where United Nations efforts to reduce lawlessness and despair in the world succeed, terrorism will find no nourishment. The Group therefore suggests that it is in the realm of norms, human rights, justice and communications that the comparative advantages of the United Nations will be most apparent and that it will make the greatest difference. Through its conventions, resolutions, statements and actions, the Organization can help to dissuade disaffected groups from choosing the terrorist path and those who aid, abet or excuse terrorist acts from maintaining those ties or sympathies. The universal character, global reach and international legitimacy of the United Nations constitute important assets upon which it can draw in this effort. The Secretary-General's credibility in so many different quarters may equally be of great use in specific cases.

 

Yeah, the "international legitimacy" and Kofi Anon's "credibility" helped in Iraq when the terrorists blew up the head of the UN mission or in the Sudan when they are ignoring the UN completely as the Muslims murder tens of thousands of Christians.

 

And, thier number 1, most important recommendation to fight terrorism:

 

Dissuasion

 

International legal instruments

 

Recommendation 1

 

The importance of signing, ratifying and effectively implementing the 12 United Nations counter-terrorism conventions and, in particular, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorisme of 1999, should be stressed to Member States. Both the Secretary-General and senior officials can convey this message in bilateral meetings and other forums. The basic premise of this message should be that counter-terrorism must be firmly grounded in international law.

 

 

Get the UN member states to ratify conventions written 5 years ago!

 

Please, someone, anyone explain to me why we should have waited for the UN's blessing before we made an effort to stop more of our citizens from being murdered? Anyone?

[auxilary]

Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!

[johnc]

Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenzo once said about war?

 

No. I don't think I do sir, no.

 

He said war was to important to be left to the Generals. When he said that, fifty years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

[auxilary]

Mandrake, do you realize that in addition to fluoridated water, why, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk, ice cream? Ice cream, Mandrake. Children's ice cream!

[Heavy Z]

Sterling Heyden at his finest...

 

Do you happen to have a good definition of terrorism from our end? The one I saw was vague, and I figured you might have one handy.

 

Did you hear the news that Bill Clinton is after Kofi Anon's job?

[johnc]

Since you're obviously a fan, a Dr. Strangelove test (without Googling anything):

 

1. Who are the three men that are generally considered to be the basis for the character Dr. Strangeleove?

 

2. What was Dr. Strangelove's name before he changed it?

 

3. And what does that name mean translated into English?

[johnc]

Do you happen to have a good definition of terrorism from our end? The one I saw was vague, and I figured you might have one handy.

 

Mine is pretty simple: An individual or group who intentionally targets civilians to achieve political, religion, or other ends.

 

To a large degree that includes any military that intentionally targets civillian populations. That would also include ALL the major combatants in WW2.

 

Did you hear the news that Bill Clinton is after Kofi Anon's job?

 

Yup. Good place for him. But he won't get the job unless Kerry gets elected.

[Pop N Wood]

Bill Clinton has known women. He just denied them his essence.

 

Funny. Had he kept doing that he probably would have gotten away with it.

[Pop N Wood]

Mine is pretty simple: An individual or group who intentionally targets civilians to achieve political' date=' religion, or other ends.

 

To a large degree that includes any military that intentionally targets civillian populations. That would also include ALL the major combatants in WW2. [/quote']

 

Now now. Dresden was a valid military target. I am sure they had a ball bearing factory in there somewhere.

[tannji]

JohnC is such a cynic....

[JKDGabe]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

 

Likewise, just because you're a cynic doesn't mean you're not right.

 

[auxilary]

Since you're obviously a fan' date=' a Dr. Strangelove test (without Googling anything):

 

1. Who are the three men that are generally considered to be the basis for the character Dr. Strangeleove?[/quote']

Didn't know it was 3. i thought it was based on von Braun, the guy who created v1 and v2 rockets and then fled to the states from germany. Who were the other 2?

 

2. What was Dr. Strangelove's name before he changed it?

 

merkurglib (sp?) or something to that extent. Turgison asks him in the war room what his german name means, and translation is strangelove.

[Guest 240zt]

http://abum.com/files/Movies/1882543096.wmv

 

[johnc]

Answers:

 

1. Werner von Braun, Henry Kissinger, and Edward Teller. There's also conjecture that the character Rotwang in Fritz Lang's METROPOLIS inspired the crazy mechnical arm.

 

2. "Merkwerdichliebe" which translates (syllabically) into:

 

3. "Strange love." But my German friends say that word wouldn't exist and should actually be "Merkwuerdigichliebe" which translates directly into "adored fate" or "beloved fate."

 

http://www.krusch.com/kubrick/Q06.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

[Dan Baldwin]

Please, someone, anyone explain to me why we should have waited for the UN's blessing before we made an effort to stop more of our citizens from being murdered? Anyone?

 

Invading Iraq has done NOTHING to prevent any of our citizens being murdered. Indeed, it has only ensured that MORE of our citizens will be/are being murdered.

 

Of course I fully support the US reserving our right to defend ourselves. That's not what we're doing in Iraq.

[auxilary]

I was close

[katman]

Invading Iraq has done NOTHING to prevent any of our citizens being murdered. Indeed' date=' it has only ensured that MORE of our citizens will be/are being murdered.

 

Of course I fully support the US reserving our right to defend ourselves. That's not what we're doing in Iraq.[/quote']

 

Gee, I thought what we were doing in Iraq was a strategic necessity in stopping the Third Great Jihad, which would be defending ourselves. Danno, I think we have some req's open on JSF. You need to move back here so we can straighten you out!

[baddriver]

I have to say I agree with Dan on this one. When we went into Afganistan, we were hunting the people responsible for several thousand american deaths. When we went into Iraq, it looked to me like we were being fed a distraction to help us forget that we still hadn't found the man who was actually responsible for attacking us.

 

I notice that the hunt for Bin Ladin has pretty much disappeared from the news, and no matter what people claim, I can't buy the idea that somehow, sometime in the near future, Saddam was going to attack us. He hated us for years, but he knew that if he ever did organize an attack the we could trace back to him directly, we would have his a$$. I don't believe anywhere near 1000 us citizens would have died as a result of not going into Iraq, but the body count has been steadily climbing ever since we did.

 

And I know it's not a popular point to make, but what about the 15,000 iraqi's that have died as a result of our invasion of their country? Are their lives worth considering? Are their deaths justified by our desire to feel more secure? Is destroying the phantom specter of Saddam worth thousands of lives? How many US citizens has Saddam managed to kill in all the years prior to our attacking him? was it anywhere near the 1000 that have been killed by president Bush's need for vengance?

 

How many poeple would have died if we had not gone into Iraq? Don't tell me we would have had another 9/11 as a result of not attacking Saddam. Saddam has never been connected to the first attack. And after all, we have the department of homeland security telling the FCC to confiscate everyone's fingernail clippers to keep us safe.

[Tim240z]

And after all, we have the department of homeland security telling the FCC to confiscate everyone's fingernail clippers to keep us safe.

 

Don't you mean the FAA?

[Pop N Wood]

How many poeple would have died if we had not gone into Iraq?

 

I guess it depends on whether you consider Iraqi lives as valuable as American lives. How many "people" was Saddam reportedly responsible for killing? I can't remember exact numbers but it wasn't insignificant. Artillery battles and poison gas attacks will do that sort of thing. How many more would have died by him staying in power?

 

I hear your arguments about whether this was our battle to fight or not fight. And I won't contest the idea that it could have been handled differently. But it seems kind of hard to argue that taking him out wasn't for the greater good.