Some Topics Feel Uplifting
Lagomorph
Some Topics Feel Uplifting
Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?
I like what rat faced said. lol
Dazed & Confused
Quote from Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Chief Prosecutor
International Criminal Court
“there is no agreed legal definition of terrorism under international law….”
I liked what Rat Faced said too.
We have been arguing the definition for what a day or two and you decide to bring this quote now...AussieSheila Posted on 8 September 2003 - 03:46
Quote from Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Chief Prosecutor
International Criminal Court
“there is no agreed legal definition of terrorism under international law….”
{}"_++()_><.,{}}[":+
I'd say terrorism is taking over countries without the approval of the united nations. I'd say terrorism is rounding up thousands of muslims for no reason except for their nationality and putting them in jail indefinitely on trumped up charges. This kind of thing scares people, and that is why the terrorists that hit the twin towers.. to inspire fear. If we just go back and forth scaring eachother and making eachothers lives miserable, we will never get anywhere.
signature removed, check the boardrules.
good response, but nice avatar.
EDIT: nevermind the avatar. it me.
Dazed & Confused
Yeah, well, sorry babe. Just a simple Aussie girl, came late, it happens! B)Originally posted by noname12@8 September 2003 - 03:51
We have been arguing the definition for what a day or two and you decide to bring this quote now...AussieSheila Posted on 8 September 2003 - 03:46
Quote from Luis Moreno-Ocampo
Chief Prosecutor
International Criminal Court
“there is no agreed legal definition of terrorism under international law….”
>H
The question of a definition of terrorism has haunted the debate among states for decades. A first attempt to arrive at an internationally acceptable definition was made under the League of Nations, but the convention drafted in 1937 never came into existence. The UN Member States still have no agreed-upon definition. Terminology consensus would, however, be necessary for a single comprehensive convention on terrorism, which some countries favour in place of the present 12 piecemeal conventions and protocols.
The lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to meaningful international countermeasures. Cynics have often commented that one state's "terrorist" is another state's "freedom fighter".
If terrorism is defined strictly in terms of attacks on non-military targets, a number of attacks on military installations and soldiers' residences could not be included in the statistics.
In order to cut through the Gordian definitional knot, terrorism expert A. Schmid suggested in 1992 in a report for the then UN Crime Branch that it might be a good idea to take the existing consensus on what constitutes a "war crime" as a point of departure. If the core of war crimes - deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage taking and the killing of prisoners - is extended to peacetime, we could simply define acts of terrorism as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes".
Proposed Definitions of Terrorism
1. League of Nations Convention (1937):
"All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public".
2. UN Resolution language (1999):
"1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed;
2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism)
3. Short legal definition proposed by A. P. Schmid to United Nations Crime Branch (1992):
Act of Terrorism = Peacetime Equivalent of War Crime
4. Academic Consensus Definition:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).
I'm glad you posted that ilw, so now we can at least all agree that Israel is a terrorist state.
I'm glad we've got that cleared up, thanx.
>H
I'm glad i cleared that up for you, I don't see how it shows israel is a terrorist state though IMO it 100% qualifies for being an oppressive and violent nation. But then personally I don't care what countries are and aren't terrorist states. My sole point in this debate has been and still is to show that people are often unjustifiably using the word terrorist and I for one find it ridiculous. A terrorist is not anyone who scares you (thats one of the dafter comments i've read on this forum), it is not anyone who is fighting against you, it is not anyone fighting against opression and it is not anyone who is fighting/killing without good cause, however, all of these people could very well qualify as terrorists.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
I liked what Rat Faced said too.
Bookmarks