World body's blueprint for reform will address the terrorism issue, from AP, with thanks to Skeet Street.
UNITED NATIONS - U.N. diplomats have revised their blueprint for reforming the world body to include a definition of terrorism, indicating nations are moving toward consensus on a contentious global issue.World leaders are to consider the plan at their summit in September and, if approved, the definition could break the impasse over a comprehensive treaty against terrorism.
The United States strongly supports such a treaty, which has been stalled for years over the question of what constitutes a terrorist. The debate has focused on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the argument that one nation’s terrorists are another’s freedom fighters.
Jean Ping, president of the U.N. General Assembly avoided the topic of terrorism in a reform plan he drew up in early June, calling on governments to do more to alleviate poverty and ensure human rights.
His revised plan issued Friday would commit world leaders to adopting a comprehensive convention against terrorism by September 2006.
Ping’s new blueprint not only gives a political definition of terrorism but spells out how two new U.N. bodies would be established; the Peacebuilding Commission to ensure countries emerging from conflict don’t start fighting again and a Human Rights Council to replace the discredited Commission on Human Rights.
The Geneva-based commission has been criticized for allowing the worst-offending countries to use their membership to protect each other from condemnation for human rights abuses. The latest draft said members of the new council should be elected on the basis of regional balance and their contribution “to the promotion and protection of human rights.”
The document also outlines a series of U.N. management reforms — a key U.S. demand — and elaborates on what to do to stop genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity...
Nothing will come of this. There will be no agreed-upon definition, or if there is a definition that can be agreed-upon, it will be fatally vitiated by the opposition of Muslim states and islamisant functionaries at the U.N. and in the chanceries of the West.
Nothing will come of nothing.
Try again -- outside the U.N., that malevolent, dangerous organization, long ago successfully infiltrated by the forces of the Islamintern International, from the office of the Secretary-General (google and "Posted by Hugh" and "jihadwatch" and "John Mortimer" for more) right on down.
Nothing will come of this. There will be no agreed-upon definition, or if there is a definition that can be agreed-upon, it will be fatally vitiated by the opposition of Muslim states and islamisant functionaries at the U.N. and in the chanceries of the West.
Nothing will come of nothing.
Try again -- outside the U.N., that malevolent, dangerous organization, long ago successfully infiltrated by the forces of the Islamintern International, from the office of the Secretary-General (google and "Posted by Hugh" and "jihadwatch" and "John Mortimer" for more) right on down.
The UN is controlled by Islamic states. What are they, 50 to 60 Islamic states, they all get one vote each just like the infidel states an they all vote as one block. The infidel states that are their allies (France for one example) often vote with them. Am I the only one who sees this? The UN is a folly, a joke.
Why are we paying for this Islamic terrorist organization? If not for the US and England's veto control of the Security Council, the Islamic block would have declared war already on the Infidels. That's an exagerration, but clearly the UN is not our ally.
Move the UN to Paris, or is that Faris? The US will create a new organization for us and our true allies. Let the Islamic block fund all those programs to aid the Islamic countries and we will aid the infidel countries.
This is not rocket science. My prediction: Considering the characteristics of the U.N., any "political definition of terrorism" will favor Islam and not characterize any act done in the name of Jihad to be considered terror. Those nations that respond to jihad violence will be labeled "rogue states" and those that take military or police action will be labeled "war criminals."
The simplest definition: half of the U.N. body.
Hugh,
Did you mean Edward Mortimer? John Mortimer doesn't have any hits.
Edward Mortimer is his secretary and front guy defending Annan's policies.
http://www.nysun.com/article/17207
http://www.unforum.com/UNheadlines195.htm
Definition of Terrorism:
The overwhelmingly obvious signs of violence and attack against unarmed civilians motivated by deeply psychological written teachings of bias and violence that are tightly coupled to the political and governmental rule of strict law.
A revised their blueprint
or a revision of the blueprint
or a blueprint of the blueprint of the revision
or a revision of the revision of the blueprint
of the revision
or a blueprint of the revision of the blueprint that will finally be a revised revision that willed only be vetoed
"Did you mean Edward Mortimer?:
--- from a posting above
Yes, I did. It should be NOT John Mortimer of Rumpole and Penelope fame, but Edward Mortimer, illegitimate Edward. Sorry - next I'll be writing "Alexandre Kojeve" when I menat to write "Alexandre Koyre," or "Marie Boroff" for "Max Beloff," or "Jean Starobinski" for "Jean Seznec." When one is wild in the streets, anything is possible.
How about this:
political definition of terrorism: Islam
"... one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter..."
I've never understood this one. Can someone refresh my memory when George Washington sent gun-wielding assassins into the markets of London to kill random passerby? When was it that Thomas Jefferson attempted to drive a horse-and-buggy filled with gunpowder into Parliament?
Freedom fighting is one thing, but it just doesn't seem connected in any way to killing unarmed civilians. And the Islamicide freedom fighting has been going on for 1400-odd years. That's alot of dead civilians, and yet the Islamic nations are still brutal dictatorships. Odd.
The UN will mess around with this concept until the west is just about backed into the corner of agreeing that Israel is engaging in terrorism. France will agree with that position, of course. If it actually comes to a vote, the US will either veto or abstain, after counting the other probable votes. But you can bet that there will be a LOT of discussion so that even if such a vote is taken and lost, Israel will be held up to hatred and ridicule. Again.
My definition of terrorist: a muslim with a weapon. And terrorism: any action taken by a terrorist other than surrender.
Muslim terrorism has become the gold standard of any definition of "terrorism".
Just as the vast majority of white collar crimes are committed by middle-aged white guys, so the vast majority of terrorism is being committed by Muslims.
The late Sentator Henry Jackson arrived at a definition of "terrorism" more than 20 years ago, at a conferenece on the subject of international terrorism. All the U.N. needs to do is to find that definition. Perhaps Dorothy Fosdick (if she is still alive), or Richard Perle, can locate that highly satisfactory definition.
Even the "Inner" Jihad is Dangerous:
Imagine if 99% of the total population of neo-Nazis believed in practicing a mental discipline of meditation, which they call "Kampf".
Imagine further that this mental discipline of meditation ("Kampf") is, after analysis and evidence, found out to be principally geared to instilling in the minds & hearts of neo-Nazis everywhere the fortitude & inspiration to work toward the resumption of Hitler's goal of a Fourth Reich.
Imagine further that we learn that the goal of this Fourth Reich is meant to be begun by recovering all the territory Hitler conquered, and will have the implicit desideratum of continuing Hitler's dream of expanding the Lebensraum of Germany's borders to eventually engulf the entire world in conquest.
Imagine further that all our political leaders, media pundits and academic analysts come to know all these details about the neo-Nazi meditative practice of "Kampf".
Do you think they would pussyfoot around and continue to grant legal and sociopolitical protections & apologetics to this obviously seditious mental exercise of "Kampf"? Would they continue to argue that "Kampf" is merely an "inner spiritual struggle" that is harmless and completely unrelated to the actual terrorist fervor of the tiny minority of neo-Nazi extremists? Would they also continue to argue that "Kampf" has nothing to do with the military megalomania of the original Nazis that caused WWII?
Summary: The "inner spiritual" Jihad is directly connected to the external military Jihad. The "inner spiritual" Jihad is the psychological preparation for the external military Jihad.
Why all this bloody fuss over definitional semantics.
Jihad=Terrorism.
The U.S. has been harboring for years a terrorist,
He has been connected to the 1976 bombing of a civilian airliner that killed 73 passengers - the first act of airline terrorism in the Western hemisphere.
His name is Luis Posada.In an interview in Tuesday's Miami Herald, Posada said he was amazed the U.S. government had not been looking for him. He said "At first I hid a lot. Now I hide a lot less." He also denied any involvement in the airliner bombing although recently declassified documents from the CIA and FBI indicate he attended at least two planning meetings for the attack. Posada refused to confirm or deny involvement in other attacks, telling the newspaper: "Let"s leave it to history."
Both Cuba and Venezuela have called for the Bush administration to extradite him to face charges of terrorism. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said, (quote), “As a matter of immigration law and policy, US immigration and customs enforcement does not generally remove people to Cuba, nor does it generally remove people to countries believed to be acting on Cuba's behalf.” Homeland Security went on to say it has 48 hours to determine Posada's immigration status/
Cuba to International Community: Urge US to Extradite Terrorist Posada
Seems the U.S. has a problem of credibility on it's hands, "good terrorist.. bad terrorist" our terrorist their terrorist, certainly doesn't help that Posada was a CIA Asset.
Bravo, metaxy. Great analogy!
A quick way to tell the difference between a freedomfighter and a terrorist.
A freedomfighter is a soldier. Soldiers fight wars. A war is won by convincing the opponent to stop fighting. This can be done by attacking the enemies ability and will to make war. Common targets include enemy soldiers, bases, infrastructure, supplies, factories, communications... ect.
Mass destruction of civilian populations is a last resort, something to be undertaken only in the most dire of circumstances. Why? Read Sun Tzu. I dont have the time or space here.
On the other hand a terrorists goal is not to win a war. No war has been won with demoralizing attacks alone. The modern terrorist is a follower of a political philosophy or religion that permits and/or indorses a burning hatred of the 'other'. Thus a terror attack is not carried out in the hope of defeating an enemy on the field of battle or even in the hope of effecting real political change (despite the constant protestations to the contrary).
Rather they are an expression of the terrorists atavistic hatred he has for his victims. Because his bloody actions do nothing serious to defeat his precieved enemies his attacks can not even be given the meager protection afforded to an act of war. His attacks are murder pure and simple. It is a way for the terrorist to satisfy his blood lust while under the thin cloak of politics or religion.
So, while the bombing of say Dresdin was horrific it at least served the purpose of ending and winning the war. The destruction of that city hastend the end of the war. The bombing of discos and ice cream parlors in Israel serve no purpose other than to soak the attacker in the blood of the hated Jews, his key to the heavenly whore house he so craves.
So this august body of theives, liars and kleptocrats is going to take over another year to define terrorism...Wunderbar! Strike up the Band!!!!
And what derived benefit does the world receive at the end of this effort? A short-sheeted, dilute and utterly meaningless definition of terrorism along with 2 new U.N. bodies!!! Oh…we wouldn't want to forget that continued and endless stream of Islamic terrorism or a nuclear Iran.
What more could peace, freedom and democracy ask for?
It does makes one wonder how many billions are going to be flushed down the toilet in this convoluted process of mental masturbation?
Islam = Jihad = Terror
Boogey_Man: this is just to say that I am thoroughly impressed by your analysis. I could have said neither more, nor better, nor different. I do not think I remember your name from before, but I am glad to see yet another intelligent person turning up to discuss this most serious problem of our time.