Thanks, UN! We're saved!

[Chairboy]

I know many of you have been down on the United Nations for different reasons, but they've FINALLY done something about the threat of terrorism!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050413/ap_on_re_us/un_nuclear_terrorism

Thanks to their hard work, it will soon be illegal for terrorists to use nuclear weapons.  

Yee-haw!  I can finally get rid of those supplies and ammo and send my children off to school without worrying.

[ASTAC]

The world is a much safer place now..boy am I glad we have a world governing body like that to protect us..oh wait..you say that they don't have any real authority? Well, nevermind then.

[vorticon]

Originally posted by ASTAC
.you say that they don't have any real authority? Well, nevermind then.

it has as much authority as its members let it have, just like everything else.

[ASTAC]

Originally posted by vorticon
it has as much authority as its members let it have, just like everything else.

and there lies the problem...you have like 1/100th that want to actually enforce resolutions and the others that want the protections/benefits of the UN without having to actually spend any manpower/money on it....It's a useless body and might as well be disbanded. Or stick only to what they are good at..Disaster relief and Aid.

[Lizking]

In a nutshell, this sentence sums up why the UN must go:

"The General Assembly has tried for years to define terrorism, so far unsuccessfully because of the argument that one nation's terrorist can be another's freedom fighter."

The fact is that freedom fighters do not commit random violence against  innocent people, with foresight and malice.  Those are terrorists, no matter what their cause.

[Lizking]

This is also what is wrong with the coverage of the war in Iraq, as an example.  A group of Iraqis that attack a government post or US forces can be considered to be "freedom fighters", though given their motive, it is only a "freedom"  to do as they say.  Foriegn fighters, suicide bombers, etc are not freedom fighters, regardless of why they fight-they are terrorists, plain and simple.

The media should be able to make this distinction, but does not.

[SLO]

small brains have a fun time thinking up small idea's...

willing or not, you have killed innocent people, stop trying to paint a colorful portrait you ignorant peep...

when you can't win facing your enemy, go around and plant one up his bellybutton and watch him get stupid...

9/11 was the thing up your ass, now your just being stupid, this ain't over by a long shot, they'll wait till your nice and compfy again and come back and put another one up your arrogant ass...

little brains never learn...

oh UN tries to manage the world Govr.'s....Hundreds of em

US has 1 Govr' and only 375 mil. peeps...

here you are tryin to equate 2 entities that are so different like apples to oranges...

small brain small vision, come back when you've actually used more then 1 brain cell

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Chairboy

Thanks to their hard work, it will soon be illegal for terrorists to use nuclear weapons.  
 

Now if they would just make it illegal for terrorists to have guns we'd really be safe.

Or better yet. Make terrorism itself illegal

[Sandman]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK

Or better yet. Make terrorism itself illegal

First, you're going to have to define terrorism.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Lizking
This is also what is wrong with the coverage of the war in Iraq, as an example.  A group of Iraqis that attack a government post or US forces can be considered to be "freedom fighters", though given their motive, it is only a "freedom"  to do as they say.  Foriegn fighters, suicide bombers, etc are not freedom fighters, regardless of why they fight-they are terrorists, plain and simple.

The media should be able to make this distinction, but does not.

Depends on your point of view

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

One mans terrorist, is anothers partisan..."freedom" at any cost is a hard mantra to argue with when you reach that point

 Tronsky

[Skydancer]

Didn't the USA actualy help start the UN as an organisation.

"In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States."

Rather typical .

"Its broke and don't do what we want anymore!"

"Aw Shucks shall we work hard to fix it?"

"Naw jus throw it away boys we'll make new one all of our own"

[Chortle]

Thatcher labelled Mandela a terrorist but if history has taught us anything its that she was totally insane.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by GScholz
I have a question: Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist?

Yes.

[Momus--]

Originally posted by Lizking

The fact is that freedom fighters do not commit random violence against  innocent people, with foresight and malice.  Those are terrorists, no matter what their cause.

The thing is,  that is exactly what many foreign graduates of the US Army School of the Americas at Fort Benning have been doing for years.

Threatening to use radioactive material or devices — or unlawfully demanding nuclear material or other radioactive substances would also be a crime. Accomplices and organizers would also be covered by the convention.

Countries that are parties to the treaty would be required to make these acts criminal offenses under their national laws, "punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account the grave nature of these offenses."

The convention requires all states that sign the treaty to adopt measures to make clear that acts designed to provoke terror in the general public or in specific groups cannot be justified under any circumstances "by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature.

I can't believe anyone here would think this is a bad thing, well no rational person anyway.

[Torque]

But...but they were the good terrorist Momus.