UN seeks definition of terrorism

[emad]

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has urged world leaders to agree on a universal definition of terrorism.

The bomb attacks in London and Egypt underscored the need for a definition with "moral clarity" and a UN convention against terrorism, he said.

A UN treaty has been stalled for years over the definition of a terrorist.

A new UN proposal calls terrorism any act intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4716957.stm

[SteppingRazor]

1. "ANY ACT"?!

That's absolutely insane. By that definition, protests are an act of terrorism.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

3. Or even signing a petition

"Any act compelling a government to act" could also be interpreted as casting a vote in an election.

This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. I disagree.

It says, "terrorism any act intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act. A petition, protest march, and the like cannot compel or intimidate a government. They are legitimate forms of expression. This proposal is more about using violence as a method of expression. A piece of paper, or even an orderly march will not compel anyone, but bring grievances to light. Conversely, sending a petition with 'do this or so-and-so dies' and a march, with arms, on a location are not considered legitimate ways of expressing dissent or a way to ask for change.

[annabanana]

6. if it means "violence"

it should SAY "violence"..........

That's a pretty big matzo ball hanging out there...

[Behind the Aegis]

8. "it adds"

"The targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance,"

On edit: The full statement:

"We affirm that the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimised by any cause or grievance, and we declare that any action intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organisation to carry out or to abstain from any act cannot be justified on any grounds and constitutes an act of terrorism."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4717687.stm

[not systems]

10. This will make "strategic bombing" terrorism...

good.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. What is strategic bombing?

[anaxarchos]

15. "Tactical bombing" is attacks against opposing troops on the battlefield.

"Strategic bombing" is attacks on cities/civilians/infrastructure "intended to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international body to act."

They will have to add a qualification:

"... using equipment valued at less than $10 million".

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Much obliged!

I appreciate the explanation. I think the new argument that will evolve will be what qualifies as "strategic" and what qualifies as "tactical."

[The Stranger]

17. Apparently . . .

"What is strategic bombing?"

. . . now it is terrorism.

[not systems]

28. strategic bombing defined

This is what I had in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing

Strategic bombing is a military strategem used in a total war style campaign that attempts to destroy the economic ability of a nation-state to wage war. It is a systematically organized and executed attack from the air. It is different from the tactical event of strategic bombing, which involves strategic bomber aircraft, cruise missiles, or fighter-bomber aircraft attacking targets determined during the organization of the strategic bombing campaign.

The distinction between tactical and strategic bombing can be easily blurred. Strategic bombing missions usually attack targets such as factories, railroads, oil refineries and cities, while tactical bombing missions attack targets such as troop concentrations, command and control facilities, airfields, and ammunition dumps. The act of traveling to the target and dropping bombs, even if part of a strategic bombing campaign, is a tactical event. Strategic bombers tend to be large, long-range aircraft; tactical bombers are mostly relatively small. However, the distinction does not lie in the aircraft type used or the assigned target, it lies in the purpose of the attack. Tactical bombing aims to defeat individual enemy military forces. Strategic bombing aims to undermine a nation-state's ability to wage war, historically as a part of a total war strategy.

[Burma Jones]

2. It's what we used to call Communists

But since Communist China holds so much of our debt, we have to call everyone that disagrees with us terrorists now, because you're either with us or with (shudder) them......

[Dover]

4. I know....."TERRORISTS" are the ones with the least power

That's why they are terrorists. Their government and its laws, in their minds, has failed them.

Who were the 'terrorists'.......the Cowboys or the Indians?

"Terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder.

[MountainLaurel]

7. A quote I saw once

"Terrorism is the war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich."

[LyleNews]

9. But Bunnypantz Sez the "War On Terror" Is No More?

Then Who are the PNAC Neo-Conz Going To Empty The National Treasury to Fight?

A simple (www.network54.com/Votelet/42322)poll should determine whether the current "Luntz-Speak" is sufficient to justify the the new marketing of dumping $60 Billion a year into shooting some one somewhere. But, those pesky tax cuts ore not going to be on the target list, are they?

[fshrink]

11. That's gonna be a tough one...

Especially since the use of "terror" is a well-known, and abundantly used method of government and control of the people (e.g. death penalty)... The only difference between "ordinary terror", as it were, and "terrorism" seems to lie in the fact that "terrorists" have not been elected by the people they claim to represent by universal suffrage and their acts have not been submitted to the vote of the people.

[emad]

12. Always thought the UN Security Council knew pretty damned well

what constitutes terrorism and/or a terrorist. Ditto for the definition of 'The Rule of Law'.

[jayctravis]

14. Terrorism is protest that involves murder.

It's not that hard.

I say that's the easiest way to define terrorism. That way peaceful protestors cannot be called terrorists, as much as the B*Administration would like to call them that.

[Demeter]

18. Websters Dictionary : Terrorism:

See Bush Family Evil Empire, BushCo.

[sweetheart]

19. War is a rich man's terrorism; Terrorism is a poor man's war.

It is all so very gray, that when many civilians are killed by an
american bomb, it is terrorism as well, but unpersecuted. As long
as the law is so one sided, they should expect the consequences of
their terrorism.

[K-W]

20. Will never happen, too many terrorist states on the security council. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

21. This is very true. n/t

[D-Notice]

22. "Terrorism"

An act against those whom we support, by those whom we oppose, using the tactics of those whom we support.

[damntexdem]

23. Oh, then terrorism is what ...

the American government regularly does throughout the world.

[sakabatou]

24. Wow... how many times has the US done THAT?

[salminen]

25. They're not going to be able to do it

There is no definition which would include Al Queda, not include Isreal or the US, and be acceptable to the rest of the world.... The definition which gets at what the US would find acceptable would be something like "When a poorer group of people targets the civilian population of a richer group, or when a less white group targets the civilian population of a whiter group"... Which isn't exactly going to fly. The other direction, "terrorism is any act of violence against a civilian intended to intimidate a group of people" clearly includes the US, Israel, and most of the world...

[Zorra]

26. Damn, by that definition the US government is Terror Central. n/t

[bennywhale]

27. It will be any violence by non-legitimate forces. that being

non-state forces or non-state sanctioned forces such as the mercenaries working for big multinational corporations worldwide.

Any other violence (even rebels in Dafur or Uzbeckistan) will be terrorism

[bemildred]

29. They will get stuck.

Nobody wants a definition unambiguous enough to be pinned on them.