|
|
| Author |
Message |
Vekril
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 2525
Location: Jersey
|
 Posted: 03/24/05 - 14:46 Post subject: Kofi Annan finally defines terrorism
|
|
|
| Quote: | Annan said the debate that has waged for years in the UN over the definition of terrorism, and which has kept the world body from adopting a comprehensive convention against terrorism, must end, and that all countries must accept that resisting occupation "cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians." He called for the adoption of a convention by September 2006 with terrorism defined as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."
full article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111375278445
|
About f*****g time, next we need Reuter's to drop that horseshit policy of "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." Going back to Kofi, anyone find the timing of this a bit strange, just as the shit is about to rain down on Kofi and his son in the Oil for Food scandal?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 03/24/05 - 15:18 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
So that makes the united states the biggest terrorist organization ever, awesome.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
kbarr
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 05 Oct 2004
Posts: 11239
Location: New York, now go fuck off...
|
|
Posted: 03/24/05 - 15:25 Post subject: Re: Kofi Annan finally defines terrorism
|
|
|
| Vekril wrote: | | Quote: | Annan said the debate that has waged for years in the UN over the definition of terrorism, and which has kept the world body from adopting a comprehensive convention against terrorism, must end, and that all countries must accept that resisting occupation "cannot include the right to deliberately kill or maim civilians." He called for the adoption of a convention by September 2006 with terrorism defined as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."
full article: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1111375278445
|
About f*****g time, next we need Reuter's to drop that horseshit policy of "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." Going back to Kofi, anyone find the timing of this a bit strange, just as the shit is about to rain down on Kofi and his son in the Oil for Food scandal? |
Vek, read that few times more, then tell me you like it.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 03/24/05 - 15:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
The way that shit is worded, It makes the USA bigger terrorists than the people in the middle east blowing up busses in israel with suitcase bombs.
You fail at law jew.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Vekril
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 15 Oct 2002
Posts: 2525
Location: Jersey
|
|
Posted: 03/24/05 - 16:09 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or noncombatants |
You guys are getting at this line. If you read it as any action where you know civilians "might" die, then it basically outlaws all military action. The US could make the argument that collateral damage is never intended, but this could be a problem in a hostile international court. If it is read as any action which has civilians as its primary target, then the US is in the clear.
You 2 have a good point, there would have to be a statement differentiating between collateral damage and actions where civilians are the direct target.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
