Ghost of BiB Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 This is sort of floating under the radar. Arab nations want terrorism wiggle room?
KD in CA Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Good grief! What's next, Europe agreeing to a terrorism quota? "Ok you guys, but you can only have 3 bus or train bombings next year. Any more than that and it's right back here to the negotiations!!"
finknottle Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Good grief! What's next, Europe agreeing to a terrorism quota?"Ok you guys, but you can only have 3 bus or train bombings next year. Any more than that and it's right back here to the negotiations!!" 515771[/snapback] Why does this surprise or indiginate anyone? The dispute is clearly not about the war on terrorism, but rather the political point of whether the wording paints the Arab countries into a corner of condemning Palestinian resistance as the same sort of terrorism. Just curious - is this passage so objectional? Arab nations sought to add an important qualification, proposing text that said nothing in the anti-terrorism code contradicts "the right of peoples under foreign occupation to strive to end it in accordance with international law."
Mickey Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 This is sort of floating under the radar. Arab nations want terrorism wiggle room? 515765[/snapback] Did I read that right? It seemed to say that the only Arab participants in the conference were Palestine and Turkey. It also said that all the Arab participants wanted that line about being able to resist foreign occupation in accordance with international law. Does that mean that it was objected to by Palestine and Turkey and thats it because the rest were not there?
Ghost of BiB Posted November 29, 2005 Author Posted November 29, 2005 Why does this surprise or indiginate anyone? The dispute is clearly not about the war on terrorism, but rather the political point of whether the wording paints the Arab countries into a corner of condemning Palestinian resistance as the same sort of terrorism. Just curious - is this passage so objectional? 515787[/snapback] Because, in the land of semantics and geo-political manuevering, the definition of what becomes terrorism gets very blurred. An argument could be made that it is technically legal to blow up westerners with IED's in Iraq, as well as as those Iraqi's supporting them. The intent may be to a degree as you say, but a hard line has to be drawn against certain tactics, lest those who are victimized through terrorism being burdened with a legal argument condoning it.
Ghost of BiB Posted November 29, 2005 Author Posted November 29, 2005 Did I read that right? It seemed to say that the only Arab participants in the conference were Palestine and Turkey. It also said that all the Arab participants wanted that line about being able to resist foreign occupation in accordance with international law. Does that mean that it was objected to by Palestine and Turkey and thats it because the rest were not there? 515792[/snapback] I think the absence of the other 8 was a protest vote. The wording didn't just develop this week. I bring it up partly to make the point that the US is not the center of the universe, when it comes to these matters.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Because, in the land of semantics and geo-political manuevering, the definition of what becomes terrorism gets very blurred. An argument could be made that it is technically legal to blow up westerners with IED's in Iraq, as well as as those Iraqi's supporting them. And replace "westerners" with "Germans" and "Iraq" with "France" or "Czechoslovakia", and that argument has been made by the very people (the EU) trying to invalidate it now. Not that I mean to criticize their attempt at invalidating it (not that I don't mean to, either - I intend to keep my opinion on that closely held). Just reinforcing your point that the definition can be very blurred.
Ghost of BiB Posted November 29, 2005 Author Posted November 29, 2005 And replace "westerners" with "Germans" and "Iraq" with "France" or "Czechoslovakia", and that argument has been made by the very people (the EU) trying to invalidate it now. Not that I mean to criticize their attempt at invalidating it (not that I don't mean to, either - I intend to keep my opinion on that closely held). Just reinforcing your point that the definition can be very blurred. 515833[/snapback] He who wins gets to write the history books. Which side do we want to be on?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 He who wins gets to write the history books. Which side do we want to be on? 515854[/snapback] At this point, I'm just hoping the mother-ship will arrive soon and take me home.
Ghost of BiB Posted November 29, 2005 Author Posted November 29, 2005 At this point, I'm just hoping the mother-ship will arrive soon and take me home. 515856[/snapback] There's a comet out there somewhere. I'd gladly trail behind it.
X. Benedict Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 At this point, I'm just hoping the mother-ship will arrive soon and take me home. 515856[/snapback] You can only hope it travels at the speed of sound, 299,792,458 meters per second. How many sound years away is your galaxy?
finknottle Posted November 29, 2005 Posted November 29, 2005 Because, in the land of semantics and geo-political manuevering, the definition of what becomes terrorism gets very blurred. An argument could be made that it is technically legal to blow up westerners with IED's in Iraq, as well as as those Iraqi's supporting them. The intent may be to a degree as you say, but a hard line has to be drawn against certain tactics, lest those who are victimized through terrorism being burdened with a legal argument condoning it. 515797[/snapback] Yeah, but I think only an idiot would invite the Palestinians to a party and expect them to sign off on something which - by the Europeans refusal to accomodate them on the wording - invalidates their central national tenet: that Isreal's past refusals to adhere to UN declarations to withdraw justified their armed resistence. How could agree to something which says their historical struggle was unjustified terrorism? Draw the line the way they wanted, and the morality of national resistence is seperated. (I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just painting it through their eyes.) So the reason I think the Europeans look incompetant here is not because they are being wishy-washy about terrorism, but because they are political fools. You can do one of two things: have a feel-good affirmation of intent, or have an agreement with clearly drawn lines. If you want a line as you suggest and expect unaminous agreement, then you had better not start off by declaring some of the participants to be on the bad side of it. And a blanket declaration The draft of the "Code of Conduct on Countering Terrorism" declared "all peoples have the right of self-determination," but that "terrorist attacks cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance." does just that. By analogy, what are the odds that the Sein Fein would sign off on such a joint declaration between themselves, the Protestants, Ireland, and the UK? There's no way they would delegitimize the Irish struggle.
OGTEleven Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 So the reason I think the Europeans look incompetant here is not because they are being wishy-washy about terrorism............If you want a line as you suggest and expect unaminous agreement, then you had better not start off by declaring some of the participants to be on the bad side of it. 515938[/snapback] With so many participants, how could a line be drawn, that would be unanimously agreed upon, yet not be wishy washy? You caould pick any topic (terorism or other) and if you'd expect everyone to agree, you'd need it to be pretty wishy washy. "We all like puppies" might draw it share of objections.
/dev/null Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 You can only hope it travels at the speed of sound, 299,792,458 meters per second. How many sound years away is your galaxy? 515929[/snapback]
finknottle Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 With so many participants, how could a line be drawn, that would be unanimously agreed upon, yet not be wishy washy? You caould pick any topic (terorism or other) and if you'd expect everyone to agree, you'd need it to be pretty wishy washy. "We all like puppies" might draw it share of objections. 516033[/snapback] I agree - that's why I say you shoot for lines or you have a unanimous declaration of something bland like 'poverty is bad.' With so many participants, and with the Palestinian issue dividing some of them, they should have planned for an uncontroversial articulation of principals that everybody agrees to, or not held it at all. Indeed, these things are usually ironed out beforehand. (And for the record I think a vague declaration is pretty useless, but that is after all the stuff of diplomacy and standards-bodies the world over.)
pope zimli Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 I'm not sure the British were all that hot on our statement that became "When in the course of human events..." either. Friggin terrorists over there in the colonies.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 I'm not sure the British were all that hot on our statement that became "When in the course of human events..." either. Friggin terrorists over there in the colonies. 516266[/snapback] Erm, right. Those "people" who are in the "resistance" in Iraq routinely blow themselves and others up. Their own countrymen in fact. They routinely kill CHILDREN to make some twisted point. I don't think that the warfare during the revolution was QUITE that barbaric, now do you, Holy Father?
Alaska Darin Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 Erm, right. Those "people" who are in the "resistance" in Iraq routinely blow themselves and others up. Their own countrymen in fact. They routinely kill CHILDREN to make some twisted point. I don't think that the warfare during the revolution was QUITE that barbaric, now do you, Holy Father? 516714[/snapback] Shutup, Joe. Everyone knows only American airstrikes kill children.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 30, 2005 Posted November 30, 2005 Shutup, Joe. Everyone knows only American airstrikes kill children. 516717[/snapback] Yes, of course, how utterly crass of me.
Recommended Posts