The United Nations

Definition of terrorism-"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."
dictionary.reference.com...

"This is the first time that all Member States have agreed to a common strategic approach to fight terrorism, not only sending a clear message that terrorism is unacceptable in all its forms and manifestation but also resolving to take practical steps individually and collectively to prevent and combat it."-A quote on the United Nations official website.
www.un.org...

Terrorism is any case in which a person or group use violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
The founders of every government that comprise every country of the United Nations were cases of a group implementing violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Therefore, every government of every nation that comprises the United Nations is founded on terrorism.

None of the people comprising the governments that comprise the United Nations would admit that their governments should have never been founded and yet they say they are against all forms of terrorism. This is a logical contradiction. They can't be against all forms of terrorism and not be against the founding of their own governments. Do you agree? If your rebuttal is something to the effect of "there is no agreed upon definition of what 'terrorism' is within the United Nations," then you would agree that they can't be against terrorism at all; because they don't know what it is. If your rebuttal is "they have a different definition of terrorism than the one you're giving," then i'd like to know what it is.

Note-I am not endorsing any form of terrorism, I am emphatically against all forms of terrorism. I'm merely exposing a logical fallacy within the United Nations.

When the World unites behind a cause, be watchful. In fact, be very watchful (Operation Desert Storm).

a reply to: Thetan

it turns out there is MANY different definitions of terrorism

A 2003 study by Jeffrey Record for the US Army quoted a source (Schmid and Jongman 1988) that counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements.[7] Record continued "Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the 'only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.' Yet terrorism is hardly the only enterprise involving violence and the threat of violence. So does war, coercive diplomacy, and bar room brawls".[8]

AboveTopSecret

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Yes, i'm aware. Is it the case that the United Nations is agreeing upon a definition that doesn't pertain the their governmental founders?

I'll take it a step further. You can't find a definition of "terrorism," that doesn't apply to their governmental founders.

a reply to: Thetan

I think the U.N. is a bigger threat to my security than any terrorist.

I don't trust anything they do.

a reply to: Thetan
"Hostile to existing government" would be part of the usual understanding of terrorism, even if it isn't specified explicitly in the definition.
That disposes of the paradox.

a reply to: DISRAELI

How so? Every government of every nation comprising the United Nations was founded by a group of people overthrowing an old government.

At that time, they were hostile to the existing government.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Yes, i'm aware. Is it the case that the United Nations is agreeing upon a definition that doesn't pertain the their governmental founders?

I'll take it a step further. You can't find a definition of "terrorism," that doesn't apply to their governmental founders.

From you link:

Plan of Action
We, the States Members of the United Nations, resolve:

To consistently, unequivocally and strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes, as it constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security.
To take urgent action to prevent and combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and, in particular:
To consider becoming parties without delay to the existing international conventions and protocols against terrorism, and implementing them, and to make every effort to reach an agreement on and conclude a comprehensive convention on international terrorism;
To implement all General Assembly resolutions on measures to eliminate international terrorism, and relevant General Assembly resolutions on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism;
To implement all Security Council resolutions related to international terrorism and to cooperate fully with the counter-terrorism subsidiary bodies of the Security Council in the fulfilment of their tasks, recognizing that many States continue to require assistance in implementing these resolutions.
To recognize that international cooperation and any measures that we undertake to prevent and combat terrorism must comply with our obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations and relevant international conventions and protocols, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law.

It seems like they are both saying, that they want to condemn ALL FORMS OF TERRORISM, and also saying the want to follow the laws, made by states, which defines terrorism as an act of terror, AGAINST THE STATE, they cant have both, i agree with your OP.

Dont have time to look it all through ATM, but i will take a look at it later, so dont have much to add, but the definition of terror, as i understand it, is someone using fear, to promote their own politicial, religous or idelogicial believes on others.

So saying your going to hell, if you dont follow a certain set of rules, would by that definition be an act of terror... this is a hot conversation to get into, cause by deffinition, we are almost all of us, somekind of terrorist... Good Luck

a reply to: Thetan
But the existing governments are not hostile to themselves NOW. That is the point.
You know perfectly well that when people talk of "terrorists", "hostile to currently existing government" is at least part of the unconscious definition, even if it isn't spelled out consciously. That's why nobody feels any paradox.

a reply to: Thetan
Get ride of the UN and move it to a place like Switzerland, why is it most of its members dues are way behind and we keep them in the UN, we shoule eliminate all the consulates and all the riff raff that come with them.

So why is the UN in the US?

a reply to: DISRAELI

So you're saying that the United Nations isn't against the concept of terrorism, they are just against terrorism at the present moment?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Thetan

I think the U.N. is a bigger threat to my security than any terrorist.

I don't trust anything they do.

Dont get me started on that org that I have 1000s of names for , but probably cannot be stated on ATS. I will sum the UN up and restrain myself. They have done absolutely NOTHING to IMPROVE this world since they were the "League of Nations" . Their actions have been self-serving and the inverse of what the group stands for. And that applies to any of their completely corrupt sub-groups - WHO , IPCC , etc......
If the Swiss wouldnt even take em in , there is something BAD wrong.

a reply to: Gothmog

If the Swiss wouldnt even take em in , there is something BAD wrong.

Your right they aren't receiving refugees. Except I was just there about several months ago, they do have a well established Muslim community in Switzerland. Have so for decades. So how does Switzerland not taking in as many refugees as Germany,France or Sweden reflect on the U.N's actions for dealing with the Muslim migration?

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: Gothmog

If the Swiss wouldnt even take em in , there is something BAD wrong.

Your right they aren't receiving refugees. Except I was just there about several months ago, they do have a well established Muslim community in Switzerland. Have so for decades. So how does Switzerland not taking in as many refugees as Germany,France or Sweden reflect on the U.N's actions for dealing with the Muslim migration?

My words have NOTHING to do with refugees . None. When the UN was born from the League of Nations , they needed a country to be based in.ALL countries of the world refused. The only reason the US changed their minds , the UN offered to pay "rent" . It was agreed and the UN was based in the US. After that , they havent payed the US a wooden nickel . Even there , that proves their corruption. They violated their own agreement.
I named the Swiss specifically due to the League of Nations being born and based in Switzerland.So , they would allow and welcome the League of Nations . But for the UN , not just no , but hell no

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: Gothmog

If the Swiss wouldnt even take em in , there is something BAD wrong.

Your right they aren't receiving refugees. Except I was just there about several months ago, they do have a well established Muslim community in Switzerland. Have so for decades. So how does Switzerland not taking in as many refugees as Germany,France or Sweden reflect on the U.N's actions for dealing with the Muslim migration?

My words have NOTHING to do with refugees . None. When the UN was born from the League of Nations , they needed a country to be based in.ALL countries of the world refused. The only reason the US changed their minds , the UN offered to pay "rent" . It was agreed and the UN was based in the US. After that , they havent payed the US a wooden nickel . Even there , that proves their corruption. They violated their own agreement.
I named the Swiss specifically due to the League of Nations being born and based in Switzerland.So , they would allow and welcome the League of Nations . But for the UN , not just no , but hell no

This is completely wrong. Many nations (and many US cities) competed to have the UN HQ. The Swiss, UK, France and the US were in the top running. The Swiss who have one four UN main offices along with NY, Nairobi and Vienna, had one of the strongest claims offering the old League of Nations building. The land in NY was bought by the Rockefeller's and donated to the NY to give to the UN to get them to come there. The UN owns it. Offices outside of the UN HQ that the UN uses, the UN pays rent to the building owners. The US of course being an ideal choice outside of what was once war prone Europe.

a reply to: MrSpad
Rhetoric. Research the history

I accept the wording is going to be trick for this, it has been since the world got stuck with this upside down perspective ruling the show. It would be all nice and pretty to eliminate violence and threats all together, but then what are we going to do with all this military stuff around? So with the UN deciding that it going to keep it's forces and options in defense of itself is an easy decision, I would if I was the UN.

originally posted by: Thetan
So you're saying that the United Nations isn't against the concept of terrorism, they are just against terrorism at the present moment?

Yes, the governments which form the United Nations are against what threatens them, which they label as "terrorism".
The fear of the threat comes first, then the label.
They're not forming the concept first and deciding "that's what we're going to be afraid of", so juggling with the definition serves no purpose except in scoring debating points.