It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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]
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.
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.
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.
If the Swiss wouldnt even take em in , there is something BAD wrong.
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?
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
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?