Tuesday, February 28, 2006

Definition on terrorism

I'm having some troubles in my study now and I would enjoy any help I could get. As I'm writing on terrorism I try to find a good definition on this term. In a normal lexica it would say: "Terrorism: use of organized violence to achieve political goals". That is a true an honest definition an probably the most correct one. But I believe the media, which is my case of study, to use some other kind of definition. I mean have you ever read in a newspaper:

"American terrorists attacked a small village close to Kabul today to kill a man and used excessive elements of terror as choppers and cluster bombs to achive this political goal."

I mean according to the lexica this would be quite correct just as:

"Today a man was condemd to 4 years in jail. The judges found it apropriate to use these means of terror against the man, because he himself had terrorised his wife for several years by beating her."

Such articles would create an upproar and the papers editors would be condemd as left-wing exstremists, even though they had used a definition taken from a normal lexica. I thought then it would be appropriate to find another definition on terrorism. And what would be better than the UN and their Security Council? And here I discovered something quite interesting.

After September 11th the UN created the Conter-Terrorism Comittee (CTC) to make sure the fight against terror should be a success. They also created Resolution 1373 where, amongst other things, all member countries are asked to report on their local projects to fight terrorism, and get help to achieve this goal. But the Resolution 1373 never gave any definition on what they understand as "terrorism". This was because, and I quote:

"The principal reason Resolution 1373 did not attempt to define terrorism was to avoid the divisive debate in the Security Counscil that has bogged down th Sixht Committee's work on the Comprehensive Convention. The sponsors of Resolution 1373 wanted a resolution that would pass quickly" (Rosand, Eric; Journal of American Law, no. 2, 2003)

The member countries are rather asked to find their own definition. What a great thought! I presume Iran to have a nice definition on that term. If they can get help from the UN (CTC has a budget on 11 million dollars) to fight what they understands as terrorism, they would really like to join the resolution. And Mr. Mugabe probably need som help also, as Zimbawe is overloaded with terrorists these days. And Pakistan still would like some help to fight those terrorists from India. Not at least do the German government have a problem with curious terroristic journalists these days, who wants to know what German agents did in Iraq. They could need some help in fighting them.

So now I ask: Who do you think should be our terrorists?

Personaly I would like to highligth the swedish boys. They come to Norway, we give them jobs and we give them girls and how do they thank us? By getting voilent in the streets every saturday night, and terrorising us with the Swedish national anthem.

I still don't know if Norway has come up with a definition, so please come with your suggestions. Use your best kind to implement some newspeach into it and then we will use some good old fashioned mind control to get this newspeach implemented as a norm. I will send it all in to CTC as "the peoples definition". For the money we get, I will buy arms for everyone (easy to get now a days if it is to be used in the war on terror) and we can get together an fight our enemies together. I will be a lot of fun!

Swedes are also allowed to contribute. I will later give the bomb belts we recieve, so you can have some fun with them when you walk home from town singing. The most effective use of these you will achieve if you wear them underneath a smoking. You will then maybe get what you can call a "double kill".


The more I read on this subject the more stupid it unfolds.

The UN has registered Hamas oficially as a terrorist group. And now that Hamas is in the Palestinian government the UN resolutins oblige them to take progressive action against themselves. At the same time the definition on terrorism is still missing. And Abu Iyad, former PLO leader, implifies in a statement that non israelis are innocent, and this opinion may be traced among many palestinians, also in the government. So when the UN gives an opening for government themselves to define terrorism, Hamas might say that all israelis are terrorists. Then the UN on their side are obliged to help Hamas fight their terrorists. Fantastic! A killing of an Israeli will then be legal because, as the israeli professor in Conunter Terrorism, Boaz Ganger states, none "(...) action by a state against terrorist activists can be defined as "terrorism", even if only because the latter are not actually civilians".

This is of course a real "Catch 22". The only solution for Hamas then is to get funds from the UN to buy bomb belts and do a good old suicide mission. Such a mission would kill both themselves and israelis and then be a complete success for the UNs war against terror. And they spend millions on such projects.

Oh such a wonderful world!

This is getting better and better. I just read a press relase concerningResolution 51/210 "COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM TAKES UP DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-TERRORISM CONVENTION" from the Security Council in 2001. This was before the American invation in Iraq. As we all know today American forces has a slight problem with terrorists attacking them every day and destroying the wonderful democracy they try to build up. But check out what Iraq said in this resolution from 2001:

"ABDUL MUNIM AL-KADHE (Iraq) said he fully supported the Committee’s efforts to elaborate a comprehensive convention against terrorism. His Government condemned all forms of terrorism, including State-sponsored terrorism, which it considered one of the worst forms. The United States had devoted some $97 million to provide resources to Iraqi elements, cooperating with the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to cause trouble in his country. In recent months, he added, the United States administration had agreed to transfer further sums to those elements."

The question on what these funds are used to today is interesting. One can get many bombs for $97 million. But who cares about what the Iraqis say? They are all liars anyway!


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home