UNjustified

I flicked through AlJ yesterday. Some one has called a UN security council meeting and they were being lectured by a couple of high end UN secretaries. Human rights and relief areas. One pointed out that what is going on is a black mark for the UN as the rules for various reasons are being totally disregarded. Relief just isn't getting to where it needs to get. The population density in so called safe areas is way too high. There are dead bodies lying around in the north and civilians are still there One also mentioned this isn't new in, decades of problems for Palestinians. Increased IDF actions in the West Bank etc and settling going on even though that has supposedly stopped. Heard an estimate of missing Palestinians. Bit early really - 7,000., The ratio if deaths to injuries usually ranges from 4 to 5 even in troops that are involved in fighting.

C4 went through proof that a couple of journalists were deliberately taken out with a drone, Seems both had association with militants and they flew a drone. Those are of use to reporters but can also be used for other purposes.

Yemen. Sounds like the US has done a 2nd strike and aren't sure how effective these will be. UK flew in 2 fighter to take part. Various pundits do think there will be further escalation. Israel appears to want to create a safety zone their side of a river in Yemen. Seems a lot of Israeli have had to be evacuated 200,000 or so??
 
I'd much prefer the other solution, the right, the just, the honorable solution: Israel stops the bombing of innocent civilians and gets the hell out of Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Accept that Palestinians have a right to live their lives in freedom. They had a state of their own, in which they are now being subjected to genocide, by Israel, supported and armed by the west.
Hamas, Houthis and Hezbolah would have no reason to continue their armed struggle.
Israel could live in security, and other Arab nations would recognise the state of Israel.
A win win situation for all.
Houthis could go back to their own struggle with their own government, as could the Syrians.
The west has no need to interfere.

It's what they've been trying to achieve for a long time hence a peace agreement with Egypt spanning 40 years, a peace agreement with Jordan spanning 30 years, achieved 'normalised relations' agreements with The United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Morocco, and Bahrain in 2020 and were on the verge of signing the same with Saudi Arabia before Iran decided it couldn't be allowed to happen and sent the terrorists in knowing full well what the outcome would be.

Hamas, Houthis and Hezbolah would have no reason to continue their armed struggle.

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Filly cheering on ethnic cleansing again.

I would dearly love to see all terrorists destroyed so we could enjoy peace, what right minded person wouldn't?
 
Filly. To be clear.

Define EXACTLY what a terrorist is.

Once that is established world wide we can achieve your aim.

You can, give an exact definition that all the UN will agree with ?
 
Filly. To be clear.

Define EXACTLY what a terrorist is.

Once that is established world wide we can achieve your aim.

You can, give an exact definition that all the UN will agree with ?


There is no consensus, scholarly or legal, on the definition of terrorism.[1][2][3]

Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism, and governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon legally-binding definition. Difficulties arise from the fact that the term has become politically and emotionally charged.[4][5] A simple definition proposed to the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) by terrorism studies scholar Alex P. Schmid in 1992, based on the already internationally accepted definition of war crimes, as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes",[6] was not accepted.[7][8]

Scholars have worked on creating various academic definitions, reaching a consensus definition published by Schmid and A. J. Jongman in 1988, with a longer revised version published by Schmid in 2011,[8] some years after he had written that "the price for consensus [had] led to a reduction of complexity".[9] The Cambridge History of Terrorism (2021), however, states that Schmid's "consensus" resembles an intersection of definitions, rather than a bona fide consensus.[10]

The United Nations General Assembly condemned terrorist acts by using the following political description of terrorism in December 1994 (GA Res. 49/60):[11]

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.
 
You can, give an exact definition that all the UN will agree with ?

Is there anything that all of the UN can agree on given political divisions. The current accusation of genocide against Israel is a good example. US, Canada and Germany have all stepped forward with statements defending Israel and rubbishing the charge of genocide, other countries will differ in their opinion.
 

There is no consensus, scholarly or legal, on the definition of terrorism.[1][2][3]

Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism, and governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed-upon legally-binding definition. Difficulties arise from the fact that the term has become politically and emotionally charged.[4][5] A simple definition proposed to the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) by terrorism studies scholar Alex P. Schmid in 1992, based on the already internationally accepted definition of war crimes, as "peacetime equivalents of war crimes",[6] was not accepted.[7][8]

Scholars have worked on creating various academic definitions, reaching a consensus definition published by Schmid and A. J. Jongman in 1988, with a longer revised version published by Schmid in 2011,[8] some years after he had written that "the price for consensus [had] led to a reduction of complexity".[9] The Cambridge History of Terrorism (2021), however, states that Schmid's "consensus" resembles an intersection of definitions, rather than a bona fide consensus.[10]

The United Nations General Assembly condemned terrorist acts by using the following political description of terrorism in December 1994 (GA Res. 49/60):[11]
So this doesn't cover Israel?

Why do you continue to look at any problem from just 1 side?
 
Is there anything that all of the UN can agree on given political divisions. The current accusation of genocide against Israel is a good example. US, Canada and Germany have all stepped forward with statements defending Israel and rubbishing the charge of genocide, other countries will differ in their opinion.
So there is no definition that everybody can agree on?

So how do you stop terrorism.

I don't think you actually understand the issues, worldwide. Not just from a little Englander pov
 
Last edited:
I would dearly love to see all terrorists destroyed so we could enjoy peace, what right minded person wouldn't?

These, for example


"The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said Monday that since Oct. 7 at least eight Palestinians in the West Bank have been killed by settlers. The U.N. agency said it has recorded 314 attacks by settlers that have resulted in Palestinian casualties, damage to Palestinian-owned property or both. One-third of the attacks included threats with firearms, including shootings, and in nearly half of the attacks the settlers were accompanied or actively supported by Israeli forces."
 
Back
Top