04-19-2005, 09:42 PM
It really needs a lot of work. Even then, I'm in doubt about supporting this. I'm not really a big fan of the whole anti-terrorism hype. Any resolution against terrorism opens the way for undemocratic regimes to call any state they don't like "terrorist", to legalise violent acts against the nation or its citizens. I do not think that the UN should endorse this behaviour, which it does if a resolution like this is accepted.
Another big objection is that is goes on about religious terror, as if that's the only kind of terrorism there is. I find this discriminating against religiously inspired nations (not that I am particularly fond of religious nations, but it's not up to us to judge them)
In short, this resolutions is against my principles as a pro-democracy, pro-justice nation, and I will not support it.
(OOC: To open a can of worms, this smells like it could be used in the same way as Iraq was invaded illegaly. I and millions of other people in the world did not protest against that for nothing. This resolution seeks to legitimise that kind of violence, and I will simply not support it.)
Another big objection is that is goes on about religious terror, as if that's the only kind of terrorism there is. I find this discriminating against religiously inspired nations (not that I am particularly fond of religious nations, but it's not up to us to judge them)
In short, this resolutions is against my principles as a pro-democracy, pro-justice nation, and I will not support it.
(OOC: To open a can of worms, this smells like it could be used in the same way as Iraq was invaded illegaly. I and millions of other people in the world did not protest against that for nothing. This resolution seeks to legitimise that kind of violence, and I will simply not support it.)