• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Debate - Should UN lead war on terrorism

halfstepdown88

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In Debate class we starting public forum. It where you argue with with a partner against two people. The topic that everyone has to debate about is "Resolved- the United Nations should be the primary agent to lead and direct the fight against terrorism around the world."

Well, you have to flip a coin to see who gets to be negative or affirmitive for the resolution. You have to get a 1 and a half page for both sides. I am doing negative and my partner is doing affirmitive. So I am against the united nations being the primary agent to lead the fight against terrorism.

So far I don't even have a full page. You have to have an intro, and three main points. So far I only have one point, and that is the United nations is corrupt, and I am using that oil-for-food scandal.

So does anybody know any really good resources on the net for this or know what 2 other really good points would be?
__________________
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Originally posted by Tashah...

Established in 1945, the United Nations is the stepchild of the failed League of Nations. Initially, the United Nations only accepted membership from the Allied Alliance nations who had declared war on the Axis Powers. This caveat meant that the original UN members shared a basic common cause and moral clarity. UN membership was eventually opened to all nations of the international community... regardless of political or moral stance.

In its current formulation, the United Nations majority is composed of Third World nations ruled by dictators and authoritarian regimes. This majority has formed a resolution/voting bloc which has resulted in the organizational marginalization of democratic nations.

Although the United Nations boasts of an international legitimacy and claims a moral high ground, it is now viewed by many democratic nations as an irrelevant tower of Babel that has substituted moral equivalence for moral clarity. The track record of the UN in addressing moral crisis is on the whole quite appalling... Israel/Palestine, the Uganda of Idi Amin, Cambodia, Eritrea, Bosnia/Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Iraq, and now Sudan. It is failing in efforts to address the critical issue of nuclear prolifferation with India, Pakistan, Libya, North Korea, and Iran as prominent examples. Criminal activity such as child prostitution by UN troops in areas under its juristiction has been reported, and organizational corruption such as the Iraq Oil For Food Program is being investigated. Authoritative and despotic regimes such as Syria and Sudan have been promoted to the UN Security Council and the UN Commission on Human Rights.

Has the time now come for the democracies of the world to disengage from the United Nations and form a new international agency such as the Community of Democracies?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=32582&postcount=1
 

Lucidthots

Banned
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
979
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
A UN "Global Occupation Force?"

That is What Bush41 and D. Rockefeller want, but the plan failed.

The fact that a Global UN Occupation Police Force failed is why the PNAC has turned to America and Britain to take the role.

It too seems to be doomed.....THANK GOD!
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The UN has failed to keep up with the realities of the alignment of powers in the world. Google on "John Bolton" and check some of thoughts and I feel sure that you'll have plenty of material. Good luck!
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The UN has proven themselves to be an inept and corrupt organization. IMO their funding should be withdrawn. Food for oil dictates such. Their only present function is as a shakedown front to weasel cash from the friggin USA. How you people put any stock in this corrupt organization is beyond me. The best thing we have ever done regarding the UN is to put a hard ass like Bolton in to represent us. Follow the money you (explicative deleted), it ALWAYS leads to the root. I'm sure you all dismiss my rants but see Tashah's posts on this matter. She, like me, is smarter than you. (Sorry Tashah).
 

Lucidthots

Banned
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
979
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
oldreliable67 said:
The UN has failed to keep up with the realities of the alignment of powers in the world. Google on "John Bolton" and check some of thoughts and I feel sure that you'll have plenty of material. Good luck!
Hopefully, John Bolton's abrasiveness willl only make the rifts in the UN more apparent and he will fail to unite the organiztion, which will work in America's benefit.

Bush 41 pledged his allegiance to the UN/Rockefeller and the New Global Occupation Forces.

What a disaster!
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
halfstepdown88 said:
In Debate class we starting public forum. It where you argue with with a partner against two people. The topic that everyone has to debate about is "Resolved- the United Nations should be the primary agent to lead and direct the fight against terrorism around the world."

Well, you have to flip a coin to see who gets to be negative or affirmitive for the resolution. You have to get a 1 and a half page for both sides. I am doing negative and my partner is doing affirmitive. So I am against the united nations being the primary agent to lead the fight against terrorism.

So far I don't even have a full page. You have to have an intro, and three main points. So far I only have one point, and that is the United nations is corrupt, and I am using that oil-for-food scandal.

So does anybody know any really good resources on the net for this or know what 2 other really good points would be?
__________________
Good luck. Just remember that the United Nations can not wage war without the Security Council agreement, and this has to be fought like a war when a nation is sympathetic to the terrorists.

1) The reason why the United Nations can not be the primary agent to lead and direct the fight against terrorism around the world is that it IS the United Nations (of tyrants too), as it makes a bastardization of the definition of the word “nation“ accepting usurping tyrants as sovereign leaders, and terrorism itself is a form of tyranny (survival of the fittest) where the terrorist is taking the law into their own hands according to their “own ideas” of justice:

“Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

2) The United Nations (of tyrants too) can not lead the war on terror in that it considers it an “extrajudicial killing” to wage war against terrorist leaders, when those terrorists have called themselves “soldiers” in their Hamas Charter {a charter which you must read and understand}, and the leader of the United Nations (of tyrants too) considers such genocidal terrorists to be “viable negotiating” parties:

“SECRETARY-GENERAL STRONGLY CONDEMNS ISRAEL’S ASSASSINATION OF HAMAS LEADER, WHICH RESULTED IN DEATHS OF EIGHT OTHERS
The following statement was issued today by the Spokesman for Secretary-General Kofi:
The Secretary-General strongly condemns Israel’s assassination of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, which resulted in the deaths of eight others. He is concerned that such an action would lead to further bloodshed and death and acts of revenge and retaliation. He reiterates that extrajudicial killings are against international law and calls on the Government of Israel to immediately end this practice. The only way to halt an escalation in the violence is for the parties to work towards a viable negotiating process aimed at a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement.”
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sgsm9210.doc.htm

3) The most important reason why the United Nations (of tyrants too) can not lead the war on terrorism is that you have to define what you consider a “terrorist,” and the United Nations (of tyrants too) support for terrorist organizations by considering them “viable negotiating parties,” like it considers Hamas, is why the United Nations (of tyrants too) has yet to define the legal definitions of “terrorist“ and “terrorism.” The United Nations (of tyrants too) can use the word “terrorism” in a sentence, but it has no legal weight, and you will notice that the Secretary-General did not call the Hamas leader and founder of the organization a “terrorist,“ nor did he call Hamas a “terrorist” organization.
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
929
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In Debate class we starting public forum. It where you argue with with a partner against two people. The topic that everyone has to debate about is "Resolved- the United Nations should be the primary agent to lead and direct the fight against terrorism around the world."

"Terrorism" is a very convenient term which is used quite frequently these days by the USA and its poodles to describe other people`s attempts to break free from the stranglehold of globalisation and American imperialism.
Therefore one could contend that he who proposes such a resolution is attempting to persuade other countries who are foolish enough to be members of the UN to do Bush`s dirty work for them[or should that be the jews who control the White House?]
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Aryan Imperium said:
In Debate class we starting public forum. It where you argue with with a partner against two people. The topic that everyone has to debate about is "Resolved- the United Nations should be the primary agent to lead and direct the fight against terrorism around the world."

"Terrorism" is a very convenient term which is used quite frequently these days by the USA and its poodles to describe other people`s attempts to break free from the stranglehold of globalisation and American imperialism.
Therefore one could contend that he who proposes such a resolution is attempting to persuade other countries who are foolish enough to be members of the UN to do Bush`s dirty work for them[or should that be the jews who control the White House?]
America is the agressor in IRAQ everyone knows but AMerica
Although there are some Americans that do know the vast majority
are in a daze and either dont care or hide behind an agenda
What scares America most is the PETRO~EURO
and they are bent on globalization

Even their closest allie says no to IRAQ
what compounds the issue even more they did not use standard combat troops and went with a mainly a weak force made up of kids
that acted like punks from The L.A. Zoo
Now the iraq people dispise them
AMERICA BOw YOUR HEAd IN SHAME
THERE CAN be no peace while you are still in iraq
get you ass out of IRAQ
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
929
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Canuck said:
America is the agressor in IRAQ everyone knows but AMerica
Although there are some Americans that do know the vast majority
are in a daze and either dont care or hide behind an agenda
What scares America most is the PETRO~EURO
and they are bent on globalization

Even their closest allie says no to IRAQ
what compounds the issue even more they did not use standard combat troops and went with a mainly a weak force made up of kids
that acted like punks from The L.A. Zoo
Now the iraq people dispise them
AMERICA BOw YOUR HEAd IN SHAME
THERE CAN be no peace while you are still in iraq
get you ass out of IRAQ

Very well said and let us not forget that the USA,the instigator of the infamous Nuernberg show trials has exempted its soldiers from all international war crimes legislation and tribunals.In other words they will commit atrocities and get away with it but then they will judge their enemies for doing the same thing.
Hypocrites!
 

Lucidthots

Banned
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
979
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Aryan Imperium said:
=Therefore one could contend that he who proposes such a resolution is attempting to persuade other countries who are foolish enough to be members of the UN to do Bush`s dirty work for them[or should that be the jews who control the White House?] [/B]
Ive got news for you Aryan---ROCKEFELLER IS NOT JEWISH!

 
Last edited:

halfstepdown88

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
can someone tell me when/what happened with whatever "hamas" is? Sorry I am new to the whole debate scene
 

halfstepdown88

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Sweet. Thanks for all the info guys. Now all I need is one major point and some good information for it.

I got a pretty good intro, and my 1st point is that the "UN is Corrupt" and I talk about the oil-for-food scandal.

My 3rd point (i'm gonna save it for last) is "Define Terrorism" and talk about how terrorism has no borders, talk about Hamas, and stuff.

So if any of your guys know what would be a strong point that would have some good information that would be greatly appreciated.:smile:



Thanks
TJ
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
halfstepdown88 said:
Sweet. Thanks for all the info guys. Now all I need is one major point and some good information for it.

I got a pretty good intro, and my 1st point is that the "UN is Corrupt" and I talk about the oil-for-food scandal.

My 3rd point (i'm gonna save it for last) is "Define Terrorism" and talk about how terrorism has no borders, talk about Hamas, and stuff.

So if any of your guys know what would be a strong point that would have some good information that would be greatly appreciated.:smile:



Thanks
TJ
A point against the UN would be to mention how the UN's "Human Rights Commision"(laughable oxymoron) has members that are among those who have the most documented abuses...
 

halfstepdown88

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Well like a point that i could write like 2 paragraphs about ya know
 

Canuck

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
849
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Lucidthots said:
Ive got news for you Aryan---ROCKEFELLER IS NOT JEWISH!

MY 2 cents he paid russia so that they wouldn't insist that the UN not be in AMERICA
$$$$$ talks BS walks
 

Lucidthots

Banned
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
979
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Here is a picture of John D. Rockefeller III giving a check worth 8,500,000.00

To Trygve Lie, a Communist and personal friend of Leon Trotsky, the Red Butcher. Mr. Lie was the first Sec. Gen. of the U.N.

Question: Why would the worlds biggets Capitalist support Communism?

Answer: GLOBAL CENTRAL BANKING MONOPOLY = THE WORLD BANK/IMF

The U.N. is a government body established by money made by the Rockefellers and other industrialists through War Profiteering.

Probably not a good idea to put them in charge of War.


 

halfstepdown88

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
so what was the league of nations? because if that failed then i can use that against the united nations because they are like the same thing right?
 

halfstepdown88

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Ok this is my negative case tell me what you guys think about it.

This is against the resolution that the united nations should lead and direct the war against terrorism

Negative Case
INTRO
Say, that one of you go out at night and take your parent’s car. When you come home your parents find out that you took their car. Would your parents call all the neighbors and ask them what your punishment should be? That is why my partner and I stand resolved that the United Nations should not lead the war on terror. We will offer three arguments in support of our case.
Contention one
The UN is corrupt
If you haven’t heard about the oil-for-food scandal, it began as a U.N. humanitarian aid program called "Oil-for-Food," but it ended up with Saddam Hussein pocketing billions to become the biggest graft-generating machine ever and enriching some of America's most forceful opponents at the United Nations. Plus, some evidence suggests that some of the money ended up in the hands of potential terrorists who are opposed to the United States.
Finally a US led coalition made of a smaller group of nations than the first effort finally knocked Saddam out of business. And it did so without the help of the United Nations, which failed to pass a resolution backing the U.S. effort.
A FOX News poll found that 54 percent of the U.S. public believes the United Nations does not reflect the values of average Americans. Only 29 percent say that U.N. policies reflect said values.
If France, Russia, China and Germany had told Saddam it was time to back down it’s possible the United States may not have needed to go to war against Saddam. But why did these countries really object to a second U.S.-led war against Iraq? Some evidence suggests that those countries that said they were opposing the Bush administration on principle were actually making billions from Oil-for-Food. Another FOX News poll found that 64 percent of Americans say the United Nations has not been an effective partner in the War on Terror.
Contention Two
The UN is Bureaucratic
All bureaucracies need constant shaking up and reform. This is more difficult in the UN than in national governments because the UN has 186 sovereign governments as its joint boss. One of the problems with the UN is the intention, or lack of intention, of its member governments to make it work. If there is no overwhelming threat to the security or survival of a government they tend to attach less importance to the organization which has been and is their safety net in really dangerous times.
By the time that the United Nations is the only way out of a serious threat to human society, the organization will be so run-down and discredited that it will not be able to perform its function. This is what happened to the League of Nations in the 1930s and the result was World War II.
The organization, has no sovereign authority to act. Its function is to bring together the nations of the world to react to threats, to the peace, or other great problems which threaten the world community in one way or another. This is usually quite difficult to do. For example, the UN was very limited in its capacity to act in Bosnia because there was serious disagreement among the members of the Security Council as to what ought to be done. At the present time, the same applies to action concerning Iraq, and there are a number of questions on which there is no agreement to take any action at all. The UN, apart from having no sovereignty, has no standing military capacity and has no standing authority to enforce international law. Only in particularly serious cases -- for example, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 -- is there sufficient international consensus to authorize action. Even then the action is taken by a coalition of sovereign states under the general authorization of the Security Council. In short, the UN does not have the power of an army to lead the war on terrorism
Contention Three
Define “Terrorism”
One of the most important reasons why the United Nations cannot fight terrorism is that you have to define what you consider a “terrorist” and the United Nations support terrorist organizations by considering them “viable negotiating parties” like it considers Hamas, so the United Nations have yet to define legal definitions of “terrorist” and “terrorism”. The United Nations can use the word “terrorism” in a sentence, but it has no legal weight, and the Secretary-general did not call the Hamas leader and founder of the organization a “terrorist” nor did he call Hamas a “terrorist” group.
If we are talking about stopping terrorist attacks like those in London, how exactly can we stop it? Terrorism is an ever changing elusive enemy. It doesn’t have borders and a government system. Its like the war on drugs, it can’t really be decisively beaten. We could give the police more resources, but even that has disadvantages when everyone is being filmed by surveillance cameras.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
halfstepdown88 said:

Negative Case
INTRO
Say, that one of you go out at night and take your parent’s car. When you come home your parents find out that you took their car. Would your parents call all the neighbors and ask them what your punishment should be? That is why my partner and I stand resolved that the United Nations should not lead the war on terror. We will offer three arguments in support of our case.
Horrible analogy...The neighbors are not part of a designated team that is to look out what happens to individuals within the neighborhood...

A better analogy would be the residents of a home association...If they all signed a document that says they must keep their property cleaned up, yet there was a tenant that does not mow their lawn and trash is strewn about their yard...

THEN the assiciation would have the authority to act...
 

halfstepdown88

New member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
my teacher gave the intro to me lol. well what about the rest of the paper was it good?
 

DivineComedy

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2005
Messages
2,231
Reaction score
129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
halfstepdown88 said:
Negative Case
INTRO[/B][/CENTER]
Say, that one of you go out at night and take your parent’s car. When you come home your parents find out that you took their car. Would your parents call all the neighbors and ask them what your punishment should be?
I think a more appropriate analogy might be the Deep South after reconstruction as compared to the interests of Nations for cheap oil. Your neighbor is black and the Klu Klux Klan is terrorizing them because they do not want blacks living free in their neighborhood, and they want to keep them in a state of subjection:

“[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392 {the “book” referred to is the Bible and the Torah}

Just as the terrorist Klan was created after a defeat in a war, the PLO and other terrorist groups like Hamas are similar in that they can not defeat Israel in honorable warfare.

The reason why the federal government did not do anything in the Deep South to protect the blacks from oppression, and terrorism, is because the government was made up of States that had their own interests. There is a really cute picture of the KKK marching on Washington. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

The South was agricultural (an analogy to oil) and food was needed by the States more than security and freedom for the blacks, that was one reason for the end to reconstruction (as the blacks were charged with subsistence farming). The last time Georgia had a Republican Governor prior to this one, was during reconstruction. Just as the UN can not destroy Israel, which is the goal of the terrorists like Hamas, the United States could not stomach expelling the blacks back to Africa or to slave states in South America (as per a draft of an Emancipation Proclamation for the State of Delaware). {Do not expect to find the draft of that proclamation on the Internet, or any politically correct history book, you must search the actual writings of Abraham Lincoln, as in “Lincoln: Speeches and Writings : Volume 2: 1859-1865,” so do not use it unless you do find it and have a copy; your teacher will not believe it even exists unless you prove it.} http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0940450631/002-6179767-1688810?v=glance

The United Nations admitted Israel as a Member State and can not stomach destroying it, but oil interests of the various nations prevents a Security Council resolution condemning State Sponsors of Terrorism like Syria and Iran that are violating UN resolution 242; the condition that Iraq not support terrorism as per H32 of UN cease-fire resolution 687 is the only exception, and the UN clearly had no intention of enforcing it:

“H
32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;”
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm

Free elected Governments (of the people) among oil producing states in the Middle East will only cause gas prices to rise as their enfranchised people demand more in the way of social programs and infrastructure for their resources (oil), but it is the right thing to do. Communists and Socialists would not think it is right for the people of a nation to have such a resource for their own benefit, they want cheap oil too: remember what Communists believe, it is “from each according to their ability to each according to their need.”

The interests of nations during the cold war prevented many from doing the right thing, including the United States, and the interests of nations with regard to strategic resources continues to prevent the support for an enfranchisement of any people that have a strategic resource that the world wants cheaply; remember the analogy of the agricultural South‘s resource of food, where to keep cheap food you had to turn over the former slaves to the their former masters and end reconstruction, and compare it to the desire for cheap oil where Oil for Food and containment was Peace for Greed: Oil for Food and containment was in essence Cheap Oil produced by slaves for the masters. Sorry for the long sentence.

When you mix in a xenophobic religion you have the perfect excuse to keep peace from enfranchising a people to use their own wealth. It is easier to sell to one dictator, who you can more easily control, than to convince the august councils of government to buy poorly built Soviet Tanks, especially when the people want a good life and the dictator or tyrant just wants to maintain his job description. The tyrant that supports terrorists is morally only maintaining his belief in the principle of survival of the fittest or own ideas of justice, and the support for terrorism can only work to give reason to maintain the tyrant’s job description:

“I think, that you, often criticize those whom you criticize in order to weaken them, by saying that they use emergency laws, and what emergency laws, by western standards, cannot be a general rule. But now, unlike what you used to say about those whom you accuse of being dictators and despots, we see dozens of emergency laws and measures adopted by the governments of the West, with the US in the forefront, after facing one painful event.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Peace can only come when the people of all Nations are enfranchised to police their territory or pay the price for their choices. Those that signed the Declaration of Independence did so as representatives of their states, and they fought as a Nation and not as various unconnected groups of so-called “freedom fighters” serving their own tyrannical interests. The United Nations (of tyrants too) can not accurately define what a “terrorist” is, while various interests of so-called “nations” support so-called “freedom fighters” whose desire is not really the enfranchisement of the people; the hypocrisy is that the interests of some nations makes for a Machiavellian desire for profit in confusion (the word “confusion” in this instance could be defined as the tyranny of mini-tyrants of terror whose idea of justice is based upon their own ideas).
 
Top Bottom