You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Arabia
Kuwait calls on int'l community to define terrorism
2007-10-13
Kuwait called on the international community Wednesday evening to place a legal and comprehensive definition for terrorism and terrorist acts, and to prepare a counter-terrorism agreement as soon as possible.
Same old, same old. Arab states want to 'define' terrorism so as to make sure that none of them can be accused of it.
This came during a speech by Kuwaiti diplomat Mohammad Al-Ateeqi before the 62nd UN General Assembly's Legal Committee, which was discussing measures to eliminate global terrorism. He called on the international community not to confuse terrorism with the right of people to determine their own fate and liberate themselves from foreign occupation, as stipulated in Charter of the UN.
Which means that killin' Jooooooz is still okay.
"We, in Kuwait, reaffirm that terrorism clashes with all religions and human values. While condemning all forms of terrorism, regardless of motive, we reiterate that terrorism must not be linked to any religion, nationality, culture, or ethnic group."
Especially Muslims. Most especially.
"We also stress respect for human rights, international law, and international humanitarian law when countering terrorism," he said.
Except when the Shi'a citizens of their own country get a little uppity. But hey, who cares about that?
Posted by:Steve White

#4   Totalitarianism is often associated with the use of terror. To wit:
A simple definition of totalitarianism can be taken to be ‘a system of rule, driven by an ideology, that seeks direction of all aspects of public activity, political, economic and social, and uses to that end, at least to a degree, propaganda and terror’.

An official ideology to which general adherence was demanded, the ideology intended to achieve a ‘perfect final stage of mankind‘.

A single mass party, hierarchically organised, closely interwoven with the state bureaucracy and typically led by one man.

Monopolistic control of the armed forces.

A similar monopoly of the means of effective mass communication.

A system of terroristic police control.

Central control and direction of the entire economy.
[emphasis added]

The numerous intersections of Islam and totalitarianism cannot be ignored. Laws or fatwan are issued in an indefatigable drive to control and define acceptable social behavior. The media and military are tools of state. Freedom of speech and personal liberty are nonexistent. In order to effect these constraints the use of terror as means of control is almost de rigeur. As a result of these congruencies, Islam is terrorism. Totalitarianism cannot be excised from Islam without hopelessly neutering its Koranic doctrine. Ergo, neither can terrorism.

Islam is terrorism.


Posted by: Zenster   2007-10-13 10:41  

#3  One man's terrorist is another man's muslim.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-10-13 08:49  

#2  "We, in Kuwait, reaffirm that snake biting terrorism clashes with all religions and human values. While condemning all forms of snake bites terrorism, regardless of motive, we reiterate that snake bites terrorism must not be linked to any religion, nationality, culture, or ethnic group snakes."
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-10-13 02:30  

#1  not to confuse terrorism with the right of people to determine their own fate and liberate themselves

Only the most blinkered could be caught in such confusion. Almost every nation has at some point fought a war for its independence (which is what he means, as "liberation" necessarily involves some attention to "liberty"), but not every nation has resorted to terrorism. He wants us to conflate George Washington with Yassir Arafat. Washington could have sent agents to massacre loyalists, but he didn't. Arafat could have established a regular army and confronted the Israelis on the battlefield, but he didn't.

It's an argument that can only appeal to those with no sense of history or those who have a stake in creating the suggestion of confusion in the face of a good deal of actual clarity.
Posted by: Baba Tutu   2007-10-13 01:10  

00:00