Palestine v Israel.

[Strontium Dog]

I doubt that Hezbollah has the technical skills to do it...

True. But my point is that if the tables were reversed we'd be reading and hearing about an outrageous act of indiscriminate terrorism from Hezbollah, accompanied by widespread international condemnation - even more so if it happened the day after US negotiators had arrived in Lebanon to urge both sides towards de-escalation.

Well yes, because Hezbollah are TERRORISTS. What part of that don't you understand?

You really do seem to struggle with the concept of legitimacy as it applies to conflict in the Middle East.

[Brian Peacock]

I doubt that Hezbollah has the technical skills to do it...

True. But my point is that if the tables were reversed we'd be reading and hearing about an outrageous act of indiscriminate terrorism from Hezbollah, accompanied by widespread international condemnation - even more so if it happened the day after US negotiators had arrived in Lebanon to urge both sides towards de-escalation.

Well yes, because Hezbollah are TERRORISTS. What part of that don't you understand?

You really do seem to struggle with the concept of legitimacy as it applies to conflict in the Middle East.

No. I was only characterising the acts of violence as terrorism: that is, the actual use or threat of violence to achieve political, religious, racial, or ideological ends - typically employed against non-combatant and/or civilian populations. After all, the objective of terrorism is to inculcate terror and fear within a population at large and/or to seriously disrupt or destabilise a country's political, constitutional, economic, or social structures.

If you believe there are reasonable grounds upon which the indiscriminate use of violence against non-combatant and/or civilian populations for political, religious, racial, or ideological ends can be rightful justified as as legitimate -- as 'legitimate terrorism' if you will -- then please provide a substantive rationale.

[aufbahrung]

Moral hypocrisy on a higher than natural horse is a peculiar complaint of these isles...

[rainbow]

I doubt that Hezbollah has the technical skills to do it...

True. But my point is that if the tables were reversed we'd be reading and hearing about an outrageous act of indiscriminate terrorism from Hezbollah, accompanied by widespread international condemnation - even more so if it happened the day after US negotiators had arrived in Lebanon to urge both sides towards de-escalation.

Well yes, because Hezbollah are TERRORISTS. What part of that don't you understand?

The IOF are TERRORISTS. What part of that do you not understand?

[aufbahrung]

Terrorists seems to be such a generic blurred term for any unwelcome group with bad ideas is it even meaningless in the era of hybrid warfare. My own intuition is the idea was hatched with a unfiltered AI and some 'interesting' prompts.

[Brian Peacock]

The concept and definitions of 'terrorism' along with common, customary or legal understandings and uses of the term -- whether informally, as part of domestic legislation, or within the conditionalities of the treaties and agreements that constitute international law -- are pretty straightforward Crumps.

[pErvinalia]

No no, it's created by AI. :whacky:

[Sean Hayden]

The concept and definitions of 'terrorism' along with common, customary or legal understandings and uses of the term -- whether informally, as part of domestic legislation, or within the conditionalities of the treaties and agreements that constitute international law -- are pretty straightforward Crumps.

That's not what I was taught.

Before examining the meaning and associated concepts and principles of (international) criminal justice and international criminal law as they apply to terrorist crimes, it is first necessary to briefly examine some of the principal reasons for, and implications of, the absence of a universally agreed definition of terrorism, including how key institutional and State actors have approached criminal justice solutions in the absence of one.

As was discussed in Module 1, the concept of "terror" is not a new one, having existed in different forms for centuries. The reasons for this are many. There are a number of possible explanations for this, some of which are explored below in relation to ongoing efforts to agree on a Comprehensive Convention.

--continued: UNODC Defining Terrorism

--//--

It's anybody's guess where crump's AI came into the picture.

[JimC]

The whole Israel/Palestine thing brings with it some very messy politics. Some Jewish people accuse anyone expressing any form of support for Palestinians, or concern for the actions of the Israeli government of being anti-semitic. On the other side of the coin, some pro-Palestinian activists definitely cross the line into anti-semitism, such as harassing people simply for being Jews...

A good article on such issues from our ABC...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-23/ ... /104382192

When university bosses went through security at Parliament House last week, a hearing on the other side of the Pacific that had brought down two Ivy League presidents would have been playing on in their minds.

Last year, university bosses in the US were summoned to Capitol Hill to answer questions about anti-Semitism on their campuses in the wake of the encampment movement.

The moment that captured the world was when a New York Republican asked university leaders whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated their universities' codes of conduct. It should have been an easy answer, but each responded with qualified and conditional answers where they essentially argued that the context of the statements would matter. It was a train crash and contributed to the view that their campuses were not safe for Jewish students.

While university campuses have always been the epicentre of political movements, the Israel-Hamas war is dividing students and the community in ways that are unprecedented. Universities have struggled to walk the line between tolerating protest and defending free speech and establishing red lines on what isn't acceptable.

On Friday, watching Australian vice-chancellors face a grilling at the Senate inquiry into anti-Semitism on campus — set up following the establishment of protester tent cities on several university campuses earlier this year — it became clear that they were not going to replicate the mistakes of their American counterparts.

[Brian Peacock]

The concept and definitions of 'terrorism' along with common, customary or legal understandings and uses of the term -- whether informally, as part of domestic legislation, or within the conditionalities of the treaties and agreements that constitute international law -- are pretty straightforward Crumps.

That's not what I was taught.

Before examining the meaning and associated concepts and principles of (international) criminal justice and international criminal law as they apply to terrorist crimes, it is first necessary to briefly examine some of the principal reasons for, and implications of, the absence of a universally agreed definition of terrorism, including how key institutional and State actors have approached criminal justice solutions in the absence of one.

As was discussed in Module 1, the concept of "terror" is not a new one, having existed in different forms for centuries. The reasons for this are many. There are a number of possible explanations for this, some of which are explored below in relation to ongoing efforts to agree on a Comprehensive Convention.

--continued: UNODC Defining Terrorism

If you read down a bit you'll find examples taken from a number of UN documents and resolutions. There's also the various conditions and definitions to be found in domestic legislation. So while there's no absolute definition, and putting aside the niceties and vagaries of legal text, the commonalities are pretty clear even as the words used to describe them vary according to different parties in different contexts. As I said earlier...

[T]he actual use or threat of violence to achieve political, religious, racial, or ideological ends - typically employed against non-combatant and/or civilian populations. After all, the objective of terrorism is to inculcate terror and fear within a population at large and/or to seriously disrupt or destabilise a country's political, constitutional, economic, or social structures.

This primarily characterises certain acts as terrorism, where others primarily characterise certain people as terrorists - which not only attempts to render their acts terrorism by default but is also an attempt to define something about their fundamental nature. My pervious point challenges arguments which seemingly justify the apparent legitimacy of certain retributive or offensive acts which themselves appear to fall well within the term 'terrorism'.

Certainly Hezbollah and Hamas are proscribed terrorist groups, but that in itself does not legitimise a nation state acting against them to commit acts of violence which also fall under the term 'terrorism'.

[Sean Hayden]

You're minimizing the difficulties here aren't you? Not only is there no universal definition but no clear path to one. What is seen as commonalities that might form the basis of a universal definition may be rejected by any party depending on their immediate needs in a particular context. So, you have a situation where there is not just no universally accepted definition of terrorism, but disagreement about what constitutes a crime for a variety of activities some might consider terrorism. The problem is apparent here when people can't agree that Israel and Hamas are engaged in terrorism.

[aufbahrung]

One mans special day is another mans terrorist and they've gotten good at killing each other over their invisible friends that way. Centuries if not millennia of blood feuding is instilled. That's not gonna change until those lands with/without oil are all empty of people. Soon enough.

[rainbow]

Certainly Hezbollah and Hamas are proscribed terrorist groups, but that in itself does not legitimise a nation state acting against them to commit acts of violence which also fall under the term 'terrorism'.

Who does the "proscribing"?

Is there an objective Proscibing Authority?

[rainbow]

A “proscribed organisation” is an organisation or group that is illegal to join or show support for, because it has been identified as being concerned in terrorism.

The Home Secretary can choose to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000, if that organisation:

commits or participates in acts of terrorism
prepares for terrorism
promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or,
is otherwise concerned in terrorism

Dozens of terrorist organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. The full list can be found on the Home Office website:

Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

https://www.counterterrorism.police.uk/proscription/

Circular definitions much?

[rainbow]

The Home Secretary includes such Moral Icons as Priti Patel, and Intellectual Giants like Theresa May.

...what could go wrong?