W. Niederhut Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 45 minutes ago, John Cotter said: William, That (unlinked) definition of terrorism which you posted is somewhat dated since it was issued in 1994. John, The source of that definition is the U.N. resolution I cited above. Meanwhile, you and Paul Rigby should study Aleksander Dugin's 1997 playbook for Putin's future Russian empire-- The Foundations of Geopolitics-- which is theorized to eventually extend from Dublin to Vladivostok! You Hibernians will be in with In Crowd. Among other strategies, Dugin advised Putin and the Russian military to use Russia fossil fuel resources and pipelines to manipulate and coerce Western Europeans to accept Russia's imperialist agenda. So, perhaps there is still hope for the multi-polar world that you and Paul Rigby so admire, provided that the U.S. and our NATO allies refrain from further acts of "terrorism." 🤓 Edited February 18, 2023 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 1 hour ago, John Cotter said: William, That (unlinked) definition of terrorism which you posted is somewhat dated since it was issued in 1994. It’s clear from the second paragraph of the following extract from a more recent (2018) online article published by UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) that the blowing up of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline fulfils the three criteria enumerated therein. Quote: Although there is no current agreement regarding of a universal legal definition of the term, there has been some debate regarding the possible existence of an, at least partial, customary definition of terrorism. This followed the somewhat controversial judgment of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon in 2011, which found that since at least 2005, a definition of "transnational terrorism" has existed within customary international law: As we shall see, a number of treaties, UN resolutions, and the legislative and judicial practice of States evince the formation of a general opinio juris in the international community, accompanied by a practice consistent with such opinio, to the effect that a customary rule of international law regarding the international crime of terrorism, at least in time of peace, has indeed emerged. This customary rule requires the following three key elements: (i) the perpetration of a criminal act (such as murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, arson, and so on), or threatening such an act; (ii) the intent to spread fear among the population (which would generally entail the creation of public danger) or directly or indirectly coerce a national or international authority to take some action, or to refrain from taking it; (iii) when the act involves a transnational element. ( Interlocutory Decision, 2011, para. 85). https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-4/key-issues/defining-terrorism.html I think there is really no upside to debating this with William. Anyone could use google for 2 mins to refute what he said but, I just thought; whats the point arguing the tedious or inane with him. Whether we call it terrorism or sabotage, the fact is its a serious crime that we have catalogued the consequences of. I just think W. will keep going until he thinks he has won the smallest point, even if he is 100 points in the minus. The sad part is that he is missing the bigger picture. That he is supporting the war through his thoughts and opinions, following the well trodden path of misguided US foreign policy for profit. He is on the side of the neocons and doesn’t even realise. Also, how many times do I have to ask him what his proposed solutions are for the conflict to achieve peace? The fact he won’t answer speaks volumes about his position. It’s a waste of our time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said: John, The source of that definition is the U.N. resolution I cited above. Meanwhile, you and Paul Rigby should study Aleksander Dugin's 1997 playbook for Putin's future Russian empire-- The Foundations of Geopolitics-- which is theorized to eventually extend from Dublin to Vladivostok! You Hibernians will be in with In Crowd. Among other strategies, Dugin advised Putin and the Russian military to use Russia fossil fuel resources and pipelines to manipulate and coerce Western Europeans to accept Russia's imperialist agenda. So, perhaps there is still hope for the multi-polar world that you and Paul Rigby so admire, provided that the U.S. and our NATO allies refrain from further acts of "terrorism." 🤓 It looks like Chris has leap-frogged and dodged my rebuttal. Chris has also dodged my question and reference (above) about Putin's apparent unwillingness to negotiate an end to his invasion. Chris, was dodge ball, perchance, your favorite childhood sport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said: John, The source of that definition is the U.N. resolution I cited above. Meanwhile, you and Paul Rigby should study Aleksander Dugin's 1997 playbook for Putin's future Russian empire-- The Foundations of Geopolitics-- which is theorized to eventually extend from Dublin to Vladivostok! You Hibernians will be in with In Crowd. Among other strategies, Dugin advised Putin and the Russian military to use Russia fossil fuel resources and pipelines to manipulate and coerce Western Europeans to accept Russia's imperialist agenda. So, perhaps there is still hope for the multi-polar world that you and Paul Rigby so admire, provided that the U.S. and our NATO allies refrain from further acts of "terrorism." 🤓 William, What UN resolution? As far as I can see, the only resolution you cited is a resolution of the European Parliament, an anti-Russian body in thrall to the US. The part of the resolution you quoted contains no reference to the 1994 UN definition – and even if it did, the point I made about that 1994 definition being outdated still stands. Are you trying to deliberately mislead people with this circular nonsense? As for Aleksander Dugin’s 1997 playbook, this is another red herring. There is no evidence I’m aware of that Dugin has any official role vis-à-vis Putin. You’re grasping at straws in your ongoing attempt to demonise Putin. It’s really desperate stuff – false propaganda in fact. Do you really believe that there was no reason whatsoever for the Russians to feel existentially threatened by NATO’s expansion in eastern Europe, given the USA’s “full spectrum dominance” foreign policy and its (the USA’s) appalling record of serial “regime-changing”? And, most important, in view of the ongoing carnage and destruction in Ukraine, I would second Chris’s question to you about what should be done to stop it. Edited February 18, 2023 by John Cotter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 @W. Niederhut ⬇️ Definition of terrorism Article Talk Language Watch Edit There is no universal agreement on the legal definition of terrorism,[1][2][3] although there exists a consensus academic definition created by scholars.[4] Various legal systems and government agenciesuse different definitions of terrorism, and governments have been reluctant to formulate and agreed-upon a legally binding definition. Difficulties arise from the fact that the term has become politically and emotionally charged.[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][4] Scholars have worked on creating various academic definitions, reaching a consensusdefinition published by Schmid and A. J. Jongman in 1988, with a longer revised version published by Schmid in 2011,[4] some years after he had written that "the price for consensus [had] led to a reduction of complexity".[8] The United Nations General Assemblycondemned terrorist acts by using the following political description of terrorism in December 1994 (GA Res. 49/60):[9] 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. In the United States of America, terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38, of the U.S. Codeas "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents".[10] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 On 2/17/2023 at 9:31 AM, Chris Barnard said: @W. Niederhut could you please outline your plan to stop the war/killing and what you would be prepared to concede to achieve that goal? Or, are you comfortable for this to continue escalating? Again .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 33 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: It looks like Chris has leap-frogged and dodged my rebuttal. Chris has also dodged my question and reference (above) about Putin's apparent unwillingness to negotiate an end to his invasion. Chris, was dodge ball, perchance, your favorite childhood sport? Tag me in posts and address me if you wish to ask me questions. Please make sure there is at least one question mark present. There is a quid pro quo in debate or an accepted reciprocal situation; if you are to ask questions, you must also be prepared to answer them. YOU have a question outstanding. Please answer. I am really starting to think @Matthew Koch is right in having you on ‘ignore’. There is nothing remotely intellectual about your participation in this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 John, I'm responding to your latest confused post in red (below.) William, What UN resolution? As far as I can see, the only resolution you cited is a resolution of the European Parliament, an anti-Russian body in thrall to the US. It is UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60-- as I stated (above.) The part of the resolution you quoted contains no reference to the 1994 UN definition – and even if it did, the point I made about that 1994 definition being outdated still stands. Wrong. It is a direct quotation/definition from the December 1994 UN Resolution. Are you suggesting that definitions from 1994 have expiration dates? 🤓 (I hope my eldest daughter is still named, Elisabeth. She was born in 1994.) Are you trying to deliberately mislead people with this circular nonsense? What's circular about referencing a UN definition of "terrorism?" Do tell. As for Aleksander Dugin’s 1997 playbook, this is another red herring. There is no evidence I’m aware of that Dugin has any official role vis-à-vis Putin. You’re grasping at straws in your ongoing attempt to demonise Putin. Newsflash. Dugin is widely regarded as Putin's guru, and has been for quite some time. In fact, his daughter was recently killed in what was thought to have been an assassination attempt on Dugin, himself. It’s really desperate stuff – false propaganda in fact. Nonsense, John. Do some remedial reading on the subject of Dugin and Putin's totalitarian police state. Do you really believe that there was no reason whatsoever for the Russians to feel existentially threatened by NATO’s expansion in eastern Europe, given the USA’s “full spectrum dominance” foreign policy and its (the USA’s) appalling record of serial “regime-changing”? Did you study any of the references I have posted debunking the "blame it on NATO" narrative? On the contrary, Putin has been planning to annex Ukraine and re-establish the Soviet empire for years. And, most important, in view of the ongoing carnage and destruction in Ukraine, I would second Chris’s question to you about what should be done to stop it. As I already replied to Chris, twice, I'll try again. Perhaps the third time will be the charm. Is Putin currently open to negotiating a peace deal? If so, I'm all for it. But Putin-the-Invader, is reportedly not interested in negotiating. Instead, he has been flying nuclear bombers over Norway and the U.K. Multi-polarity may hold a very bright future for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: John, I'm responding to your latest confused post in red (below.) William, What UN resolution? As far as I can see, the only resolution you cited is a resolution of the European Parliament, an anti-Russian body in thrall to the US. It is UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60-- as I stated (above.) The part of the resolution you quoted contains no reference to the 1994 UN definition – and even if it did, the point I made about that 1994 definition being outdated still stands. Wrong. It is a direct quotation/definition from the December 1994 UN Resolution. Are you suggesting that definitions from 1994 have expiration dates? 🤓 (I hope my eldest daughter is still named, Elisabeth. She was born in 1994.) Are you trying to deliberately mislead people with this circular nonsense? What's circular about referencing a UN definition of "terrorism?" Do tell. As for Aleksander Dugin’s 1997 playbook, this is another red herring. There is no evidence I’m aware of that Dugin has any official role vis-à-vis Putin. You’re grasping at straws in your ongoing attempt to demonise Putin. Newsflash. Dugin is widely regarded as Putin's guru, and has been for quite some time. In fact, his daughter was recently killed in what was thought to have been an assassination attempt on Dugin, himself. It’s really desperate stuff – false propaganda in fact. Nonsense, John. Do some remedial reading on the subject of Dugin and Putin's totalitarian police state. Do you really believe that there was no reason whatsoever for the Russians to feel existentially threatened by NATO’s expansion in eastern Europe, given the USA’s “full spectrum dominance” foreign policy and its (the USA’s) appalling record of serial “regime-changing”? Did you study any of the references I have posted debunking the "blame it on NATO" narrative? On the contrary, Putin has been planning to annex Ukraine and re-establish the Soviet empire for years. And, most important, in view of the ongoing carnage and destruction in Ukraine, I would second Chris’s question to you about what should be done to stop it. As I already replied to Chris, twice, I'll try again. Perhaps the third time will be the charm. Is Putin currently open to negotiating a peace deal? If so, I'm all for it. But Putin-the-Invader, is reportedly not interested in negotiating. Instead, he has been flying nuclear bombers over Norway and the U.K. Multi-polarity may hold a very bright future for you. William, As I’ve already shown, the 1994 UN definition of terrorism has been superseded by the 2018 UN document I quoted above. This is yet another example of your circular nonsense – recycling points already rebutted. You’ve dodged my question about whether there was any reason for the Russians to feel existentially threatened by the actions of the US/Nato. Your tunnel-vision Russophobia precludes you from considering the actions of US/NATO which Russia (and US foreign policy experts such as Professor Mearsheimer) might reasonably consider existentially threatening. As I’ve said already, this kind of pathologically self-righteous tunnel vision is what JFK decried in his American University speech on 10th June 1963 when he said, “Let us examine our attitude toward the Soviet Union”. You’ve similarly dodged Chris’s question and instead reverted to your default mode of Russophobic regurgitation. As another forum member suggested, you and your fellow anti-Russian jingoists need to heed the mote-and-beam Christian lesson about moral vision impairment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk Gallaway Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 Yikes! I had no idea this thread was still going on! Wow!, Now it looks like we were all in tacit agreement to bomb Nordstream. And what a great agreement it was! As it says here in this article, that throughout this war and since we bombed the pipeline, "Europe Turned an Energy Crisis into a Green Energy Sprint". Biden whose IRA, ( Inflation reduction act) will be a boon for green energy in the United States, has like some Svengali like powers! He has now succeeded in turning all Europe more Green as well! And now oil and natural gas prices are lower than they were before Putin's invasion as well! Bravo UK and Europe! I must admit, we had our doubts, we thought it would take you at least a few years to recover. But some of your stock markets are at all time highs! Stick with us! The sky's the limit! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/15/opinion/europe-energy-crisis-natural-gas-russia.html?campaign_id=39&emc=edit_ty_20230216&instance_id=85517&nl=opinion-today®i_id=61798350&segment_id=125474&te=1&user_id=48552702f942aacb0810b9de5ca41c55 And then on top of that. More good news! A solid majority of Brits 53 to 34%! now think it was wrong to leave the European Union! Just a stunning victory for globalism! If their leaders can just listen to the cries of their people, and reunite with Europe. Then things should be a lot more manageable across the pond! Then nothing can stop us! Which is a heady prospect! Full speed ahead! https://www.statista.com/statistics/987347/brexit-opinion-poll/ ***** Chris: What seems abundantly clear to me is that there is a contingent on this forum that desperately wants this thread degraded and deleted. Wow! Chris . Glad I could walk you through your belief system and give you the courage to post! As I may have lost track, but you've got 17 posts on this thread since you made that statement. Whatever I can do for free speech! heh heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 3 hours ago, John Cotter said: William, As I’ve already shown, the 1994 UN definition of terrorism has been superseded by the 2018 UN document I quoted above. This is yet another example of your circular nonsense – recycling points already rebutted. You’ve dodged my question about whether there was any reason for the Russians to feel existentially threatened by the actions of the US/Nato. Your tunnel-vision Russophobia precludes you from considering the actions of US/NATO which Russia (and US foreign policy experts such as Professor Mearsheimer) might reasonably consider existentially threatening. As I’ve said already, this kind of pathologically self-righteous tunnel vision is what JFK decried in his American University speech on 10th June 1963 when he said, “Let us examine our attitude toward the Soviet Union”. You’ve similarly dodged Chris’s question and instead reverted to your default mode of Russophobic regurgitation. As another forum member suggested, you and your fellow anti-Russian jingoists need to heed the mote-and-beam Christian lesson about moral vision impairment. John, You have posted a long series of abjectly false statements and misinterpretations of what I have written about the history of Putin's Russia Federation and Putin's decision to invade an annex Ukraine, in accordance with Aleksander Dugin's 1997 blueprint for Russia's future empire. Oddly, you have also completely ignored my detailed commentaries about my own personal experiences with Putin's regime in the 21st century, as a member of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR) during the past quarter century-- even labeling me, "Russophobic!" (I chanted Russian vigil services and liturgies for many years in the ROCOR.) In other words, you are either suffering from serious reading comprehension problems, or engaging in an intellectually dishonest, bad faith approach to a meaningful debate. Under the circumstances, it makes no sense to continue conversing with you about Russian history and the current crisis in Europe. I will recommend, once again, that you educate yourself about Putin's history, and his transformation of the Russian Federation's floundering Yeltsin-era democracy into today's militant, fascist police state. Disregard Paul Rigby's KGB-sponsored disinformazia on the subject, (by Helmer) and take the time to read Catherine Belton's book, Putin's People. https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia/dp/0374238715 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cotter Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 7 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: John, You have posted a long series of abjectly false statements and misinterpretations of what I have written about the history of Putin's Russia Federation and Putin's decision to invade an annex Ukraine, in accordance with Aleksander Dugin's 1997 blueprint for Russia's future empire. Oddly, you have also completely ignored my detailed commentaries about my own personal experiences with Putin's regime in the 21st century, as a member of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR) during the past quarter century-- even labeling me, "Russophobic!" (I chanted Russian vigil services and liturgies for many years in the ROCOR.) In other words, you are either suffering from serious reading comprehension problems, or engaging in an intellectually dishonest, bad faith approach to a meaningful debate. Under the circumstances, it makes no sense to continue conversing with you about Russian history and the current crisis in Europe. I will recommend, once again, that you educate yourself about Putin's history, and his transformation of the Russian Federation's floundering Yeltsin-era democracy into today's militant, fascist police state. Disregard Paul Rigby's KGB-sponsored disinformazia on the subject, (by Helmer) and take the time to read Catherine Belton's book, Putin's People. https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia/dp/0374238715 Thanks, William, for once again confirming the accuracy of my description of your one-eyed Russophobia and relentless whataboutery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 @Kirk Gallaway @Matt Allison @W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said: Chris: What seems abundantly clear to me is that there is a contingent on this forum that desperately wants this thread degraded and deleted. Wow! Chris . Glad I could walk you through your belief system and give you the courage to post! As I may have lost track, but you've got 17 posts on this thread since you made that statement. Whatever I can do for free speech! I wonder who inspired the move? Perhaps the 58 years thread should be moved over here too? What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 19, 2023 Share Posted February 19, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, John Cotter said: Thanks, William, for once again confirming the accuracy of my description of your one-eyed Russophobia and relentless whataboutery. Get your vision checked, dude. You may need some readers. 🙄 Also, regarding my alleged "Russophobia," here's a Russian Orthodox chant that I recorded in four part harmony back in 2000, at a time when a number of Americans in my ROCOR parish abruptly left the church. I chanted the Russian services for roughly a decade-- part of my Russophobia. This is the Velichi Dusha Moya Gospoda-- i.e., the "Magnificat." https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=14552828 Edited February 19, 2023 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now