Dealing with International Terrorism In FATA and NWFP

Pakistan hopes to by solving the Kashmir issue through the most democratic way possible (voting), troops will become available and be immediately deployed into fighting Taliban with international cooperation!

Can the delegate of Pakistan please appeal to some reality in its resolution and specify its methology more clearly? Who is going to offer such troops? How? If UN, is the delegate aware that they can merely serve as demonstration being unable to engage in any battle other than bleak self defense?

Can the Pakistani delegate please make an effort to be a bit more specific? how will voting resolve the problems seen in Kashmir? The troops you refer to are those already being utilized in Kashmir? How many men are you referring to? Which international cooperation, and what forms of it, is the delegate picturing in having as allies? Health aid? More troops? From whom? Besides, is terror only fought against with even more terror? (seems to be an American approach to problems)
.
Delegate, if you truly want debates to prosper under your topic, you must concede more information!

Sudan_LeoBiglia wrote: Besides, is terror only fought against with even more terror? .

Yes.

Her Majesty's Humble Servant,
U.K SC delegate

UK,

Once again, your answere is incoherent, please think about your answeres, think.
1) What is the definition of terrorism? Would one nation reacting against another be terrorism?
2) A smart nation does not respond, it prevents, like Russia implimenting ABMs

Cheers 'Servant'

RussiaSC_Jaap wrote:UK,
1) What is the definition of terrorism? Would one nation reacting against another be terrorism?

Of course not, the definition may not be standardized by the UN, but the delegate must turn to logic in situations such as these. When one nation turns against another, this is called War. Follows the Cambridge definition of the word;
war noun

/wɔːr//wɔːr/ n [C or U]

•
armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of this

RussiaSC_Jaap wrote:UK,
2) A smart nation does not respond, it prevents, like Russia implimenting ABMs

Russia's success in doing this is inspiring. It seems that there is a small difference in our definition of prevention. If by 'prevention', the delegate of Russia means systematically hunting down and killing terrorists as Russia has done for almost 20 years now with the so called 'Chechen' terrorists, then yes, the UK does agree. Quick historical reminder, following the events in Beslan and in the Moscow Theatre, your country 'prevented' (assuming my initial interpretation of your meaning of the word is correct) any future attacks by targeting and killing the heads of the terrorist cells responsible for the attacks. And since when ABM systems will stop terrorists? Terrorists do not have ICBMs, countries do. Countries as your protèges, the DPRK and Iran.

Of course, the other interpretation of the term 'prevent' refers to fortifying security so as to minimize casualties. But we know, especially after our experiences with the IRA and the 'Chechen' terrorists, that they will not stop until they get what they want. There are no effective preventive' measures we could implement so as to effectiveley reduce the risk of future terrorist attacks to zero. We know this, you know this. Unless we go after them, they will continue carrying out their attacks, and even if so much as ONE civilian dies as a result of terrorist attacks, we will have failed. The UK for one, prefers 1000 dead terrorists than one dead civilian. Historically, the Russian Federation has also agreed with this, and the UK is sure that Russia, with its vanguard way of dealing with terrorists, stands by that belief today.

Cheers

When Russia uses the word Prevent, it is trying to minimize all collateral damage caused to people and places. the delegate of UK has stated the definition of terrorism as groups of people, and therefore agrees with UK that problems with terrorism have occurred in Russia, but one simple problem is, that the government has no control over these groups, and therefore could not be able to take blame for any actions UK refers to. As the Delegate of Russia has stated in future posts, Russia is merely helping the problem, and has not yet perfected a so called 'cure' to the world's problems. But what Russia believes is that even thought terrorism has no positive side, they have a small problem, the 'terrorists' take part of countries, as bases, and therefore by hitting them with bullets and missiles there will be a lot of collateral damage. Russia reminds the delegate of UK, that it is in no way apposing the UK nation, but is simply trying to understand UK proposals.

Russia sees the problem as the following, making sure that a problem cannot be caused,(such as implementing ABM systems) will assure the safety of nations that are in range of collateral damage. Although terrorists have in all rights to be eliminated, it should be done without affecting those in their surrounding. As the UK stated, preferring 1000 dead terrorists over civilians, means that certain actions can not be taken, without thought.

Cheers 'Servant'