UN Fails to Define Terrorism

Showing why the concept of "world government" is not ready for prime time, the diplomats at the UN couldn't reach agreement on a definition of "terrorism" because certain states simply don't want to give up the moral low ground of being able to justify attacks on civilians for political purposes. See here for background and analysis.

Unfortunately, too many countries, particularly in the Middle East, are still wedded to the same terrorist tactics they have used for decades to address their perceived grievances. They maintain that there must be a right to resistance against occupation and that such right encompasses tactics of violence against civilians. Such a "right to resistance" concept carries with it nefarious implications not only for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but also for the coalition presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.

For those who have attempted to draw a parallel between "insurgent" or "resistance" fighters and the American Revolutionary War "Minutemen" or militia, I am simply unaware of any instance in the early American experience in which bombs were set off in crowded market places, restaurants, or other gathering spots to influence political thinking. Indeed, if you are aware of such instances, please let me know in the comments and I'll be happy to post on such events.

By the way, here's the troubled UN definition: “Any action constitutes terrorism if it is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non combatants, with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a Government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.”