[Draft] Condemn Islam for allah

by **Malastre** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:30 pm

[b]The Security Council

Alarmed at statements made by Islam for allah voicing their support for global Islamic revolution.

Concerned by the continued support of Islamic terrorist groups by Islam for allah.

Acknowledging that the terrorist groups being funded by Islam for allah wish to bring about worldwide Islamic revolution, through any means necessary.

Worried by the continued intolerance shown to other religions by Islam for allah.

Recognizing that the current invasion of islam for allah was brought about by their refusal to negotiate or attend the Peace Accords.

Horrified by the use of biological and chemical weapons, such as Agent Orange, by Islam for allah on the armed forces of Unified German State, The Jade Clan, The Grand World Order, Free Missouri, Yuktova, Al-Harakut al-Islami, and Malastre (hereafter referred to as "the Coalition".

Outraged by Islam for allah's placement of military structures, such as artillery emplacements, within civilian areas, so as to prevent them from being destroyed by coalition forces.

Further shocked by the usage of civilian vehicles loaded with children as transports for their troops.

Acknowledging that these atrocities may have come about as a direct result of the invasion of Islam for allah by Coalition forces.

Motivated by the callous regard that Islam for allah has shown towards the life of it's civilian population.

Hereby condemns Islam for allah

Relevant threads:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=97140
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=102966

by **Flemingovia** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:57 pm

Surely a rule 4 violation throughout. I like it.

by **Crazy girl** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 4:13 pm

Could you expand on what exactly you feel violates Rule 4?

by **Flemingovia** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:18 am

Rule 4e

(e) Contain reference to ideologies without explaining how they apply to NationStates in terms of actions, policies or attributes of nations/regions.

The first few clauses of the resolution seem to break this to me, based on other resolutions concerning RL ideologies I have seen.

by **Elke and Elba** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:46 am

Flemingovia wrote:Rule 4e

(e) Contain reference to ideologies without explaining how they apply to NationStates in terms of actions, policies or attributes of nations/regions.

The first few clauses of the resolution seem to break this to me, based on other resolutions concerning RL ideologies I have seen.

Agreed. That is why the first Condemn NAZI EUROPE was repealed (due to ideologies) and another one written, submitted and passed before the repeal.

by **Malastre** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 8:45 am

Reasoning:

Islam for allah wrote:We have funded the islamic group of terroists that are connected to your group.
We claim as a nation that Al wahib bombed the capital of Yukotovanian and will continue to bomb the nation until they stop oppressing muslims and change their sinful ways.

Islam for allah wrote:"We will build a Mosque in every city and Islam will dominate", "all Infidels you must revert", "Allah Huqeub" is what was being shouted as Islamic protesters were protesting against the Government and shouting for Sharia law. 200 Protesters had gathered and were holding placards with pictures of Islam dominateing and slogans on. The green flag of Islam was being flown as the new flag of Yuktovanian and movement around the protest seemed heated.

Islam for allah wrote:Your nation will pay for not bowing down to allah. We give the leaders of this nation one last chance to revert to Islam or face terror across the country against your citizens of kuffurs like the one in your capital now

Islam for allah wrote:All you evil doers must revert to Islam and follow muhammeds way in following Allah. Your god is a deity that is a false idol decorated as Allah but who is the devil trying to remove the righteousness of Allah and muslims and making muslims convert.

This will be through peaceful resolution where you all come to allah or through holy war where we all take over your nation through attacks on your people and you.

Islam for allah wrote:We will free allour brothers and sisters that have been arrested by your evil forces. This war will never end.

If these aren't good reasons for the first few clauses, then I will either edit and/or strike them from the resolution.

by **Andorianus** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 11:34 am

Meh, there is a good chance of getting this past. Even though it is not the most noteworthy of a condemnation, I still think this guy should be condemned.

by **Elke and Elba** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 6:12 pm

My bad. Upon closer reading it seems legal, and quite well-written. Why don't you send it in?

by **St George of England** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 4:01 am

Elke and Elba wrote:My bad. Upon closer reading it seems legal, and quite well-written. Why don't you send it in?

Because it's not finished and has, imo, some formatting issues (non-use of region and nation tags, maybe remove the bold tags instead capitalizing the first word of each clause).

by **Flemingovia** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:09 am

Not allowing the RL ideology of Islam is a risky business. they might jihad yo ass.

Stick to Nazis. Since 1945 that has been fairly safe. Before then not so much.

by **Ethel mermania** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:29 am

Flemingovia wrote:Not allowing the RL ideology of Islam is a risky business. they might jihad yo ass.

Stick to Nazis. Since 1945 that has been fairly safe. Before then not so much.

".... we taught them a lesson in 1918,
and they have hardly bothered us since then ... "

by **Sedgistan** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 7:34 am

This looks like a potential threadjack that shouldn't go any further.

by **Malastre** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:19 am

Flemingovia wrote:Not allowing the RL ideology of Islam is a risky business. they might jihad yo ass.

We are not attempting to outlaw Islam. We are attempting to condemn a fundamentalist nation that has shown a callous regard for their own civilians, and has used terror bombings, and other methods to support global Islamic revolution.

Bold tags removed. Anything else I can change?

by **Sedgistan** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:20 am

Malastre, it is OK to mention Islam in a Security Council proposal, but Flemingovia is correct about Rule 4.e - you're going to have to give some explanation (even if very brief) about what you mean by such phrases as 'global Islamic revolution' - how does that translate into actions within NationStates?

by **Slyndonia** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:25 am

IN Slyndonia we have banned the religion of Islam.

by **Bears Armed** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:33 am

Slyndonia wrote:IN Slyndonia we have banned the religion of Islam.

You are a WA member? Banning any religion effectively contravenes several GA resolutions...

by **Malastre** » Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:54 am

Sedgistan wrote:Malastre, it is OK to mention Islam in a Security Council proposal, but Flemingovia is correct about Rule 4.e - you're going to have to give some explanation (even if very brief) about what you mean by such phrases as 'global Islamic revolution' - how does that translate into actions within NationStates?

Okay, I will fix that.

Islam for allah has ceased their actions against their civilians. It is no longer necessary to condemn them, in our opinion.