UN and terrorism?

Question

Has the United Nations accepted an offical definition for terrorism yet?

Answer 1

It doesn't matter if they did. The UN currently is made up of a bunch of wimps that don't like to go to war. Seriously, if they had any backbone whatsoever then they would be cleaning up Darfur.

Answer 2

The UN (Useless Nothing) became the puppet of the Muslim and African block, which directly and indirectly support terror. Hence the UN is not interested in defining and fighting against terror.

Answer 3

I don't think they have come up with an "official" definition for terrorism b/c the very countries who are apart of the UN have terrorists from their respective homelands. Unfortunately, the dream of the UN has been lost ever since it was created. They want peace but can not sacrifice the PR to take a strong stance and fight against the very evils that prevent it from becoming a reality.

Answer 4

Terrorism is not legally defined by the UN.

Answer 5

Despite the fact that there are numerous resolutions on terrorism and counter-terrorism, there is no official UN definition. I am not completely sure how you can fight "something" if you haven't defined what "something" is.

The closest you will find to an official definition is in Resolution 49/60:

"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."

Answer 6

Nop ! Only Bush and majority of American people !

Answer 7

Member countries that support or export terrorism will not allow such a definition for obvious reasons.  Great question.

Answer 8

different people have different definitions for the word "terrorism" that it would be impossible to make one official definition.