Lindaland
  Global Unity
  More Outrage From the Utterly Corrupt UN

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   More Outrage From the Utterly Corrupt UN
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 02:31 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The United Nations: Islam’s Gestapo
By Stephen Brown
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, April 11, 2008

Nepotism, corruption, anti-Semitism and now censorship.

While the United Nations has disgraced itself over the years with sporadic eruptions of the first three negatives, it added another one last March 28 when its Human Rights Council passed a disturbing resolution that directs the body’s expert on free speech to report on “individuals and news media for negative comments on Islam.” In effect, the UN will now become the Islamic world’s censorship watchdog, snooping out undefined acts of Islamophobia around the globe.

No other religion is covered by the Muslim-backed resolution that will most likely see the curtailing of free speech in some countries. But perhaps more ominously, although the UNHRC has no power of enforcement, lists of alleged malefactors will be drawn up, giving the Council’s recent action a definite, totalitarian ring.

Motioned by Egypt and Pakistan, not the sturdiest pillars of human rights themselves, and supported by Islamic and African countries, the resolution passed by a 32-0 vote. Muslim countries were upset by the Danish cartoons, published in 2005, depicting the prophet Muhammad and have been demanding limitations on free speech since then. The recent release of the Geert Wilders film, Fitna, reinforced their insistence on such restrictions, which FrontPage Magazine columnist Robert Spencer says are all part of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference’s strategy to protect Islam from alleged defamation.

Journalist Caroline Glick wrote in her column in the Jewish World Review that the United Nations had violated its own Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, when it passed the March 28 resolution. Glick also pointed out that it was surprising when the UNHRC’s European members abstained from the vote, since they are such staunch supporters of the UN.

By abstaining, the European nations, those supposed bastions of human rights and free speech (especially when it comes to blaspheming Christianity), simply showed what moral cowards they truly are, putting their dhimmi status on display once more in failing to stand up to Islamic bullying.

Several countries that still have a backbone did speak out against this atrocious violation of human rights and freedom of expression. The United States, which does not have a seat on the 47-nation UNHRC but has observer status, did not stay silent. Warren Tichenor, America’s ambassador in Geneva, told the body: “The resolution seeks to impose restrictions on individuals rather than to emphasize the duty and responsibility of governments to guarantee, uphold, promote and protect human rights.”

A Canadian delegate supported Tichenor’s view with his statement: “The job of a special rapporteur is not to police the action of individuals.”

But that is exactly what is going to happen. Up until now, the duty of the UNHRC’s free speech watchdog was to report on efforts by despotic governments and dictatorships (like many of those on the UN’s Human Rights Council) to restrict freedom of expression. With the March 28 resolution, the tip of the spear has now been turned around against individuals, like Wilders and the Danish cartoonists, who practise their basic right to freely express themselves.

Western observers also believe the resolution will give repressive regimes, both Islamic and non-Islamic, a further excuse to crack down on dissent in their own countries. But even worse, it will give such states an opportunity to meddle in the affairs of democratic countries, using a phoney victim status as cover for their aggression.

In defence of the resolution, Muslim representatives like Pakistan’s ambassador, Masood Khan, said the measure was only trying to make “freedom of expression responsible,” while protecting Islam from its worst practices that only defame the Muslim faith and incite religious hatred and racism.

But if Islamic countries passed this resolution to protect religion from hatred and intolerance, then they and their motion have a severe credibility problem. Muslim discrimination against other religions in Islamic countries has been well documented. For example, in Pakistan and Egypt, the two countries that proposed the anti-free speech motion, Christians are a persecuted minority.

In Pakistan, according to a story in the German newspaper, Die Welt, a form of “religious apartheid” is practised against Christians, who are regarded as “fair game” for those who wish to maltreat them. While Muslim women need four male witnesses to convict a man who rapes them, a Muslim man who rapes a Christian woman is never convicted. As well, the persecution has become so intolerable Christians have committed suicide in Pakistani courtrooms in front of judges out of protest.

Caroline Glick writes that, in Egypt, the persecution of the Christian Coptic Church has been institutionalized and liberal critics of the Egyptian government have been silenced. In both countries, Muslim persecution even extends to fellow Muslims who wish to leave Islam, since this could result in their deaths.

Calling for religious tolerance and responsible freedom of expression in international forums is obviously much easier than practicing it at home. The scene in the film Fitna where a three-year-old girl says she learned from the Koran that Jews are monkeys and pigs is all one really needs to know about the true attitude toward these two virtues the UNHRC’s Islamic countries are espousing.

But this incredible hypocrisy does not stop at the United Nations and at the borders of Islamic countries. Last month, just prior to Easter weekend, the president of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, insulted Christians and Jews worldwide when he went to Uganda and called the Bible a forgery.

In a country that is 85 per cent Christian, the Libyan leader told Ugandan Muslims in a stadium where they had gathered to celebrate the prophet Muhammad’s birthday that since the Bible did not mention Muhammad, it was not the real Bible, because both Moses and Jesus had foretold the coming of Islam’s prophet.

“The Bible we have now is not the one that was revealed to Issa (Jesus) and the Old Testament is not the one that was revealed to Musa (Moses). It means that it has been forged,” Gaddafi said, adding the real Bible has yet to be discovered.

Unsurprisingly, there was no angry outcry from fellow Muslim leaders over Gadaffi’s hurtful remarks. No members of the OIC, which strongly condemned the Geert Wilders film and to which Libya belongs, censured Gaddafi and called him to account. Neither did any of those abstaining European countries or even the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, who called Fitna “offensively anti-Islamic.”

Just imagine, though, if Australia’s or Canada’s prime minister had called the Koran a forgery. Islamic moral outrage and European condemnation would know no boundaries. Cyprian Kizito, the Catholic archbishop of Kampala, Uganda’s capital, rightly pointed out: “Had the Christians said something similar about the Koran, there would have been war.”

But while the religious feelings of Uganda’s Christians were deeply hurt by their Muslim guest, who had arrived in their country to open a new mosque, their peaceful, non-violent response was instructive.

“I hope by doing this, we shall be giving a lesson to our Muslim brothers to always stay calm,” said a Ugandan bishop.

But it is a safe bet that the Ugandan example is a lesson the OIC and the Muslim-dominated UNHRC will never learn, let alone take to heart.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F00A83C1-8D4A-4A7B-9545-9A63091D8294

IP: Logged

Mannu
Knowflake

Posts: 45
From: always here and no where
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 02:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mannu     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This may be off topic -

But I still feel not a single American soldier must be found in Iraq and wearing American uniform. UN troops as third party intermediators will be more efficient under current circumstances. It also reduces burden of war costs on American tax payers. Why should Americans shell out the cost of war? While other nations continue to prosper economically?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 02:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's doubtful people in the US would go for UN forces having tea and crumpets with the terrorists in Iraq...and that's just about the extent of the abilities of UN so called peacekeepers.

Besides, Americans like war. Why the hell should we turn over the fun to someone else?

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 03:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, April 11, 2008

UN ISRAEL MONITOR CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION OF NEOCONS' ROLE IN 9/11

By Charles Johnson

You knew the United Nations was corrupt and evil, but the story of Richard Falk really takes the all-time prize. This lunatic must be dismissed from his UN position: U.N. Official Calls for Study Of Neocons’ Role in 9/11.

WASHINGTON — A new U.N. Human Rights Council official assigned to monitor Israel is calling for an official commission to study the role neoconservatives may have played in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

On March 26, Richard Falk, Milbank professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, was named by unanimous vote to a newly created position to report on human rights in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. While Mr. Falk’s specialty is human rights and international law, since the attacks in 2001, he has devoted some of his time to challenging what he calls the “9-11 official version.”

On March 24 in an interview with a radio host and former University of Wisconsin instructor, Kevin Barrett, Mr. Falk said, “It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don’t think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess.”

Mr. Barrett, who is the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, said in an interview yesterday of Mr. Falk, “I would put him on a list of scholars who are sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement.”

Nothing the UN does can surprise me any more, but this is disgusting almost beyond belief.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=C5DD9E4E-167E-478F-93B4-F3F41115935B

IP: Logged

Xodian
Moderator

Posts: 275
From: Canada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 03:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Xodian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And what have I argued as a prime change of the UN to begin with? Equal representation in all fronts and councils.

For universal agreements, there has to be a universal representation. Where as I agree that the defamation of Islam is quite a revoulting, I do not personally condone the actions of UNHRC and their choice to pass this resolution. It was the individual, not a country that chose to produce that movie. I certainly will back an appeal process to the vote at hand.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 03:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The UN has just violated it's own charter.

Time to throw the incompetent, bungling, corrupt bast@rds out of the United States...right after the US withdraws it's membership.

If the American people really knew what goes on at the UN, Americans would demand the US withdraw. If the UN didn't have the leftist press running interference for them, the American people would know.

These corrupt chair warmers want to run the world. In reality, they couldn't run a lemonade stand.

IP: Logged

Xodian
Moderator

Posts: 275
From: Canada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 03:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Xodian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
And BTW, Mr. Faulk just ASKED for an official investigation on the subject but I don't think the UN should carry it out but rather another independent agreed upon third party.

Hey its not unreasonable to ask and is undiscriminatory considering the amount of money went into the 9/11 commission reports. Should the taxpayers be paying ofr this report? Absolutely not. Then again, that would bring up credibility issues and that is why I think Faulk turned to the UN for an independent report.

IP: Logged

Xodian
Moderator

Posts: 275
From: Canada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 03:44 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Xodian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
If the American people really knew what goes on at the UN, Americans would demand the US withdraw. If the UN didn't have the leftist press running interference for them, the American people would know.

Oh come now. Leftists do praise UN work but its hardly a domain for the pure left. So there is a representitive calling upon for an independent review of the 9/11 events. Its not as if his proposal has been accepted yet nor does it indicate that he is falsifying any claims of the official report. He just wants another look at it all through an independent body.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 04:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This leftist as$hole has just impugned the integrity of the United States government. Which is a common theme among brain dead UN personnel and officials and brain dead leftists.

The idea the UN or any responsible body would give this moron a job let alone an agency to run speaks volumns. Notice Xodian, I said responsible body which the UN is not.

If it's ever put to a vote in the United States...and it may well be..the UN would be gone from American shores.

BTW, this is not directed at you Xodian. Long, long, long before you showed up here or I showed up here, I knew all I needed to know about the so called United Nations to give them the boot.

IP: Logged

Xodian
Moderator

Posts: 275
From: Canada
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 12, 2008 04:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Xodian     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I know you didn't directed it at me , and don't worry about it; Debates would be debates.

However, Faulk probably has his own doubts about 9/11 and probably wanted to voice em out through his own understanding of the situation.

The vote will most likely not pass through and he might be turned to another independent source.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted May 20, 2008 03:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
More UN guided and directed outrage, this time under the auspices of UNRWA.

Is there any area in which the UN is not utterly corrupt, incompetent or working at cross purposes to civilization?

This article seems to recommend The U.N. High Commission for Refugees but I seem to recall the trading of food for sex and porn rings run under the mantle of this organization.

Defunding UNRWA won't cut it. Defunding the entire UN operation and evicting them all from the United States is the only action which will remove the stench coming off this corrupt organization.

Defund UNRWA
By Asaf Romirowsky
The Washington Times | Tuesday, May 20, 2008

A few days ago an Israeli air strike killed a member of a Palestinian missile team that had been firing rockets from Gaza. Now the United Nations has come out with an unusual statement of bewilderment and utter shock as the truth has come out. The dead man, Awad al-Qiq, was a U.N. employee and headmaster of a top prep school in Gaza. He was also the chief rocket-maker for Islamic Jihad.

Mr. Al-Qiq — not surprisingly, a science teacher — worked for one of the schools run by the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). Now that he is out of the rocket business, the employment of such a "respectable" individual by the sole U.N. agency devoted to Palestinian refugees deserves an explanation.

In a new report by the Global Research in International Affairs Center by this author and Professor Barry Rubin, "UNRWA: Refuge of Rejectionism," the case is made that this group is a major cause of the continued Arab-Israeli conflict, the incitement of a whole generation of Palestinians to terrorist violence and even the suffering of the refugees themselves.

The report's recommendation is simple and workable: UNRWA should be dissolved and its functions divided between the far more effective and depoliticized U.N. High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

Since Hamas came to power in 2006, Palestinians in the new Islamic state of Gaza have been crying out for more and more UNRWA aid. Historically, UNRWA has been the main vehicle for the perpetuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict in the United Nations. Where once it was charged with resettling Palestinians, its explicit mandate in recent decades has been to maintain them in the camps where Arab states left them some 60 years ago. Education, health and limited vocational training are provided, just enough to keep Palestinians as "refugees." UNRWA is an apparatus that maintains the status quo — a huge bureaucracy with no incentive to move toward a resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. This arrangement is ripe for abuse.

As one of the largest employers in the host countries with Palestinian refugee camps, UNRWA is staffed mainly by local Palestinians — more than 23,000 of them, with only about 100 international U.N. professionals. The pattern of hiring within the served population is unique in the U.N. system. By contrast, UNICEF (to cite one example) avoids employing locals who are also recipients of agency services, considering it a conflict of interest. UNRWA bureaucracy has created an infrastructure for Palestinian dependency. Refugees, now in their third generation, rely on the services UNRWA provides and have no incentives to plan or implement solutions that may endanger their livelihood by rendering UNRWA's services obsolete.

It was under the leadership of former UNRWA Commissioner Peter Hansen that the organization's complicity with terror was openly exposed. In a statement to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr. Hansen admitted: "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll " and I don't see that as a crime."

As Hamas' genocidal agenda has become impossible to cover up, UNRWA has now resorted to professions of shock and promises of "zero tolerance." For some UNRWA's affiliation with terrorism is not a detraction but an added value that shows "diversity." As Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, notes, "humanitarian and charitable institutions throughout Palestine employ personnel regardless of sectarian or political affiliation and offer services on a similar basis. Thus, UNRWA, NGO-run institutions [and] public hospitals and clinics, for example, employ members of different political groups such as Fatah, the [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine], Hamas and Islamic Jihad, without reference to their belonging to a specific group."

As we look for ways to crack down on terrorism and terrorist activity, looking at UNRWA is a good start. American taxpayer dollars fund approximately one-third of UNRWA's operating budget. UNRWA provides food, medicine, economic aid, jobs, radical education, political opportunities, and even logistical assistance to Hamas and other extremist groups. UNRWA's budget, which exceeds $365 million, is funded by many nations, but the United States and other Western nations are the largest contributors.

Cutting off UNRWA's budget would be detrimental to Hamas in Gaza, which would be forced to either provide services to Palestinians or admit it has no intention of doing so. It would also send an important message to the United Nations, which perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem and lends legitimacy to groups like Hamas through UNRWA's continued existence.

Transferring UNRWA's services to other agencies, notably the High Commission for Refugees, which has a long and productive experience, would be another important move. And lastly, actually having the Palestinian Authority take responsibility for the social services if it is to truly govern the Palestinian people would send a signal to all parties that a future state of Palestine would be prepared to live in peace with its neighbors and itself.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=A7FC647B-14CE-4041-BE47-1AA9F5BDEFFB

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a