United Nations B/S

Discussion in 'Congress' started by American_Jihad, Jun 1, 2012.

  1. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,534
    Thanks Received:
    3,655
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +7,003
    The Palestinian Terror Wave and Moral Equivalency
    The United Nations and the Obama administration's dual attack on Israel.
    October 26, 2015
    Joseph Puder

    [​IMG]

    Jordan’s ambassador, Dina Kawar, called for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council (UNSC) last Friday (October 16, 2015) to deal with the escalating violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The session was televised on C-SPAN. The UNSC is expected to issue a statement exhorting both sides “to show restraint.” State Department spokesperson John Kirby expressed the Obama’s administration’s concern about Israel’s “use of excessive force.” He said, “We have certainly seen some reports of what many would consider excessive use of force.” Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was quick to respond saying: “What do you think would happen in New York if you saw people rushing into a crowd trying to murder people? What do you think they would do? Do you think they would do anything differently than we are doing?”

    When it comes to Jews and Israel, the double standard and hypocrisy were displayed again, this time by the 15 members of the UNSC. Apparently, they expect Israeli Jews to submit to Arab Palestinian killers to “avoid excessive force.” That would please the 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and their western lackeys. It would also fit with the long held role assigned to the Jews as people who do not defend themselves, as was the case for Jews in Europe and the Muslim world.

    The speeches by the Permanent Members (U.S., Britain, China, France and Russia) echoed one another. The essential message from all of them was “both sides must end the violence.” In order not to anger the Arab-Muslim Bloc, the truth was discarded and replaced by formulaic verbiage that removed the context and the facts on the ground. Moral equivalency was used instead. The facts are crystal clear. Incited Arab Palestinians and Arab Israelis are murdering innocent Israeli civilians without provocation of any kind: old people and young and civilians and soldiers are being targeted for only one reason - because they are Jews. Fortunately, Israeli security forces, and in some cases, individual citizens who were by-standers were close enough to prevent more murders by shooting the killers or incapacitating them. Under any universal law or code of justice, self-defense is permissible, and defending the unarmed and innocent civilians is in fact a civic duty.

    Something more insidious occurred at the UNSC emergency session that should concern all people of good will who seek an Arab-Israeli peace. The ambassadors of Malaysia and Venezuela shamelessly targeted only Israel – ignoring the Arab-Muslim perpetrators of violence. They compounded anti-Israel bias with unabashed falsehoods, accusing Israel of “70-years of occupation of Palestine.” This has to be a new angle in the attempt to de-legitimize the Jewish state. It rejects Israel even within the June 4th, 1967 lines, and its very existence when they considered the pre-1967 Israel as “occupied” Palestinian territory. At the UN though, lies and distortions by dictatorial regimes are fully permissible and encouraged.

    U.N. Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Taye-Brook Zerihoun (of Ethiopia) provided the briefing prior to the delegates speeches. He reported on the latest violent incident in which a large group of Palestinians set fire to the compound containing the holy site of Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus. “Zerihoun said “Fortunately there were no reported injuries but the site sustained major damage.” He added, “There were also three stabbing and ramming attacks on Israelis, leaving 10 Israelis injured and three Palestinian suspects wounded.” Consistent with the general tenor of the UN, he concluded by saying, “We have seen that the impact of social media and irresponsible rhetoric has played a dramatic role in escalation. On this count both sides have much to be blamed for, but I welcome efforts by leaders in the past days to tone down their statements. I call on community, religious and political leaders on all sides to calm the language they use in this regard and work together to de-escalate the situation.”

    Most of the non-permanent members of the UNSC, (Angola, Chad, Chile, Lithuania, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Spain) employed moral-equivalency in their speeches. Jordan, (representing the Arab League) presented a one-sided view, while Malaysia and Venezuela displayed downright hostility toward Israel. The most hypocritical statements however, were made by the alleged “friends” of Israel, particularly the ambassadors of Britain and France, and U.S. ambassador Samantha Powers.

    ...

    The Palestinian Terror Wave and Moral Equivalency
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Delta4Embassy
    Offline

    Delta4Embassy Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    25,745
    Thanks Received:
    3,025
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +8,224
    Can't help but notice a good number of the members sitting in the General Assembly routinely have wars with one another. :)
     
  3. MarathonMike
    Offline

    MarathonMike Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Messages:
    5,768
    Thanks Received:
    1,814
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    The Southwestern Desert
    Ratings:
    +10,018
    The UN is about as useful as a dairy farm full of Bulls. The ACLU will be there in a jiffy to help if you are a criminal.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,534
    Thanks Received:
    3,655
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +7,003
    Report: The UN, Not the State Dept, Makes First Pick About Which Syrian Refugees Can Come to America
    Leah Barkoukis | Jan 11, 2016

    [​IMG]

    If Americans were already concerned about the U.S.’s vetting process for Syrian refugees, they’re really not going to like to hear what a new report says about how those refugees are initially selected in the first place.

    According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the U.S. relies on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to make first selections about who has the potential to come to America, as well as carry out the pre-screening process.

    "Out of the four million-plus registered Syrian refugees in the region, UNHCR has so far submitted 22,427 cases to the United States for resettlement consideration. Of those, about 2,000 were accepted last year. The United States is welcoming Syrian refugees only from the 22,427 who made it through UNHCR referrals," wrote senior analyst Nayla Rush, who authored the report. [Emphasis mine]

    The report notes that one cause for concern in relying solely on the U.N. in making the initial selections is widespread fraud within the agency, including bribery of staff involved with the resettlement process.

    Another problem is the fact that UNHCR staff are completely overwhelmed by the sheer volume of refugees they must process. “Since there are over 4 million refugees and 2,038 UNHCR staffers, each interviewer is responsible for vetting 2,100-2,800 refugees each,” The Washington Examiner points out.

    ...

    Leah Barkoukis - Report: The UN, Not the State Dept, Makes First Pick About Which Syrian Refugees Can Come to America
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,534
    Thanks Received:
    3,655
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +7,003
    U.N. 'Peacekeepers' in Africa Paying 13-Year-Olds for Sex
    A "cancer" in the system, says an official.
    1.12.2016
    News
    Trey Sanchez

    [​IMG]

    The United Nations is currently dealing with what it calls "a cancer in our system" -- namely, "peacekeepers" in the Central African Republic who have been paying to have sex with young teen girls.

    According to The Washington Post, "[O]fficials have learned about what appears to be a fresh scandal. Investigators discovered this month that at least four U.N. peacekeepers in the Central African Republic allegedly paid young girls as little as 50 cents in exchange for sex."

    These allegations come after other reported abuses in the past 14 months, including "22 other incidents of alleged sexual abuse or sexual exploitation" despite a "zero tolerance" policy that is in place.

    The report also mentions other regions, including Mali, South Sudan, Liberia and the Congo, where U.N. operatives have committed sex crimes against locals.

    U.N. Assistance Secretary-General for Field Support Anthony Banbury said this "undermines everything we stand for."

    From WaPo:

    The mission in the Central African Republic, where U.N. troops and civilians were sent in 2014 to help end a civil war and support a fledgling government, stands out for its record of sexual abuse and exploitation.

    “They are preying on the people they’ve come to protect,” said Parfait Onanga-Anyanga, the top U.N. official in the country.

    ...

    U.N. 'Peacekeepers' in Africa Paying 13-Year-Olds for Sex
     
  6. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,534
    Thanks Received:
    3,655
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +7,003
    UN Plan to Prevent "Violent Extremism" Ignores its Primary Cause

    Meanwhile, Iran, Saudi Arabia and ISIS fuel Islamic Jihad.

    January 19, 2016
    Joseph Klein

    [​IMG]

    United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is operating from the same playbook as President Obama when it comes to addressing the threat of global jihad. They both deny that such a religiously-based threat exists. Just like Obama, Ban Ki-moon uses the euphemism “violent extremism,” without linking it to its primary ideological source - Islam.

    The global terrorist scourge is driven by Islamic supremacy and the jihadist war against the “infidels” that are embedded in sharia law. That is not to say that the jihadists are the only terrorists in the world.
    However, to diffuse responsibility by contending that violent extremism is found in all faiths ignores the fact that the only global terrorist network threatening our way of life today is bound together by the teachings of Islam.

    In the Secretary General’s remarks to the UN General Assembly on January 15th introducing his “Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism,” he said that “the vast majority of victims worldwide are Muslims.” Obama said essentially the same thing last February at his Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, lamenting that it is “especially Muslims, who are the ones most likely to be killed.”

    Both Ban Ki-moon and President Obama omitted to say that the killers are also primarily Muslims. Moreover, they left out entirely any mention of the ongoing genocide being conducted by Muslims in the name of Allah against Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East.

    When I asked the spokesperson for the Secretary General why the Secretary General did not acknowledge the fact that the vast majority of global terrorists today are Islamists, the spokesperson responded that “the Secretary‑General's focus is not on targeting or pointing finger at one ethnic group, one religious group, or people who claim to act in the name of a particular religion.”

    This begs the question as to why the Secretary General took pains to assert that Muslims constitute the majority of terrorists’ victims but refused to acknowledge that the vast majority of perpetrators are also Muslims.

    The Secretary General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism describes what it calls the “drivers of violent extremism.” These drivers include, according to the UN document, lack of socioeconomic opportunities, marginalization and discrimination, poor governance and violations of human rights, prolonged and unresolved conflicts, radicalization in prisons, collective grievances, and exploitation of social media.

    Obama offered essentially the same explanation for the growth of violent extremism put forth by Ban Ki-moon. A key problem, he said, was lack of economic opportunity that trapped people –especially young people – “in impoverished communities.”

    Obama added: “When people are oppressed, and human rights are denied -- particularly along sectarian lines or ethnic lines -- when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremism.”

    Ban Ki-moon and President Obama both have argued that Islam itself is blameless. It is, in Ban Ki-moon’s words, the “distortion and misuse of beliefs” that are to blame. At his February 2015 Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, President Obama called out what he described as “the warped ideologies espoused by terrorists like al Qaeda and ISIL, especially their attempt to use Islam to justify their violence.”

    However, the truth is that Islam itself contains the seeds for the violence that is such a prominent part of jihad. Jihadists using violence as a tactic to impose Islam as the world’s only “legitimate” belief system are following the path laid down by Prophet Muhammed himself and his early followers, according to their literal words and acts.

    The proposed actions to address the problem of “violent extremism,” both Ban Ki-moon and Obama agree, include better education, more opportunities for women, better governance, and respect for human rights including freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief. The UN Secretary General and President Obama base their common strategy on their shared utopian belief that peoples from every country and culture embrace a common set of “universal” human rights, as expressed in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Universal Declaration’s preamble states: “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

    ...

    Coddling the leading jihad exporting countries and pretending that sharia law can ever be reconciled with so-called “universal” human rights values will render all plans of action to prevent “violent extremism” an utter failure.

    UN Plan to Prevent "Violent Extremism" Ignores its Primary Cause
     
  7. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,534
    Thanks Received:
    3,655
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +7,003
    UN Passes Toughly Worded Piece of Paper against North Korea
    Why the Security Council's latest sanctions resolution will be unlikely to deter Pyongyang.
    March 4, 2016
    Joseph Klein
    [​IMG]

    The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution on March 2nd that imposes tough new sanctions and tightens some of its existing measures against North Korea (the DPRK). Resolution 2270 (2016) is the Security Council’s strongest response to date to the rogue North Korean regime’s ongoing nuclear and ballistic missile-related test activities in violation of a series of prior Security Council resolutions. The triggering events leading up to this latest resolution were North Korea’s January 2016 nuclear test and February rocket launch. These provocations were too much even for China, North Korea’s closest trading partner, which cooperated constructively with the United States to reach consensus on the resolution’s text after several weeks of negotiations.

    President Obama issued a statement following the vote that highlighted his belief in the importance of the resolution: “Today, the international community, speaking with one voice, has sent Pyongyang a simple message: North Korea must abandon these dangerous programs and choose a better path for its people.”

    In reality, the latest resolution is just a piece of paper that is unlikely to change North Korea’s behavior. U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, acknowledged that “the true measure of Resolution 2270 will be whether the rigor with which states implement these sanctions matches the rigor we can anticipate the DPRK will apply to attempting to evade them – that’s what they do.”

    In fact, unless the United States and its principal allies in the Asian Pacific region and elsewhere are prepared to vigorously enforce the resolution’s terms, including broader restrictions on trade and financial transactions, a more comprehensive arms embargo and the new mandatory cargo inspection regime, North Korea will be more emboldened than ever. Just hours after the Security Council passed Resolution 2270, North Korea showed what it thought of the resolution by firing six short-range projectiles into the sea.

    ...

    UN Passes Toughly Worded Piece of Paper against North Korea
     
  8. Militants
    Offline

    Militants BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,425
    Thanks Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Ratings:
    +256
    United are also name on United States.
     
  9. Militants
    Offline

    Militants BANNED

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,425
    Thanks Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Ratings:
    +256
    Manchester U are name on English team.
     
  10. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    11,534
    Thanks Received:
    3,655
    Trophy Points:
    350
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +7,003
    Jump to: navigation, search
    [​IMG] Look up militant in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
    A militant is a person engaged in fighting, warfare or combat outside the aegis of a recognized state (e.g. a revolutionary or insurgent, not a member of a regular army).

    Militant may also refer to:

    • The Militant, an international communist newsweekly first published in 1928
    • Militant faction, an organized grouping in the Socialist Party of America during the 1930s
    • Militant Group, a British Trotskyist group of the 1930s
    • Militant (Trotskyist group), a British Trotskyist group of the 1960s–1990s; Militant also the title of their newspaper
    ...
     

Share This Page