Criticism of suicide bombers censored at the UN

[Samurai]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007381.php

Criticism of suicide bombers censored at the UN

The International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) is the World Union of Humanist, Secular and Rationalist organisations, with 100 member organisations in about 40 countries. Here is a press release from them (thanks to Andrew Bostom):

CRITICISM OF SUICIDE BOMBERS CENSORED AT THE UN

IHEU today attempted to call on the United Nations to condemn
killing in the name of religion, but were prevented from doing so by the heavy-handed intervention of Islamic representatives. The IHEU call, at today's meeting of the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, follows moves by Islamic clerics to legitimise the current wave of terror attacks.

At this afternoon's meeting, IHEU representative David Littman attempted to deliver a prepared text in the joint names of three international NGOs: the Association for World Education, the Association of World Citizens, and IHEU, but was prevented from doing so by the intervention of Islamic members of the Sub-Commission. After repeated interruptions he was unable to complete his speech.

The Islamic members of the Sub-Commission objected to the speech as an
attack on Islam. The text however is a report on recent critical comment on Islamist extremism by a number of notable Muslim writers and is a call to the UN Human Rights Commission by the NGOs "to condemn calls to kill, to terrorise or to use violence in the name of God or any religion".

The text referred to recent decisions by high-ranking Muslim clerics
confirming that those who carry out suicide bombings cannot be treated as apostates and remain Muslims(1), a fatwa by a Saudi cleric that innocent Britons were a legitimate target for terrorist action(2), and remarks by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, dean of the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies at Qatar University who has visited Britain, that terror attacks are permissible.

Commenting on this censorship, Roy Brown, President of IHEU said:

"This is part and parcel of the refusal by the Islamic representatives at the UN to condemn the suicide bombers, or to accept any criticism of those who kill innocent people in the name of God.

These actions follow the refusal of the Islamic states at the meeting of the Commission in April to condemn those who kill in the name of religion, and to categorise their attempts to criticise Islamic terrorists as "defamation of religion".

"It is high time", Mr Brown insisted "that the Islamic States at the UN recognised that the suicide bombers are acting in the name of their religion, and to unequivocally condemn their actions."
That last sentence is incredibly important IMO, and the refusal to condemn terrorism and terrorists because of their knee-jerk reaction as if all of Islam is being attacked says to the world that they are in fact siding with and defending the terrorists.

[Paul McEnery]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007381.php


That last sentence is incredibly important IMO, and the refusal to condemn terrorism and terrorists because of their knee-jerk reaction as if all of Islam is being attacked says to the world that they are in fact siding with and defending the terrorists.
Instead of sucking down incitement to racial hatred, and then spitting it back at the rest of us, perhaps you ought to investigate a little.

David Littman's speech used the London bombings as an excuse to attack Islam. His purpose is simple: to defend Israel. His method is direct: lie, lie, and lie again.

16 years ago 4 we warned both the Commission and the Sub-Commission on the lethal danger of the genocidal 1988 Hamas Charter. The slogan of that Charter in its article 8 – borrowed from the 1928 Charter of the Muslim Brotherhood – has since become the Islamist blueprint for global terror: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.” Regrettably, this and other extremist Jihadist interpretations of Islam have been approved by several Muslim clerics worldwide, including Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, dean of the College of Sharia and Islamic Studies at Qatar University.

Look at that: blueprint for global terror. And yet there's nothing in that slogan with which anyone could argue -- if, that is, they understood the meaning of the word Jihad.

Littman perpetuates the nonsense that his is an issue of fundamentalist vs. moderate Islam. This is quite clearly rubbish. There is no such distinction. That's a purely Western breakdown, and it has nothing to do with the way Muslims think.

He includes the line:

"Only by an unambiguous public rejection of this murderous cult of hatred and death can the grave dangers of a clash of cultures and civilisations be avoided."

There we are in agreement.

I reject the murderous cult of hatred and death which has been visited upon the Middle East: neocolonialism.

[Winslow]

Since the U.N. (at one time) passed a resoltuion condemning Zionism as racism - I think criticism of the U.N.'s inability to condemn suicide bombers is warranted.

[Paul McEnery]

Since the U.N. (at one time) passed a resoltuion condemning Zionism as racism - I think criticism of the U.N.'s inability to condemn suicide bombers is warranted.
Well, yes. That resolution was passed in 1973, linking Zionism to apartheid, and was then annulled in 1991. Since then, every attempt to censure Israel has been shot down by the US.

This, however, is nothing to do with the UN's inability to condemn suicide bombing. This is the entirely appropriate rejection of one man's attempt to exploit the London bombing to score political points. The substance of his address was false and bigoted, and deserved to be thrown out.

And one more thing. I'd like to punch Mr. Littman in the mouth for exploiting the death of my fellow Londoners.

[Forefinger]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007381.php


That last sentence is incredibly important IMO, and the refusal to condemn terrorism and terrorists because of their knee-jerk reaction as if all of Islam is being attacked says to the world that they are in fact siding with and defending the terrorists.
It sounds like it to me. I think that the UN is growing more and more anti - U.S. and they will side with anyone to discredit us.

[Winslow]

Well, yes. That resolution was passed in 1973, linking Zionism to apartheid, and was then annulled in 1991. Since then, every attempt to censure Israel has been shot down by the US.

This, however, is nothing to do with the UN's inability to condemn suicide bombing. This is the entirely appropriate rejection of one man's attempt to exploit the London bombing to score political points. The substance of his address was false and bigoted, and deserved to be thrown out.

And one more thing. I'd like to punch Mr. Littman in the mouth for exploiting the death of my fellow Londoners.

Point well taken, and helps me understand your previous post.

Still . . . it seems to me a resolution condemning suicidal terrorism is way overdue.

[BlairH]

The UN has yet to earn respect in my eyes. It must unquestionably condemn the terrorist attacks and not be led astray by IDIOTS who act as apologists/supporters of the terrorists.

[Paul McEnery]

The UN has yet to earn respect in my eyes. It must unquestionably condemn the terrorist attacks and not be led astray by IDIOTS who act as apologists/supporters of the terrorists.

I rather think you're missing the point of the UN.

It isn't its job to condemn private citizens.

There are no nation states who support suicide bombing -- at least, overtly.

There is, otoh, a nation which has consistently ignored UN criticism, and continues to occupy foreign territory, lobbing bombs into its citizens. Every time a censure vote comes up, the US vetoes it.

Don't you think that's a matter the UN ought to be allowed to work on?

[Shellhead]

Don't you think that's a matter the UN ought to be allowed to work on?

Sounds reasonable, except whenever the U.N. needs peacekeeping forces, they rely heavily on U.S. troops. Put the U.S. on the wrong side of a U.N. resolution that requires some muscle, and the U.N. can't enforce anything.

[Paul McEnery]

Sounds reasonable, except whenever the U.N. needs peacekeeping forces, they rely heavily on U.S. troops. Put the U.S. on the wrong side of a U.N. resolution that requires some muscle, and the U.N. can't enforce anything.
Well, yeah.

The reality of the UN is that a lot of what it's about is mediating between superpowers, and the realpolitik is that you really can't stop the US or China doing anything they feel like.

[Shellhead]

Well, yeah.

The reality of the UN is that a lot of what it's about is mediating between superpowers, and the realpolitik is that you really can't stop the US or China doing anything they feel like.

Agreed. I wish that all the member nations would actually delegate some real authority to the U.N., but to prevent the little countries from ganging up and exploiting the big countries (which would only push the big countries to drop out of the U.N. and ignore it), there would still need to be something like the Security Council with veto power, or else some kind of weighting of the votes to recognize population and power differences.

[BlairH]

I rather think you're missing the point of the UN.

It isn't its job to condemn private citizens.

There are no nation states who support suicide bombing -- at least, overtly.

There is, otoh, a nation which has consistently ignored UN criticism, and continues to occupy foreign territory, lobbing bombs into its citizens. Every time a censure vote comes up, the US vetoes it.

Don't you think that's a matter the UN ought to be allowed to work on?

So what you're saying is that the UN shouldn't condemn the suicide bombers, but they should condemn America? Sounds like more anti-US diatribe to me.

I believe the UN should scale down it's operation. It should keep the aid portion (UNICEF et al) and should perhaps retain a peakekeeping role. If the UN refuses to condemn suicide bombers then something is clearly wrong.

[warspite1805]

The deomocracies should leave the UN and form a loose coalition for democracies only.
The UN can go to Hell for all I care all it seems to do is squander resoirces and give legitimacy to dictatorships. Plus it does not take into account military\ecconomic\population factors when it comes to voting. Then there is the security council one could argue that countries like Germany, Japan, Israel and India deserve to be on it as much as France, Britain or China.

[Paul McEnery]

So what you're saying is that the UN shouldn't condemn the suicide bombers, but they should condemn America? Sounds like more anti-US diatribe to me.

Have another cup of coffee, Blair. I'm talking about Israel, here. It's ridiculous to be making noise about suicide bombers when the reason suicide bombing started in 1983 was as a result of Israel attacking Lebanon; then it moved over to the Palestinians as Hamas got traction there.

The reality in the region is that Hamas is a real force in Lebanon, and can't simply be anathematized. Ironically, forcing Syria to withdraw its troops has turned Hamas into the de facto law -- as if there were no police force in Ireland, and the IRA were left to do the job. Wishing them away won't make it so; flinging empty moral condemnation at Hamas a) gives them more power and b) gives credence to their world view that the US and Israel are out to get them.


I believe the UN should scale down it's operation. It should keep the aid portion (UNICEF et al) and should perhaps retain a peakekeeping role. If the UN refuses to condemn suicide bombers then something is clearly wrong.
Again, you miss the point. Israel is responsible for the bulk of the injustice in the Middle East, except for what the US is responsible for. At one time, we could have blamed the French, English and the Soviet Union, but apart from what's going on in Chechnya, Russia's out of the game, now.

Suicide bombing is terrible. It's terrible that old men are finding zealous young men to go out and kill and die for them -- but what else is new about that? And it's terrible that they're killing civilians -- but Israel and the US have racked up a lot more civilian deaths each than the suicide bombers have any chance to do.

Ultimately, suicide bombing is a reaction; a reaction to being attacked and occupied -- and murdered. Hamas gains power through having no power, if you see what I mean. The Arab countries have no recourse against the US and Israel; militarily, they are too weak to defend themselves; politically, the US will always use its veto in the UN, and there's no way you can vote to stop Israel invading your territory.

It's in this situation of desperation that Hamas is able to recruit its zealots. Unless we ease that desperation and give justice to the region, it will continue to be easy to find young men to sign up for a "glorious death for the cause" -- as it always has been.

You want to address suicide bombing? Address the root cause of neocolonialism. At the very least, the UN gives voice to the Arab nations, puts a moral check on US and Israeli actions in the region, and allows for a diplomatic solution to what will otherwise continue to be a bloodbath.

[BlairH]

Israel is responsible for the bulk of the injustice in the Middle East, except for what the US is responsible for

I had to laugh out loud at this. I think it's fairly obvious that you view the US and Israel the same way that I view North Korea and Iran right? As enemies? Just the way you said that, it's like "I'll blame everything on my 2 greatest enemies" type of thing. You do know that as soon as Israel was established, the Arab countries invaded her and she's been defending herself ever since? You do know that it's not just a case of "Israel is evil and everything that happens to her, she deserves because she's been such a bad neighbour"? You do know this right?

Likewise, the Middle East is an area where the US has a benign influence (unlike South America...The US interventions in South America I have found to be somewhat disagreeable). You know that the US sends out more aid to Egypt and Israel (both countries in the Middle East) than any other country in the world? The US is also an important player in Saudi Arabia...and Jordan...And Qatar.

Despite what you think, the US is not "The Great Satan" who just generally acts as an evil presence in the world.

When people like you think about the US, you think about Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, propping up bad regimes, flouting international law, etc.

When people like me think about America, I think about, industry, free market/free society, space travel, freedom to act as a citizen, land of opportunity/land of second chances/"huddled masses" and all that.

Just one of life's optimists I guess.

I haven't drugged myself up on coffee as you suggested so my late night ramblings may be even less coherant than usual.

[Paul McEnery]

I had to laugh out loud at this. I think it's fairly obvious that you view the US and Israel the same way that I view North Korea and Iran right? As enemies? Just the way you said that, it's like "I'll blame everything on my 2 greatest enemies" type of thing. You do know that as soon as Israel was established, the Arab countries invaded her and she's been defending herself ever since? You do know that it's not just a case of "Israel is evil and everything that happens to her, she deserves because she's been such a bad neighbour"? You do know this right?

Well, unfortunately for me, I know rather a lot more than that, so I can't see this in terms of black hats and white hats.

The first in line for blame is Europe for it's appalling treatment of the Jews. I can't blame the founders of Zionism for wanting out of that situation, and Hitler proved them right.

The second in line for blame is England for making a deal with the Zionists they neither could nor intended to honour -- to ethnically cleanse England and Europe, and turn Israel into a Jewish country. Obviously, this ran roughshod over the interests of the Palestinians, but also over those of the Sephardic Jews who were already living there.

The third in line for blame is the second generation of Zionist immigrants. The first generation had wooly ideas about integrating into the country, and the Palestinians would just, you know, go along with it. But the next gen were under no such illusions, and built up armies to seize power and defend themselves when necessary.

The fourth in line for blame were the Zionist terrorists, who blew up and shot the English troops who were there keeping the peace and, coincidentally, preventing the Zionist coup from taking place.

The fifth in line for blame is pretty much everyone for ratifying the UN decision to partition Israel, and shaft the Palestinians, in 1948. By that time, there had already been armed land grabs and massacres, and there were more to follow. Moreover, part of the 1948 ratification of the State of Israel was dependent on the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel reneged.

So I can't bring myself to blame the other Arab countries for attacking Israel at that point (even though the hostility probably did contain antisemitism, or more likely Arab arrogance). The Arab nations had been acceptable hosts to the Jews for centuries, and the only true antisemitism that came into the region until 1948 came through the crusades in the 11th and 12th Century (and introduced antisemitism into Europe, as it happens).

However, it's also the case that at that time, the US was setting up deals to create oligarchies in various Middle East countries; this led to unemployment, unrest, anger against the new economic injustice and the immorality of the regimes, people's birthrights being sold out from under them to the West, and so on.

What you see as spreading democracy -- in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Israel -- the Arabs see, not without justice, the imposition of one more colonial and external system of government, that rewards the rich and ruins the rest. We all know that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are dictatorships of the Monarchy, as Iran was before the revolution, and as Iraq de facto was becoming. It wasn't the Arabs who created the Shah, the House of Saud, or Saddam Hussein -- it was the West who made them rich and gave them the tools to oppress their people. Why? Because we wanted their natural resources -- the story of Empire from the Commonwealth (hah!) to Belgian Congo to French Algeria to Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell.

You have to wade through all of that to reach the depravations of the PLO.
You then have to wade through the Israeli bombing of Lebanese civilians to reach the beginnings of Hamas.
You then have to wade through the settlements in the West Bank to reach the rise of Hamas in Palestine.
And you have to wade through Sharon's deliberate provocations to reach the current state of the intifadah.

The fact is, the UN is powerless to attack the country that supports suicide bombing because there is no such country. It is dispossessed people, people without a country, who fight back in such a way.

[macul]

Have another cup of coffee, Blair. I'm talking about Israel, here. It's ridiculous to be making noise about suicide bombers when the reason suicide bombing started in 1983 was as a result of Israel attacking Lebanon; then it moved over to the Palestinians as Hamas got traction there.


Yeah...let's just forget about that whole "Lebanon harboring PLO" thing. The PLO maintained a small army in south Lebanon that constantly attacked towns in northern Israel. If Lebanon wouldn't do anything about it then you can't exactly blame Israel for taking matters in to their own hand.

[BlairH]

The PLO maintained a small army in south Lebanon that constantly attacked towns in northern Israel.

I believe they still do. Always hear about guerilla and rocket attacks from across that border.

[Samurai]

Paul, the Palestinians DID get a homeland... Trans-Jordan. And it was many times the size of Israel. And you can't exactly blame Israelis for wanting to defend themselves from the Arab aggressors that surrounded them.

Here are some maps and a quick history of the situation:

http://www.masada2000.org/historical.html

http://www.masada2000.org/transj.gif
In 1923, the British divided the "Palestine" portion of the Ottoman Empire into two administrative districts. Jews would be permitted only west of the Jordan river. In effect, the British had "chopped off" 75% of the originally proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab Palestinian nation called Trans-Jordan (meaning "across the Jordan River"). This territory east of the Jordan River was given to Emir Abdullah (from Hejaz, now Saudi Arabia) who was not even an Arab-"Palestinian!" This portion of Palestine was renamed Trans-Jordan. Trans-Jordan and would again be renamed "Jordan" in 1946. In other words, the eastern 3/4 of Palestine would be renamed TWICE, in effect, erasing all connection to the name "Palestine!" However, the bottom line is that the Palestinian Arabs had THEIR "Arab Palestinian" homeland. The remaining 25% of Palestine (now WEST of the Jordan River) was to be the Jewish Palestinian homeland. However, sharing was not part of the Arab psychological makeup then nor now.

Encouraged and incited by growing Arab nationalism throughout the Middle East, the Arabs of that small remaining Palestinian territory west of the Jordan River launched never-ending murderous attacks upon the Jewish Palestinians in an effort to drive them out. Most terrifying were the Hebron massacres of 1929 and later during the 1936-39 "Arab Revolt." The British at first tried to maintain order but soon (due to the large oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East) turned a blind eye. It became painfully clear to the Palestinian Jews that they must fight the Arabs AND drive out the British.

http://www.masada2000.org/1947mapa.gif


The 1947 U.N. Resolution 181 partition plan was to divide the remaining 25% of Palestine into a Jewish Palestinian State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jewish Palestinians accepted... the Arab Palestinians rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River.

[Charles RB]

The deomocracies should leave the UN and form a loose coalition for democracies only.

So then the UN ends up with only dictatorships in it, so they can ignore the big democratic powers completely because they have their own club. Not a good thing.

The UN can go to Hell for all I care all it seems to do is squander resoirces and give legitimacy to dictatorships.

Also, there's quite a few dictatorships that the democratic nations are doing business with; Pakistan is an ally of America in the Middle East, and that's a military dictatorship last I checked. Oh, and our buddies Saudi Arabia.

It's not just the UN that 'legitimises' these regimes.

You know that the US sends out more aid to Egypt and Israel (both countries in the Middle East) than any other country in the world?

That's not out of the goodness of the American government's heart, that's to ensure it's got some strong allies in a strategically important region. America likes having interests in that region, it's got important resources.

The US is also an important player in Saudi Arabia...

Saudi Arabia sells a huge amount of the world's oil supplies. America needs Saudi Arabia to have a friendly government selling a steady oil supply. This is not America being selfless, this is America being strategic and Britain did the same type of thing when it was the major player in the Middle East.

[BlairH]

This is not America being selfless, this is America being strategic

and where's the crime in that? Would you rather see America sever all ties to other nations and go into a massive recession/decline? It wouldn't just affect America either, it would put the world into a new dark age (no oil)

[Charles RB]

and where's the crime in that?

Depends on how it goes about being strategic. If it decides a dictatorship is in its best interests and supports one or helps one come about that then commits atrocities against the people of that country, there is a crime in it.

[heretic]

Well, unfortunately for me, I know rather a lot more than that, so I can't see this in terms of black hats and white hats.Actually, you seem to be doing a good job of it.

The first in line for blame is Europe for it's appalling treatment of the Jews. I can't blame the founders of Zionism for wanting out of that situation, and Hitler proved them right.True.

The second in line for blame is England for making a deal with the Zionists they neither could nor intended to honour -- to ethnically cleanse England and Europe, and turn Israel into a Jewish country. Obviously, this ran roughshod over the interests of the Palestinians, but also over those of the Sephardic Jews who were already living there.Also True, esp. given the promices made to the Arabs of the region.

Things like this make me miss the Ottomans.

The third in line for blame is the second generation of Zionist immigrants. The first generation had wooly ideas about integrating into the country, and the Palestinians would just, you know, go along with it. But the next gen were under no such illusions, and built up armies to seize power and defend themselves when necessary.In all fairness, a lot of the Arab Nationalists have innocent blood on thier hands as well.

The fourth in line for blame were the Zionist terrorists, who blew up and shot the English troops who were there keeping the peace and, coincidentally, preventing the Zionist coup from taking place.See above.

The fifth in line for blame is pretty much everyone for ratifying the UN decision to partition Israel, and shaft the Palestinians, in 1948. By that time, there had already been armed land grabs and massacres, and there were more to follow. Moreover, part of the 1948 ratification of the State of Israel was dependent on the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel reneged.Bull.

Yes, Israel declared independence and various factions could not agree on whether to throw the Arabs out or try to intergrate them (the resulting mix of those who ran either at the behest of other Arabs or in fear of the local Jewish militias and those who stayed remains the big dividing line between 'Palestinian' and 'Israeli' Arabs).
http://www.masada2000.org/1947mapa.gif
However, there was a fair bit of land set aside for an Arab state no less fragmented than Israel (whatever you think of the website Sam found the borders are accurate.

Israel accepted and declared independence.

The Surrounding Arab States called it a causus belli and made with the invasion.

If they had pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza to create a Palestinian State in the aftermath you could defend them, but they were as fast or faster to shaft the Arab locals as the Israelis have been accused of. Frankly the PLO, Hamas, and IJ are no better given the amount of gangsterism they indulge in.

HTG (Pro-Israel, Pro-Arab, Pro-One-State-Solution)

[Patient Boy]

HTG (Pro-Israel, Pro-Arab, Pro-One-State-Solution)

I'm sorry if this is taking the discussion off track (mods can break this off if it goes too off topic) but while I agree with you that a one state solution is probably the smartest way to go about things, do you see it as viable or more importantly, possible, in the forseeable future?

[heretic]

HTG (Pro-Israel, Pro-Arab, Pro-One-State-Solution)I'm sorry if this is taking the discussion off track (mods can break this off if it goes too off topic) but while I agree with you that a one state solution is probably the smartest way to go about things, do you see it as viable or more importantly, possible, in the forseeable future?It would take a lot of time and effort (far more than annexation over the protests of the UN back in the 70s would have), but given the fact that any 'Palestinian' state that takes into account Israel's real security concerns would be little more than an economic appenage/cheap-labor-pool at best I think some sort of de jure confederation would be leave the Arab populace better off (esp. since it would give them a better chance to participate in the Israeli economy and hopefully provide a social net to replace the like of Hamas).

That, and the prospective rulers of 'Palestine' are little more than kleptocratic opportunists... and the alternatives are even worse.

HTG

[PatrickG]

Paul,

Let me ask.

Let's say that Israel is every bit as evil as you claim.

Does that justify suicide bombing?

Do Hitler and Stalin justify suicide bombing?

I don't think that ANY level of evil warrants suicide bombing.

And any form of religion which permits or encourages any form of killing, IMO, should be abolished.

I'm including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever.

I think we need to condemn killing on a global level. For any cause, even God.

[Paul McEnery]

Paul,

Let me ask.

Let's say that Israel is every bit as evil as you claim.

Does that justify suicide bombing?

Do Hitler and Stalin justify suicide bombing?

I don't think that ANY level of evil warrants suicide bombing.

And any form of religion which permits or encourages any form of killing, IMO, should be abolished.

I'm including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, whatever.

I think we need to condemn killing on a global level. For any cause, even God.
Oh, I agree.

But it's cheap to condemn suicide bombing, and very hard to criticize the preconditions that lead to it.

[PatrickG]

Well, I say go for the cheap move while you can and go for the hard call once you've got support for it.

My take on politics and ethics is basically a "buy low, sell high" approach.

[Adam Crocker]

A few thoughts for now, if only because the Israel-Palestine thing as well as Paul's comments are a lot stickier to deal with and require more thought and reading...

Plus it does not take into account military\ecconomic\population factors when it comes to voting.

Well I'm a bit confused by what you mean here so you may have to elaborte. What are these military, economic, and population factors that need to be accounted for in voting, how, and why?

Then there is the security council one could argue that countries like Germany, Japan, Israel and India deserve to be on it as much as France, Britain or China.

According to the lists of elected members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elected_members_of_the_UN_Security_Council) they were, with Japan being a member of the 2005 roster, though you could make an argument that they belong on there as well. Frankly I regard the permanent Security Council as something of geopolitical old boy's club myself so its doubtful that any new permanent members will be added any time soon, at least not with consent of the current permanent roster.

The deomocracies should leave the UN and form a loose coalition for democracies only.
The UN can go to Hell for all I care all it seems to do is squander resoirces and give legitimacy to dictatorships.

Hmmm...now what country does that sound like?

Likewise, the Middle East is an area where the US has a benign influence (unlike South America...The US interventions in South America I have found to be somewhat disagreeable). You know that the US sends out more aid to Egypt and Israel (both countries in the Middle East) than any other country in the world? The US is also an important player in Saudi Arabia...and Jordan...And Qatar.

A benign influence? You mean the country that knocked out Mossadegh for the Shah which gave us Ayatollahs, trained the Muhajadeen which gave us Al-Qaeda, has propped up the House of Saud, supports those parasites in Kuwait, provides continued aid to Egypt despite its continued encouragement (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=1626298&postcount=264) of human rights abuses by the regime there, (all while offering these regimes minimal criticism and encouraging extremists in the process) which encouraged the destructive war between Iraq and Iran, which destablized Iraq on bogus justification, which left Afghanistan out to dry in the process is a benign influence?

Man I'd hate to see a malignant influence.

[Paul McEnery]

To return to Samurai, Macul, and Heretic's points:

Who drew the map?

Did they have the right to draw the map?

[Winslow]

Oh, I agree.

But it's cheap to condemn suicide bombing, and very hard to criticize the preconditions that lead to it.

I see your point now.

*fanboy shameless plug* BTW - read WAKE Vol. 5 from NBM some time. Sci-Fi comic that makes the same point.

http://www.nbmpub.com/fantasysf/wake/wake_hp.html

[Hoss]

To return to Samurai, Macul, and Heretic's points:

Who drew the map?

Did they have the right to draw the map?


The victors drew the map. Which is a barbaric, backwards way of doing things. However, unlike say the native Americans, the majority of the middle eastern kingdoms and empires had a view of war, conquering, and land that was fairly in line with the west.

[macul]

To return to Samurai, Macul, and Heretic's points:

Who drew the map?

Did they have the right to draw the map?

I didn't say anything about the map. I was just pointing out the flaw in your statement. You made it sound as if Israel just invaded Lebanon for the hell of it.

[Paul McEnery]

I didn't say anything about the map. I was just pointing out the flaw in your statement. You made it sound as if Israel just invaded Lebanon for the hell of it.
Oh no, of course not.

While it's easy to understand the ham-fisted response to people lobbing bombs over the border, unfortunately, that's not the way the Arabs are going to look at it. Israel's history in the region is one of land-grabbing aggression -- from the very gitgo. Even the peaceful Zionists arrived in Palestine thinking they were just going to take the place, with no thought that the locals might have a problem with that. The later non-peaceful Zionists, well...

In any case, if the price of the survival of Israel is the total destabilization of Lebanon and the following misery, it's not really worth it. And since the destabilization of Lebanon led directly to the establishment of Hamas and suicide bombing, first in Lebanon, and then in Israel itself, it wasn't exactly a win, was it.

[macul]

It would be nice if borders could just be drawn giving each side their own little territory, but I'm not sure if that would even solve the issue. The Palestinians seem to just be pawns in the goal to destroy Israel.

[K'Nort]

Hoss's avatar still randomly makes me jump. Esp in a political thread.

That's not a criticism.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hoss's avatar still randomly makes me jump. Esp in a political thread.

For awhile, someone on YABS was using iwarrior's old pic as their av. *That* was cringeworthy.

[Hoss]

Hoss's avatar still randomly makes me jump. Esp in a political thread.

That's not a criticism.

It's less trendy and more obscure than wearing a Che Guevera or Leon Trotstky t-shirt.

[K'Nort]

It's less trendy and more obscure than wearing a Che Guevera or Leon Trotstky t-shirt.

Very nice.