Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Barbarism! Afghans kill 12 at UN compound over Florida Koran burning

The New York Times: MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan — Stirred up by three angry mullahs who urged them to avenge the burning of a Koran at a Florida church, thousands of protesters on Friday overran the compound of the United Nations in this northern Afghan city, killing at least 12 people, Afghan and United Nations officials said.
The dead included at least seven United Nations workers — four Nepalese guards and three Europeans from Romania, Sweden and Norway — according to United Nations officials in New York. One was a woman. Early reports, later denied by Afghan officials, said that at least two of the dead had been beheaded. Five Afghans were also killed. [...]
Unable to find Americans on whom to vent their anger, the mob turned instead on the next-best symbol of Western intrusion — the nearby United Nations headquarters. “Some of our colleagues were just hunted down,” said a spokesman for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Kieran Dwyer, in confirming the attack. [MORE]
There is only one word to describe this and the word is barbarism! As expected some on the left are blaming that crazy pastor Terry Jones for provoking this.

Absolute nonsense!

Whatever you want to think about the crazy Koran burning pastor, in America he was well within his free speech rights doing what he did. There is no difference between his Koran burning sideshow and some hack artist making feces smeared pictures of the Virgin Mary. Both seek the limelight by shocking and offending.

What is different between Jones and the hack artist are the people they offended. For the hack artist, he only offended a bunch of passive Christians who only fume, fuss and boycott. Terry Jones on the other hand, offended a group that has long ago embraced a culture of death and intolerance, and they act out on both with alarming regularity.

Many in Western civilization want to put on their moral equivalence glasses and see Islam as no better or worse than Christianity or Judaism. This my friends is nothing but wishful thinking taken to the nth degree. Pick up a newspaper on almost any given day and somewhere in the world Muslims are killing each other or someone they disagree with, all in the name of Islam. Even their women and children have embraced a culture of death.

When I think of all the national treasure we spend to give the Afghans a shot at freedom and then read about these killings, I cannot help but feel we have completely wasted efforts. How can true democracy with and passion for individual freedom ever take hold in a place like that? Methinks not.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: The New York Times
Via: Jewish World Review
Via: YouTube
Via: National Geographic

Sunday, September 26, 2010

E.T. gets an ambassador: U.N. to appoint Earth contact for aliens


It looks like the U.N. has taken steps to answer that age old request; “Take me to your leader”.
News.com.au: Mazlan Othman, the head of the UN's little-known Office for Outer Space Affairs (Unoosa), is to describe her potential new role next week at a scientific conference at the Royal Society’s Kavli conference centre in Buckinghamshire.
She is scheduled to tell delegates that the recent discovery of hundreds of planets around other stars has made the detection of extraterrestrial life more likely than ever before - and that means the UN must be ready to coordinate humanity’s response to any “first contact”.
Professor Richard Crowther, an expert in space law and governance at the UK Space Agency and who leads British delegations to the UN on such matters, said: “Othman is absolutely the nearest thing we have to a ‘take me to your leader’ person.”
Can you imagine the Earth’s first contact with an alien race being routed through the dysfunctional U.N.? Sweet Jesus, after five minutes of hearing the U.N.'s blather about world peace and global warming, the aliens will conclude the Earth is ripe for the plucking!

Thanks, but no thanks U.N., America will take its chances (and those are some big chances) with Obama. Hopefully, no intelligent extraterrestrial life will US visit until after 2012.

Friday, September 25, 2009

Notes on Netanyahu’s speech to the UN

The full text and full video of this speech can be found at Atlas Shurgs.

I watched and read Netanyahu’s speech. After watching the parade of fools (Qaddafi or Ahmadinejad and Chavez) take the podium and spew utter nonsense, it was refreshing to hear someone at the United Nations speak with moral clarity!

Netanyahu calls out the UN:

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

Finally someone says it! Moral relativism runs rampant through out the UN. This is why clowns like Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad and Chavez are treated with the same weight as Netanyahu.

Netanyahu on the threat Iran poses:

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This is one salient truth. Some nations are content to sit on their posteriors and wait for Israel to do the dirty work. Others clearly have their heads in the sand, thinking that Iran getting nukes is an American or Israeli problem. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Netanyahu defines Islamic Fanaticism vs. Western Civilization:

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

***

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after a horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind.

That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction, and the most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This is the lesson America should have learned after 9/11. This is the lesson we need to keep fresh in our minds going forward. Israel understands this because they have survived countless 9/11’s. Must America do the same before we learn the lesson? Meanwhile, Obama fiddles around with Russia, reenacting the SALT II treaties of yore.

Netanyahu calls out Iran’s abuses:

Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?

Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the
United Nations stand by their side?

Someone please forward this to Obama! This is what Obama should have clearly understood when Ahmadinejad and the Clerics stole the election!

Netanyahu calls out the UN again:

Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks.

We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

***

Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way. Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel.

A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth! What a perversion of justice!

I think we can basically say that Netanyahu is calling out the UN for their rampant Anti-Semitism by giving examples. That is why Israel is treated like the villain rather than the victim in most cases.

Conclusion:

I think this speech by Netanyahu was his way of telling the UN that he acknowledges that Israel is being backed into a corner, regarding Iran. He is basically giving the UN a final chance to do the right thing before he acts. I believe that Netanyahu knows Israel is going to catch hell for attacking Iran, despite it being the correct and only thing to do. The big question is what will Obama do after Israel acts?

Via: Memeorandum

Via: Atlas Shrugs

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Notes on Obama’s speech at the UN

I followed my old rule and read Obama’s speech rather than watch it. I suggest everyone should do the same. Reading Obama’s speeches are far more revealing than listening to them. You can find a transcript of the speech here.

A contradiction:

I was immediately stuck by contradictions early on. In the opening paragraphs Obama says; “Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests” (yeah right) and then in the very next paragraph he tells the assembly that we must “embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect”. So which is it? Will Obama act in America’s best interest or will we only act mutually with the world?

Obama on nukes:

I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. And this week, my Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

***

In their actions to date, the governments of North Korea and Iran threaten to take us down this dangerous slope. We respect their rights as members of the community of nations. I've said before and I will repeat, I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations.

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East -- then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. We must insist that the future does not belong to fear.

This is laughable, as Iran and North Korea seem to be able to move faster and faster to achieve their nuclear goals. His focus on disarmament with Russia seems like something that was better suited for the Reagan Era than anything that is going on in the world today. If achieving a nuclear free world is your goal why not first stop the two nations that are desperately seeking entry into the nuclear arms club, rather than put all your efforts on disarming the US and Russia? Counting on the world to come together to stop North Korea and Iran is naiveté at its highest. China and Russia have their own agenda for not taking action against these two.

Obama on the UN:

We've also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. (Applause.) We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals. And we address our priorities here, in this institution -- for instance, through the Security Council meeting that I will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and through the issues that I will discuss today.

The fact that Qaddafi or Ahmadinejad can get an audience at the UN, should really bring to question why the United States is involved with the UN at all.

The cooperative effort of the whole world. Those words ring even more true today, when it is not simply peace, but our very health and prosperity that we hold in common. Yet we also know that this body is made up of sovereign states. And sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for sowing discord instead of forging common ground; a venue for playing politics and exploiting grievances rather than solving problems. After all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and point figures -- point fingers and stoke divisions. Nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles, and absolving ourselves of responsibility for our choices and our actions. Anybody can do that. Responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more.

If Obama could only realize that so long as the UN treats crazy regimes legitimately, he will never get the cooperation he is looking for. What is needed is not more engagement with the UN, but a better UN!

In an era when our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero-sum game. No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold. The traditional divisions between nations of the South and the North make no sense in an interconnected world; nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long-gone Cold War.

A plug for a global socialist order or the end of American exceptionalism?

Obama on Israel:

The time has come -- the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.)

Israel meet Obama’s bus, Obama’s bus meet Israel. It is hard to see how Israel will continue to exist if there is a contiguous Palestinian state. I think Israel is being herded into a lose-lose situation. Clearly Obama wants to sit back and wait for Israel to strike Iran. Once they do that, I have little doubt that Obama will come down on the side of condemning Israel for their actions. Israel is clearly on their own for the next 3 years.

Obama on Climate Change:

The danger posed by climate change cannot be denied. Our responsibility to meet it must not be deferred. If we continue down our current course, every member of this Assembly will see irreversible changes within their borders. Our efforts to end conflicts will be eclipsed by wars over refugees and resources. Development will be devastated by drought and famine. Land that human beings have lived on for millennia will disappear. Future generations will look back and wonder why we refused to act; why we failed to pass on -- why we failed to pass on an environment that was worthy of our inheritance.

I am amazed that this bit of junk science has made its way all the way around the world. It is quite dismaying to see an American President buy into it.

And those wealthy nations that did so much damage to the environment in the 20th century must accept our obligation to lead. But responsibility does not end there. While we must acknowledge the need for differentiated responses, any effort to curb carbon emissions must include the fast-growing carbon emitters who can do more to reduce their air pollution without inhibiting growth. And any effort that fails to help the poorest nations both adapt to the problems that climate change have already wrought and help them travel a path of clean development simply will not work.

Bingo! More global socialism! That means we have to pay poorer nations for the junk science of global warming!

An Observation:

What I found interesting is that Obama never addressed human rights abuses in a room jammed pack full of human rights abusers. It is interesting to note that Sarah Palin pinged China for these while standing on Chinese soil, yet Obama on his own nation’s soil, with Qaddafi and Ahmadinejad speaking the same day, could not utter a word on the issue.

Conclusion:

This speech, like Obama's past world speeches, indicates to me that Obama thinks that if he just checks off a few items from the world’s wish list, that the world will all of a sudden cooperate with American goals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anti-Americanism is reflexive in the UN, it is independent of whether the president is right or left. Many of these nations will simply find new gripes for reasons not to cooperate with America so that they are free to pursue their own agendas.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The New York Times

Related Posts with Thumbnails