U.N.'s new duties.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:59 am

GENEVA - Muslim and Western nations clashed at the United Nations on Tuesday after a measure backed by Islamic countries added monitoring religious prejudice to the duties of a U.N. free speech expert.

So my question is this. If they pushed for this resolution to keep journalist from publishing items such as the Dutch cartoons, can the Western cultures use it to keep the extreme Islamics from publishing there jihad, kill the infidels propaganda?

Think about it! We have the western countries who published cartoons of Mohammad and then we have the Muslims airing cartoons for kids that show a kid stabbing George Bush to death.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:15 pm

In what sense is the UN being asked to prevent publication of anything by this?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:20 pm

They are being asked to make defamation of a religion a crime.

Did you read the article, I linked to? :wah:

Galbally · Post by **Galbally** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:53 pm

Hmmn, Pakistan and Egypt are concerned about freedom of expression are they? Well there is always a first time. I didn't realize that the UN has become an agent of the religiously-inspired, sorry I meant the Islamic repression of free speech of non Muslims living in non Muslim countries about what they might think about this religion and its doctrines. I don't presume that the UN is going to also attempt to examine the spread of Anti-Western anti-White racist hate propaganda by Arab Muslim demagogs and "religious leaders". I think this nonsense should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:18 pm

Sheryl;824304 wrote: They are being asked to make defamation of a religion a crime.

Did you read the article, I linked to? :wah:

I did in response to this question and I'm still totally baffled by what you're saying. The article makes it quite clear that they're not asking anyone to to make defamation of a religion a crime. They're requiring the official l to report acts of "racial or religious discrimination" that constitute "abuse of the right of freedom of expression". How is that criminalizing anything?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:23 pm

The resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/ ... ouncil.php

Here's another article on the resolution. I guess we are reading it differently, because I see it how I see it.

But I'm tired today, and pms'ing so not going to argue right now. Maybe after the midol has kicked in, I'll have another look.

Post by **spot** » Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:27 pm

All you need do is read the words and stop making assumptions. The UN doesn't make laws. It sometimes helps create treaties and resolutions which are binding on signatory nations. Some of that obligation might eventually find its way into a nation's law as a way of fulfilling the obligation they entered into. What these articles say is nothing close to any of that, they're placing an obligation on an employee to add a section to a report he already makes.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:44 pm

Sheryl;824484 wrote: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/ ... ouncil.php

Here's another article on the resolution. I guess we are reading it differently, because I see it how I see it.

But I'm tired today, and pms'ing so not going to argue right now. Maybe after the midol has kicked in, I'll have another look.

It's like a mold. It starts out a tiny spot or two. Soon, it covers an item.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:20 pm

Disband the UN. Learn a lesson from nature. The strong and intelligent survive. Why should humans let the weak and stupid pull us all down?

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 6:34 am

And for weak and stupid we're meant to read what? Non-Americans? Democrats? Blacks? Italian Americans? Who exactly are we having a go at?

You say "dismantle the UN" as though it's your UN. By all means resign from it, I'm sure it can relocate and heave a sigh of relief. Brazil, that would be a good place for a new headquarters.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:32 am

Weak and stupid? Gee, wouldn't ya think that would mean countries that need constant charity just for the basics? Countries that never could scratch out a living?

As for the UN, I'm only one of many who would be extremely happy if that bunch of worthless oxygen thieves would pull out.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:34 am

Maybe they could pay their traffic and parking fines before they hie outa here.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:21 am

Just be glad I'll never get elected president. I'd declare myself president for life, bring home the troops, close most foreign bases, seal off all borders and go immediately to work building up the greatest military EVER. Cuba, gone. It would be renamed South Florida. Big new military base. Hawaii, misile bases everywhere. Etc.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:48 am

How - in purely logical terms - can you bring home the troops and at the same time send them on a foreign excursion to Cuba? I don't understand that at all.

As for the rest of it, you may have my vote any time I'm allowed to cast it in your favour.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 am

I'm back....

and my view is that I find it ironic that they are wanting this protection from the U.N. when they have no qualms yelling for jihad against westerners.

Seriously spot, alot has been going in your country concerning the Muslims and their wanting to set up Sharia courts. Do you think they should be allowed to rule themselves?

edit..

removed the last part, since it was fictional conversation. Just saw the true source of the news story.

http://www.islam-watch.org/AyeshaAhmed/ ... -Sunna.htm

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:55 am

Easy, my man. Bring 'em home. Rebuild our forces after securing our borders. Take Cuba, yada-yada.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:22 am

You're seriously telling me that, having lost in the Middle East, you'll come back and rebuild just so you can take some pissant little island off the coast with a huge fanfare and lots of back-slapping and handing out medals for fratricide? It sounds exactly like Ronald Reagan and Grenada all over again!

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:36 am

spot;826522 wrote: You're seriously telling me that, having lost in the Middle East, you'll come back and rebuild just so you can take some pissant little island off the coast with a huge fanfare and lots of back-slapping and handing out medals for fratricide? It sounds exactly like Ronald Reagan and Grenada all over again!

No. YOU said that. I said we will rebuild our forces, annex Cuba to use as a base. Then, with the strongest military EVER, we could go where we want and **** on anybody's doorstep we choose, IF we choose. We already have missles that can strike anywhere and planes that can fly most any distance. We just need to draw into our borders and re-energize ourselves.

Let the radical muslims take europe like they are anyway. Let 'em have south america, which might be harder to over run than europe for them.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 11:51 am

hoppy;826738 wrote: No. YOU said that. I said we will rebuild our forces, annex Cuba to use as a base. You'll pardon my pushing this but "bring home the troops" doesn't mean send them abroad again once you've dusted them down and waited a few weeks to forget that they just abandoned a war as unwinnable. "bring home the troops" means keeping them in your own Homeland.

The longer you stay, Jester, the bigger the defeat. Leave now while it won't hurt so much.

Brazil's bigger, that's all. It has a purpose-built capital city that the UN would be welcome in. Or there's other cities like Sao Paulo.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 7:56 pm

spot;826751 wrote: You'll pardon my pushing this but "bring home the troops" doesn't mean send them abroad again once you've dusted them down and waited a few weeks to forget that they just abandoned a war as unwinnable. "bring home the troops" means keeping them in your own Homeland.

The longer you stay, Jester, the bigger the defeat. Leave now while it won't hurt so much.

Brazil's bigger, that's all. It has a purpose-built capital city that the UN would be welcome in. Or there's other cities like Sao Paulo.

Spot- I also said I would declare myself president for life. That means I am running the USA. What I say means what I say it means. I will be not only president for life (PFL) but the supreme commander, (SC).

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Apr 04, 2008 8:32 pm

You need to learn to pay closer attention. If you are in my country after I take over and argue with my commands, it could mean the firing squad. And the UN won't save you either. Lol.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:42 am

Fortunately I shall be elsewhere and all your troops will be in the Homeland. Everyone's got a good deal out of your rise to power.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:51 am

You can run but you can't hide. When my military reaches full power, we'll annex Canada too. Canada/USA will be renamed Canamerica. Did I mention we will have mandatory military service for men and women 16 to 55 years of age? Everyone will be of some use to the country.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:04 am

Why would you annexe Canada but not Mexico?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:26 am

It wouldn't be wise to question the great Supreme Commander Hoppy. However, who said Mexico isn't on our future list? Canada has more timber and other assets.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:36 am

Mexico has more labor. If you annexe both countries then both populations are available to your expanded Homeland industries as a migrant workforce. You can get Mexicans to harvest the newly-acquired forests, for example, and to steer the rafts down the huge Northern rivers and then canoe back to their cabins. Who knows, they'd probably end up speaking French and assimilating perfectly into the redefined USA that you've acquired.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:22 am

Thought I would develop Mexico into a vacation/resort area for our military people when they are on leave. Casinos, hunting, fishing, etc.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:36 pm

hoppy;825806 wrote: Disband the UN. Learn a lesson from nature. The strong and intelligent survive. Why should humans let the weak and stupid pull us all down?

Because at some time we're all weak and / or stupid.

In the land of tooth and claw no-one lives long and morality always suffers.

Living a civilised life make it better for all - far from pulling us all down it lifts everyone to a higher plain.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 3:57 pm

hoppy;826180 wrote: Maybe they could pay their traffic and parking fines before they hie outa here.

Excuse me, I wouldn't have brought this up otherwise but :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/mar/01/london.london

Ken Livingstone will be thumbing through his thesaurus in search of new adjectives. The US embassy in London - whose head has been described by the London mayor as a "chiselling little crook" - now owes more than £2m in unpaid congestion charge payments and other traffic penalties, the Guardian has learned.

The figure puts America at the top of a list of foreign embassies and missions which have been refusing to pay the daily £8 charge. More than £10m in outstanding penalty charge notices (PCNs) is owed by 20 embassies, according to figures released by Transport for London (TfL) under the Freedom of Information Act.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 7:57 pm

You are more than welcome to headquarter the UN after I throw 'em outa here. Lol.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 8:04 pm

Bryn Mawr;827853 wrote: Because at some time we're all weak and / or stupid.

In the land of tooth and claw no-one lives long and morality always suffers.

Living a civilised life make it better for all - far from pulling us all down it lifts everyone to a higher plain.

And how has England, or anyone, been lifted by the starving, fly covered wretches the media always shows us, in Africa? Each year there is a drought. Each year nothing grows, animals are all dead or dying. Each year food is sent, as much as possible and each year armed thugs get away with most of it. So, how long does this have to continue?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:53 am

By the way, after I take over and rebuild the USA, we will have no embassy's anywhere, nor allow any in MY country. Foreign visitors coming here will be severly limited as will our citizens going out.

I plan to re-arm our forces and police. We will get rid of those horrid 9mm Beretta pistols and dumba** .22 rifles and return to the old M 14 in .308 and Colt 1911's in .45. We'll upgrade and mass produce cruise missiles.

Post by **spot** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:42 am

hoppy;828025 wrote: And how has England, or anyone, been lifted by the starving, fly covered wretches the media always shows us, in Africa? Each year there is a drought. Each year nothing grows, animals are all dead or dying. Each year food is sent, as much as possible and each year armed thugs get away with most of it. So, how long does this have to continue?

For as long as you keep subverting the local markets by sending food and distributing it for free, undercutting the local farmers and making it impossible for them to plant a crop for next year. Food aid is a cynical means of keeping poor countries in poverty while subsidizing your own farmers. Please stop sending it.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 6:58 am

spot;828151 wrote: For as long as you keep subverting the local markets by sending food and distributing it for free, undercutting the local farmers and making it impossible for them to plant a crop for next year. Food aid is a cynical means of keeping poor countries in poverty while subsidizing your own farmers. Please stop sending it.

I don't believe anyone in the USA has any control over droughts in Africa, or the out-of-control human breeding that has long ago outstripped the ability of some countries to feed themselves.

Seems like we are on the same side here, up to a point. I say, let them sink or swim. Get their population down to one they can feed.

Post by **spot** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:17 am

Africa could feed itself perfectly well if it weren't swamped with US food aid destroying local farming communities - what's so hard to understand about that? It's one of the simplest cause-and-effect relationships I ever saw.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:44 am

spot;828169 wrote: Africa could feed itself perfectly well if it weren't swamped with US food aid destroying local farming communities - what's so hard to understand about that? It's one of the simplest cause-and-effect relationships I ever saw.

Then explain the hordes of fly covered bone bag people sitting around. I apologize for the USA's being so inconsiderate as to try to share it's food with those without food. When I take over that won't happen.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:45 am

Spot. Not to be insulting but are you a teenager? just curious.

Post by **spot** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:21 am

Forty fifteen, spot has two service points for the set.

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats

Too noble to neglect

Deceived me into thinking

I had something to protect

Good and bad, I define these terms

Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.

Ah, but I was so much older then,

I'm younger than that now.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:51 am

hoppy;828158 wrote: I don't believe anyone in the USA has any control over droughts in Africa, or the out-of-control human breeding that has long ago outstripped the ability of some countries to feed themselves.

Seems like we are on the same side here, up to a point. I say, let them sink or swim. Get their population down to one they can feed.

I think that the suggestion is that we help them build infrastructure like wells and irrigation schemes, provide microcredit to help them with start up, train teachers and engineers to let them help themselves - not provide finished product and so kill what means of support they do have.