T Nation

Freedom of Speech in UN?

I think not…

[quote]Adamsson wrote:

I think not…[/quote]

It’s well known that Arabs control the UN and that to work in the organization you need to be anti-Semite.

The poor Israelis have been displaced by the monstrous Palestinians and their lands were violently taken away from them. Israelis live in open-air prisons surrounded by walls built by the Palestinian military and they’re frequently humiliated and beat at check points. Also, the Palestinian secret service regularly abducts civilians from their homes.

Tshhh…

The UN is irrelevant. I should be dissolved, it doesn’t matter what they say or do.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
The UN is irrelevant. I should be dissolved, it doesn’t matter what they say or do.[/quote]

At LEAST france needs to be removed from the security council. They do’t have top status any longer.

The rules need to be revised from top to bottom.

If not, they will continue to be totally irrelevant.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
At LEAST france needs to be removed from the security council. They do’t have top status any longer.[/quote]

Does this have something to do with France’s categorical refusal to have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq? Or maybe with France being part of “old Europe”?

Absolutely! A system where a few have Veto power over the many is seriously broken.

Demolition of existing diplomatic platforms is foolish. The UN is only as strong as it’s weakest link allows it to be. And there are many weak links. It’s main reason for existence is to be a forum for diplomacy. I think the expectations put on it have always been too high, just as they were in the case of its predecessor.

The United Nations may look useless now, but I predict, that there will be a time when politicians will be glad that it exists. There was a reason why it was created anew and those reasons are still here.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Does this have something to do with France’s categorical refusal to have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq? Or maybe with France being part of “old Europe”?[/quote]

It probably has to do with the “perception” of things like France’s increased alienation of foreigners, gradual regression of free speech, aging population, shrinking economy, and overt threats of nuclear action. But I’m sure France’s ability to actually secure anything (They have enough trouble securing Paris) factors into it too.

But since he only mentioned half of “Old Europe” and nothing of “New Europe” I’m sure that’s probably what he was referring to.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:

I think not…

It’s well known that Arabs control the UN and that to work in the organization you need to be anti-Semite.

The poor Israelis have been displaced by the monstrous Palestinians and their lands were violently taken away from them. Israelis live in open-air prisons surrounded by walls built by the Palestinian military and they’re frequently humiliated and beat at check points. Also, the Palestinian secret service regularly abducts civilians from their homes.

Tshhh…[/quote]

So instead of arguing the points in the speech and the fact that the UN president sets a unheard precedence… You make a smart ass witty comment, where you flirt with halftruths, white lies and direct lies? :wink:

great… Business as usual for you I guess.

These days of instant communication make the UN worse than useless.

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
So instead of arguing the points in the speech and the fact that the UN president sets a unheard precedence… You make a smart ass witty comment, where you flirt with halftruths, white lies and direct lies? :wink: [/quote]

Being a smart ass is better than the alternative!

Making witty comments beats the crap of the inelaborate three words you chose to include in your post. What kind of thread is that? A link with a “I think not” comment? Surely, you aren’t in a position to expect certain standards from subsequent posts.

Lastly, I admit to the lying bit; I swapped “Palestinian” for “Israeli”. I didn’t think any American would notice. You must be one of those that don’t read corporate media rubbish.

First of all, I’m not american, a quick look at the text below my avatar would make you realize this… I guess reading isn’t the highest focus in swedish schools this year either…?

You choose to ignore the video and the problem at hand, and make witty remarks about a situation that you obviously have no other than superficial knowledge about and you contribute to with black/white-comments.

I would love it if you tried to contribute to the actual topic…

Didn’t Chavez call Bush the devil at the UN? And the speech you linked is improper?

Lixy, lets hear you condemn Hamas killing Palestinians!

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lixy, lets hear you condemn Hamas killing Palestinians![/quote]

Fat fucking chance. No more than you will hear him talk about Al Qaeda in Iraq murdering hundreds of Iraqis every week, in order to establish a dictatorship. It’s somehow justified when you’re psychotic.

Chavez is the president of another country slandering the head of another country, nothing new there. UNwatch is an organization and the speech critisized the Council itself and its ethics. That’s a major breach of etiquette, I think. Well done, Hillel Neuer.

Here is more about the subject:

http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.2626875/k.B0E6/Video_The_Daily_Invective_at_the_UN_Human_Rights_Council.htm

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
First of all, I’m not american, a quick look at the text below my avatar would make you realize this…[/quote]

My bad.

I have been to the region many times, am in direct contact with people living there on both sides of the conflict. I think that entitles me to a little more than “superficial knowledge”. I also own a couple of dozen scholarly books on the issue.

Here’s something I’m sure you’ll find interesting:
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

It was written by Jews.

I have little to no faith in the UN as a whole, but it was born out of a dream of peace. For that alone, I think that we have the duty to preserve it as an institution.

I would normally side with the “freedom of speech” side, but this was clearly over the line. I think the response was appropriate. What kind of authority would the organization have if it allowed everybody to flame at the council?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Does this have something to do with France’s categorical refusal to have anything to do with the invasion of Iraq? Or maybe with France being part of “old Europe”?

[/quote]

Off Topic: I’m curious Lixy — since Venezuela is much closer to us and has oil, why did we invade Iraq? Chavez is a scum dictator and it would’ve been far easier to get rid of him. Could we have invaded Iraq for other reasons?

The UN would’ve worked if the member countries actually followed its precedents about human rights; but its overrun by scum. Scum rarely do a good job of policing themselves, which is why we mostly ignore it.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
First of all, I’m not american, a quick look at the text below my avatar would make you realize this…

My bad.

You choose to ignore the video and the problem at hand, and make witty remarks about a situation that you obviously have no other than superficial knowledge about and you contribute to with black/white-comments.

I have been to the region many times, am in direct contact with people living there on both sides of the conflict. I think that entitles me to a little more than “superficial knowledge”. I also own a couple of dozen scholarly books on the issue.

Here’s something I’m sure you’ll find interesting:
http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html

It was written by Jews.

I would love it if you tried to contribute to the actual topic…

I have little to no faith in the UN as a whole, but it was born out of a dream of peace. For that alone, I think that we have the duty to preserve it as an institution.

I would normally side with the “freedom of speech” side, but this was clearly over the line. I think the response was appropriate. What kind of authority would the organization have if it allowed everybody to flame at the council?[/quote]

Look at the prequel… How is THIS over the line… when things like “?The distinguished delegate is ignorant…?” and "?This libelous report does not deserve any respect or credibility. We will send it to the same place that we have sent all previous reports: the paper-recycling bin…

There is, however, Madame, a significant contribution that you might make?and that would be by quitting…?" towards UN experts… are NOT over the line? How can this be… fair in any way? Secondly, how is this a flame? Can you point at any factual errors in this speech…? The truth CAN be harsh, but should it be silenced for that reason alone? Is it maybe the fact that they oppose YOUR PERSONAL opinion that makes you think that way? :wink:

When it comes to your “expertise”… well, it reminds me of the “expertise” of red youth in norway… As your pamflet shows. All documentation from the british consul office in palestine, scientists like Morris etc, have different opinions. The “black/white”, “right/wrong”-statements you keep coming with both in this discussion and others… well, I’m disgusted by the over-simplification of a very intricate and complicated conflict.

An interesting point about the Iraqi war is the resolutions that most european radicals say was NOT met, beacause Iraq did not have WMD… It is quite clear that people like lixy have never read the actual resolutions, since they mention a few things OTHER than wmd… For instance: ballistic rockets with a range of more than 150km… Can you say scud? :wink:

[quote]Adamsson wrote:
An interesting point about the Iraqi war is the resolutions that most european radicals say was NOT met, beacause Iraq did not have WMD… It is quite clear that people like lixy have never read the actual resolutions, since they mention a few things OTHER than wmd… For instance: ballistic rockets with a range of more than 150km… Can you say scud? :wink: [/quote]

There were about 15 valid reasons to go to war with Iraq. All of them are expressed by Bush in 2002 and early 2003.

Remember that focusing on the one area that didn’t pan out, helps the Anti-Bush agenda.

JeffR

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Off Topic: I’m curious Lixy — since Venezuela is much closer to us and has oil, why did we invade Iraq? Chavez is a scum dictator and it would’ve been far easier to get rid of him. Could we have invaded Iraq for other reasons?[/quote]

Chavez turned out the bad way, but he came to power fair and square. Disfortunate people of Venezuela love the guy; He faces opposition from the wealthy who fear losing their privileges. That said, it’s not like the US didn’t try to overthrow the guy.

http://www.counterpunch.org/blum0414.html

Oil isn’t the main reason the US is in Iraq. What the neocons are interested in is controlling the region with its riches to prevent China and Russia from doing so themselves. Also, Venezuela’s oil is very costly to pump out while you virtually need a straw to squeeze out the one in Iraq.