Islam sanctions slavery, and the situation in Sudan is evidence that at least some Muslims still take that quite seriously. From The Seoul Times, with thanks to Anthony:
ABYEI MOU, Sudan, May 3, 2004 — 56 boy slaves were liberated at the end of April from the cattle camps of Arab nomads in the borderlands between northern and southern Sudan. Their liberation was a joint action undertaken by CSI and the Arab-Dinka Peace Committee based at the borderland market town of Warawar. The boys had been abducted during government sponsored jihad slave raids against Black African, non-Muslim communities in northern Bahr El Ghazal.Upon releasing the slaves, the head of the Baggara cattle camps between the Bahr el Arab and Lol Rivers, Shegir Al Agar, claimed that the boys had been very happy with their masters, whom they affectionately called "father."
However, interviews with the boys revealed a clear pattern of physical and psychological abuse. They reported cases of beatings, stabbings, boy rape, racial insults, death threats, and forcible conversion to Islam.
A 12-year-old slave named Piol recalled:
My master (Ibrahim Mohammed) told me not to ask about my mother and father, and ordered me to call him "father." Whenever I displeased him, he beat me. Once he hit me on the head with a cow's horn. Another time, he burned me on the arm. Sometimes he refused to allow me to eat. Ibrahim's son, Khalid, also bullied me. He threw stones at me, and called me "dog," "bastard," and "slave." Ibrahim made me go to Koranic school. The teacher, Mohammed Razik, said that we should forget about the religion of our people and become Muslims. Otherwise, we would be infidels.
And I bet the captors were all good faithfull Muslims following the pattern set out in the Quran and hadiths.
Please join Iabolish.com It is an anti-slavery organisation. Just 10 dollars a month can free slaves. PLEASE HELP FREE SLAVES.
Please join Iabolish.com It is an anti-slavery organisation. Just 10 dollars a month can free slaves. PLEASE HELP FREE SLAVES.
If in the EU or the US even just 56 western muslim kids (let alone hundreds of thousands as is the case in the Sudan) were sold into slavery I would think that the incident would be reported in more than the odd newspaper. If the Jews enslaved, raped and exterminated the palestinians on a massive scale wouldn't the UN use the "genocide" word and do something. How the EU and its public would scream and shout in anger!! Millions of christians, jews and secularists protesting in uncontrollable revolutionary rage in the streets. The officials responsible for the slavery would be prosecuted and end up rotting in jail forever as punishment if they were lucky.
SO where is the outrage internationally about my fellow human beings being treated literally as animals/cattle in the Sudan. I can't hear a thing..the streets are empty, many of the left are patting the islamist totalitarian monsters on the back and some on the right are silent. I don't like the idea of my fellow man ending up in a islamist/theofascist run concentration camp. I don't like the international precendent it sets up where it is practically ok according to the UN to rape and enslave christains and animists and anilliate their culture. UN, what the hell are you doing about it? Slavery or the Arab League...make your choice.
You (i.e. UN) so far have shown you don't in any practical sense give a damn about the non-muslim Sudanese.
THAT SCARES ME BECAUSE THAT MEANS IF MY TIME FOR EXTERMINATION/ENSLAVEMENT SHOULD EVER COME YOU WOULDN'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ME!
When the race baiters and protectd group hucksters talk about rascism, intolerence and slavery, they should be ashamed of themselves. They ignore modern slavery by Muslims in Sudan.
The following link is from the above article. Their harrowing tale of rapes, dismemberment and servitude should serve to illustrate the evil of the Islamic regime in Sudan:
56 Boy Slaves....
http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=516
Sorry, the direct link doesn't seem to want to post.
Try again:
http://theseoultimes.com/ST/db/read.php?idx=443
http://theseoultimes.com/ST/db/read.php?idx=435
Or go back to the article and read the following two stories (374 Slaves and Ex captives recount) by clinking on the links there if they don't work above.
typo error: I said "Slavery or the Arab League...make your choice"
Meant: "Abolishment of slavery or the Arab League...make your choice"
Hey, has it occurred to anyone that maybe one day, WE or our children, might become slaves?
The threat from Islam is more than just the threat of being clothed in black if you're a woman, or having to give up our western lifestyles. It could very well mean actual SLAVERY in the very real sense.
How awful for these poor boys. It breaks my heart. Torn from their families, their boyhood stolen from them. They might never be whole people again. They'll be traumatized forever, maybe taking their rage and pain out on others in future, compounding and continuing the problem for generations. Thank you Islam. Thank you for this. You've ruined countless more lives. How despicable. And what's even more despicable is that Kofi creature, conveniently ignoring this. Kissing the Arab ass, grovelling before them, while children are destroyed. And future generations suffer. Get rid of the UN. It is obviously the Arab's personal dhimmi, personal slave.
obl: you are spot on. I think there are some in the US who are agitating for compensation for the past slavery. Yet they don't talk about what is going on today, now. If any non-Arab got up to this vile, revolting practise, the UN would stomp all over them. But they look away when their Arab masters do it. Disgusting, the lot of them. Morally bankrupt and disgusting.
Andrew, OBL 'R US: While I utterly deplore what's going on in Sudan and quite honestly think an arrest warrant for Hassan al-Turabi should be issued (after all, a Belgian judge can sign warrants for Henry Kissinger's arrest) I still ask, who's prepared to fight a war over a hot, backwards area the size of the USA east of the Mississippi in order to abolish slavery? We Americans lost a few hundred thousand--close to a million, in fact--to abolish slavery in our own country. Are we really ready to do it again, especially when we have a well-funded fifth column in our own midst, and scores of useful, erudite fools in every university of the land? Also, will the Southern Sudanese and Darfuris be truly grateful to us once the dust settles?
kepha1
This an urgent crisis that the UN should spring into action to stop immediately. The UN however is useless even to prevent the sort of horror that it was chartered to address,
The Islamic debating and public relations arm of the UN", the Security Council has at least found the time to condemn the "rascist" policies of Israel on more that 49 seperate occasions.
http://www.israelnn.com/english/newspaper/ondisplay/ref/un-israel.htm
This is a human horror story, forced upon a poor and vulnerable population by a regeime of immense cruelty. The expanding Arab Armies of Islam have demonstrated their true nature in this region while the UN enables and ignores.
Kepha1
I can definately understand you don't want the US to get bogged down in the Sudan. I didn't mean that the US should have to do everything...it hasn't got infinite resources and it is very over-extended at the moment. However the international community collectively could do vastly more than it is doing now. Actually if the international community through the UN did anything practical at all towards freeing the sudanese slaves it would be a welcome change. I don't think the US would have to send in its cavalry to stop it. Sanctions against the Sudanese North, a bit of bombing of the Sudanese governments mullahs/dictators palaces and a embargo against Sudanese oil, untill slavery ended, would work wonders I would think. It wouldn't likely get any US citizens killed and it wouldn't cost the earth. We are not talking about a biblical loss of US lives and cash here.
P.S. I do appreciate what the US is doing such as labelling the North Sudanese government as a genocidal regime and calling the North to account.
Voltaire -- I hammer home this point and other points often to my friends and acquaintances, BUT they accuse me extremist-thought, of fear and hate-mongering, racism, bigotry, etc. It's discouraging to know how blind they are, how p.c. we continue to be. I weep for civilization.
A long time lurker here....
My heart goes out to these kids. This story should be on the front page of every magazine in this country... Why isn't it?
The fact that it isn't makes me sick.
Upon releasing the slaves, the head of the Baggara cattle camps between the Bahr el Arab and Lol Rivers, Shegir Al Agar, claimed that the boys had been very happy with their masters, whom they affectionately called "father."
Here comes Mohammad had his band of peaceful moslems! I though Islam didn’t allow homosexuals? Maybe its ok if they run out of goats? I am sure some Imam will give a fatwa to excuse these actions.. Maybe the Jews made them do it?
When I read stuff like this, I begin to hate all moslems... Islam is a religion of pigs.
But I have to remember what the lefties say, Its just a few Moslems ( doing the work of Mohammad ) Kill them all and let the devil have them!!
I think it is high time for a little biological warfare!! Ebola is coming to a Moslem near you!!
Mohammad the prophet who never prophesied!
No Islam, Know Peace
Kepha1;
Look what "expert" Milton Viorst had to say about Turabi back in 1995. This earns him the title of intellectual moron's moron:
"Sudan has embarked on a course of Islamization. The architect of this course is Hassan al Turabi, a man of brilliant intellect and ineffable charm. …by the standards of other Arab societies, Turabi's concept of Islam is open-minded and tolerant. …The signs are plentiful, in a visit to Sudan, that the Islam practiced there is less strict than that of Egypt, to say nothing of Saudi Arabia."
Milton Viost "Fundamentalism in Power: Sudan's Islamic Experiment"
From Foreign Affairs, May/June 1995 (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950501faessay5036/milton-viorst/fundamentalism-in-power-sudan-s-islamic-experiment.html)
aaron~ no, they don't deserve to be, but their leadership makes sure they stay that way. Google a history of Arafat and discover why.
You know why the Arabs are doing this to the black Sudanese, don't you?
Because they can.
They are the classic bully. There's no-one to stop them. Pure opportunism. They kill the men first. It's the same reason that an organized killer will take out the strongest first in a group of victims. Don't think for a minute it wouldn't happen here or any place else for that matter if the circumstances were ripe.
Here's an article you may find enlightening regarding the "ban" on homosexuality in the Arab world. Also if you can find, it read "The Arab Mind." More good stuff...
The Sexual Rage Behind Islamic Terror
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | October 4, 2001
ALL SERIAL KILLERS, almost without exception, are severely sexually abused as children. The kind of people who hijack a plane with innocent people and drive it into a building with thousands of other innocent people are related to this phenomenon.
When sociopaths rape and kill, they do not see their victims as human beings, but only as objects. This is because the sociopaths were themselves, at one time, used as objects – as their bodily integrity was repeatedly violated. The rage that results from sexual abuse is one thing, but when combined with living in a dysfunctional culture of sexual repression and misogyny, where love is reduced to violent domination, it is quite another.
Throughout the Islamic Middle East, men and women are taught to be vehemently opposed to pleasure, especially of the sexual variety. Men are raised not only forbidden to touch women, but to even look at them. Sex before marriage is not just a sin -- but a criminal offence. It is punishable by a severe beating at best, and an execution at worst.
The sexual privileges that are allowed in Islamic cultures are permitted to men. Women’s sexuality and social independence represent major threats to male supremacy and are tightly controlled. Thus, as the Moroccan feminist Fitna Sabbah reveals in her book Woman in the Muslim Unconscious, there is a disturbing conflict in the Middle East between sexual libido and repression. A deep-seated fear of, and hostility to, individuality prevails, and its main expression exists in misogyny.
Socially segregated from women, Arab men succumb to homosexual behavior. But, interestingly enough, there is no word for "homosexual" in their culture in the modern Western sense. That is because having sex with boys, or with effeminate men, is seen as a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The male who does the penetrating, meanwhile, is not emasculated any more than if he had sex with a wife. The male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not, since it is rationalized that he is not yet a man.
In this culture, males sexually penetrating males becomes a manifestation of male power, conferring a status of hyper-masculinity. It is considered to have nothing to do with homosexuality. An unmarried man who has sex with boys is simply doing what men do. As the scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination.
There is silence around this issue. It is the silence that legitimizes sexual violence against women, such as honor crimes and female circumcision. It is also the silence that forces victimized Arab boys into invisibility. Even though the society does not see their sexual exploitation as being humiliating, the psychological and emotional scars that result from their subordination, powerlessness and humiliation is a given. Traumatized by the violation of their dignity and manliness, they spend the rest of their lives trying to get it back.
The problem is that trying to recover from sexual abuse, and to recapture one’s own shattered masculinity, is quite an ordeal in a culture where women are hated and love is interpreted as hegemonic control.
With women out of touch – and out of sight -- until marriage, males experience pre-marital sex only in the confines of being with other males. Their sexual outlet mostly includes victimizing younger males – just the way they were victimized.
In all of these circumstances, the idea of love is removed from men's understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to hurting others by violence. A gigantic rupture develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. In relationships between men, meanwhile, affection, solidarity and empathy are left out of the picture. They threaten the hyper-masculine order.
It is excruciating to imagine the sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that evolve in the mindsets of males in this culture. But it is no surprise that many of these males find their only avenue for gratification in the act of humiliating the foreign "enemy," whose masculinity must be violated at all costs – as theirs once was.
Violating the masculinity of the enemy necessitates the dishing out of severe violence against him. In the recent terrorist strikes, therefore, violence against Americans served as a much-needed release of the terrorists’ bottled-up sexual rage. Moreover, it served as a desperate and pathological testament of the re-masculinization of their emasculated selves.
epg -
Coincidentally, I too recieve similar tongue lashings .
I've pasted the most recent entry here:
"Below is a link to an Encyclopedia article on Islam from Wikipedia, an excellent resource (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). It is unbiased and gives the facts, unlike the irritating links you may have seen elsewhere (hint hint, wink wink). In fact, I recommend you bookmark the Wikipedia homepage for future reference so that you can do your own homework and not rely on Media Blowhards, Emotional rantings, or Bleeding Heart Liberal Haters of Liberty like me (okay, just kidding). Okay, I'm done for now. Gotta go play golf...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam"
epg - I too am discouraged but I won't give up.
After reading all the articles "Andrew" linked us to . . .how can I? It is because I have sons of my own that I will continue with " emotional rants' and paste links to every "media blowhard" that will expose this cult for what it really is.
Re: 'weatherob' - Until articles like this are exposed on the glossy covers of magazines, I'll just add another task to my "to do" list and continue submitting "irritating links" wherever I see fit. Perhaps, someday the media will see a trend and follow up.
One can only dream. . . sigh!
BTW . . .regarding the response I received suggesting readers bookmark Wikipedia . ..the Wikipedia entry under Islam clearly places a disclaimer note at the top of the page titled "Fundamentalism":
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. See the article's talk page for more information."
Does anyone know what happens to these boys once they are rescued? I get the impression that they remain subjects under the thumb of Islamic law.
Somewhat O/T but I want to post this while I remember.
We should never forget how closely the islamo-Fascists colluded with the Nazis in WW2 - to the extent that two Muslim SS divisions (mostly Bosnian muslims) were recruited by the notorious Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. These Muslim Nazis were responsible for exterminating large numbers of Serbian Orthodox Christians, Bosnian Jews and Gypsies, and also Russians on the Eastern Front. Their atrocities sickened hardened German officers so much that a complaint was sent to Hitler (who, finding it impossible to believe, dismissed it as 'exagerrated'!)
After the Islamic Ramadan holiday, a Bairam celebration was conducted at which time Imam Abdulah Muhasilovic spoke to the troops (Bosnian Muslim SS Division):
"The world's Muslims are engaged in a terrible life-or-death struggle. Today, a war of enormous magnitude is being waged; a war as humanity has never before experienced. The entire world has divided itself into two camps. One stands under the leadership of the Jews. About whom Allah says in the Koran, 'They are your enemy and Allah's enemy.' And that is the English, Americans, and Bolsheviks, who fight against faith, against Allah, against morality, and a just order.
On the other side stands National Socialist Germany with its allies, under the leadership of Adolf Hitler, who fight for Allah, faith, morality, and a fairer and more righteous order in the world, as well as for a fairer distribution of all goods that Allah has produced for all people."
The first part sounds horribly prophetic!
Lots more on islamo-facist atrocities through the ages (including photos of grinning Arab-looking mujahadeen posing with the severed heads of Serbs in the 90's) at www.serbianna.com
Read it for an picture of what western Europe could be loke in a decade or two...
Justamomof4 - Thanks. I have quoted chapter and verse, provided the relevant information in handouts, held discussions. Some were attentive and even moved; others doggedly hung on to their preconceived notions: documents can be forged, facts manipulated, photographs doctored, partisan misinformation to manipulate the election, we're tired of this and want it to go away, and so on. Either they don't want to hear it, know about it, or they just want it to "go away." Of course, I won't give in or give up.
Friends: Don't expect the UN to do more than utter a few airy words--and we all know full well how the Khartoum regime will heed them.
But how can anyone seriously expect the UN or Europe to do anything? Sudan has a bloc of Arab and other Muslim countries to back it up in world fora. I'm sure that a lot of the British media, at this point, is embarassed by the memory of Wilberforce because he was an Evangelical Christian.
Frankly, I'm for cutting aid to anyone who isn't a proven friend, and looking at separatism crises in other countries with benign neglect--including willingness to recognize divisions when they become de facto.
This OBSCENITY in the Sudan should be a sign of the UN's ultimate, tragic Sterility (at a minimum).
Beyond a host of gross institutional, financial, legal & other inadequacies, the hapless precursor to the UN, the League of Nations, was doomed, chiefly (conventional wisdom runs), due to the absence of the USA from its counsels - though US President Woodrow Wilson, in person, had founded it. Many of those Westerners who’ve turned against the UN over the years nonetheless insist that, because of the grievous fate of the League, and the main reason, above, for its sad lot, the US can NEVER AFFORD to leave the UN - however sick and twisted the UN gets.
Indeed, they argue, it’s cardinal for it to stay INSIDE the UN, in order to “moderate” it, to keep it “restrained”. This looks like a telling, affirmative point, with a most desirable return. But from the record so far and contemporary news re the “War on Terror” (WWIV!), it’s increasingly evident that while the US - for negligible (often for NO) concrete benefit, in advancing its interests and ideals - remains within the UN, it inexorably leads to America being cumulatively corrupted, to squandering its resources for marginal recompense and to be caught up in an agonizingly self-defeating exercise generally - a trio of negatives (potentially Terminal).
Facing the anti-American, automatic majority in the UN today, the US cannot help but to suffer a incremental demoralization, from constant, corrupting efforts to make any progress whatsoever in a head-count where, permanently, it severely lacks the numbers. In its bids to accommodate sufficient UN Members to make its rare, usually microscopic, gains there, it must always be compromising itself, engaging in damage-limitation and self-censorship, rendering pre-emptive concessions. This produces a corrosive process, badly enervating the USA.
Together with the necessity of partaking in a gargantuan mess of corrupting deals, in order to - fleetingly - build up enough of a functionally pro-US grouping (in the UN’s “bloc-politics”) to stay afloat in the Security Council, finally, America needs to divert and tender gigantic amounts of trade, funds and assistance - things which are obviously MUCH better saved for employment BILATERALLY- on a dodgy Multilateral echelon, where, commonly, any control over their disposition’s hugely diminished, frequently lost in full, their impact vastly diluted, deflected, inverted or else totally dissipated. Frankly, it’s HIGHLY Wasteful - literally irrational - to invest such prime assets for inconsistent dividends that are chronically marginal, at best.
Further to sustaining the UN with the bulk of its multi-billion budget, the USA lends Legitimacy and Credibility to it. Were it to withdraw, these would evaporate. As the funding dries up, the UN would either collapse or retreat into meaninglessness in some third-world backwater.
However, these are all mere secondary items, paling against the harsh fact that “on the ground”, for the past three-&-a-half decades (incidentally, the same period over which the West and its associates have made up the distinct minority in the General Assembly and its bureaucracies), tragically, the UN has NOT been discharging its Core purposes - boiled down, it has NOT KEPT NOR BROUGHT PEACE. The UN, nowadays hideously mutated and woefully degenerate, an empty, pathetic travesty, has not prevented or stopped conflicts and genocides (as, in 1945, it’d centrally been set up to do), invariably WORSENING those ones in which it has interceded.
Exacerbating this, the UN incessantly promotes anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democratic policies, now EFFECTIVELY EXTENDING SUPPORT to megacidal, Islamo-fascist/Jihadi totalitarianism, standing in Diametric Opposition to the founding principles of the UN!
Where in the 45 years of “Cold War”, it’d simply been intensely, continuously gruelling and frustrating for the USA to attain any satisfaction in the halls of the UN, in the 21st Century’s “War on Terror”, the UN’s “diplomacy” has travelled - irredeemably - from an apt description of “USELESS” for America, into that of being “COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE” to it.
At this stage, though, Washington retains the means to shut the UN down, via DROPPING IT, like a hot stone - rationally, it ought to do so, soon. (It hasn’t proceeded on this path, to date, largely on account of misplaced nostalgia and fuzzy, residual sentiment for lofty convictions, lodged in the State Department, inter alia: NOT valid - nor hardly pragmatic - criteria in the titanic, existential struggle versus barbarism, confronting the West at this juncture.)
Notwithstanding, all this could be somewhat (even drastically) altered, should IRAN quit the UN FIRST. It’s said that it’d walk out of the IAEA (like North Korea’s already done), if the IAEA carries on its “interference” in Iran’s nuclear development & atomics industry - clandestinely churning out nukes to tip its IRBM missile-fleet. On top, Tehran’s hissed that, if pressed on this in the Security Council, the Islamic Republic could walk out of the UN altogether....
This OBSCENITY in the Sudan should be a sign of the UN's ultimate, tragic Sterility (at a minimum).
Beyond a host of gross institutional, financial, legal & other inadequacies, the hapless precursor to the UN, the League of Nations, was doomed, chiefly (conventional wisdom runs), due to the absence of the USA from its counsels - though US President Woodrow Wilson, in person, had founded it. Many of those Westerners who’ve turned against the UN over the years nonetheless insist that, because of the grievous fate of the League, and the main reason, above, for its sad lot, the US can NEVER AFFORD to leave the UN - however sick and twisted the UN gets.
Indeed, they argue, it’s cardinal for it to stay INSIDE the UN, in order to “moderate” it, to keep it “restrained”. This looks like a telling, affirmative point, with a most desirable return. But from the record so far and contemporary news re the “War on Terror” (WWIV!), it’s increasingly evident that while the US - for negligible (often for NO) concrete benefit, in advancing its interests and ideals - remains within the UN, it inexorably leads to America being cumulatively corrupted, to squandering its resources for marginal recompense and to be caught up in an agonizingly self-defeating exercise generally - a trio of negatives (potentially Terminal).
Facing the anti-American, automatic majority in the UN today, the US cannot help but to suffer a incremental demoralization, from constant, corrupting efforts to make any progress whatsoever in a head-count where, permanently, it severely lacks the numbers. In its bids to accommodate sufficient UN Members to make its rare, usually microscopic, gains there, it must always be compromising itself, engaging in damage-limitation and self-censorship, rendering pre-emptive concessions. This produces a corrosive process, badly enervating the USA.
Together with the necessity of partaking in a gargantuan mess of corrupting deals, in order to - fleetingly - build up enough of a functionally pro-US grouping (in the UN’s “bloc-politics”) to stay afloat in the Security Council, finally, America needs to divert and tender gigantic amounts of trade, funds and assistance - things which are obviously MUCH better saved for employment BILATERALLY- on a dodgy Multilateral echelon, where, commonly, any control over their disposition’s hugely diminished, frequently lost in full, their impact vastly diluted, deflected, inverted or else totally dissipated. Frankly, it’s HIGHLY Wasteful - literally irrational - to invest such prime assets for inconsistent dividends that are chronically marginal, at best.
Further to sustaining the UN with the bulk of its multi-billion budget, the USA lends Legitimacy and Credibility to it. Were it to withdraw, these would evaporate. As the funding dries up, the UN would either collapse or retreat into meaninglessness in some third-world backwater.
However, these are all mere secondary items, paling against the harsh fact that “on the ground”, for the past three-&-a-half decades (incidentally, the same period over which the West and its associates have made up the distinct minority in the General Assembly and its bureaucracies), tragically, the UN has NOT been discharging its Core purposes - boiled down, it has NOT KEPT NOR BROUGHT PEACE. The UN, nowadays hideously mutated and woefully degenerate, an empty, pathetic travesty, has not prevented or stopped conflicts and genocides (as, in 1945, it’d centrally been set up to do), invariably WORSENING those ones in which it has interceded.
Exacerbating this, the UN incessantly promotes anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democratic policies, now EFFECTIVELY EXTENDING SUPPORT to megacidal, Islamo-fascist/Jihadi totalitarianism, standing in Diametric Opposition to the founding principles of the UN!
Where in the 45 years of “Cold War”, it’d simply been intensely, continuously gruelling and frustrating for the USA to attain any satisfaction in the halls of the UN, in the 21st Century’s “War on Terror”, the UN’s “diplomacy” has travelled - irredeemably - from an apt description of “USELESS” for America, into that of being “COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE” to it.
At this stage, though, Washington retains the means to shut the UN down, via DROPPING IT, like a hot stone - rationally, it ought to do so, soon. (It hasn’t proceeded on this path, to date, largely on account of misplaced nostalgia and fuzzy, residual sentiment for lofty convictions, lodged in the State Department, inter alia: NOT valid - nor hardly pragmatic - criteria in the titanic, existential struggle versus barbarism, confronting the West at this juncture.)
Notwithstanding, all this could be somewhat (even drastically) altered, should IRAN quit the UN FIRST. It’s said that it’d walk out of the IAEA (like North Korea’s already done), if the IAEA carries on its “interference” in Iran’s nuclear development & atomics industry - clandestinely churning out nukes to tip its IRBM missile-fleet. On top, Tehran’s hissed that, if pressed on this in the Security Council, the Islamic Republic could walk out of the UN altogether....
You are right HGII
In a world where the majority of member states in the UN are institutionaly racist (i.e. anti-semitic or genocidal), totalitarian, islamist/fascist or pseudodemocratic (on a good day), how can the west fulfill its potential to protect, nurture and enlighten/democratise humanity on an international scale?
The simple fact is the true democracies (in which we can trust) too often don't have the votes in the UN to practically acheive this potential. The chains of the barbarian nations in the UN are holding the democracies down and the killing and enslaving of millions is the result. Therefor what the world needs is a new international body like the UN but consisting only of genuinely democratic nations, that is a United Democracies. The fascist/inhumane nations would have to EARN their right (through democratisation) to get into such a body.
In the UN the western democracies money and resources, as HGII states, are proping up and magnifying the international influence/power of the totalitarian nations.
I can trust in a United Democracies but I will never trust a body overly dominated by a bunch of thugs, murderers and their appeasers.
HGII -
Your posts are most impressive. Once I confirmed that what I was reading was indeed what I hoped it meant (I should have worked more diligently in school), it became abundantly clear that you articulated this crisis (UN) in a most satisfactory fashion.
I have printed your comments and plan to read them aloud - as needed - to VENT my frustrations about the good-for-nothing parasites at the UN.
Damn that feels good.
It makes me mad that in London during this Black History Month there are workshops on countering Islamophobia.
I can't think of anything more inappropriate.