How the OIC has made dhimmis of the UN leadership, from Joshua Muravchik at AEI, via FrontPage:
This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace.But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the UN still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.
The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which comprises 56 of the UN's 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.
After the Security Council vote, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth tried to put the best face on the resolution. He said it "states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause. Never."
But in fact it does not state this. Nor has any UN resolution ever stated it. The U.S. delegation tried to get such language into the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan, the two OIC members currently sitting on the Security Council. (They have no veto, but the resolution's sponsors were willing to water down the text in return for a unanimous vote.)
True, the final resolution condemns "all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation." This sounds clear, but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the UN, the term "acts of terrorism" does not mean what it seems.
For eight years now, a UN committee has labored to draft a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." It has been stalled since Day 1 on the issue of "defining" terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of "national liberation," no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism.
Read it all.
Of course the A.U. won't condemn terror nor will this condemnation occur at the U.N. because terror is the vehicle that is pushing forward the Islamists' ambition of a triumphant Islam under which we will all suffer. For some reason few non-Muslims understand this concept.
No ban on terrorism, no ban on genocide, no ban on slavery, no ban on the incitement to violence, no ban on discrimination, no ban on restricting religious freedom, no ban on restricting freedom of thought, conscience and speech...
Looks like the un is trying it's best to become the league of nations mark 2, it's list of successes keeps growing and growing, doesn't it?
Srebrinica, Rwanda, Algeria, East Timor, Sudan, religious fascism, slavery, mass rape, why would you want to tackle awfully big things like this when you can sit in your comfy armchairs and pass endless resolutions condemning Israel and the US especially for every ill in the world?
Cause and effect, you do this, you get that. The un will make itself increasingly ridiculous and irrelevant.
What power would the un have for any action in the world if the likes of the US, UK and a handful of others say "we're not getting involved in a particular intervention, we'll sit back and let france, germany, belgium etc etc sort it out?"
We need to get out of the UN now.
//www.useless-knowledge.com/articles/apr/sept166.html
Kofi Annan; The Assistant To The Antichrist
By Dennis L. Siluk
Sept. 14, 2004
[Real differences with the US vs. the EU and UN]
For you poets out there you might appreciate the old poem by Mary Howitt [a part of it anyway] called: "The Spider and the Fly":
"Will you walk into my parlor?" said the spider to the fly...
Up jumped the cunning spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlor; but she ne'er came out again!"
Instead of me writing all I'm going to write, the little poem, or part of the poem sums up the UN and EU vs. the US. We have big differences; the UN and EU, vs. the United States and Kofi Annan the UN-secretary-general along with France [Mr. Chirac] know this. And it is imperative we do not leave our national security in their hands, in their greedy little third-world hands, in Europe's old Europe pockets. They want international relations to control our US Military and treasure, like in the Carter and Clinton eras. And when George W. Bush took office thank God he called a stop to it. The United Nations [UN] has lost its purpose, which was to settle disputes peacefully, not to supply the PLO or other countries with weapons for terrorism; consequently I feel they have lost their usefulness completely. It is not hard to see the UN and EU are not on the same road we are on, but want to control our road, none the less.
Security Counsel: the highest force on earth it has been called, for peace, and now all they are is bent on hogtying the United States, trying to get us to ask permission to go to war. The UN does not believe in "preempting terrorist," their policy is "hit after the fact" G. W. Bush, and his Flyboy-father of WWII know, you do not want to be hit first, like Clinton allowed on his watch as president. Had he taken action, 9/11 would have never occurred - it took time to prepare, had he taken action sooner it would not have occurred. The EU and UN want to take the "surprise," away from our military as to warn them before we get them, as we did with the five months delay in the Iraqi war, which caused many lives, not French or German lives, but American lives. Had we attacked as Bush said, we would not have given the enemy the time to set of their strategy. But France being one of the five permanent members on the Security Counsel insisted, and Germany being one of the 15-members in the rotating members, objected. And so do the French send flowers to the mothers of the dead American soldiers? No, they are only concerned about the French. Why are democracies subject to the Security Counsel, and all other countries not. As the UN and EU are talking terrorism, only the US is fighting it.
Hezbollah: Like the PLO, Hamas and al-Qaeda, Hezbollah is simply another terrorist group, but this one is interesting, it fly's the "UN" flag besides its flag which has an AK-47, Russian Rifle. So who is supporting who, the UN is supporting terrorism. Or so it looks.
The Assistant to the Antichrist: Annan is what I consider the birth pain of the Antichrist. He is for nuclear proliferation, looks the other way anyway, which to me means exactly that. He is best of friends with Arafat, the Godfather of terrorism; he and Hillary are two peas-in a pod. He wants the US to abide by the Geneva Convention, which the rest of the world violates at will, and he again looks the other way, and he says nothing. He is worse than the Nazis, and uses the UN flag to cover up all his misdealing. Mr. Kofi Annan has been around for a while [l997] as the head man at the UN, the king of kings he thinks he is, on the devils watch. If he gets the Nobel Peace Prize, God help us all. Mr. Bill Clinton loves him and would like to see him get it, probably because he was too lazy to get involved in world affairs, and let him run the show. Matter of fact, he made Clinton have American Soldiers in Eastern Europe take off their patches and put UN patches, and blue helmets. He tore the soldiers apart, and Veterans have not forgotten that. Clinton even signed the ICC agreement, but it didn't pass and Bush threw it in the garbage can where it belongs. That would have made all Americans subject to the World Court, and boy would the third-world love that, and Annan, and France, and China, and Russia - and lets not forget Kerry.
The terrorist groups: Hezbollah, Hamas, PLO, Islamic Jihad, Al-Agsa [PLO], Martyrs Brigade, all friends to the UN, and who supports them? Annan. How? With American money, by checks given to them, $25,000-checks [through our friends, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia], and UN funded money.
In a like manner, is it not funny that Russia and China combined pay less than $35- million dollars to support the UN, and the United States pays 7-billion [22%] of its annual income. And those 17,000-employes of the UN get a salary totaling 1-billion. Now who is paying this: American tax payers, mostly?
Mary Robinson, like Hillary Clinton both believe the PLO's cause is just, and therefore, so is suicide bombers, and therefore, so is the $25,000 dollars they are giving to the families that lose a lost one. We have so many forces working against us, our own kind, plus our friends, so called friends it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. But the good guys are not in the EU or UN; actually they have both lost their usefulness as far as I can see.
Iraq. I want to repeat myself a bit. Iraq, because of the delay of our war in Iraq - delay of five months due to Germany, France and the UN [and after Iraq violated the UN rules for the 18th time], because of this it allowed the enemy, the insurgency in Iraq to develop. That is right next to saying, and I firmly believe it, Germany and France killed our American boys in uniform, put them in their coffins - put them in harms way. Had we went to war, and not warned them, given them time, which no Army should [surprise and deception, is a virtue for an Army at war, and hitting them in their weak area] we would not have the Financial Times exploding the 1000th soldier dead in Iraq. Many things are forgivable but this is down right savagery.
France is so prancing around as if it is a world power and Germany is piggybacking them. Listen up, little Israel could take over all of Europe tomorrow should the United States evacuate and look the other way, and we should leave Europe, we spend 40-billion dollars on their defense, and it does us no good, it is of no value anymore. While they build their economies, we support their defenses. We should shut down the UN and NATO tomorrow, and save a bundle of money, and use it where it is needed, in Iraq; I do believe the people in Iraq and Afghanistan would appreciate it better. Mr. Annan would go crazy though. Everyone thinks if Bush stays in office we will have another war. Listen up, we are at war, and it is because of such people as Carter and Clinton. They gave the world a message that the United States was for sale at a cheep price, and people like Mr. Annan grabbed the opportunity, as did the ruling elements of the UN which just happens to be the third-world countries now.
The General Assembly: is a worthless, toothless 191-member assembly at the United Nations that get fed and put to sleep every night on American dollars, and does nothing. Russia knows this and so does the CIA. They don't even know what their countries want, and vote like our emotional biased judges here in Minnesota, activist judges, and now we got activist UN members.
Clinton: I keep coming back to him and Annan because along with Arafat, they are the world's three stooges. That is to say, they play the role, but are smart not to let on to the world stage their cleverness; Clinton, if I was him, I'd not sleep a night the rest of my life for killing all our American boys. Yes, he is responsible, he did nothing when the WTC was bombed in l993, and nothing when the Saudi Tower was hit in l996; and nothing when our embassy was hit in Africa in 2000. And had a chance to kill bin Laden, and called off the raid after mulling over it for hours on end. And then he handed Haiti and Kosovo over to the UN, with American troops under them. He did very little when the USS Cole was attacked. What was this guy thinking? He was looking for the UN flag I think; what a president. Should Kerry get in, we will have the third president who feels the UN is our savior, and we may possible not recover this time.
Torture: a note on our enemy, our used to be enemy, Iraq. The UN, Annan, forgot to mention the abuse, torture and down right murder of Americans in the Iraqi war - American Prisoners; he only picks our dirty linens and shows them to the world. We were wrong to torture the people, but the Iraqi soldiers did not play chess with the Americans either, or bring them McDonalds. And had I been there and seen what they did to my fellow comrades, I might have gone a little crazy and did the same thing. I hope I would not have, but under stress one does not always play by the rules, as Mr. Annan would like Israel and America to do.
Inclosing, let's hope the UN does not take over the Internet, for they are having a meeting on that very subject soon; also,let me say the UN secretary General is not for America, and neither is the EU, and we've always knew Russia and China wasn't, that hasn't changed either. We really do not need a UN that doesn't function, or EU that at every corner is trying to bring us to our knees. Let them go and disband NATO. This is not isolationism; it is getting our priorities back into focus. We will never please these people unless we allow them to rape us, and when they do, they will herd us around like cows.
Email: dlsiluk@msn.com
Tell a friend about this site!
------------
Search Now:
In Association with Amazon.com
Ahhh yes, the UN. Kerry's favorite partner to:
Run America.
Farm out American soldiers to.
Stand by and watch genocide after genocide.
Practice speaking French ('I surrender!') for the islamic states.
Way to make us a third-world nation!