"Muslim countries say they are only trying to cut down of what they see as extensive bias against Islam in the West."

Newsflash: I can be "biased" against a mass-murder ideology. I'm "biased" against both Islam and Naziism for that reason.

Try and stop me from thinking and saying that!

Posted by: darcy at November 25, 2008 10:09 AM

All the more reason to get the U.S. out of the U.N.; and the U.N. out of the U.S. Move it to some island where it could own the whole island -- maybe one of the French West Indies, or Spain or Portugal could give it one of the Azores or Canaries.
Meanwhile the U.S. could get together with the other truly free countries to set up an Assembly of Free Nations.
And give that tract of land in Manhattan back to the Rockefellers.

Posted by: ebonystone at November 25, 2008 10:36 AM

Out of the UN, NOW!

Posted by: Charles Martel at November 25, 2008 10:37 AM

Mmm……Combating Defamation of Religions passed
85 For
50 Against
42 Abstentions

I would be really interested to see those figures broken down to see how each country voted.
Does anyone know where you can find this?
I searched the UN General Assembly website without any luck.

Posted by: Odyessus at November 25, 2008 10:37 AM

I will always be biased against Islam, which is a mind-closing, intolerance-prone, violence-oriented cult which is not in accord with ultimate reality in any significant way. So to hell with the Useless Nations. Time to get out of that organization anyway, for at least a dozen different reasons.

Posted by: Wellington at November 25, 2008 10:42 AM

Excessive bias towards Islam from the west. Now I wonder what do they call all those Imams and Mullahs and those Mohammedans coming out with mass protests and riots against the west? I wonder what they call all the terrorists acts of Murdering non Muslims. What is the UN doing about the misogynist culture of Islam. What does the UN call the genocide of non Muslims in Islamic countries and in non Muslim countries by these barbaric Islamic savages.

The hell with UN it cannot police the free world and Islam is a disgusting, violent ideology that is responsible for atrocities against humanity at a wholesale rate.

Posted by: savsiv at November 25, 2008 10:44 AM

Hmm, only islam is being persecuted?
The Christians in Iraq are being eliminated as we watch.
http://www.aina.org/

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 25, 2008 10:48 AM

Some of the statements made here sound like John Bolton. Incidentally, has anyone read his book “Surrender is not an option” and would they care to review it here.
I would really like to know why he thinks the UN is a morally bankrupt organisation.
I think he is probably right but I would be interested to know his arguments.

Posted by: Odyessus at November 25, 2008 10:48 AM

Some of the statements made here sound like John Bolton. Incidentally, has anyone read his book “Surrender is not an option” and would they care to review it here.
I would really like to know why he thinks the UN is a morally bankrupt organisation.
I think he is probably right but I would be interested to know his arguments.

Posted by: Odyessus at November 25, 2008 10:49 AM

This is bigger than 9/11...

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 25, 2008 10:55 AM

The UN has passed many resolutions. So what?
Enforcement is the key. Are Americans who oppose Islam going to be brought before the ICC? Is our government prepared to take away our First Amendment rights in the interest of international law? If so, then let's have another revolution.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

-American Declaration of Independence

Posted by: PMK at November 25, 2008 11:01 AM

The 57-state Organization of Islamic Conference.

Everytime I see that phraseology I can't help remembering the president-elect talking of the fifty-seven states in the US. He couldn't even claim he meant nominating contests, since there are just fifty-six of those.

Posted by: PMK at November 25, 2008 11:06 AM

With this measure, Christians and Jews can take Islam to the UN under these measures, since the cult of Islam blasphemes against both religions.

Posted by: calatrava at November 25, 2008 11:09 AM

"But Western democracies argue that a religion can't enjoy protection from criticism because that would require a judicial ruling that its teachings are the "truth."""

Okay. Are we then going to be provided with a list of things we cannot say, or is it going to be trial and error, based on the complaint of some crybaby Muslim, who can blaspheme Christianity all day, but can't take it, when someone says Mohammed was a violent rapist, murderer, and robber?

Bear in mind, Mohammed is not "holy" per se. Mohammed was a man. Period. Any Muslim who worships Mohammed is guilty of shirk, which is true for most of them. In order for blasphemy to occur, the object must be one of worship, to begin with.

Will I go to jail, if I believe, and say: "Ganesha is kinder and more benevolent than Allah"? If I say: "Christ is the King of Kings", how long a stretch will I have to do, and where will I have to serve it? If I state that I find Mary Magdalene and Yeshua ben-Joseph to be admirable archetypes for the divinity of both the feminine and masculine nature of the Creator, will I be "breaking rocks in the hot sun"?

I could go on, for hours, and not cover every existing cosmology that would be affected by this "law". This is a ruling that carries a lot of baggage, and I guess it's up to us to see to it that every piece makes it onto the carousel.

Posted by: Stormwarning at November 25, 2008 11:19 AM

OT

PMK, sometimes I'd swear we were twins, separated at birth!

Posted by: Stormwarning at November 25, 2008 11:22 AM

Another week at the UN, Monday the 24th being International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, a day of public mourning for the creation of Israel ("a day of mourning and a day of grief" Kofi Annan once said of Nov. 29, 1947); Four new resolutions condemning Israel for human rights violations (making some 20 this year on Israel & all of 5 critical of human rights in any of the other 191 member states, none in actual terrorist-sponsoring states); Combating Defamation of Religions, again. Durban pending, again. A UN Human Rights Council chaired by Libya, along with "Friends of the Chair" Iran, Pakistan, Egypt & Cuba. The OIC Islamic bloc
even successfully prevented the UN from an understandable definition of terrorism (it had to exclude "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination" or "the legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation."). The Counter-Terrorism Committee formed by the Security Council after 9/11 has never named a single terrorist, terrorist organization, or state-sponsor of terrorism (Syria itself was a member for two years).

The Durban II Prep drafts not only call for "firm action" against defamation of religions ("religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols") but against counterterrorism efforts and security measures which "hamper... progress in the collective struggle against racism." It is xenophobia to suggest Islam or Muslims have anything to do with terrorism and it "worsens the situation of Muslim minorities around the world." Thus, Durban II will demand international measures-- "national laws alone cannot deal with the rising tide of defamation and hatred against Muslims."

Per the example of David Littman, Shari'a law is not even allowable as a subject for discussion in the UN ("We will not discuss issues related to Shariah law, this will not happen!")even though the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, adopted by the OIC, sets Shari'a as the only foundation for "human rights" and is embedded in the constitutions of most Muslim countries. The laws of these countries are officially off-limits.

The U.S. boycotted the Durban Prep meetings but has yet to join the boycott of Durban II.

Posted by: Nick Danger at November 25, 2008 11:36 AM

How much longer are Americans going to be subject to the insanity of the U.N? Let them leave our shores and set up their asylum on the shores of Saudi. And good riddance.

Posted by: Kuffar at November 25, 2008 11:55 AM

Has Obama announced his choice for UN Ambassador yet? Does anyone know what State's position is on this - I mean Foggy Bottom, not Condaleeza Rice.

Anyone know where Hillary stands on this issue?

Posted by: Eastview at November 25, 2008 12:13 PM

I honestly think at this point that there has to be some sort of conspiracy to let Islam take over the world. Oil money doesn't explain it. Multiculturalism doesn't explain it. That we could let these intolerable nations which are completely unworthy of even recognition narcissistically hold us to completely different standards is unacceptable to every human being on this planet with a soul. And they are holding us to different standards if they pass a defamation of "religions" resolution that does not ban the Koran and the Sunna, if they accuse Israel of human rights violations while simultaneously not allowing the Free World to accuse the OIC of any human rights violations as they are organizing and funding terrorism, carrying out genocide all over the world, and plotting to destroy Israel, the only stable, non-human-rights-violating nation in the Middle East. Our founding fathers never planned for this. They planned for us to be able to reinstitute new government and to be able to impeach our elected officials. They did not plan on 99.9% of our elected officials being in on some conspiracy to destroy the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which they necessarily are if they're not spending all day trying to get us out of the UN. It's deplorable. It's unacceptable.

OT, but not totally: the US just told Israel to not bomb Iran or Gaza. Freaking unreal: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/128541

Posted by: jdamn at November 25, 2008 12:37 PM

I can't remember the exact quote, but someone once said we should always err on the side of free speach, as if everything is out in the open, then there is a much better chance of the truth coming out on any particular subject.

It was worded rather better than that, and if anyone knows the quote I'm referring to and has the correct words, I'd be grateful for it.

Posted by: Celsius at November 25, 2008 12:43 PM

What kinds of things would not be permitted, what kinds of things would be forbidden, were this (thankfully) "non-binding resolution" to be taken seriously by the advanced (politically and morally) states and peoples of the world?

Would one be allowed to note that Muhammad is for Muslims the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana) and the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil), worthy of emulation through time and space, and that this Model of Conduct and Perfect Man consummated his "marriage" to little Aisha when she was nine years old?

Would one be allowed to note that the Perfect Man took delight in the decapitation of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza tribe?

Would one be allowed to note that the Perfect Man was pleased to hear of the murder of Asma bint Marwan, who had written some satirical verses about him, the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct?

Would one be allowed to note that the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct lead a murderous raid on the innocent Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, not because they resisted him (or even knew a thing about him) but because they had property and women, and both could be seized as loot, divided up according the rules supplied by the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct?

Would a historian of science, such as Jaki, or Huff, be allowed to study and puzzle over why, after a brief flourishing in the earliest days of Islam, that is when most of the conquered populations consisted largely of Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians, or of those who, while they have become Muslims, were still raised in or affected by, a non-Muslim intellectual milieu, that science -- what might most accurately be called not "Islamic science" or, as George Saliba likes to call it, "Arabic science," but rather the "science of those living in the countries first conquered by Muslims, who used the Arabic language, and many of whom had, misleading for many of us, Arabic names though they were neither Arabs nor, in many cases, Muslims."

Would a historian of the history of philosophy be allowed to study and puzzle over ditto, note all of those who translated Aristotle and others, and whose work is often carelessly and exaggeratedly invoked as showing that "the Arabs kept alive the inheritance of Greece" and so -- here you can enter any tariq-ramadanian, or david-levering-lewisite nonsense you wish, about how the "Arabs" or "the Muslims" are somehow "responsible" for the Renaissance, and therefore, so we are further told, of the West itself.

Would human-rights organizations be permitted to note that the mistreatment of women, while it can be found, to some degree, everywhere, has a particular ferocity, in the modern world, that does not dissipate, much less disappear, in the Muslim lands, and that this, so these organizations might contend if they were honest, has something to do with the clear position, taken in the Qur'an and re-emphasized in the Hadith, about the natural inferiority of women?

Would groups still attempting to stamp out slavery in West Africa and in East Africa, that is the enslavement of black Africans by Muslim Arabs -- see the Sudan, see Mauritania and Mali --and even in darkest Saudi Arabia (who knows what goes on behind those palace walls, given that as late as 1962 there were hundreds of thousands of black slaves all over Saudi Arabia, and that the "formal" abolition of slavery did not reflect any change of belief in its rightnes but only Western pressure, at that time possible because the trillions in oil revenues had not yet started)-- be allowed to discuss the fact that in Islam slavery has always been legitimized, is legitimate for all time, because Muhammad and his fellows lived at a time when slavery was a given, and Muhammad himself legitimizes the practice, so that there never was, and never will be, a Muslim Wilberforce, and one can find any day of the week a justification for slavery, based on Qur'an and Sunnah, from any number of perfectly learned Saudi (and other) clerics -- imams and muftis -- and no one can deny that Islam, that is the immutable texts of Islam (which do not admit of moral judgments to be made by Muslims, who must simply take, as "slaves of Allah," that which has been handed down as the immutable, not to be questioned, law as to What Is Commanded and What Is Prohibited).

Will it be permissible for economists to note that the inshallah-fatalism of Islam, by which the role of individual men, and their efforts, are constantly belittled, and in societies suffused with Islam, the role of Allah, whimsical Allah, who does whatever he feels like, is ever-present, and this surely gives rise to what Europeans used to describe as "Oriental fatalism" which, as we can see from the last few decades, when many Muslims have been drowning in oil wealth, in trillions of unearned dollars, and yet have been completely unable to create modern economies, and remain dependent on armies of foreign wage-slaves, while the poorer Muslims remain cleverly dependent on aid of all kinds not from their rich fellow Muslims (somehow that duty of sharing-and-caring within the Umma has been elided or forgotten), but from Infidels, endlessly and idiotically generous.

Would the fact that Islam bans most kinds of artistic expression -- including sculpture, representations in painting of living creatures, and most music (there is nothing in Islam comparable to the religious music of the West) -- be a subject which, under the regime of world-wide censorship that this "Combating of Religous Defamation" bill would impose, that would simply be off-limits?

And what about the thousand other things -- you can supply them yourselves -- including those passages in the Qur'an and stories in the Hadith that inculcate hatred of non-Muslims? Would the kind of thing that Qur'an and Hadith contain, for example, about Jews and the calls to kill them, not be allowed to be noted, to be discussed, simply beyond all criticism from here on out, to the end of time?

One has to keep rubbing one's eyes in disbelief at this measure. Fortunately the Western world -- Russia has chosen not to be part of the advanced Western world to which it once belonged -- has stood firm, and the "Combating of Religious Defamation" bill will simply be held up, now, for inspection, analysis, and -- among the intelligent -- will only evoke ridicule and disgust and, one hopes, a little fear. For fear is the right response, along with that riducle, and that disgust.

This is what organized Islam, this is what Muslims, work and will always work, to achieve: a world where Islam cannot be criticized, cannot be discussed, can only be praised.

Laser-lights may now be shone on this attempt to lower the curtain, and this attempt to have us all descend into the same darkness. Shone, and continuing to shine, with the full blaze of noon.

Posted by: Hugh at November 25, 2008 12:46 PM

Legislated thought control, illegal speech, is an
evil assault on humanity, and means slavery.

In this case, slavery to Islam, without the benefit (?) of shahada...instant dhimmihood. The UN is an instrument of Islamic hegemony.

The actions and attitudes of the UN, are clearly
not in the interests of the US or its people.

Get the US out of the UN and vicey-versey...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 25, 2008 12:51 PM

"Would one be allowed to note that the Perfect Man took delight in the decapitation of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza tribe?"

They were non combatents as well. They'd just lost a siege. It wasn't just the men who were beheaded, it was boys who'd just reached puberty too. Hundreds of them.

It gets a passing reference in chapter 33 of the koran.

The cold blooded murder always reminds me of Hitler's Einzatzgruppen.

Posted by: Celsius at November 25, 2008 12:54 PM

Jdamn, reading the article you linked, this statement caught my eye:

"American government officials also told the Olmert government that if it were to carry out a long-threatened attack on Hamas and allied terrorists, it could erect a dead end to the America Roadmap program designed to lead to a new Arab country within Israel's current borders."

A new Arab country within Israels current borders?!?! This wouldn't be like a Starbucks inside a BestBuy. The 'American government officials' referred to in the article have lost their mother-loving minds!

Disgust
Richard

Posted by: Richard at November 25, 2008 12:55 PM

"American government officials also told the Olmert government that if it were to carry out a long-threatened attack on Hamas and allied terrorists, it could erect a dead end to the America Roadmap program designed to lead to a new Arab country within Israel's current borders."
-- from a posting just above

What an excellent reason to do it.

Posted by: Hugh at November 25, 2008 12:58 PM

What an excellent reason to do it.

You are dead nuts right, Hugh.

Posted by: Richard at November 25, 2008 1:02 PM

"Everybody is aware that there is a campaign in certain media to fuel the fire of incitement to hatred and to disfigure certain persons or figures through caricature," said one Sudanese diplomat.

Muhammad needs no conspiratorial media assistance. His disgraceful historical existence and the vile, venomous ideological poison he left behind stands on its own.

Posted by: awake at November 25, 2008 1:08 PM

Here's the EU's rather weak tea approach--it takes issue with the resolution, but in the most vague and bureaucratic manner possible. Still, any defense is better than none, I suppose.

"Explanation of Vote on behalf of the European Union"

Here's the link:

http://formin.finland.fi/public/default.aspx?contentid=83612&nodeid=15620&contentlan=2&culture=en-US

Posted by: gravenimage at November 25, 2008 1:46 PM

But Western democracies argue that a religion can't enjoy protection from criticism because that would require a judicial ruling that its teachings are the "truth."

The truth stands on its own. Islamics do the best they can to pervert the truth to fit their cult’s view of the universe according to Mohammet. Anyone can see this is self-serving to promote their supremacist world domination agenda, which makes travesty of the word “truth” and perverts it into idiotic superstitious nonsense. In fact, this is Islam’s weak point, that they are so far removed from “truth” that they are left with a devious perversion of the truth, packed with lies to press their evil agenda against humanity’s natural freedoms. Enslaving subjugation to their agenda is not the truth.

Islamics can pass all the UN resolutions they want, but this does not change the fact that Islam is NOT the truth about anything at all, except its own evil supremacist agenda, which we here all know is true. Truth is against slavery, and in a free world Islam is defenseless against the truth. The only way they can prevail is to prove slavery is true to Islam, as per their primitive cult's founder and his moon-god Al-Illah, which is true as religious dogma but has no bearing on any natural truths. Their idiotic nonsense cannot prove anything as true. Therefore, their religion CANNOT enjoy protection from criticism. Truth always wins out against superstition.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 25, 2008 1:52 PM

Excellent post!

Truth
Battle_of_Tours

Posted by: champ at November 25, 2008 2:03 PM

Odyessus wrote:

Mmm……Combating Defamation of Religions passed
85 For
50 Against
42 Abstentions

I would be really interested to see those figures broken down to see how each country voted.
Does anyone know where you can find this?
I searched the UN General Assembly website without any luck.
.....................

I was interested in seeing the breakdown in voting, too, Odyessus. I Googled a bit and found it. The numbers they give are just a bit different--95 for, 52 against, with 30 abstentions.

These votes are very instructive--with only a few caveats, all the most despotic and unfree countries--including most Islamic countries--voted for it. Incidently, these include a number of countries that allow no freedom of religion at all--that is, atheist states such as North Korea and China.

Those that voted against are just about entirely solid democracies, and those that abstained tend to be either semi-oppressive and unfree countries, or ones with a creeping Muslim population. The absent states seem pretty irrelevant--either states that are tiny, or ones that are so chaotic that they don't maintain a consistent presence at the UN.

Here are the figures:

Vote on Combating Defamation of Religions

The resolution on combating defamation of religions (document A/C.3/62/L.35) was approved by a recorded vote of 95 in favour to 52 against, with 30 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vanuatu.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Botswana, Brazil, Burundi, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Solomon Islands, United Republic of Tanzania.

Absent: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Nauru, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Somalia, Tonga, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Here's the link (scroll down to "Annex III"):

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gashc3909.doc.htm

Posted by: gravenimage at November 25, 2008 2:14 PM

You know this works both ways. The West can charge Muslims with speaking against Judaism and Christianity. Might bite them on the ass then.

Posted by: Mystical Time Traveler at November 25, 2008 2:26 PM

Here's the line at which I stop: Sovereignty.

Posted by: Shawmut at November 25, 2008 2:50 PM

We sometimes tend to see the craven response of Western nations to fears of offending Muslims as something very recent.

The renowned writer and playwright George Bernard Shaw was an admirer of Mahomet:

"In 1913 he wanted to write a play on the subject []. Four years earlier he had informed the parliamentary committee on [] censorship that he had 'long desired to dramatise the life of Mahomet. But the possibliity of a protest from the Turkish Ambassador - or the fear of it - causing the Lord Chamberlain to refuse to license such a play' had prevented him from doing it. Nevertheless, his fancy continued to play around the prophet, who is described by the Elderly Gentleman in 'Back to Methuselah' as a 'truly wise man, for he founded a religion without a Church.' "

(Bernard Shaw: His Life and Personality, by Hesketh Pearson 1944 p.375)

Posted by: MBR at November 25, 2008 3:52 PM

There are many aspects of Islam that BLASPHEME my and others' religions! What will they do about that?

For example, in my religion, it is blasphemy to stick your arse in the air five times a day, as if in the direction of God's face. It is blasphemy to face a certain direction while doing that blasphemous gesture. It is blasphemy to make loud and annoying noises from towers that disturb and brainwash everyone else.

To Christians, it is blasphemy to say that Jesus Christ is not the son of God but a mere prophet - what will the U.N. do about that fact?

In my religion, it is blasphemy to insist that the child-raping Mohammed is a "prophet of God." It is also blasphemy to chop off people's heads in the name of God, as it is to rape women because they are uncovered, to throw acid in their faces, to cut off their genitals, to stone women for "adultery" after they've been raped, to commit "jihad" and assorted attacks verbally and physically against "infidels." To insist that everyone become a member, to attempt to dominate the world - these are all BLASPHEMY in my religion.

What will the U.N. do about all the BLASPHEMY of Islam?

What a vile, despicable and BLASPHEMOUS cult.

Posted by: Suziq at November 25, 2008 4:42 PM

This is despicable. We passed the point of criminalizing blasphemy a long time ago, a right that was won on the backs of brave men and women making sacrifices for it.

The UN will not make us yield to pre-Enlightenment values to appease people with a permanent superiority complex and a perennial victim complex to boot! We must stop this. Western civilization cannot afford to digress like this, or we will lose the very foundation on which our progress was based.

Posted by: Infidelicious at November 25, 2008 5:08 PM

Gravenimage's list is basically the 3 tier of the HDI in alphabetical order: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

This is not a coincidence.

Posted by: jdamn at November 25, 2008 5:10 PM

Jdamn wrote:

Gravenimage's list is basically the 3 tier of the HDI in alphabetical order: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

This is not a coincidence.
................

Indeed not--thanks for the link. I had a few very mild surprises--I had hoped Mexico would vote against the measure rather than abstaining; I thought Albania, Burkina Faso, and Somalia would make sure they had someone present to vote in its favor; I wasn't sure how Micronesia would vote.

But in general, I could have reeled off the vote with 95% accuracy without seeing any of the returns. I'm not bragging, here--the vote was depressingly predictable.

I'm just glad that the democracies recognized this "anti-blasphemy" measure for what it is. Not that this helps, much--the civilized world is much outnumbered at the UN by oppressive and tyrannical states. This is why the UN will always be corrupt--because so many of its states have an agenda that is anything but friendly to the cause of freedom.

You are quite right that it is no coincidence.

Posted by: gravenimage at November 25, 2008 5:39 PM

Well, I see from the Roadmap that peace is just over the Bridge to Nowhere.

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen.

So, a question for Cuba, China, DPRK, Viet Nam, and the Russian Federation; when was it you started worrying about religious blasphemy?

All in all, it looks like a nicely compiled list of the worst hell holes on earth, or maybe an updated targeting list.

But, let's not be so hasty. We should thoughtfully consider their point of view, and with all due deliberation, tell them to go screw themselves.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at November 25, 2008 5:53 PM

Cut down on Islamic terrorism, and you will see an end to this alleged "extensive bias against Islam in the West."

Not good enough. Muhammedan Infiltration, outbreeding and subversion, the perversion of the justice-system with sharia, Muhammedans on jury-duty, will make the problem unmanageable.

We should be glad for every act of terrorism and see each one as a wake-up call. It shows just the most awful side of this disgusting belief-system. But continued immigration, the unhindered building of mosques and madrassas, that will break our back if we don't stop it.

Terror is just one little part of it, in the beginning. (Which inevitably will result in genocide, because Allah commands the Muslims to make great slaughter in the land...)

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 25, 2008 6:01 PM

Among the countries or mini-statelets voting for this resolution were a number of Caribbean islands heavily dependent on tourism from North America and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe. These include: Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago.

Countries in the Western hemisphere whose governments voted Yes, other than the obvious Cuba and Venezuela, include Belize (where the Arab presence has been growing, and needs to be watched, along with a different, possibly clashing threat, from immigrants from China), Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Surinam. The Western powers should find out, in a systematic effort, why these countries did so. It is known that the Arabs frequently use bribery -- they did so, quite successfully, with various African leaders, in persuading them to break relations with Israel after the Six-Day War, and then to continue to vote in the U.N. with the Arabs. While the breaking of relations ended the very successful aid program Israel had had with black Africa, one tailored precisely to the real needs of black Africans (unlike many of the aid programs from the larger, richer Western states), it did not lead to any increase in Arab aid for those states. The only thing that the Arabs did was bribe individual leaders, which is exactly, of cours, what they have been doing, directly and indirectly, in their buying of influence in the corridors of power of Western capitals, making a few people very well-off, and influencing not only foreign policy (and delaying the recognition of what Islam, and of course Saudi Arabia, represents for Infidels), but also, perhaps even more devastatingly, preventing the imposition of major taxes on oil and gasoline, and the adoption of a sensible energy policy designed to lessen OPEC oil revenues.

It is very likely that among the diplomats from non-Muslim states who voted "Yes" were those on the receiving ends of bribes. The American government has ways to find out about such things. It should do so.

Posted by: Hugh at November 25, 2008 6:26 PM

gravenimage

thanks for that breakdown of the UN vote.

Ladies and gentlemen - this is a long list.

However: perhaps some of us should gird up our loins, fire up our word processors, and send suitable notes of appreciation, with reasons, to the heads of state of all those countries that wisely and courageously voted NO to this despicable and dangerous 'anti-blasphemy' measure that the Muslim bloc are attempting to ram through the UN.

Letters to the ambassadors of the 'No'-voters, in our respective countries, on the same topic, should also be considered.

Furthermore, in the anti-dhimmi awards (international division) this year, each of these countries who said NO should receive honorable mention, and perhaps be sent a little gilt-edged card letting them know this, and why. Such a card could be inscribed with Pericles' words as drawn to our attention by Oriana Fallaci: "the secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom is courage".

Those who abstained should be encouraged to rethink, and given reasons why they should vote a firm NO next time the matter is proposed.

The heads of state of at least some of those majority-non-Muslim countries (for example, Jamaica, Ethiopia and the Philippines) which voted Yes to this Islamintern-inspired measure, should receive polite but firm letters expressing dismay and disappointment (Timor Leste and the Philippines should certainly have known better!), and warning that all they have done is give the Islamosphere a stick with which to beat their citizens.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 25, 2008 6:37 PM

Uganda? I am very disappointed. But Islamization of Uganda is continuing, with (according to an Islamic website (can't find link) claiming that, with 36% of the population being Muslims, it classifies as an "Islamic state".
At what percentage point of population is a country considered "Islamic" by Muslims?

Posted by: PG at November 25, 2008 7:02 PM

Nobody of the "unbelievers" ever vilified or demonized Islam, that's the job Muslims have been doing for themselves for nearly 1400 years, and they're damn good at it.

Posted by: epistemology at November 25, 2008 7:44 PM

Of course, the vote of Ortega's Nicaraugua is no surprise, in light of its leftist alignment and Iran's influence there.

Posted by: John C at November 25, 2008 8:04 PM

So....wait... Since Islam and it's texts are a rape, pillage, and outright plagiarism of Judeo-Christian ideals/principals/teachings/texts (or, in other words, blaspheme these things), then isn't this whole "preventative measure" (to put it nicely) an act of something that Muslims are in and of themselves committing???

Posted by: Heidi J at November 25, 2008 10:06 PM

We must stay in the U.N.

To block measures as these, a vote must be cast. As a permament member, our no vote can halt this action, until our laws are no more than dust.

We can never vote "yes" with our country's laws as they are now, we are still being carried by our fathers actions, from our beginning in the U.S. Thank god for them, every last one of them.

If for no other reason than to vote no, we must stay at the U.N. Until it has turned to dust.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at November 25, 2008 10:16 PM

Did anyone notice that the Organization of Islamic Conference has 57 states and Barack Obama once he had been to 57 states? What was he thinking?

Posted by: Lou at November 25, 2008 11:05 PM

Posted by: Nick Danger at November 25, 2008 11:36 AM

"...The OIC Islamic bloc even successfully prevented the UN from an understandable definition of terrorism (it had to exclude "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination" or "the legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation.")..." giving the impression that the OIC was attempting to obfuscate the issues or delay just actions on it in some way.

Let's be fair and objective about this. There is no need to demonise a demon.

The exclusion from the definition of terrorism of the above issues, "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination" or "the legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation." is only right from OUR point of view. If the Founding Fathers of this country had, in some way, been prevented from the above actions against the foreign occupation of the British, then we would not be having this conversation today.

The American colonials conducted an "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination" exercising their declared "legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation." and to assume full responsibility for their own destiny.

These were the main issues of the Declaration of Independence, and the colonials, using the power of that declaration, were triumphant in establishing for the first time in the modern world, a democratic republic.

The Islamists are determined to establish their own destiny using the tactics above, but only under their politico-religico dogmas, and NOT in a conscious contract between the people and a government serving the needs of that people.

It is to Islam's discredit and its shame that every single Muslim is held in thrall by violent threats, not only from other Muslims ("the Best People"), but also from his Imam, and even worse, from his god, Allâh most kind and merciful.

For Muslims, the issue of insult and blasphemy, should be considered secondary when compared with this egregious assault on humankind. More than ever, Muslims need our understanding and our help in preparing their own Declaration of Independence from Allâh, the First Citizen and Keeper of Hell.

JihadWatch performs a valuable service in casting light upon the slimy encroachments of Islam and its organized subterfuge of democratic processes. It does no good to characterise these outrages unfairly or to manufacture excuses to hate Islam. It does that quite well, itself. JihadWatch devotés should exercise every restraint in presenting their statements and arguments, staying always with the truth and good intentions so that non-posting Muslim visitors can feel that this place is one of honor, truth, and compassion.

Posted by: Jockaira at November 26, 2008 1:01 AM

Allah is not the God of the Bible

Muslims believe that there is no other God besides Allah and that he is the God of the universe. They claim that not only is he their God, but that he is the God of the Jews, the Christians and everyone else. When examining the profile of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and comparing it with Allah’s profile, there are a number of distinct differences between them that can only result in one conclusion: These profiles simply do not match! Allah is NOT the God of the Bible!

http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html

Posted by: champ at November 26, 2008 1:14 AM

from above --"The American colonials conducted an "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination" exercising their declared "legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation...The Islamists are determined to establish their own destiny using the tactics above...It does no good to characterise these outrages unfairly or to manufacture excuses to hate Islam..."

Comparing Islamic struggles for "liberation" including the acts of jihadi terrorists, with the American Revolutionaries is insufferable. First, the Americans were not terrorists. Terrorists deliberately target innocent civilians to further a political (or religious) cause. That the Islamic bloc prevented the UN from an internationally agreed definition of terrorism in order to protect state-sponsors of terrorism who happen to be Muslim is not an unfair characterization nor is it manufacturing anything for...what do you call it? "excuses to hate Islam" Nonsense. Americans were not fighting to impose a religious tyranny, unlike your Islamists, they were fighting for principles of freedom--rights of the individual, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, that all men are created equal, government of the people for the people by the people--you know, everything explicitly denied by Islamic law. Americans did not fight a religious war to impose tyranny and call it liberation, for that matter they did not take British women captive as sex slaves ("right hand possessions") nor did they impose Shari'a with its legal, social and moral apartheid (for non-Muslims, for women)
and its death penalty for apostasy or blasphemy.

These terms you think link American colonials
with jihadists, used to prevent condemnation of terrorists murdering civilians in Israel, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Thailand, or Sudan, or India
is perfectly in keeping with the Islamic appropriation of our language--Jihad & dhimmitude advanced in the name of "human rights" which Islam will redefine as it pleases. The purpose of obfuscating the definition of terrorism leads to its result: the Counter-Terrorism Committee formed by the Security Council after 9/11 has never named a single terrorist, terrorist organization, or state-sponsor of terrorism.
Honor, truth and compassion compel me to tell you this.

Tell me again how it is manufacturing hate
to simply disclose what the Islamic bloc at the United Nations is perpetrating? Wouldn't that mean I was making something up? Recognizing a hostile
and nefarious agenda, presented quite bluntly, is a far cry from "manufacturing hate"--that's the language of those writing up the manifestos of Durban II.

Posted by: Nick Danger at November 26, 2008 3:14 AM

I agree with the writers above advocating the US get out of the UN. McCain proposed a new UN-like organization of democracies - membership would require adherence to principles of liberty and freedom. Theocracies by definition would not be admitted. This is still a great idea and could lead to the UN being just a UT - a Union of Tyrants. Would an Obama pull out of the UN - I doubt it, but he might see the wisdom of McCain's proposal. The USA could initially be in both, and then later get out of the UN and let it ossify and die.

Domestically this blasphemy on free speech is yet another reason that we must join the battle to outlaw Sharia in any form in the United States. We cannot let this get as far as the Brits have. We need to join the battle in the blogosphere, in the media, and in Congress. There is no question that Sharia is totally incompatible with the laws and culture of the American people, and it must be stamped out, beginning with "Sharia finance".

If a Muslim wants to live in America by our laws and within our culture, fine, he is welcome, but he and his organizations should forget about establishing a caliphate. If he wants Sharia law and Islamic culture, he should move to a country where Sharia is the law. It is not the law here, and it never will be.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at November 26, 2008 3:59 AM

That might as well backfire. We have such a law in Switzerland. However, with everey case refuted, things become clearer.
By referring to Jihad, it is possible to say that hate is programmatic in Islam.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at November 26, 2008 4:14 AM

If for no other reason than to vote no, we must stay at the U.N. Until it has turned to dust.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1

I must disagree. Our voting no means nothing. Terrorism was equated with racism despite our vote against it. Our being in the UN only gives it more legitimacy, to say nothing of more money. Our tax dollars can be spent on something that doesn't give tax-free income to the select few. The UN is a boondoggle. Its usefulness has passed. Let it go back to Geneva, home of the original League of Nations, which the US wisely refrained from joining after WWI.

If we are not a part of the UN, then who cares what resolutions they pass? We will not be bound by them. We have a harder time saying such things when we want resolutions passed that others will abide by. The UN is a trap.
Let us remain a sovereign nation, with our own laws. Let us not build a new home for the UN right in Manhattan. Send them packing.

Posted by: PMK at November 26, 2008 11:51 AM

Terrorism was equated with racism despite our vote against it.

Forgive me.

I meant ZIONISM was equated with racism.

Posted by: PMK at November 26, 2008 11:54 AM

Did anyone notice that the Organization of Islamic Conference has 57 states and Barack Obama once he had been to 57 states? What was he thinking?

Posted by: Lou

Just what you probably think he was thinking. Islam occupies his mind 24/7. It was a Freudian slip.

Posted by: PMK at November 26, 2008 11:56 AM

"I agree with the writers above advocating the US get out of the UN. McCain proposed a new UN-like organization of democracies - membership would require adherence to principles of liberty and freedom. Theocracies by definition would not be admitted. This is still a great idea and could lead to the UN being just a UT - a Union of Tyrants. Would an Obama pull out of the UN - I doubt it, but he might see the wisdom of McCain's proposal. The USA could initially be in both, and then later get out of the UN and let it ossify and die."
Posted by Jimmy Bones.

I've always liked McCain's proposal of a new Organization of Democracies as a counter to the UN. However, I also agree with Islofob's sentiment that we should stay in the UN until it turns to dust, in the spirit of "keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. As Jimmy said, the US could be members of both until such time as the UN ossifies and dies.

It's probably too late now, but Ground Zero would have been a perfect place for erecting a new Organization of Democracies building.

Posted by: Eastview at November 26, 2008 11:27 PM