There must be some kind of selective amnesia suffered by our leaders or just plain dementia. I do not understand their reasoning process!

Posted by: savsiv at March 15, 2008 9:54 AM

Ban Ki-Moon is just another UN kleptocrat, who is corrupt in the mind as well as our wallets.

Posted by: Rick at March 15, 2008 10:09 AM

Is Moon sympathetic to the Moon god, allah?

Posted by: darcy at March 15, 2008 10:58 AM

All Africa does not appear to be the most reliable of news sources. According to the official transcript of Ki-Moon's speech, this is what he said:

The UN and the OIC stand side by side in rejecting forcefully and wholeheartedly any linkages between terrorism and Islam. You have spoken up against those who seek to justify violence in the name of religion. Your efforts reinforce the UN's own steps to promote tolerance and understanding through the Alliance of Civilizations initiative, and I look forward to increasing UN-OIC collaboration in this area.

What he says here is certainly disputable. But All Africa seems to have mangled the message quite badly.

There's a world of difference between violence in the name of religion, and violence against religion.

Posted by: mww at March 15, 2008 11:09 AM

Isaiah 5:20 says: Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Posted by: interestinconundrum at March 15, 2008 11:58 AM

The idea of disconnecting Islam from terrorism seems to have caught on in a number of places, all about the same time. It's almost like someone/thing above is sending down talking points to muslims and apologists. Is there a hidden below the radar, central office of Islam somewhere? Is it CAIR?
Who's directing this traffic? Bush and the Ayatollahs? Sounds like a rock group...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 15, 2008 12:21 PM

The UN's "Alliance of Civilizations" initiative is bad news for freedom of speech - especially anything that Muslims decide is "offensive."

Separation of Church and State? Bye Bye!!!

Also, it has provisions for indoctrinating YOUR children into Islam (as if they don't already get enough of that in public schools).

It was introduced by José Zapatero and co-sponsored by Turkey's ex-PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. If you do some research, you'll find that former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who proposed the "Dialogue Among Civilizations" initiative (from which much of this comes from and is another attempt at gagging free speech,)was one of the key framers of the initiative...

That Ban Ki Moon seems to actually support this dribble is quite alarming...

Anyway, keep yourself informed.

I suggest you start with Robert Spencer's favorite online source (*grin*) - Wikipedia:

Alliance of Civilizations

Cheers

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at March 15, 2008 12:45 PM

Ban Ki-Moon what a idiot i wounder how much the oic is bribing him

We will strengthen cooperation between the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference) and the United Nations in this area (religion)," Ban said.
hmm i thought the un has been hijacked by third world county s most being muslim and belonging to the oic just like the un human rights council seems to have become a farce via the arab league ect

Posted by: nomoreoiljizha at March 15, 2008 1:04 PM

Here is Ban Ki-Moon's first attempt at putting his podium to good use at the Green Zone press conference last year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au2UtGjO32A

Posted by: Rob at March 15, 2008 1:25 PM

Alliance of civilizations is a fine idea, that should exempt most of the Islamic world!

Posted by: Dumbo at March 15, 2008 2:08 PM

Ban Ki-Moon is really distinguishing himself at this particular venue, isn't he?

First he criticizes Israel for defending itself, now he wants to help Islam to do the same thing.

The United Nations hasn't had such a poltroon in charge since Kurt Waldheim.

I wonder if the "cooperation" he envisages between the OIC and the UN entails helping the former to undermine the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? That ought to make for all kinds of understanding between civilizations.

Posted by: Novalis at March 15, 2008 4:17 PM

Feminist Policy on Iraq and Afghanistan
This is a special post to all Hillary-voting feminists.

We all want to do an action together - to begin to act as 3rd wave feminists in our own worlds, yet together.

I believe we must begin to articulate a feminist foreign policy for Iraq and Afghanistan that Hillary can adopt which will be accepted by the majority of US citizens. A Feminist Foreign Policy will have as a goal the liberation of middle east women from Sharia law and will elevate the goal of equal gender rights in a civil democratic society, maybe even based on Israeli democracy.

Maryam Namazie writes:"In 1973, as a result of international attention and widespread opposition to the apartheid system in South Africa apartheid was recognised as a crime against humanity.

On the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, let’s together proclaim that sexual apartheid is a crime against humanity. "

Feminists Democrats should offer a platform that addresses the needs of women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The feminist position on would advocate equal rights for Iraq and Afghanistan women with reconstruction democracy training and the implementation of a civil secular law system.

We should eventually offer amendments to the constitution which will form a secular society with secular non-religious law. But it is better if democracy comes from the bottom up. So reconstruction should begin at the surge level.

At the beginning some separate gender activities may be needed to protect women and enforce their rights.

Democracy training reconstruction in Iraq instead of rapid withdrawal can be the global feminist democratic platform. The CNN reports from Iraqi citizens say this is what the people of Iraq are asking the US to do now. A soldier said: We need a book of democracy because what we want is personal freedom. That is what we want all this suffering to result in - freedom for the individual in Iraq.

The Iraqi also said, We have all this oil - the people should not be so poor.

As part of the democratic platform on Iraq, the US should work out economic treaties with Iraq that benefit our both countries. That see workers organized into unions which are independent and protected from government and criminal interferences.

We can use the oil revenue while creating a solar/wind society with economic opportunity for males and females . We can leave behind a good public secular school system for girls and boys.

The boys on the left in the democratic party want to do another Vietnam withdrawal throwing the people to their enemies. Because they are rich spoiled brats who feel no sense of obligation to those they use to get ahead. These are the Obama elites of the US. They live like kings and that is their mindset. Let's get out now, there is nothing in it for US.

Feminists should insist on the Japan/German model of reconstruction which led to friendly relations rather than the estrangement we have had from withdrawal without reconstruction in Viet Nam and Cuba all these years.

Feminists should Reject the male left's policies toward Iraq and Afghanistan. It is hard to do but we must speak out for women. You have seen the boys are not with us - now, before it is too late we must speak up for women.

This must become part of Hillary's Iraq program, not withdrawal but reconstruction training in democracy; with the end of gender apartheid as the primary goal.

Specifically, reconstruction with women trained by US soldiers, armed and functioning as protective associations for women's rights - guarding women's centers and shelters, enforcing sexual abuse and domestic violence complaints, working with male units.

The democracy - freedom guarding functions of such units could be praised all over the country as a teaching method.

The abuse shelters and women's villages are where women's economic development takes place. There carpentry, plumping, solar green jobs, sanitation can be taught. Women's home building companies can be formed and guarded.

We woman identified feminists must start to organize around this now or a great opportunity for democracy with equal rights will be lost in the world. See CNN report from Iraqi troops, Kira Phillips in Baghdad. This is film of Iraqis telling US media what they need -saying what is needed. The video may still be somewhere on the CNN website.

Iraqi want democracy training. Training from US troops, democracy training from western TV programs - - free fair election laws. Iraqi are watching this US election on their TV sets and trying to learn from it (that is why our voting booths and polling rooms should be on TV).

Most Iraqi seemed to want want Clinton to win -(Hillary's withdrawal plan showed a concern for Iraqi people's welfare whereas Obama just wants to get out).

Iraqi want one person, one vote, privacy in voting, separate men - women polling stations, simplified voting, to learn about federal, state relationships and responsibilities, Iraqi want jobs, green jobs for males and females.

See also,CNN, On Deadly Ground: Women of Iraq.
CNN Sat and Sun night, the 15th and 16th.
Let's all watch together.

Feminist must insist on a reconstruction that helps Iraq achieve secular society with all our individual personal freedom. We must insist, through the surge, on a secular system as the only way to freedom and peace between the religious factions and non Muslims in one society. The US has done this - we know what works.

We must teach separation of church and state -- we must make this position our feminist foreign policy for Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the Iraq reconstruction plan that can unite the country. Sharia law should be abolished in Iraq and Afghanistan and secular law taught in the schools. We Hillary women could demand feminist reconstruction be in the platform at the democratic convention. We want trade and economic development to result in economic advancement for all our people; US, Iraqi and Afghani.

Remember, let's all watch CNN this weekend and see Women of Iraq.

Posted by: greenconsciousness at March 15, 2008 6:06 PM

Why is Western society supporting the stupid United Nations. Stop funding the damn thing!

Posted by: James Martel at March 15, 2008 6:10 PM

Moon is a devout Muslim fighting for the cancerous cause of Islam, but we have the cure: The Truth.

Islam is evil and must be destroyed.

Posted by: champ at March 15, 2008 7:33 PM

OK, let me try to correct this report one more time, then I promise to give up.

The Agence de Presse Sénégalaise tried to spin Ban Ki-Moon's speech as a promise by the UN to "fight violence against Islam". When you read the actual speech of Ki-Moon, it is clear that he is talking about terrorist violence carried out in the name of Islam (exactly what Robert claims Moon is NOT talking about).

The Senegalese Press Agency is obviously trying to spin the speech in favour of an international blasphemy law, for which the OIC is currently lobbying.

It is both surprising and disturbing that Robert is parrotting this Islamist propaganda as if it is the truth.

I'm sure a retraction will be forthcoming.

Posted by: mww at March 15, 2008 8:25 PM

mww, are you saying that Mr. Spencer mistranslated the article?

Or are you saying that the UN "official" transcript is worded differently that what was actually said?

Or are you saying that Mr. Spencer should not report on what local media say and only rely on the official transcript?

You do know of course the long history of arafat saying one thing to the western media and another to the local media so it is not out of the question that Moon is also using dual messages tailored to whatever they think their target audience wants to hear.

Posted by: stickman at March 15, 2008 9:35 PM

MWW is absolutely correct

The official transcript does not say what is being inferred inthe opening paras

Posted by: rastadan at March 15, 2008 10:36 PM

"We will fight against those who want to justify violence against the religion and promote understanding among the Alliance of Civilisations."
- - - - - -

Well, there ya go, there's the "out". Islam's certainly not civilized, nor does it form any alliances (that it keeps or intends to keep) ...

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at March 16, 2008 1:57 AM

The US congress also has official transcripts, often times the speech made does not conform to what the official transcript says. I suspect that is the cause of MMWs confusion. The paper quoted in this thread used quotation marks of what the genl secty said, I would think that if the paper printed a retraction then they would admit fault, but the paper was at the event and probably did not reference the official transcript, relying instead on their tapes or reporters notes.

Posted by: stickman at March 16, 2008 11:10 AM

Well, fighting violence against Islam is certainly the safer, tidier option.

Wouldn't want to muss up the suit, would he?

Posted by: carpediadem at March 16, 2008 3:40 PM

Just voted himself the easiest job in town.

He can go fishing for 4 years and come back with nothing left undone.

Islam: blames you for the blister it gets from stabbing you in the back.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 16, 2008 4:13 PM