Of course, it could also be considered an endorsement of 10-year olds sticking live frogs into goverment official’s lunchboxes.
Which is exactly the trouble you get when you word things vaugely.
So, december, if we find a quote by President Bush or other high-ranking US official, saying words like “we will fight terrorism with all available means” or similar words to that effect, are you willing to say he is endorsing using terrorism? Please answer yes or no because I think I have a quote for you.
Its only “terrorism” is the other guy is blowing up YOUR house. If you’re blowing up his house, its a completely justifiable use of legitimate force.
So, if you propound that one side is right and the other is wrong, you are not taking a position, but instead are merely engaging in “nothing but propoganda?” If that’s the definition, december, then explain why in god’s name you keep posting propoganda on these boards?
Perhaps, instead, the countries involved believe that the Palestinians are right and the Israelis are wrong? An almost unbelievable possibility, to be sure, but just perhaps.
Sua
No, no, no, SPOOFE. Joachim is absolutely right. Why, just last year we turned Beijing into a radioactive parking lot over the spy plane incident.
Sua
Now we know that the new resolution retained the phrase “all available means”, although it did not explicitly mention “armed struggle.” So, when the National Post left the impression that the current resolution endorsed terrorism, they were being fair, not disingenuous.
I think anyone would take the phrase “all available means” to include as a minimum those means currently being used, such as the use of daisy cutter bombs in Afghanistan.
Similarly, the Palestinian means actually in use include the bombing if civilians, so the phrase seems to endorse more of the same.
In this case, the givaway was the failure to even acknowledge the suicded bombings.
Getting real, Arab countries and their supporters prmoted this resolution. A number of western countries went along with it, because a HRC resolution doesn’t mean much of anything. What this incident mostly demonstrates is the uselessness of the HRC.
Although I’m probably giving CPR to a dead horse, I agree that it’s very hypocritical of France to have signed this- they violated international extradition policies and kidnapped Carlos the Jackal from Sudan in order to have him stand trial for terrorism in France (for planting bombs in French malls in the name of the “palestinian cause”).
[sub]I agree with what they did with C.the J., which is why I think they’re being hypocritical now.[/sub]
Utter bullshit. Re-read the article. The National Post presented, as a quote from the resolution the phrase “all available means, including armed struggle.”
We now know that that phrase was not in the resolution. The National Post therefore lied - they present a falsity as truth. That, methinks, comes under “disingenuous.”
Sua
A more adequate title for the thread would be “fucking december endorses equivocation and obfuscation (yet again)”.
I guess we can also accuse Spain of being inconsistent and hypocritical as just last Sunday Spanish police arrested Ahmed Brahim, high ranking member of Al Qaeda who is considered to have helped finance the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Spain should make up theor minds on whether they do or do not endorse terrorism.
un-hip? Say what?
Cheers.
What the fuck? 
How about, december does NOT endorse the fight against ignorance?
Wait, yes it was. From the link december gave:
The resolution seems to me to be pretty much an endorsement of the intifada, without coming right out and saying “we endorse the intifada.” It condemns Israel (and pretty justifiably so, I think, in most cases) for a whole list of human rights violations, but then has passages like
and
“Martyrs?” “Judaization?” Maybe a case could be made that “Judaization” can refer merely to their perception that Israel intends to disregard the claim of Islam on Jerusalem as a holy city, and recognize its importance as a holy site only for Jews. But words like that send up flags for me. (The document says that the original language of the resolution is English, so there’s no question these are the words they intended to use.)
What could have been an effective reminder that there are wartime practices for which the international community will accept no justification is undermined, in my opinion, by what I see as a streak of ugliness underlying the resolution. Not that I really expect any better from the Commission on Human Rights as it exists, I guess, but I can hope.
Oh, I might disagree with most of the resolution but that is not the point of the OP which is whether the FUN (Fucking United Nations) endorse terrorism. If december were in charge of America’s foreign policy the entire rest of the world would unite against the US in a matter of days.
His attitude can be summed up in two points
1- America is the greatest and we don’t need to compromise with or understand other countries and if they disagree with us it is just an indication of how backward they are. We don’t need them for anything and we can do as we please.
2- Why the hell don’t all those other countries cooperate fully with us and do everything we tell them when we need them?
Now hold on just a sec.
That second link, from december, is a draft. There is no record on the bottom of it recording the vote or even saying it was adopted.
As best I can tell from the UCHR site, the 5 April resolution, which I cited, was the only resolution on this subject brought to a vote.
I can’t find a direct link to the cited doc on the UCHR website (but of course it’s there – the site is real slow and I didn’t spend all that much time on it). I did find a link to another April 9 draft resolution on the subject, which did not have the “armed struggle” language, here.
Now, of course it takes time to update websites, finish translations, say hi to Opal, &ct. But as of this moment, I’m not ready to concede that the April 9 draft was adopted.
If someone else wants to get in on the fun, the main navigation page I’m using is here.
Well, that one says
A strange way to endorse terrorism if you ask me.
Okay, I hear that. And apparently my post is somewhat moot anyway because
Well, shit. That’s totally different. And a little poking around on the UHCR site seems to show that, surprise! the document to which manny originally linked is the adopted resolution, which has virtually nothing to do with the nasty bit of writing upon which I went off in my post.
So. Let us
-
:o Just ignore that bit of prose up there with my name on the side of it.
-
Trust manhattan in all things.
But, the resolution cited by Manny’s says it was adopted April 5. The resolution addressed in the OP was reported on April 16 in the National Post, The Daily Camera and Salon reported about the resolution on April 16.
Can you account for the discrepancy in dates?
sailor, the OP blasted the UN, because a newspaper reported that their HRC had endorsed terrorism. The OP was not meant to address the US or other specific countries.
It’s inappropriate for a panel of the UN to endorse terrorism, isn’t it?
sigh The time it takes for people (at the UN and at the wire services) to do their work, maybe?