I’m still waiting for december to show some evidence that the FUN endorses terrorism (but I’m not holding my breath).
The OP quotes a newspaper saying
Several posters here at the SDMB have trying to get a cite to the actual resolution.
James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal cited a draft resolution which he said was the same as the final resolution. That draft resolution uses the phrase, “by all available means,” which could be interpreted to endorse terrorism.
Here’s a link to a UN press release dated April 15, 2002
The press release discusses some other actions as well. It does not say when this resolution was adopted.
Here’s a link to a UN press release dated April 5, which describes an HRC resolution. I would assume that Manhattan’s link is to the resolution described in the April 5 press release.
So the UN made specific reasons why Bush made request for Sharon to get out of the occupied terrorities. Sharon dissed both Bush and the UN. But then, of course, killing all Palestinians is supposed to be as moral as stepping on roaches. Oh well.
december I have read your last quote very carefully and I see the text is critical of some of the things Israel is doing. Now, I have a question: Can you fucking tell me where the fuck do you get from that fucking quote the fucking UN endorses fucking terrorism? You still haven’t fucking shown any fucking support for your fucking OP. Do you fucking understand what I am fucking trying to say? Or do you need me to draw a fucking diagram?
(The previous question was phrased in consonance with the OP for your better comprehension. Do not use this kind of language at home or anywhere in front of your parents)
to set things in perspective:
Jewish terror in the 1940’s
1945
October 31
Jewish terrorist offensive against British rule in Palestine begins, with a wave of bomb attacks on police vehicles, railway sites and Haifa oil refinery. One policeman, one soldier and two railway workers killed.
November 27
Eight British soldiers killed in bomb attack on police station Jerusalem, Palestine, in Jewish Irgun terrorist attack.
1946
July 22
Ninety people killed and forty five wounded after Jewish terrorists blow up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, Palestine, which was home to British government and military offices. The terrorists held workers at pistol point while they planted the explosives in the basement of the hotel.
October 31
British embassy in Rome, Italy, wrecked by two bombs in suit cases left by Jewish Irgun terrorists. No casualties.
1947
July 12
Jewish Irgun terrorists kidnap and then hang two British Army sergeants. The terrorists were trying to secure the release of three Irgun members who had been sentenced to death by the British authorities in Palestine.
September 29
Jewish Irgun terrorists bomb police station in Haifa, Palestine, killing four British and four Arab policemen, as well as two Arab civilians. Forty six people injured.
December 12
Twenty Arabs, five Jews and two British soldiers killed and thirty wounded in Jewish terrorist bomb attacks on buses in Haifa and Ramleh, Palestine. British mandate to rule Palestine ends on 15 May 1948; state of Israel established
December 29
Jewish Irgun terrorists throw grenades from passing taxi into café near the Damascus gate, Jerusalem, Palestine, killing eleven Arabs and two British policemen.
1948
April 9
Jewish Irgun terrorist group attacks Deir Yassim, Palestine, murdering two hundred and fifty four Arab women and children captured in the remains of the village.
September 17
United Nations mediator in Palestine, Swedish Count Folke Bernadotte, murdered by Jewish Stern gang extremist in Jerusalem, Palestine, who fired at point blank range through window of his official car
From Washington report:
“…Mr. Netanyahu also employs a double-standard on terrorism. While he talks tough about Muslim terrorists, he praises Jewish terrorist groups like Yitzhak Shamir’s Lehi (Stern Gang) and Menachem Begin’s Irgun Zvai Leumi, which together were responsible for terrorist attacks against the British, including both the bombing of the King David Hotel and the hanging of kidnapped British soldiers, and against the Palestinians, including the massacre of the men, women and children of the village of Deir Yassin, during the first half of this century. He credits this network of “Jewish underground movements” for the British departure from Palestine and the U.S.-backed U.N. resolution that led to the creation of Israel in 1948…”
I am not sure why what happened 50 years ago would be relevant to judging what people are doing today. Every country has done things in its history which would be wrong today but we judge them on what they are doing today, not what they did long ago.
At any rate, this thread is about the FUN endorsing terrorism or not.
Here’s the resolution from the OP as shown in the UN web site. The vote and the date make it clear that this is the right one. http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.RES.2002.8.En?Opendocument
As written here, the resolution says
This clause does not mention violence and does not include the words, “by all available means.”
Those words “by all available means” had been in the draft resolution. The posting of the actual resolution was delayed.
So are you going to admit your OP was wrong when you said the FUN exdorses terrorism? Or is that too much to ask?
Yep. If this is an accurate version of what was voted on, there is no endorsement of terrorism, contrary to the National Post article quoted in the OP.
Note that the words, “by all available means” were in the draft, but are not a part of the final resolution as shown on the UN web site.
I guess I should be grateful to be alive because once in DC I got a traffic ticket for making a U-turn which I believed was not a U-turn at all as I had turned onto another street. I told the cop I would fight that ticket “by all available means” and I guess he would be justified in taking that as a terrorist threat and shooting me on the spot.
And we we go by what politicians in DC have proposed we could have some fun but I guess you would agree what some looney proposes is not a reflection of the USA as a whole.
december, next time you see a piece of news that seems incredibly shocking and unbelieveable, maybe you could, y’know, hunt around for collaboration before running hysterical hyperventilating to the Pit or to GD. Especially if the news is from a source which isn’t noted for its level-headed objectivity. Whaddya say?
err, corroboration. Dammit.
I wrote to the National Post, questioning their article’s accuracy. (That is, the article quoted in the OP)
Here’s their response.
Is the National Post’s explanation correct? Well, the CHR resolution includes
And, that GA resolution says,
So, in a roundabout way, it appears that the HRC did authorize “all available means including armed struggle.”
This explanation also refutes Sua Sponte’s point. The National Post weren’t being tricky when they quoted the 1982 resolution. They were appropriately quoting it because it was embodied within the 2002 resolution.
I herebv withdraw apologies on this thread. The UN HRC did endorse the use of all available means including armed struggle by the Palestinians. Furthermore, so did the General Assembly (20 years ago.)
And, aside from that point, the resolution was virtually propaganda, in that it ignored the suicide bombings, the shells being fired from Lebanon and all other attacks on Israel, which preciptated Israel’s response. If the UN had it’s way, the State of Israel would change its name to the State of Punching Bag.
[sub]perhaps with a capital called Punching Bagdad. [/sub]
december, if “armed struggle” equals “terrorism” in your mind, the biggest terrorist country in the world today would be the USA as it is the major user of armed force. It so happens this is the view of the enemies of the US. Are you telling me you agree with them?
One could interpret the phrase, “all available means including armed struggle,” to include Palestinian terrorism, because: [list=1]
[li]The bombing of civilians for the purpose of causing terror is the means the Palestinians are actually using.[/li][li]The HRC resolution did not note nor object to the suicide bombings. By ignoring suicide bombings, the resolution appears to have condoned them.[/li][/list=1]
and the phrase also could include biological warfare and nuclear warfare as well, since of course, it didn’t specify that it didn’t.
Is this sarcasm? If so, it ignores point #1-- terrorism is what the Palestinians have been doing.
E.g., if right after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, some organizaton had endorsed all available means against Japan, wouldn’t you think they meant that more atomic bombs would be OK? Especially if their resolution said nothing against the use of atomic bombs.
If you’re serious, then perhaps you agree that this is an inappropriate message to come from the UN.
I interpret the UN’s resolution to indicate that the Palestinians have a right to use ‘all available means including armed struggle’. (IOW, I’m not substituting words in their declaration).
Since the suicide bombings specifically involve civilian targets, I do **not[/]b make the assumption that the UN is sanctioning those, since bombings of civilian targets is traditionally always a ‘no-no’ to the UN.
I would change that stance when/if the UN specified ‘including use of means directed at primarily civilian targets’ but I won’t be holding my breath.