I can’t believe anyone is seriously disagreeing that this resolution supports terrorism. In this case, December (who I’ve had my share of disagreements with in the past) is exactly correct.
The Mafia (at least the fictional romanticized mafia of the past) is noted for killing potential witnesses against it. If a mafio boss tells one of his underlings “hey, Joey, make sure that Frankie doesn’t testify against us. Use whatever means are available”, it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t intend Joey to poison the water supply of an entire county and kill 50,000 people. If I claim that I am going to fight a traffic ticket “by whatever means are available”, that doesn’t imply that I will singlehandedly organize an anarchistic overthrow of the US government. And when the Palestinians habitually use suicide bombing against civilian targets and the UN endorses their struggle “by whatever means”, that is a CLEAR endorsement of suicide bombing against civilian targets. I can not believe anyone woul ddisagree with that point. (Although of course the issues is muddled by the unclear wording of the resolution).
Look, the interpretation that those words are a direct support of terrorism is pretty twisted to begin with. Now, If that was signed by Iraq, Libya and North Korea I might consider there’s something to it. But to say “fucking Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden” have any intention of implying terrorism against civilians may be justified you have to be a fucking idiot and a fucking ignorant idiot at that.
Max, are you seriously comparing the UN to the Mafia?
you’re suggesting that they’re talking in code? When has the UN ever done anything than outrightly condemn intentional civilian deaths? why in the world would you or anyone else decide that this time, their word usage goes against their entire history?
And when have fucking Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden done anything than outrightly condemn intentional civilian deaths? But december, in his immense ignorance, has decided there’s no room for opinion here. Either European countries are 100% pro-American and 100% pro-Israel or they are aiding and abetting terrorists. No room for their own opinion. He started a thread saying Spain was supporting terrorism because they expressed some reservations about handing terrorists to the USA if they would be subject to military tribunals and/or the death penalty. That earned Spain a tirade from december who is fucking ignorant that the USA has been using military bases in Spain during this conflict, that Spain has cooperated fully in many ways, including sending soldiers to Afghanistan and arresting more than 20 Al Qaeda terrorists in Spain. President Aznar who is presiding the European Union this semester speaks against terrorism almost daily and has offered his support to the USA on behalf of the EU many times. But now december has decided Europe is guilty of supporting terrorism because he is strentching the meaning of those words to mean what he should know European countries would never endorse. It is an insult to those countries. december you are an embarrasment to your country and not helpful. People like you alienate other countries who are America’s alies. So if you are feeling patriotic and want to do your country a favor I would recommend you shut the fuck up for a while until you become more versed in European affairs.
I support Israel in their struggle but that does not mean I am going to blindly endorse them if they do or have done wrongs. European countries feel Palestinians have been wronged by Israel, a view which I do not share, but let’s grow the fuck up, that does not mean Europe is supporting terrorists. If it seems to you everyone and anyone who disagrees to the slightest degree with you or your country is endorsing terrorism then you are just making enemies for your country of those who would be friends.
Sailor: further to your post I am getting the feeling that the open-minded, intelligent people of SDMB - whatever their political leanings - are increasingly wasting their time responding to december. There are plenty of other pro-Israeli posters who put forward much more compelling, interesting and relevant arguments to support their case than he/she/it does. I prefer to see them as representative of their case/country rather than december and thus more worth our time to debate with.
This thread was meant to blast a particular UN resolution for not living up to the UN’s principles – or not living up to what I think their principles ought to be.
sailor and wring – I accept the fact that you and I may interpret this resolution differently. Even under your interpretation, I find the resolution terrible. E.g., it ignores the suicide bombings.
istara – Do you have a particular point on which you disagree with me?
POWER_station, you might want to read my posts before you form an opinion. You might want to search the threads about Jenin and about military tribunals and see what I had to say. Then you might want to shut up.
december, trying to reason with you is a waste of time. The UN has a long track record of condemning violence against innocent civilians and for you to say now they endorse it because the did not mention it in one of their resolutions is just plain ludicrous. It is the equivalent of taking one phrase out of context for the purpose of maing the talker say the opposite of what you know he means and thinks. It is a shameful thing for you to do.
Furthermore. If I have to choose between the phrases “the fucking UN endorses terrorism” and “the fucking US endorses and promotes and supports terrorism” I can assure you there is much more evidence to support the latter and no one here is saying the US is an evil country which ought to be condemned wholesale. The US is a country with its limitations and errors which may need to be addressed but to disqualify it on account of a few bad things without taking account all the good things is just plain stupid. And yet, that is what you are doing again and again: attacking Europe like they are the main enemy of the US.
What is truly sad is that in Europe there are people who are the exact mirror image of you: ignorant people who put down America at every turn looking for all the bad and never finding any of the good. They (and you) would do well to shut up for a while so more enlightened people can have their say.
Indeed they do. That’s exactly why I found this particular resolution so shocking.
I don’t think it was out of context. What is your basis for saying so?
As I see it, the HRC resolution condemned Israeli military actions but ignored the suicide bombings which provoked those actions. Do you think it would be out of context to address both of these in the same resolution?
Well, you don’t have to make that choice. You can judge each entity on its merits.
Wait a minute. There are some insults too great even for the Pit.
december : Your OP/Title = “UN Endorses terrorism”
your evidence = "While constructing a resolution, they did not include the statement ‘and, by the way, we still do not condone in any way the intentional killing of civilians’ "
YOu’ll have to wait a while for my response, the convoy of trucks carrying :rolleyes: got delayed.
I don’t know why anyone is even surprised any more.
December seems to act almost entirely on a “post first, check facts later” basis. How many times now have we seen threads from him lambasting Europe/the UN/any non US group for their supposed behaviour, only for him to have to retract his position. Hell, this is almost an exact replay of his “France supports terrorism” thread from a couple of months back (where as I recall, Sailor managed again to finally beat a retraction out of him)
December - I have only one question. Have you travelled much?
I admit that the OP was based on a single newspaper article. As it turns out, subsequent checking has verified that the resolution in question did indeed endorse terrorism, under a reasonable interpretation.
No doubt one could interpret the resolution differently. Something created by a committee is apt to be ambiguous. Maybe the thread should have been titled more precisely as:* “Fucking UN arguably endorses terrorism.”*
Still. I was shocked to learn that a UN panel had passed a resolution that can be read as an endorsement of terrorism. Is this UN resolution really OK with the rest of you?
I don’t know why that’s relevant. The answer is yes. I’ve been in a good bit of the US, as well as most of the European countries, Canada, Mexico, Russia, China, Israel, and Australia. I even visited East Germany in 1960, shortly after the Berlin Wall was erected – an experience that ended my respect for communism.
Oh yeah, I am sure that was quite the intent of those countries when they signed it. The very clearly wanted it to “condone” terrorism. I believe they have a secret plan. You see, Europe is on the brink of disaster. The whole European Union thing has been a huge failure and they can’t find a way out of it. So they have a secret plan which is to side with terrorists so the USA will invade Europe and then rebuild it again. That’s why they’re doing it. I got it from the horse’s mouth.
Oh yeah, I am sure that was quite the intent of those countries when they signed it. The very clearly wanted it to “condone” terrorism. I believe they have a secret plan. You see, Europe is on the brink of disaster. The whole European Union thing has been a huge failure and they can’t find a way out of it. So they have a secret plan which is to side with terrorists so the USA will invade Europe and then rebuild it again. That’s why they’re doing it. I got it from the horse’s mouth.
