Europe submits voluntarily

[Loren Pechtel]

To some degree they are. They have a common objective--a caliphate. Where they disagree is what flavor of Islam should be running that caliphate. That makes them something akin to allies.

Sure some want a Caliphate but their views are so disparate they will end up fighting each other. Then they could blame the Jews for stirring this up. Why not? The Jews are blamed for everything.

The Jews make a good EastAsia.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In history the claliph was the ruler of many states or empires which were called Caliphates.

I know that. But in this context we're talking about a Caliphate as a unified global power - something that has existed a few times throughout history but is completely implausible in today's world.

A caliphate is just another word for "empire". An empire led by a Muslim ruler. And like all successful empire models a caliphate isn't only for the faithful. An Islamic caliphate accepts anybody by "the book". Which is politician-talk for we don't really give a shit about the religion we're pretending to represent. Just like any empire sporting any religion. I think it's silly to give this word any other connotation. It's like "satrap". It's the ancient Persian name for "king". A satrapy is a kingdom. Today we usually refer to ancient Persian satraps as kings, because of it's less confusing. I suggest we do the same for caliphate. There's nothing special about an Islamic empire that sets it apart from any other.

Historically, what makes Muslim empires different from, let's say Christian empires is just the geography. Control a couple of rivers and the entire region under your control. This made Middle-Eastern empires quickly rich, powerful and internally peaceful in a way Europeans could just gape in awe at. European/Christian attempts at empire haven't worked that well just because of the fractured landscape. It's just been too hard to stamp out all resistance. That's not to say that Christians haven't tried building empire. China is another good example. Control a couple of rivers and you have an effective choke hold on the lot. But this was back in the day before cars, planes and the Internet. It's only getting increasingly difficult to choke out an enemy. This makes the idea of an empire in the traditional sense, idiotic. Of course there won't be any new caliphate. That way of organising society is long gone today. Today we build empires via consensus, UN, EU, NAFTA, ASEAN and so on.

I doubt ISIS are so incredibly dumb they don't understand this. I think more likely it's just a propaganda tool. They think it sounds cool to say. And that's the extent of it. That's what I think anyway.

 

[angelo]

Has anyone ever noticed the membership of the UN? It seems to be dominated by the Arab world. Why, Saudi Arabia has the chair on human rights for gawds sake!

 

[bilby]

Has anyone ever noticed the membership of the UN? It seems to be dominated by the Arab world. Why, Saudi Arabia has the chair on human rights for gawds sake!

Yup; this map from Wikipedia shows clearly that the Arab world dominates:

Map of the United Nations (UN) member states, with their territories (including dependent territories) recognized by the UN in blue

Hardly a trace of blue outside the Arab world.

Of course, not all members of the UN are equal; the five permanent members of the security council are mostly Arab nations: The USA, Russia, China, France and The UK. So basically, all Arab.

There are ten non-permanent members of the security council; the current list is dominated by Arabs:

Japan, Malaysia, Uruguay, Venezuela, New Zealand, Spain, Ukraine, Senegal, Angola and Egypt.

Clearly the Egyptian presence as a non-veto member of a fifteen member council gives them a dominant position.

The UN Economic and Social Council has 54 members, one of whom, Iraq, is an Arab nation. Terrifying

Only someone who was woefully ill-informed, or had a paranoid fear of Arabs, or both, could possibly imagine that the UN is 'dominated by the Arab world'.

Don't you ever feel embarrassed about posting statements that are easily shown to be false? What can you possibly hope to gain by it? Do you think people won't check; or are you such a believer in your bullshit that you don't feel the need to check for yourself before posting?

And please can you stop posting stuff without first at least checking against Wikipedia to see if what you plan to say is even vaguely related to the truth?

This is becoming painful to watch.

 

[untermensche]

Has anyone ever noticed the membership of the UN? It seems to be dominated by the Arab world. Why, Saudi Arabia has the chair on human rights for gawds sake!

Prejudice distorts the world. As the previous post shows, this is insanity.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yup; this map from Wikipedia shows clearly that the Arab world dominates:

View attachment 5475

Map of the United Nations (UN) member states, with their territories (including dependent territories) recognized by the UN in blue

Hardly a trace of blue outside the Arab world.

Of course, not all members of the UN are equal; the five permanent members of the security council are mostly Arab nations: The USA, Russia, China, France and The UK. So basically, all Arab.

There are ten non-permanent members of the security council; the current list is dominated by Arabs:

Japan, Malaysia, Uruguay, Venezuela, New Zealand, Spain, Ukraine, Senegal, Angola and Egypt.

Clearly the Egyptian presence as a non-veto member of a fifteen member council gives them a dominant position.

The UN Economic and Social Council has 54 members, one of whom, Iraq, is an Arab nation. Terrifying

Only someone who was woefully ill-informed, or had a paranoid fear of Arabs, or both, could possibly imagine that the UN is 'dominated by the Arab world'.

Don't you ever feel embarrassed about posting statements that are easily shown to be false? What can you possibly hope to gain by it? Do you think people won't check; or are you such a believer in your bullshit that you don't feel the need to check for yourself before posting?

And please can you stop posting stuff without first at least checking against Wikipedia to see if what you plan to say is even vaguely related to the truth?

This is becoming painful to watch.

Wikileaks suggests that there was a secret between Britain and Saudi Arabia


http://www.mintpressnews.com/wikile...udi-arabia-on-un-human-rights-council/210117/

Two years after the controversial appointment of Saudi Arabia to the UN Human Rights Council, leaked diplomatic cables have revealed the UK was a key player in the election of the Gulf State ─ despite the Saudis’ appalling human rights record.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) is tasked with the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world. What’s remarkably under-reported (yet unsurprising) is the claim that notorious human rights abuser, Saudi Arabia, pledged $1 million to UNHRC prior to winning the blood-stained seat.

What is surprising is the next chapter in the farcical saga.

In a classic case of you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours, the leaked cables ─ translated by UN Watch ─ allege that a secret vote trading deal was made by Britain and Saudi Arabia to ensure both countries were elected to the council.

Passed to Wikileaks in June, the classified files refer to Saudi talks with British diplomats prior to the November 2013 vote in New York.END OF QUOTE

The information is however somewhat nonspecific enough to form any views until some clear documents could be seen

Even though Saudi has at least been constant on its stance regarding human rights and it seems Britain has not yet lost its colonialist characteristics, this appointment regardless of the situation seems farcical at best.

 

[4321lynx]

Two years after the controversial appointment of Saudi Arabia to the UN Human Rights Council, leaked diplomatic cables have revealed the UK was a key player in the election of the Gulf State ─ despite the Saudis’ appalling human rights record.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHCR) is tasked with the promotion and protection of human rights throughout the world. What’s remarkably under-reported (yet unsurprising) is the claim that notorious human rights abuser, Saudi Arabia, pledged $1 million to UNHRC prior to winning the blood-stained seat.

What is surprising is the next chapter in the farcical saga.

In a classic case of you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours, the leaked cables ─ translated by UN Watch ─ allege that a secret vote trading deal was made by Britain and Saudi Arabia to ensure both countries were elected to the council.

Passed to Wikileaks in June, the classified files refer to Saudi talks with British diplomats prior to the November 2013 vote in New York.END OF QUOTE

The information is however somewhat nonspecific enough to form any views until some clear documents could be seen

Even though Saudi has at least been constant on its stance regarding human rights and it seems Britain has not yet lost its colonialist characteristics, this appointment regardless of the situation seems farcical at best.

"Human rights" are pretty cheap if you can buy and sell them, or part of them, at $1 million. But the Wahhabi Islamists probably don't consider you human if you're not one of them or one of their allies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Wahhabi mission, or Dawah Wahhabiyya, is to spread purified Islam through the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim. [240] Tens of billions of dollars have been spent by the Saudi government and charities on mosques, schools, education materials, scholarships, throughout the world to promote Islam and the Wahhabi interpretation of it. Tens of thousands of volunteers[171] and several billion dollars also went in support of the jihad against the atheist communist regime governing Muslim Afghanistan.

 

[Frikki]

Sure some want a Caliphate but their views are so disparate they will end up fighting each other. Then they could blame the Jews for stirring this up. Why not? The Jews are blamed for everything.

The Jews make a good EastAsia.

Says the man who is perpetually rock hard when it comes to killing muslims.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The Jews make a good EastAsia.

Says the man who is perpetually rock hard when it comes to killing muslims.

There are two different things; the conflict in the Middle East and East Asia (including China, Korea, Taiwan Japan and Mongolia). In general the Jews have brought about innovation, great thinkers scientists and a high proportion of achievers who have benefited the community as well as their own. The Middle East conflict remains unresolved due to extremists from both sides.

 

[whichphilosophy]

"Human rights" are pretty cheap if you can buy and sell them, or part of them, at $1 million. But the Wahhabi Islamists probably don't consider you human if you're not one of them or one of their allies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

Wahhabi mission, or Dawah Wahhabiyya, is to spread purified Islam through the world, both Muslim and non-Muslim. [240] Tens of billions of dollars have been spent by the Saudi government and charities on mosques, schools, education materials, scholarships, throughout the world to promote Islam and the Wahhabi interpretation of it. Tens of thousands of volunteers[171] and several billion dollars also went in support of the jihad against the atheist communist regime governing Muslim Afghanistan.

The Royal governing structure, certaintly does not allow the treatment of humans as humans in many cases as reflected in its jurisprudence. Therefore teaching human rights is rather like teaching the concepts of sex to a virgin.

 

[angelo]

UN apologists seem to forget that one of this political org main concerns is the constant attacks on the only Jewish state on the planet.

 

[bigfield]

UN apologists seem to forget that one of this political org main concerns is the constant attacks on the only Jewish state on the planet.

More delusions.

 

[untermensche]

UN apologists seem to forget that one of this political org main concerns is the constant attacks on the only Jewish state on the planet.

One too many.

There should be no religious states.

 

[bilby]

UN apologists seem to forget that one of this political org main concerns is the constant attacks on the only Jewish state on the planet.

Then it seems rather odd that the words 'Jew', 'Jewish' and 'Israel' don't appear once on their homepage. https://www.un.org/en/index.html

Today's headlines on that page:

Security Council delegation visits Burundi in diplomatic push to end months of political tension
UN Economic and Social Council marks 70th anniversary, cites 'Central role' in achieving sustainable development
The week in review (17-22 January 2016) - Featuring hunger in CAR, rising global unemployment, and refugee children facing winter weather

In Focus: Holocaust Remembrance Day (27 January)

The 2016 theme “The Holocaust and Human Dignity” links Holocaust remembrance with the founding principles of the United Nations and reaffirms faith in the dignity and worth of every person that is highlighted in the United Nations Charter, as well as the right to live free from discrimination and with equal protection under the law that is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There is also a story about some TV chefs being appointed as UNDP Goodwill Ambassadors to work closely with the Sustainable Development Goals Fund (SDG-F); and and article about the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

The only story that has any connection (however tenuous) to Judaism and/or the state of Israel is a remembrance of the Holocaust - Hardly what one would expect from an organisation one of whose "main concerns is the constant attacks on the only Jewish state on the planet" - unless you are implying that the UN finds any such attacks on the only Jewish state to be of concern.

It's almost as though they have many other, far more pressing concerns, and really don't conform to your paranoid delusions at all.

As I asked before:

Don't you ever feel embarrassed about posting statements that are easily shown to be false? What can you possibly hope to gain by it? Do you think people won't check; or are you such a believer in your bullshit that you don't feel the need to check for yourself before posting?

And please can you stop posting stuff without first at least checking against Wikipedia to see if what you plan to say is even vaguely related to the truth?

This is becoming painful to watch.

If you want to know about an organisation's main concerns, a glance at their website would be a good place to start...

 

[angelo]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-a-popular-target-for-critique-in-un-debate/

 

[bilby]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-a-popular-target-for-critique-in-un-debate/

That article does not say, nor imply, that one of the UN's "main concerns is the constant attacks on the only Jewish state on the planet".

Even if it did, a newspaper article from a publication with a clear agenda is hardly a sound source of unbiased information.

But it doesn't; All it says is that Arab nations, and some of their historical supporters (but notably NOT others) have continued to exercise their right to spout rhetoric on the subject of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict at General Assembly meetings - something that they have been doing for decades.

You might as well declare the New South Wales Parliament as having the elimination of rights for homosexuals as one of their main concerns, on the basis of a newspaper article reporting a speech in the NSW Parliament by Fred Nile.

That article does NOT excuse you from making fundamentally false statements; Nor do you have the (poor) excuse that you are just parroting what the article says, as it does not go anywhere near to making the blatantly false claim you made, regarding the 'main concern' of the UN.

Apparently Israel is the main concern of The Times of Israel; A fact which should surprise nobody.

 

[bigfield]

Then it seems rather odd that the words 'Jew', 'Jewish' and 'Israel' don't appear once on their homepage. https://www.un.org/en/index.html

Today's headlines on that page:

Security Council delegation visits Burundi in diplomatic push to end months of political tension
UN Economic and Social Council marks 70th anniversary, cites 'Central role' in achieving sustainable development
The week in review (17-22 January 2016) - Featuring hunger in CAR, rising global unemployment, and refugee children facing winter weather

In Focus: Holocaust Remembrance Day (27 January)

The 2016 theme “The Holocaust and Human Dignity” links Holocaust remembrance with the founding principles of the United Nations and reaffirms faith in the dignity and worth of every person that is highlighted in the United Nations Charter, as well as the right to live free from discrimination and with equal protection under the law that is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

There is also a story about some TV chefs being appointed as UNDP Goodwill Ambassadors to work closely with the Sustainable Development Goals Fund (SDG-F); and and article about the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).

The only story that has any connection (however tenuous) to Judaism and/or the state of Israel is a remembrance of the Holocaust - Hardly what one would expect from an organisation one of whose "main concerns is the constant attacks on the only Jewish state on the planet" - unless you are implying that the UN finds any such attacks on the only Jewish state to be of concern.

It's almost as though they have many other, far more pressing concerns, and really don't conform to your paranoid delusions at all.

As I asked before:

Don't you ever feel embarrassed about posting statements that are easily shown to be false? What can you possibly hope to gain by it? Do you think people won't check; or are you such a believer in your bullshit that you don't feel the need to check for yourself before posting?

And please can you stop posting stuff without first at least checking against Wikipedia to see if what you plan to say is even vaguely related to the truth?

This is becoming painful to watch.

If you want to know about an organisation's main concerns, a glance at their website would be a good place to start...

The super-secret Islamofascist secret society that secretly controls the UN is not going to publish their secret plan for Israeli annihilation on the UN homepage. We must rely on intrepid investigative journalists to expose these plans on their blogs.

 

[angelo]

UN apologists seem to forget that one of this political org main concerns is the constant attacks on the only Jewish state on the planet.

One too many.

There should be no religious states.

You're being sarcastic right? Israel is the only democracy where one is free to practice any religion, in a sea of islamic states where any other religion except islam is tolerated.

 

[whichphilosophy]

UN apologists seem to forget that one of this political org main concerns is the constant attacks on the only Jewish state on the planet.

One too many.

There should be no religious states.

In the event of peace Israel will have a lot to offer to the Arab world in terms of modern farming techniques, IT, electronics, Medicine and so forth. Despite its treatment of Palestinians it is essentially a democracy.

 

[angelo]

The only democracy in a sea of theocracies.