The UN responsible for WTC?

[Guest $iLk]

This thread I believe will evolve into a why do we need it what good is it for debate. But I would like to start it off with this bit of news picked up on by Neil Boortz:

quote:

---

ANOTHER REASON TO SHUT DOWN THE UN.

Do you remember a piece I wrote in Nealz Nuze in November of 1999 about Hillary Clinton's defense of some Black Panther murderers in 1960's? It's been making the rounds in email ever since but falsely attributed to Paul Harvey.

Well  heres another Boortz rest of the story bit that may get you worked up.

We go back to 1986. An Israeli bus explodes  many killed. Israel tracks down the killer and arrests him.

ThereÔÇÖs a trial, and the bomber is sent to an Israeli prison ÔÇô for what we might call an extended stay.

Soon after the killer is packed away to the Tel Aviv Extended Stay Islamist Motel the Israelis sign a little agreement in Oslo, Norway. The agreement, reached with no small amount of assistance and pressure from the United Nations, is supposed to bring peace to the Middle East. This agreement called for the release of all "political prisoners." Now we get into a definition of what is and what is not a ÔÇ£political prisioner.ÔÇØ Remember, some people think that the Bundy Butcher, OJ Simpson, is a political prisioner.

Anway, Israel as a signer of that agreement, stated that any "political prisoners" who were directly responsible for deaths of Israelis would NOT be released. This didnÔÇÖt sit well with the UN and the rest of the world. Finally the UN pressured the Israelis to eventually release the bus bomber. They did.

The killer apparently kept his nose clean . Until September 11, 2001 at which time his nose became very bloody indeed.

His name? Well, maybe youÔÇÖve heard of him. His name was Mohammed Atta...the mastermind behind the WTC attacks.

---

The original article was written by Alan Caruba here.

Please read both articles. It came as a shock to me to read it.

So what do you guys think about this one?

[Epsilon 5]

The bus bomber wasn't a political prisoner! He was a terrorist, pure and simple.

[Guest $iLk]

Yet the UN defined him as a "political prisoner". The same UN that promotes state sponsors of terrorism to the Security council. The same UN that feeds off American dollars while slinging pro-Arab, anti-US, anti-Israel rhetoric back at us. The same UN that wants to form a global court that supercedes any national laws, a separate military force to pacify any non-globalist countries,and a one-world government under a socialist leader (like the USSR).

The same UN that was only meant to be a forum of peace and unity and has devolved into a government entity with aspirations of world domination under baby blue.

[Guest]

It is past time to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US!!!!

[Põdi]

I find it hard to believe they are one and the same.

I've heard nothing about this from any other news source, surely it would have cropped up soon after the attack?

Anyway, wouldn't he have been a young teenager in 1986? (not sure of his age though).

[Guest $iLk]

would have been in his 20's I believe. I think according to that article the Washington Post or Times has something on this too.

And do you really think you would hear anything from our PC Globalist News Networks?

If it's politically damaging to the Socialist cause you can expect to find it local level or on radio, maybe on fox news channel. Never on any liberal elitist news stations.

When is the last time you heard a self defense story with a private owned handgun on CNN?

As opposed to Gun Violence statistics and "gunmen" with "assault weapons" firing on "children"?

[ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: $iLk ]

[Epsilon 5]

You're changing the subjetc $iLk.

[Guest $iLk]

Actually I stated at the beginning this topic would evolve

My whole point is to reveal how the UN has evolved beyond what it was intended to be. The UN must be dismantled and a new organization must take it's place, one that tries to unify instead of govern.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

[Soback]

I think that US should have no ties with the UN and not let it influence it's laws and ways. Who the hell are they to tell other countries how to conduct their internal affairs or how to punish thier criminals or "international" criminals that have been caught in their country doing damage to THEIR country.

[Steve Schacher]

Here's what I think:

After we're done in Afghanistan, we should relocate all the survivors into temporary housing and then rebuild the flatland into a new modern city. This city should be named United Nations City and become the new home of the United Nations. Then the UN can relocate out of New York City and into a region that is centrally located between Europe, Asia, and Africa, in the heart of an historically troubled region.

Either do away with Afghanistan completely and divide the land amongst the bordering countries, or create a new international United Nations zone that is independent of any nation and occupies the former Afghanistan. Either way, the UN moves out of New York City.

Think of jobs for the people of Afghanistan. They can learn the construction business like Bin Laden did, or they can learn service-related skills to support the new businesses that will emerge. Bringing the UN to that region will offer a wealth of possibilities to the locals, as well as create a new "World Diplomatic Center" that is more easily accessible accessible to many people.

[Soback]

You gotta be kidding. UN is useless, and what's that guys name who got a Nobel peace award? First of all, what is a Nobel peace award? Second, have you ever heard what the guy is saying about this war, and his ideas? It makes me want to throw up, then $% him to death. Where do people like that come from, and where can they find jobs? Only in UN, so it has got to be completly separated from the US, and any other nation that is smart and knows what's good for itself will get the hell out of it. The whole thing is outdated, it was first created to protect Europe against Russia in case it decided to do like Germany did and expand, now it has outlived it's purpose and became this horendous organization with twisted ideas, and all it does is pushes those ideas down the throats of other countries, screwing them up in the long run. UN = eeeewwwwghhh.

[Steve Schacher]

Kofi Annan.

And, no, I'm not kidding. How many countries are there, about 190 or so? Annan is from Ghana. The UN is going to do what the UN will do, so let's get them out of the USA where they can do what they will do without the safe harbor of the United States to back them. Maybe if they were headquarted in Afghanistan, things would be different in the UN. I think the UN diplomats rather like the luxury of living in New York City. Maybe living in Kabul (or whatever would take its place), would be humbling.

Then New York can turn the United Nations building into low-rent housing for the homeless, or perhaps a new World Trade Center. Did you know that the United Nations building has its own submarine facility right there on the East River?

[Soback]

You know what. On the other hand, yes. Get them the the hell out of the country and be done with it. I am pretty sure that there are other people out there that hate them, and since they are out of US, then it's less protection for them and less resources if US stops supporting them. My opinion of them still stands, and that organization has become a menace, kinda like what enviromentalists have become. First they start out helping, but then seeing what they can do and how far they can go they get enveloped in their own power and it becomes progressively harder to get rid of them. You can apply this to almoust anything ex. terrorists, liberal lawyers, enviromentalists, peaceniks, liberals, government beurocrats, people who suck money out of our taxes without ever contributing anything so we have to pay more everytime. Ok, I think I am not going to read this thread for a while, I am getting all fired up.

Does anyone listen to Michael savage? It's radio station 560am here in bay area. If you guys can find it where you live, give it a try, just might change the way you look at life. http://srd.yahoo.com/srst/790036/560+ksfo/...ww.ksfo560.com/ Try to find "savage nation"

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Soback ]

[Põdi]

First of all, I don't watch CNN. They tend to jump to conclusions before all the facts are out.

Secondly, talk to most Brits about the EU and you'll get the same response as you guys about the UN.

Remember, it was the League of Nations which was partly responsible for the Israel/Palestine problem back in the 20s. So, in a way, the title of the thread is correct, though not in the way you think.

Hell, we're not even sure Mohammed Atta was his real name anyway.

[Menchise]

*sigh* Here I go again.

quote:

---

Yet the UN defined him as a "political prisoner".

---

I think I'll take a look at the Oslo Agreement before replying to this. Anyone have a URL?

quote:

---

The same UN that promotes state sponsors of terrorism to the Security council.

---

Syria was elected to the Security Council for a two year term by the General Assembly. How the member states vote is not the fault of the UN.

quote:

---

The same UN that feeds off American dollars while slinging pro-Arab, anti-US, anti-Israel rhetoric back at us.

---

You say that as if the US is funding the entire organization, which it is not (the US provides 25 percent of total UN funding). UN funding is determined by proportionate wealth in its membership. The USA holds the largest proportion of wealth among the member states, thus it is the biggest provider of UN funding (25 percent). This is done so that states with less wealth can still become members of the organization while providing as much funding as they can afford instead of a flat rate that they can't afford.

All member states are allowed to resign, so if you're not happy, I suggest you find out why the US is still a member.

quote:

---

The same UN that wants to form a global court that supercedes any national laws

---

You mean an international court that has the power to enforce international law.

quote:

---

a separate military force to pacify any non-globalist countries,and a one-world government under a socialist leader (like the USSR).

---

Show me a link to a UN proposal for world government, then I may not find it so hard to believe.

BTW, Socialists are also anti-UN, but for different reasons.

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: Menchise ]

[Supreme Cmdr]

While I have no doubt that the UN is largely USELESS, due to how the Middle Easterners tend to have similar and/or same names, there is a very strong possibility that they are different people.

Without conclusive evidence, this is just another one for hearsay.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Does anyone listen to Michael savage?

---

Michael Savage rules...

quote:

---

Syria was elected to the Security Council for a two year term by the General Assembly. How the member states vote is not the fault of the UN.

---

Why is a terrorist nation, for that matter a majority of the terrorist sponsoring nations members of the UN?

quote:

---

You say that as if the US is funding the entire organization, which it is not (the US provides 25 percent of total UN funding). UN funding is determined by proportionate wealth in its membership. The USA holds the largest proportion of wealth among the member states, thus it is the biggest provider of UN funding (25 percent). This is done so that states with less wealth can still become members of the organization while providing as much funding as they can afford instead of a flat rate that they can't afford.

All member states are allowed to resign, so if you're not happy, I suggest you find out why the US is still a member.

---

Most Americans I believe agree that we shouldn't be members. The reason we are probably has something to do with the worry of something like happened to Russia and China during Korea(?) where they walked out and weren't allowed to vote on some stupid resolution which they could have stopped and instead an attack was made on a communist country.

quote:

---

You mean an international court that has the power to enforce international law.

---

Why should the UN be able to supercede boundaries and administer law in a country? Aren't you aware of what the UN was meant to be? A forum for peace, not a governmental body.

What's to keep the UN from saying that guns are illegal, the US Constitution doesn't matter because the UN Charter says so and we have to give our guns over to the UN?

quote:

---

Show me a link to a UN proposal for world government, then I may not find it so hard to believe.

---

Look at their actions and tell me that they aren't wanting to rule over every country.

As for the UN...

Come get some!

[warren126692]

I THINK THE UN IS A PAIN TO,

BUT YOU NEED TO REMEMBER WHY IT WAS FORMED, [A LITTLE MONKEY NAMED ADOLPH HITLER] AND A BIG WAR. THE FIRST ONE [LEAUGE OF NATIONS] DID NOT WORK AT ALL AT LEAST THIS ONE IS HERE.

IF I REMBER RIGHT THE U.S. OWES THE UN SOMTHING LIKE 23.3 BILLION? AND WOULD NOT PAY UNTIL CORRUPTION IN THE UN WAS FIXED. THE MANAGEMENT IS GETTING 100,000 BUCKS A YEAR AND 3 COMPANY CARS EACH! i think so but dont quote me ok.

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THERE BUT IT NEEDS TO WORK RIGHT, WITH OUT ALL THIS YOU DO SOMETHING FOR ME AND I WILL PULL A DEAL CRAP.

THE UN NEEDS SOME MAJOR REFORMS BUT IF IT GOES WHAT WILL TAKE ITS PLACE AND WHAT WILL THE CONSEQUENCES BE?

WW3?

as to the bold print: opps had my caps key on

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: warreng ]

[Guest]

Please STOP SHOUTING!!!

The UN is a joke, it is now where little socialist dictators go to talk a bunch of garbage about the US and Israel and some others.

It is a dictatorial country club in which we pay the lions share!! We need to pull out of it and let it die it's death. Kick them out of the country and be done with it!!

And if WWIII breaks out, well, so be it!! But it is not going to happen. The naysayers will have no where to go to spread their propaganda. I think the world would be better off without it.

Nah, we would do JUST FINE without the UN, and it's antsy pantsy world court, world government dreams!!

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

THE MANAGEMENT IS GETTING 100,000 BUCKS A YEAR AND 3 COMPANY CARS EACH

---

Eh, our prime minister get like the equivalent of 170,000 us plus all the bonuses

[warren126692]

but thats a guy that runs a country, i am talking about some mid-level guy that tells 20 other people what to do!

and i think bush olny gets $200,000 a year??

dang, i wish i got $100,000 grand a year!

jease my spelling sucks!

[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: warreng ]

[Põdi]

quote:

---

cuntry

---

That's probably one of the more unfortunate typos I've seen recently.

[Unknown_Enemy]

I just cannot believe some of the posts I just read.

First for the UN : it is a neutral ground where country can negociate. Whatever it is called, there is a strong need for such an organisation. The corruption in it is just another problem.

Then for the terrorist guys. I was delighted to see somewhere in this forum a post with a link to the English mandate in palestine, just after WW2.

My grand-father's name was Arhur Middleton(also!), he was an officier in the british army sent to this country. Ten years ago he was still telling me about this dirty war, how some british soldiers were captured, executed and their corpse bobby trapped . How some random killing were done versus the arab population. How some bombing were done versus civilian buildings. All that by Israelian terrorists.

(email me if you need verification details, I will send you the more complete story about my grandfather)

Do that remind you ANYTHING ?

These cold blooded murderers are now chief of state, or first ministers because they won their war. They are now "liberation heroes". And after creation of Israel, UK did not bomb their leaders.

How would USA feel if Taleebans win their war against USA then appoint Ben laden as first minister following a democratic process ?

I am going to tell you : you would feel disgusted. You would feel even more anger. And there would be very little that could be done.

So think about this, remember our history before writing everywhere that taleebans should be nuclear bombed.

At last but not last, the fact that I despite Israel's choice of leaders doesn't means that I do not respect their choice. And I also fully recognize this state as the only democracy in middle east. But you WILL NOT have me agreeing with this state's doings.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

Why should the UN be able to supercede boundaries and administer law in a country? Aren't you aware of what the UN was meant to be? A forum for peace, not a governmental body.

What's to keep the UN from saying that guns are illegal, the US Constitution doesn't matter because the UN Charter says so and we have to give our guns over to the UN?

---

International laws are not imposed, they're agreed upon by a majority of members. In order for any UN proposal to become international law, it needs to be ratified by at least two thirds of the General Assembly.

Secondly, the UN was always meant to be much more than just a peace forum.

[Guest $iLk]

This majority BS is what is the fallacy in most of your arguments Menchise. Just because 51% agrees on one thing, lets say... banning guns. And the other 49% don't, yet they are armed, (i.e. have the ability to forward their own policy), it doesn't make it right (or smart in that case ) to try and force the minority to do something they don't want to do.

If every single United Nations member, except the US voted to ban guns worldwide, then what's to keep them from attempting to impose that on the US?

Like I said, the UN is trying to become a world government, which wasn't it's founding intention. It's intention was to "keep the peace" between the US and Russia.

The UN of today is nothing but an overgrown government entity that encroaches on liberty, and is a forum for all the harpers against America to congregate.

The UN should be reformed perhaps to remove it's fangs? We should take all legal governing ability away from the UN and use it as a charitable organization and forum for peace.