digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

UN Passes Resolution making it ILLEGAL to criticize Islam!

blogs.telegraph.co.uk — The UN, supposedly the great defender of human rights, has passed a resolution making it illegal for anyone, anywhere, to criticize Islam, let alone Islamic human rights abuses! We need to get out of the UN NOW!!!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DreadPirate, on 01/01/2008, -72/+96Thank liberal moral relativism for this insanity.
    • geekchic, on 01/01/2008, -14/+31The UN is just the sum pf its parts - and those parts are soverign nations. It is a talking shop with no legal powers to force you to do anything.

      A vote by the UN, is a vote by those nations - so if the nations of the world vote in a direction, then the UN is ordered by them to comply. Those same nations can then choose to ignore the vote that they themselves supported.

      Please don't blame the UN - and blame (if blame is the correct term) the soverign nations which voted to tell the UN what to do in this situation.
      • Archimboldo, on 01/01/2008, -3/+7Take a look at the map and see what comprises the 194 nations of the world. 'Nuff said.
    • ckhw2, on 01/01/2008, -13/+7But... but... wouldn't there be world peace if we all just obeyed the UN.
    • pimpofpixels, on 01/01/2008, -10/+14Yeah... Blame the liberals for encouraging religious tolerance.
      • Zaxcomp, on 01/01/2008, -6/+8You mean encouraging letting people justify restricting human rights due to belief in an invisible pink unicorn?
        • CiXeL, on 01/01/2008, -2/+11funny i dont know many liberals who would agree with this idea of making it illegal to criticize islam. the liberal/conservative labels are old and worn. they are so diluted that they mean different things to different people now. focus on what is right and what is wrong.
          • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -7/+1there is no right and there is no wrong. only moral relativism and deceptive language.
        • hipnerd, on 01/01/2008, -3/+61. The resolution does not make it illegal to criticize Islam. Instead, it encourages tolerance and understanding between religions.
          2. Most terrorist acts are of a political nature, although the terrorists often attempt to use religion to justify their actions. The bloodshed in Iraq is fighting for political control of the country. Al Queda was formed to pressure the U.S. to leave our military bases is Saudi Arabia. The attempted genocide in Serbia was based on ethnicity/religion -- but that was Christians killing Muslims, so we don't talk about that one.

          The U.N. is using what influence it has to attempt to steer the conversation away from inflammatory religious rhetoric and towards solving the underlying political causes of the conflicts. But it helps zealots on both sides of any fight to inflame their followers with religious hatred of the enemy...

          ...and that's exactly what the ***** who wrote this propaganda is trying to do.

      • StealthTomato, on 01/01/2008, -4/+2Religious tolerance? Like how they've stopped the killing of Christians in Sudan? Or Indonesia?

        Here they say that you cannot even SAY something critical about Islam, and yet they do nothing when Muslims routinely kill Christians and Jews.

        How is that tolerant? If anything, it's further religious INTOLERANCE, because they are saying they tolerate no religion but Islam.
        • pimpofpixels, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2Another angry post from someone who obviously didn't bother to read the resolution.
    • mille716, on 01/01/2008, -1/+19Congrats on having the first knee-jerk comment, deadpirate. Had you actually read the blog (it wasn't even an article) or better yet, the actual resolution, you'd have seen that it doesn't make anything illegal. It just says all countries should be urged to promote religious tolerance to religious minorities in their country. What's insane about that?
    • masgrada, on 01/01/2008, -4/+4Liberal? WTF? You're an idiot.
    • tazx, on 01/01/2008, -2/+81. UN Resolutions don't "make things illegal". It's up to individual nations to ratify treaties in their own legal systems.

      2. This has nothing to do with preventing *criticism*. It's a resolution in support of human rights and equal treatment.

      http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbo ...

      "Recalling that all States have pledged themselves, under the Charter of the United Nations, to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,"

      "Reaffirming that discrimination against human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations,"

      "Alarmed at the continuing negative impact of the events of 11 September 2001 on Muslim minorities and communities in some non-Muslim countries and the negative projection of Islam in media, and the introduction and enforcement of laws that specifically discriminate against and target Muslims,

      Recognizing the need to promote tolerance, understanding among different cultures and mutual appreciation of cultural and religious values for world peace, social justice and friendship among people,

      Recognizing the valuable contributions of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make to an improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

      Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights of their adherents,

      Recognizing the incompatibility of defamation of religions and cultures with the objectives of a truly globalized world and the promotion and maintenance of international peace and security,

      Alarmed at the serious instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence based on religion or belief, intimidation and coercion motivated by extremism, religious or otherwise, occurring in many parts of the world and threatening the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

      Stressing the need to recognize and appreciate religious and cultural diversity and differences in perception and values,

      Underlining the importance of creating conditions to foster greater harmony and tolerance within and among societies and conscious of the importance of education in ensuring tolerance of and respect for religion and belief,"

      "Urges all States, within their national legal framework, in conformity with international human rights instruments, to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, including attacks on religious places, and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief;"


      3. This isn't "moral relativism". Most Muslims are not terrorists. If you believe in free societies and freedom of religion (not just your own), then you must accept that people have a right to be Muslim. This resolution is condemning racist attitudes towards muslims; not saying terrorism is ok.
  • foopirata, on 01/01/2008, -24/+42I guess that now all those neo-nazis that complain that in some places Holocaust-denying is against the law will shut up.
    Not.
    • anidal, on 01/01/2008, -9/+10Not that I deny it but.... how is the Holocaust part of any religion? And thus, why would denying it be considered criticizing a religion?
      • pHuXxXBoXx, on 01/01/2008, -25/+4i fervently do because the jews hoard it as an excuse for themselves, when they know goddamn sure that not only jews were persecuted. communists, gypsies, political prisoners and moar were all executed in death camps.

        and there sure as hell was no 6 million figure.
      • twinklyJesus, on 01/01/2008, -2/+9You seriously can't be that stupid! HELLO, 6 million JEWS ... anybody home?
        • anidal, on 01/02/2008, -2/+1Did I say I denied it? No, in fact, I said what amounts to be the opposite: "Not that I deny it but...."
          Your reaction: OMG he denied the Holocaust!

          You seriously can't be THAT stupid can you?
          • twinklyJesus, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1"how is the Holocaust part of any religion? "

            You are just that stupid...
      • borneo66, on 01/01/2008, -0/+11The reason is that, even though many people were killed, Jews were by far the largest group to be systematically persecuted, and as such are the most frequently tied to it, particularly since the Holocaust did in fact destroy European Jewry. From the other side, those who do wish to deny the Holocaust always do so in the terms of the destruction of the Jewish people and none others - they claim it is a Jewish plot, not a Romani plot, or a homosexual plot, or anything else. In essence, this horrible notoriety has been forced upon the Jewish people, whether they like it or not.
    • borneo66, on 01/01/2008, -4/+2Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Godwin's Law winner of the day! Ta da!
    • Brasky, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7Freedom of speech says I can deny anything if ***** want. The war of 1812 NEVER happened....
    • chris9902, on 01/01/2008, -1/+9You can deny anything you like. But if you're stood on top of 6 million bodies and still say it didn't happen then people have the right to call you a ***** moron.
      • bieber, on 01/01/2008, -2/+5But do they have the right to throw you in jail for it? Sadly, in some places they do...
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -6/+1I'm gonna get buried to hell for this one, but for the sake of the argument: what bodies?

        • chris9902, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4*****. I'm not even going to link to it if you're so retarded as to ask that.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -3/+1You mean you don't have a link.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Sucks doesn't it? No proof huh?

          Now find me a historical proof that the jews were ever in Egypt. Good luck!
  • Dewhead, on 01/01/2008, -34/+75The UN can't stop Iran for trying to build a nuke or Hamas from shelling Israel. How in the hell are the going to stop people from critizing Islam?
    • Lukesed, on 01/01/2008, -4/+27If you had been following the news you would know SOMEBODY got Iran to stop building a nuke, 4 years ago.
    • GeneralFailure0, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4They aren't, because they didn't make it illegal. This article sensationalizes a non-binding agreement to try to avoid defaming ALL Muslims when only some extremist groups are guilty. Maybe it'd be better to blame Iran's government and Hamas in these situations rather than all Muslims?
    • stinger666, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2Why would it matter if Iran had nukes anyways. USA is not the world police.
      • provost, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Obviously you didnt get the memo.. the US is the world police, we just shouldnt be.. I am pretty sure thats what you mean though :)
    • hipnerd, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2"The UN can't stop Iran for trying to build a nuke or Hamas from shelling Israel."

      As mentioned, Iran isn't trying to make a nuke. (Israel already has one, though -- in violation of the non-proliferation treaty.)

      They haven't managed to stop Hamas from shelling, that's true. But Hamas's shelling is the direct result of Israel's illegal occupation of Arab lands for 30+ years. Get Israel to give up the lands it took and you take away the principle rallying cry for terrorists and extremists throughout the Muslim world.

      But the US vetoes all UN resolutions that would put pressure on Israel to do that. In fact, we provide them with arms, tanks, helicopters and logistical support to continue the occupation.

      I wonder why we're not loved over there? It's a mystery, really.
  • drachemorder, on 01/01/2008, -18/+105Thankfully, what the UN says in its resolutions is not actually law. Not yet anyway. Something like that is unconstitutional in America, and the Constitution outweighs the UN in this country.
    • neiltc13, on 01/01/2008, -14/+1The article isn't about the USA, it's about the United Kingdom and comes from The Telegraph, a newspaper published in London.
      • pHuXxXBoXx, on 01/01/2008, -8/+9dumbass it says UN not UK. in case you were not aware, the UN is an almost-international circle jerk designed to look like people actually give a ***** about hellholes like iraq and sudan
        • neiltc13, on 01/01/2008, -5/+1Yes, but the commenter tried to link this specifically to the USA when the USA plays no part in the article - it's a UK article.
        • badjoke, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1pHuXxXBoXx knows how to fix all the world's problems.
    • kazamx, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7All the resolution says is every country should respect their minorities. Honestly, the only thing wrong with this is the title.
      • felchdonkey, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2Too bad the resolution only applies to Western nations, not Islamic ones.

        I have no respect for double standards.
    • swiftheart, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1>Something like that is unconstitutional in America, and the Constitution outweighs the UN in this country.

      Only as long as Congress doesn't agree to a treaty. A court has never rejected a treaty that Congress and the President affirmed because the treaty violated the Constitution. The Constitutional language here is on the opaque side...implying that treaties do not necessarily have to meet Constitutional muster.

      Over the decades many proposed amendments were introduced to allow courts to reject treaties if they were unconstitutional. I believe Ron Paul has introduced/co-sponsored such an amendment several times.
  • InRussetShadows, on 01/01/2008, -41/+171Islam sucks. Come and get me, UN.
    • digggggggggg, on 01/01/2008, -4/+40I'm assuming that if you don't post a reply in the next 24 hours, we should avenge your death or something?
    • SavageBlackCat, on 01/01/2008, -13/+8Careful - Kevin is a staunch supporter of their cause and has banned accounts for speaking out against islame.
    • Falldog, on 01/01/2008, -0/+5There's a guy outside with a blue helmet asking if you're around...
      • Timbertron3000, on 01/01/2008, -1/+6He can't shoot you, but he can look really pissed off.
      • BaronSamedi242, on 01/01/2008, -1/+6And about fifty thousand hooded Islamics chanting and shouting DEATH TO THOSE WHO SAY ISLAM IS VIOLENT!!!!!! and waiting for you to come out cause they'll get $50,000 in this life and 72 virgins in the next for killing you

        ALILILILILILILILILIIAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH *BOOM*
        • buttheadward, on 01/04/2008, -0/+0Yeah Islams don't know the 72 virgins are WoW players and people on digg(crap that's means me too)
      • Iconoclast25, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Blue helmets make SUCH nice targets . . . .
    • buttheadward, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2The UN won't come after you, they'll just drop bags of rice on you. I'm hungry, So Islam Sucks. I hope it's Uncle Ben's
  • EditorResponse, on 01/01/2008, -36/+61I can't say much but F*K the UN and Islam.
    • HesNikke, on 01/01/2008, -10/+19broader: ***** UN. ***** NAU. ***** Islam. ***** Christianity. ***** Judaism. and ***** any other group or individual who tries to tell me how to think, believe, behave, put in my body (or not put in my body), what i can own (or not own) or what to say (or not say).
      • ckhw2, on 01/01/2008, -2/+12What you need is the new and improved - Anarchy v2 - It really whips the llama's ass.
        • Nerfdude, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3"AnAnAnarchyANARCHY*thumpthumpthump* it really whips the llama's ass *baaaa*"
      • joshuagor44, on 01/01/2008, -8/+2Jews and most Christians don't tell you how to think, believe, etc.
        • Zaxcomp, on 01/01/2008, -0/+10I take it you don't live in a county that is not allowed to sell alcohol on Sunday.
        • felchdonkey, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2You're halfway right. I've never heard a Jew telling a non-Jew that they ought to convert to Judaism, or telling them to act according to Jewish laws.

          Christians, on the other hand... I take it you've never met an Evangelical, or a Jehovah's Witness, or a Mormon?
      • Alegoo92, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Hateful s.o.b right here.
    • ff2k, on 01/01/2008, -3/+7This is where the customary "***** the RIAA" would come in.. nah. ***** the UN! Where's freedom of speech now?
      • kazamx, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2I take it reading the article was too much work for you?
        • ff2k, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Perhaps my sarcasm was too conceited. In that case I apologise. I did read the article. It's a sensationalist unofficial headline designed to attract bigots to read their precious newspaper :)
  • JimmySpaza, on 01/01/2008, -44/+83Here...I'll make it easy for the U.N. censors:

    Islam is a false religion started by a crazed, demon-possessed, pedophile, evil warlord named Mohammed...who was NOT God's prophet.
    • brainboy77, on 01/01/2008, -14/+41You could say the same about Jesus. The amount of proof, or lack thereof would be the same.

      I'm not islamic. nor christian. nor jewish.
      • SLuM, on 01/01/2008, -7/+24Except Jesus wasn't a crazed, demon-possessed, pedophile, evil warlord and I don't support any religion fyi
        • pHuXxXBoXx, on 01/01/2008, -19/+3sho sucka. he was a playa and hung out kept on the down-low and got the low-down from sleazy pimps thugs an ho'z
        • GeneralFailure0, on 01/01/2008, -8/+1Yeah he was.
        • kazamx, on 01/01/2008, -4/+3many many of his followers are though
      • blackrabbit, on 01/01/2008, -6/+5you know that how, exactly?
        • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4He doesn't, that's the point. In imagination land, all ideas are equal.
      • Nanobe, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2At least Jesus' message was that of peace and acceptance. Too bad such a tiny minority of modern-day Christians actually listen to his teachings.
      • Nudar, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Except Jesus was seen by hundreds after His ressurrection.
        • felchdonkey, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Show me the historical evidence, please.
    • holygram, on 01/01/2008, -9/+13This guy is ***** on a sacred religion and getting dugg up....what is wrong with Digg?

      Regardless of whether or not you believe in Islam (or any religion for that matter), you should respect it. All religions look for basically the same thing: Brotherhood and peace, and Islam is no exception.
      • jeremymerrill, on 01/01/2008, -4/+3Holygram, you're one of the only reasonable people here, apparently. Let's report all these "Islam is teh suck" posts.

        For the record, I'm Jewish, and I support Israel and America. I don't like Hamas or Hezballah at all. But I don't blame all Muslims for those groups' actions.
      • kazamx, on 01/01/2008, -6/+2Most diggers hate Fox news, but its pretty much where they get all their political news from. They are told all Muslims are evil and believe it.

        The only good news is most of them are Americans, and with the fall in the $ it will be too expensive for any of them to leave America soon, so the rest of the world won't need to worry about them too much.
      • sesstreets, on 01/01/2008, -0/+6Sacred religion that promotes brother hood and peace...

        "We will cut off the head of those who call Islam a violent religion."

        Damn... thats some pretty ***** strong brother hood then. How about you stop bitching on digg and tell your fellow Islam going citizens to stop being brainwashed and learn the true meaning of Islam.
      • friday1970, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2Do you also think Christianity is a "Sacred" religion? Just making sure you are fair.
        • holygram, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Yes, all religions are sacred, imo.
        • felchdonkey, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2Just because they're sacred to you doesn't make me have to respect them. You have the right to free speech - you do not have the right to be free from being offended.
      • smedrick, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3Have you read the Qur'an at all?
    • wilywondr, on 01/01/2008, -7/+1Jeeesus Shmeeezus and the Holy Smoke. Do you believe in elves,fairies and travel gnomes too? Where do you draw the line on the imaginary things you believe? Obi won kenobi died for your sins.
  • siska1, on 01/01/2008, -17/+53I guess you're allowed to bomb them but not criticize them
  • jeffsback2223, on 01/01/2008, -22/+85Islamic terrorists constantly blow up and kill each other. Islamic women are treated like property. then the U.N. expects us to respect their human rights!? They can't even respect their own.
    • InformedCrab, on 01/01/2008, -19/+5Yeah, they treat each other badly, so let's bomb their asses! We'll teach those sand ***** some human rights!
      • friday1970, on 01/01/2008, -2/+3Liberals=racists. You never surprise me.
      • StepCousin, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1Is it okay for you to use racial obscenities (because you're a liberal who champions civil rights)?

        If an average everyday Joe Schmo talked like that, you'd call him a racist.
  • StepCousin, on 01/01/2008, -23/+33These UN ***** are UNBELIEVABLE! Why do we put up with this *****? Why are these ***** idiots given any credibility? WHY are they the voice of the world? I disagree with every single thing they do. They ***** up humanitarian missions, and they know nothing about war. What do these bloated bastards do, other than bitch about the western world?!
    • Kent4jmj, on 01/01/2008, -12/+7Because Bush and all the other Globalist policticians have been selling us out. Look up L.O.S.T. treaty for UN control of American citizens.
      • friday1970, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3Blaming Bush again, or just being an idiot?
        • Kent4jmj, on 01/02/2008, -1/+1I am not blaming Bush but accusing him based on his record.
          • StealthTomato, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Wait wait, go back, reread that, and I DARE you to rephrase that coherently.
    • thetinguy, on 01/01/2008, -4/+2Oh yea because helping people is wrong. Amirite?
      • StealthTomato, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Helping is right. If only they helped.

        They're like Vogons in blue helmets; they wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters
    • kazamx, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Read the article.
  • cashman57, on 01/01/2008, -12/+19More proof we need to move the u.n. headquarters to Baghdad,Iraq.
    • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -7/+13I don't care where they move it to. As long as it's out of my country.
      • thetinguy, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7It is outside the US. The UN building in Manhattan is international property.
        • whahaa, on 01/01/2008, -4/+1well they need to move their international property off my continent then.
    • Kent4jmj, on 01/01/2008, -7/+17Just cut US funding and they will disapear.
    • rot13ubercrypto, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4Been tried, didn't work out so well last time around.
    • thegreatgazoo, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3I figure Port-Au-Prince, Haiti. Maybe they can 'fix' that country if they are closer.
  • Rotzooi, on 01/01/2008, -15/+64As much as I detest Islam or any other faith, this is ***** fearmongering. All Western faiths have had this protection for decades and it doesn't mean *****. The UN is not the boss of you. You can still criticize Muslims, Islam and Allah all you want.

    PS Mohammed can suck my balls.
    • bigtomrodney, on 01/01/2008, -5/+13Finally a rational response. I had to read half of this page before I got to your response. Even the summary is completely slanted to make this something it's not. I'm willing to bet that none of the blind flag-wavers even read the article. Disagreeing with something doesn't mean it doesn't deserve the same treatment that you get. And the UN are out providing peacekeeping forces in countries all over the world - how is that bad? It's a damn sight better than the supposed peacekeeping forces the US has in Iraq.
    • rot13ubercrypto, on 01/01/2008, -1/+9Actually, they didn't. Individual potentates might threaten to knock your block off (or your head) for apostasy or heresy or looking funny at a priest or whatever, or the Vatican might excommunicate you, or the inquisition might come and put you in the comfy chair, but you always had the possibility of going somewhere else.

      Now, the UN resolution may be toothless, but it's kind of emblematic of a wider set of ailments faced by that institution (you know, Cuba and Saudi Arabia being on the Human Rights Council and all that jazz) -- that a body designed for consensus and prevention of war can be misused for ideological ***** if you get enough momentum.
  • goldylocks7621, on 01/01/2008, -20/+12The UN is New World Order organization, most of the people who founded it were CFR members.
  • BassMastr, on 01/01/2008, -21/+10Stop this...Koranimals!
  • detree, on 01/01/2008, -18/+13This is like in Germany where if you even question the numbers of dead in the nazi camps you can be arrested. Whether it is jewish fascism directed against the German people or Islamic fascism in the UN the results are the same, the suppression of free speech.
  • chicofaraby, on 01/01/2008, -21/+17The right is hilarious. They have to have something to hate, I guess, and no one is falling for the immigrant hating. But the UN is always good for getting the right wingers fired up and hating.

    Hey look, it's Hillary Clinton giving citizenship to an illegal immigrant who is having an abortion while demanding gay rights!
    • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -10/+12Hey look. Bush is showing congress who's in charge, AGAIN.
      Hey look. Cheney STILL has his job in spite of the thousands of petitions signed.
      And the worst liberal "***** you":
      Hey look. US soldiers deaths are down in Iraq and the local populace is cooperating with them.
    • hinchb, on 01/01/2008, -10/+5Looks like you haven't read digg recently. This has been the worst year ever for US troops. Whoops!
    • TemplarCrosland, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4Now this may have been the deadlest year in Iraq since the onset of the war, the second half of '07 saw tremendous gains in Iraq: deaths are down (Iraqi and Coalition), some semblance of security SEEMS to be coming around and the people seem to have tired of killing one another. I think this may exonerate bush's surge to a degree but it remains to be seen if we can hold the peace
  • jana67, on 01/01/2008, -21/+11All this while a grandmother gets kicked off a bus for reading the bible to her grandchild....
    People really need to watch Alex Jones' Endgames if they don't understand how serious a threat this is to our freedoms here in USA.
    • noahhoward, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Religion, all religion, is a threat to freedoms when laws are made in their favour.
  • Brad324, on 01/01/2008, -18/+5You see the problem with islam, is they believe you must [moderated by Admin]
  • Wiini, on 01/01/2008, -7/+11Since when do I care what the UN does?
    • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -11/+8If the democrats get control of our government the un will be telling you how to live your life. FACT.
      • bigtomrodney, on 01/01/2008, -3/+8Why is that fact? Because you put FACT at the end of the sentence? There are far more liberal countries around the world with a more open outlook and the UN is not dictating there. Try looking beyond your own borders before you feel empowered to comment on how the world works.
        • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -6/+2Don't even try to lecture me on what the rest of the world is like. I've been there. And the majority of it smells like piss.
          And, as I recall, there was some DEMOCRAT during the last Presidential election that said he would wait for a world test (or some words to that effect) before doing anything to defending the US.
          • bigtomrodney, on 01/01/2008, -0/+5You've been there? Because it's one place, right?

            Flash - I'm from a place with a high value currency, high GDP, low unemployment, high education standards and guess what - it's not the USA but it beats the USA on all the categories above. Now I've been to the USA, it's a great place with great people for the mostpart. Just don't go making the assumption that it's the best and ignoring all of the crap that goes on within your own borders.
        • tizz66, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5omg, I'VE been to the 'rest of the world' too!

          You've been everywhere, have you? Listen, the US is a great country, I live there, but it's not the only great country. There ARE better places in the world, depending on what your yardstick is. Be proud, but don't be blinded by pride.
        • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -4/+2You haven't been nearly as many places as I have. I have seen the best and worst this world has to offer. I can live anywhere I want with the choices I have and I chose to live in the US because it IS the best place to live.
          But, it doesn't stay that way by itself. It needs to be protected from those that would destroy it both from outside and within. That's why I vote to keep democrats out of office and to abandon the un.
      • thetinguy, on 01/01/2008, -3/+3If and fact don't belong in the same sentence.
        • StealthTomato, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1If the sentence says "if," you should not add the word fact. FACT.
  • brainboy77, on 01/01/2008, -11/+8Can someone please tell me who alex jones is? Don't be a gay ***** and dig me down, just tell me who he is. I looked on wikipedia and I'm not sure which one he is.
    • baalzebub, on 01/01/2008, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_%28radio%2 ...
    • Lukesed, on 01/01/2008, -2/+15He is a crazy-ass conspiracy nutjob who makes crazy-ass conspiracy videos. Think Loose Change, only lamer, longer, and for money.
    • HesNikke, on 01/01/2008, -3/+7he runs http://www.infowars.com/
      he hosts a 6 day a week radio program
      he makes documentary films
      some people call him a conspiracy theorist, but he's always bring up things like THIS STORY
    • lukifer, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Alex Jones is the perfect example of confirmation bias, and he tends to see conspiracies everywhere. Nonetheless, he occasionally gets it right (look into the Council on Foreign Relations, for instance.) He hyperbolizes, but he means well.
  • ZeRux, on 01/01/2008, -14/+6As much as I dislike this resolution, I understand it from political standpoint. Suicide bombers should be treated with respect, or they might be coming after you!
  • rhylan, on 01/01/2008, -13/+15Has anyone got a picture of this mohammed guy?
  • holygram, on 01/01/2008, -12/+31Islam is NOT a religion of violence.

    That said, this resolution is still ridiculous.
    • silencerider151, on 01/01/2008, -8/+14Read the Qur'an and re-evaluate your post.
      • maloventevil, on 01/01/2008, -6/+7read the bible, and reevaluate your post.
        • BaronSamedi242, on 01/01/2008, -3/+9When Jews start stoning their own children to death for sassing back in a NYC synagogue or Christians begin murdering people who open stores on a Sunday, I'll do that.

          ALILILILILILILILIIIIII YAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH *BOOM*
      • thetinguy, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Lol. Interpretation is king for ALL religions.
      • balazsbela, on 01/01/2008, -2/+1Did you read it ?
        In Arabic ?
        All these texts can be abused really much.
        Even if you can show verses from the Qur`an that encourage killing, those could be out of context.
        I'm not saying Islam is not encouraging violence, like I'm not saying it is, I'm only saying that we shouldn't judge it so fast.
    • felchdonkey, on 01/01/2008, -1/+5Islam might not be a religion of violence (I'm ignoring the Koranic passages about killing people here), but an awful lot of its followers seem to be...
      • holygram, on 01/01/2008, -1/+6An awfully small percentage, though.

        You have to keep things in perspective.
        • friday1970, on 01/01/2008, -3/+3And this "awfully small" percentage took down two large buildings in a major city, killing nearly 3000+ in a country across the world from their own, and nearly wrecked the economy of one of the most powerful nations in the world. Just keeping things in perspective.
        • jweatherley, on 01/01/2008, -1/+240%+ of UK Muslims support the introduction of Sharia Law to the UK. That's the legal system which involves the cutting off of body parts: violence. 40% is not awfully small.

          Reference: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ...
        • felchdonkey, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2I'd be interested in what percentage counts as "awfully small" to you.

          What would be acceptable? 10%? 20%?
    • vibrokatana, on 01/01/2008, -2/+10Qur’an 3:56 “As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them.”
      Qur’an 5:51 “Muslims, do not make friends with any but your own people.”
      Qur’an 5:72 “They are surely infidels who say; ‘God is the Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.”
      Qur’an 8:12 cp. 8:60 “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”; “smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them”
      Qur’an 2:191 “...kill the disbelievers wherever we find them”
      Qur’an 2:193 “And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah”
      Qur’an 22:19-22 “fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem” “for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods”
      Qur’an 48:13 Those who “believe not in Allah and His Messenger, He has prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!”
      Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”
      Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels (non-Muslims) out to the last.’”
      Qur’an 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”
      Qur’an 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
      Qur’an 8:60 “Prepare against them (non-Muslims) whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah (non-Muslims), and others besides them not known to you. Whatever you spend in Allah’s Cause will be repaid in full, and no wrong will be done to you.”
      Qur’an 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels (non-Muslims) out to the last.’”
      Qur’an 4:101 “The unbelievers (non-Muslims) are your inveterate foe.”
      • mrjit, on 01/01/2008, -0/+6And he hasn't even mentioned the hadith yet.
      • holygram, on 01/01/2008, -3/+1And any of this is worse than what the Christian God supposedly does do you if you reject him?
        • ickusslime, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4Quote please.
        • sesstreets, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Holygram, is that really all you do? Make claims with no support? Christian god, aka "father" of jesus or whatever, says simply that you go to hell if you do not atone for your sins... nothing really stated in the old testament aka the non ***** king james version about what should be done to non believers.
        • vibrokatana, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Most of the "punishments" dealt were either works of the Devil or people abusing his name either in slander or disgracing his name.
          Islam however calls for people to actively conquer via the sword and to subjugate people under their religion.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -27/+138The U.N. never passed a resolution banning the criticism of Islam. That would be retarded and illegal. They passed a resolution banning the defamation of ALL RELIGIONS.

    Religion has no place in politics. Islam did not attack America. America attacked America. But we pretend Osama, a Saudi attacked America so they invaded Afghanistan. (yes, my head assploded too).

    The U.N. resolution is about a global prohibition of the public defamation of religion, the main example used was Islam. It's about making the distinction between "Islamic states" (the same way America would be a "christian state") and actual governmental bodies. So instead of putting all the Islamic states in the same boat, you go by government, not religious affiliation.

    For example, the "Islamic world" is not trying to get nuclear power. Iran is trying to get nuclear power. Hamas is Hamas and not Islam. Al Qaeda is Al Qaeda and not the army of Islam. Goes on and on.

    The U.N. is not about religion so that has been excluded from the debate. Islam, like any other religion, is about what you want it to be about.

    It's the same thing they did for racism. Instead of calling all of African countries that are mostly populated by black people "black Africa", they go by state. It's about an independent and just recognition of states by what they are instead of what religion they are affiliated to.

    It's also about removing all religion from political discourse. Instead of saying, "they'll do this because they are muslims, believe this because they are muslims, etc." They say "Iran has done this, Afghanistan has done this, Pakistan has done this, etc." And of course, the same goes for terrorist organizations. Islam is not fighting anything anywhere. Terrorist organizations and insurgents are fighting a foreign aggressor.

    Here's the resolution (PDF):
    http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N07/579/32/ ...

    It's called "Combating defamation of religions".

    • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -13/+6They mentioned islam and muslums specifically.
      • anidal, on 01/01/2008, -4/+11Just because it mentions a particular religion doesn't mean the resolution is more (legally or morally) binding on some nations than others. All of the points mentioning islam are "Showing deep concern for..." or "Alarmed...".

        Most media attention on Islam in recent times has been negative. Just look at the front page digg article on Arab portrayal in Hollywood if you dont believe me.
        • felchdonkey, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3You know why media attention has been negative on Islam? Because they are DELIBERATELY BLOWING UP CIVILIANS.

          Your claim that "most media attention" has been negative is very Eurocentric, by the way. What about Arab media? It's filled with positive portrayals of Muslims, and hateful, even violent propaganda against Jews and Christians, and the West in general.
          Where's the UN to protest that?
          • anidal, on 01/02/2008, -2/+1No, terrorists are blowing up civilians, not muslims. No mainstream muslim would condone civilian killing. Thats why mainstream muslims are pissed when the media refuses to acknowledge this difference.

            Have you even seen arab media? Since I doubt you speak arabic, I expect all you know about the arab media comes through the U.S. media. Are you beginning the see the problem here? Honestly, I'd say much of the arab media is way more balanced than Fox/Sky News, since most of the arab world has access to CNN, BBC etc etc and any serious deviation in reporting would stand out.
          • felchdonkey, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2USA Today Poll: 25% of Young American Muslims support suicide bombing: http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/05/poll_ ...

            Here's a nice example of Arab media for you, as well:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vMs4GYlCC0
    • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -1/+7Digg broke the link, again.

      http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N07/579/32/ ...
    • Shogi, on 01/01/2008, -3/+29Thank you for being the one level headed person here (even though your link was broken), which is apparently a bad thing since some people are trying to bury you. Contrary to what the ignorant ***** above have commented, this is a GOOD thing. It also denounces attacks and programs aimed against any religious sect. It specifically mentions Islam only to the point of calling out how it is frequently and incorrectly linked with terrorism. But hey, if everyone on Digg wants to be blissfully ignorant and take this moment to trash Islam, who am I to stop it.

      Here's a link to the document.
      http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/CHR/resolutions/E- ...
      • Ajenthavoc, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4It's kind of depressing when you have to scroll past 30+ comments to get to one by someone that actually read the resolution for what it is as opposed to the OP/blogger. I understand the whole concept of not RTFA, but come on diggers. If it makes you feel good to lash out and stick your name next to random racist remarks, at least go through the effort to make sure you don't end up looking too much like a bigot.
    • Vektuz, on 01/01/2008, -13/+5I'd like to see the islamic countries actually follow this rule. They do a lot of christian bashing themselves.
      But we all know thats not going to happen. America will still be called The Great Satan.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -5/+2You deserve that title (even though they'd have to be christian to refer to satan).

        America is not christianity.
        • noahhoward, on 01/01/2008, -2/+3"You deserve that title"

          *****, only ignorant pricks like you can ignore the good this nation has done while simultaneously glorifying men who blow themselves up in school yards, men who mutilate women for speaking and shell markets to make a point. You have a disgustingly twisted view of what is evil.
        • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -3/+2I'm pretty sure falsifying evidence to invade two countries and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians constitutes evil.

          You can make all the arguments you want, America invented evidence to destroy a country. It doesn't get much more evil. I don't see what you could do that would make you more evil. Maybe eating babies alive. Torture is covered, killing innocent women and children is covered, raping is covered, aside from actual cannibalism, America couldn't do worse.

          I've never glorified terrorists. I glorified the people of Iraq for defending their homeland against the new Nazi warlords.
          • noahhoward, on 01/02/2008, -2/+1"I'm pretty sure falsifying evidence to invade two countries and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians constitutes evil."
            First, bad Intel is not falsified evidence. The alledged deliberate ignorance of that evidence is another matter. Second, we went to war with one country over that Intel. You are twisting facts again.

            "Torture is covered, killing innocent women and children is covered, raping is covered, aside from actual cannibalism, America couldn't do worse."
            Torture is widely practiced, despite anyones opinion of it America isn't any more evil any other nation for practicing it. Killing innocent women and children, again you seem to be twisting facts America is not targeting women and children of any nation. Rape? *****, you're trying to apply the actions of individuals to a nation, more twisting.

            "I've never glorified terrorists. I glorified the people of Iraq for defending their homeland against the new Nazi warlords."
            More *****, you don't defend your country by murdering your countrymen. You are glorifying cowards who are killing their own in order to scare them into letting them take the nation back from the democracy they chose to restore.
          • ElAssoWipo, on 01/02/2008, -1/+2murdering your countrymen: terrorism.

            Defending your country against a foreign aggressor: not terrorism.

            Whether you did it on purpose or not, you still did it.
      • Owwmykneecap, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1hmmm america did play Iran against Iraq, by helping both sides while they were at war...

        That would piss me off me off too...
    • sherifffruitfly, on 01/01/2008, -2/+0Like good 'murikans care about the truth. pfft.
    • heebeejeebie, on 01/01/2008, -2/+0I'm sorry. America attacked America? Want to splain that one buckwheat? 99% of the conflicts occuring on this planet at this moment involves Islamic militants. I guess this is all America's fault? Bin Laden ADMITTED, BRAGGED ABOUT attacking the US.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2"Bin Laden ADMITTED, BRAGGED ABOUT attacking the US."

        No, he didn't. Prove me wrong.

        Osama is rich because America made him rich.

        "99% of the conflicts occuring on this planet at this moment involves Islamic militants"

        Who are fighting America in their HOME country.

        You are the nazis of the 21st century.
    • ickusslime, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3America is not a Christian religion.

      Treaty of tripoli:
      Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

      Imagine a world with no religion? I can.
    • zplot, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3America attacked America on 9/11? We certainly shouldn't blame Islam for 9/11, but come on. Osama did it. In his videos he admitted and bragged about it. Much of the content of your post was intelligent and insightful, but you just had to throw in that bogus conspiracy theory.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2"In his videos he admitted and bragged about it."

        No. He did not. Prove me wrong. The tapes only shows that he knew about 911 and that he was glad it happened. CIA released tapes. Same people who trained Osama in the first place. When he attacked the WTC in 94, he released a video that said more or less "I did this because you have 300 military bases on our holy land". Al Qaeda are very proud terrorists, they always take reponsibility for what they do.

        The only link that's ever been established between Osama and 911 is that he attacked the WTC in 94 and that the Saudis who attacked (no afghans involved in 911) were ALLEGEDLY Al Qaeda members. That was never demonstrated either.

        8 of the 911 hijackers were registered voters.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKQ23Fknr5U
      • zplot, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Sigh. Bin Laden explicitly stated in one of his videos back in 2002 that the 9/11 attacks were more successful than he expected. That's the only specific quote I have off the top of my head, but that should be sufficient to say that people who cry conspiracy don't deserve to be dugg up.
      • ElAssoWipo, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2How does that demonstrate that he's responsible?

        How does that even demonstrate that he knew about it?

        I said the same thing when the towers came down. I didn't think they would. You could take what I said out of context also.

        Here's an out of context transcript of Elassowipo talking about 911, shortly after it happened:
        "I didn't think the towers would go down, I didn't expect that".

        Does that mean I'm responsible for 911?
  • sonnybobiche, on 01/01/2008, -15/+8When do they pass the resolution that makes it illegal for the UN to pass any more resolutions?
  • Duglum, on 01/01/2008, -22/+37Sometimes digg really disgusts me. Just look at all the non-islamic extremists posting here (e.g. "Islam sucks", "F*K UN and Islam"). This is exactly what the resolution is trying to prevent. Go on, have fun with your 5 minutes of hate.
    You aren't any better.
    -an atheist
    • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -19/+9***** the un, islam and now you.
    • SiNN4R, on 01/01/2008, -3/+20I should be able to say whatever I want about any religious or political group
      -an atheist
      • Lavarock, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2OH NO NOT THE POOR BUDDHISTS!
        WE SHOULD PUNISH THAT KIND OF TALK WITH VIOLENCE.
        THEY WOULD LOVE THAT.
      • Duglum, on 01/01/2008, -2/+0I agree, there is nothing more important than free speech. However this kind of extremism isn't limited to speech, it also effects the way people interact. If the first thing someone thinks, when (s)he sees a believer (doesn't matter what religion), is "terrorist" based on appearance, there is something seriously wrong. And sadly that is what is happening a lot these days.
        Therefore the UN made a resolution about "Combating defamation of religions".
        You can clearly see that this is needed by reading the comments here.
        • jeremymerrill, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2Yes, SiNN4R, you should be able to say whatever you want. That doesn't mean you should say it.
    • 5JimBob, on 01/04/2008, -0/+1As disgusting and counter-productive as those comments are, the UN has absolutely no right trying "prevent" them by passing resolutions calling for member States to legislate against the free speech of open debate and criticism of Islam - the resolution specifically singles out Islam as deserving of particular protections in the "non-Muslim" world ( a sad indicator of the bias in the vote given the large-scale bigotry and violence directed at non-Muslim religions in the Muslim world - e.g.the Copts in Egypt, the Baha'i in Iran). The fact that the resolution exists is an indication of the strength of the Muslim lobbies around the world. Islam is not a victim of any serious persecution anywhere in the West. It's in a phase of expansion and strength building and knows how to work the victim angle in "progressive" western media and culture.
  • holygram, on 01/01/2008, -8/+19FTA:
    "The resolution shows a worrying acceptance of Islamic ideology"

    Buried.
  • WestonP, on 01/01/2008, -9/+13I can't stand the UN. However, they do kind of have a point... more people should grow a brain and show some respect for the beliefs of others. We have way too much bashing of people's beliefs by hateful ignorant people who don't make even the slightest attempt to understand what they're talking about. Look at how many people try to demonize Islam, when they don't even know the first thing about it. They see a few people doing evil things in the name of Islam and use it as an excuse to trash the whole religion. The same applies to Christianity, Judaism, and every other religion. The atheists love to use those kinds of tactics, but I'm sure they would object pretty strongly if I declared all atheists to be evil and immoral just because a few of them have committed murder, rape, and other acts of evil. Spreading ignorance and intolerance does not help anyone.
    • tehbored, on 01/01/2008, -4/+7So you respect everyone's beliefs? Even Scientologists'? You respect people who believe that 75 million years ago and evil galactic overlord named Xenu killed billions of aliens on earth and their souls clustered together and flew into our bodies causing us to have false memories and beliefs? Cause I sure as ***** don't respect anyone who legitimately believes that.
      • chaosium, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4Yes, but L Ron Hubbard himself stated that Scientology is not a religion, so I wouldn't compare it similarly.
    • Avor, on 01/01/2008, -1/+6Criticizing isn't always bashing - and regardless, we are allowed (as we should be) to do both. Extreme criticizing based on ignorance, no matter the subject, can lead you to look like an idiot (because you would be one) and is the personal price you pay when you participate in such a way.
    • skinturtle, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3"The atheists love to use those kinds of tactics, but I'm sure they would object pretty strongly if I declared all atheists to be evil and immoral just because a few of them have committed murder, rape, and other acts of evil."

      Welp there are examples....

      Communist China
      Communist Russia

      Personally I think atheists were a on a separate evolutionary timeline. The one where the monkeys decided to walk on their hands and their heads evolved out of their asses.

      :)
  • coltrane68, on 01/01/2008, -8/+9So if the U.N. passes a single resolution with which you disagree, your response is to "get out of the U.N. now". Are you the same weenie who didn't get to catch any touchdown passes and responded by taking your ball and going home?
    • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4The call to pull out of the un is decades old. and is supported by (God help me for saying this name) Ron Paul.
    • Lavarock, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4The UN is just America paying Europe to bitch at it.
    • dime, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4"So if the U.N. passes a single resolution with which you disagree, your response is to "get out of the U.N. now"."

      Yes. Particularly when said resolution goes against a fundamental principle our country was founded upon.

      But anyway, they pass resolutions I disagree with all the time :)
  • iupetre, on 01/01/2008, -9/+7Wow! When I first heard the term Islamofascist, I thought it was silly, but this really defines the word.
    • BaronSamedi242, on 01/01/2008, -5/+4We have been trying to warn you for years, but we got politically correct assholes describing us as loons.
  • elvenseven, on 01/01/2008, -2/+27What the hell has digg turned into?
    • vx69, on 01/01/2008, -8/+5No, what has this ***** planet turned into.
    • truspect0r, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4Come to think about it, aren't we the ones that are filled with hate against them. Every time I start a discussion about the war with some American they go out of topic and start bashing their religion (Islam) but I ask the muslim buddies they just hate us Americans for attacking and bullying everyone. The media's role of spreading hate and generalizing is embarrassing.
  • autitastic, on 01/01/2008, -5/+16Looking at many of the comments above it doesn't take long to understand why The U.N. might feel it necessary to try to differentiate between the religion of Islam and Nations that abuse Human Rights.
    Also buried for the terrible, biased and pretty misled journalism.
  • widgetmaker, on 01/01/2008, -2/+6UN resolutions are non binding in the general assembly, they can say anything they want and no one has to actually listen. (Security Council is different though.
  • tehbored, on 01/01/2008, -21/+7Haha. ***** Allah, ***** Mohamed, and ***** Islam. What the ***** is the UN gonna do about it?
    • tehbored, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4Hmm... I suppose I said that in anger. I don't really hate Islam, but this resolution is ***** ridiculous. How could so many people vote for this? Are they just afraid of getting attacked by terrorists? Well, it's not like the UN can really enforce this anyway.
    • BaronSamedi242, on 01/01/2008, -5/+3Write a very very sternly worded, extremely emotionally damaging..... resolution.

      It's the raghead cab drivers going waboola maboola durka durka islaaaam is my bloood stabbing you for saying that and then going alilililililiyaaaaaaaaahhhh *BOOM*
  • friend18, on 01/01/2008, -8/+5I don't think we have to get out of the U.N. We don't follow their rules anyway. (-_- )
  • Barb19, on 01/01/2008, -5/+15Believe it or not, we need the United Nations. The United Nations is a forum in which all countries can converse with one another, a problem which, in essence, led to World War I (which then led to World War II). Anyone that really advocates the dissolution of the United Nations does not understand politics or history... or both.
    • kreatre2007, on 01/01/2008, -3/+5I understand both politics and history and I have seen just how much the UN has changed and moved away from being a forum. When it passes stupid resolutions like this, it shows that the organization does not stand for freedom -- let alone democracy. A large amount of the member countries are dictatorships. The UN refused to allow Taiwan to join. It tried to dictate standards to member countries. The UN should be dissolved so we can start over and put a new organization back in its place.
      • Barb19, on 01/01/2008, -3/+1They did not allow Taiwan to join because Taiwan is not, technically, a country. It is part of China but their government is still having a massive pissing match with the CCP in mainland China. The United Nations should be for all countries, regardless of the government. Its all about communication.
    • hinchb, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3We can have a forum with other countries without having the UN. The UN doesn't really do much and takes in a whole hell of alot of money and pass stupid ***** like this that is pretty much worthless.
      • widgetmaker, on 01/01/2008, -3/+2What about all the aid work it does that soave countless millions of lives, or peace keeping missions that do the same should we scrap them as well?
        • hinchb, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3Right because these are not possible without a supranationalist organization. Before the UN people never helped each other!
          • widgetmaker, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Not saying it is at all perfect or without need for reform, but the western world should help those less fortunate than us.
        • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3Yes. The aid work is more like providing supplies to rebel groups (I saw this first hand in Djibouti) and the peacekeeping missions always turn into sex for food missions.(like in Chad)
        • Pake, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3Redirect all those funds to the Red Cross/Crescent and more ***** would get done.
    • bieber, on 01/01/2008, -2/+1Exactly. The problem isn't that the UN doesn't do enough, it's that it tries to do _too much_. What we need is a simple forum for discussion, not some attempt at an over-reaching world governing organization...
  • HappyScrappy, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4The UN cannot make anything illegal, well, at least when you're not on UN property.
  • kreatre2007, on 01/01/2008, -7/+6This just shows yet again how irrelevant and useless the UN is. I agree with those who say we should get out of the UN. What about the UN building though? Should we kick everyone out or just raise th rent :-) I wonder where the UN will get its "Peace Keepers" from now on.
    • Owwmykneecap, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3They get them from all over the world you stupid *****.

      Clue is in the name.
  • ronpaul20008, on 01/01/2008, -6/+7isn't making words illegal a form of control? who the ***** are these guys to tell us what we can and can't do. cant smoke a joint, get locked up... but they can bomb, torture and rape without consequences. ***** hypocrits.
    • Greyscale88, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3Dude this isn't about letting people "bomb, torture and rape without consequences" it's about not lumping every Muslim as an Islamofacist or terrorist or something. Like one of the comments above said, TERRORISTS are attacking us, not the entire religion of Islam.
  • Khannea, on 01/01/2008, -5/+8I bet you a case of oranges that once you substantially increase income, education, social safety, wellfare, medical care and women's rights in various applicable countries on this planet there will no longer be a muslim issue. The perfect chemical warfare to completely sterilize the dangers of Islam, and possibly Islam itself, is tangible and robust affluence.

    However an unacceptable danger to US-style social-darwinist corporate globalism is the absolute need or massive poverty. American hegemony demands an unending sea of relative losers. It cannot accept anyone even remotely winning other than those that accept Pax Americana. It is the basis of competition (winner versus loser) thinking of the America way of life.

    In Europe it's become quite clear what is more dangerous to the world - unbridled capitalism and leveraging hidden economic costs on others - or fundamentalist islam.

    Wahhabism and all offshoots might be a terrifying and distasteful ideology - it's like a wolverine. It can bite you but can't do much structural harm. American style Capitalism is like a pack of Wolves or Sharks. It'll tear anyone in their jaws limb from limb. I certainly know what is the bigger danger to world harmony.

    To oppose that, the UN absolutely serves no purpose.
    • bduddy, on 01/01/2008, -1/+0Did you just pull that from one of those online essay generators? I can't believe anyone would actually type that as a Digg comment.
  • ComradeLenin, on 01/01/2008, -14/+4***** ISLAM! I can't wait to see how Banksy and other graffiti artists who are politically motivated take this.
    • widgetmaker, on 01/01/2008, -1/+4Probably not by saying ***** Islam..
  • jamesmcm, on 01/01/2008, -3/+16Does anyone believe this sensationalist, paranoid *****?
  • SavageBlackCat, on 01/01/2008, -9/+3Careful - Kevin is a staunch supporter of their cause and has banned accounts for speaking out against islame.
  • BaronSamedi242, on 01/01/2008, -11/+3Welcome to the peace loving humanity that is Islam

    ttp://nothingtoxic.com/media/1198811661/Unlucky_Iraqis_Get_Set_on_Fire_and_Thrown_in_a_Grave

    Can't tell me that isn't Islam, they've got all that squiggly writing Maboola Shaboola Durka durka Islam on it.
    • widgetmaker, on 01/01/2008, -2/+5Stop being a racist bigot and learn something about Islam.
      • BaronSamedi242, on 01/01/2008, -2/+3I've read the Koran, ***** SCAB.
        And please tell me to my face that those durka durka durkas were reading the Watchtower before setting those men on fire.

        They actually say "In the name of Allah, the most merciful." Get a life you PC douchetard.
        • widgetmaker, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Uh, how many Muslims do you know, every one I know (and that is a fair few considering one of my corridor mates is the head of the Islamic society at my Uni) none of them are extreme, all hate suicide bombers and believe they are going to hell, the Islam they believe in is no worse than say main stream Christianity or Hindu or any other major religion.
        • BaronSamedi242, on 01/02/2008, -1/+0I've known a few. They all agreed with the fatwa against Rushdie. They don't wanna get stabbed themselves.

          DURKA DURKA AILILILILILIYAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH *BOOM*

          Hey, those people are how I knew about the Muhajedeen in the 80s. Dude had "KILL FOR GOD" in Ragheadabic up in his locker. Dude ended up shooting his dad and going back to Lebanon to become a Ramadan Cracker for Allah ALIALIALILILAILILILILIYAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHH *BOOM*
  • superyounan1, on 01/01/2008, -2/+4No no, this is GOOD. It sends the right message about why world governance and super international governments are not good for us, and how all the pitfalls of regular government are inevitably going to be magnified with a larger establishment.

    Its kinda like when religious groups draw the line in the sand and say "SCIENCE IS ANTI RELIGION", making it impossible for children growing up to reconcile the two... its good because kids are less deluded and more likely to grow up siding with science.
  • manicdvln, on 01/01/2008, -2/+3These issues are only relevant when you're poor.
  • pimpofpixels, on 01/01/2008, -1/+14You guys are all bigots.
    Read the document: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/N07/579/32/ ...
    Then tell me it's wrong to agree that the states in the UN should discourage the bashing of other peoples religions.
    • felchdonkey, on 01/01/2008, -3/+9It's wrong that the UN should have anything to say about limiting free speech.

      If I want to criticize a religion, that's up to me, not the UN.

      • elvenseven, on 01/01/2008, -1/+3Thats true, but this story title is totally misleading.
      • pimpofpixels, on 01/01/2008, -2/+5Again.... Read the document. It says nothing about forcing governments to prosecute those who bash religions. It says only that members of state are to encourage religious equality and refrain from badmouthing other peoples religions.
        In other words, it's the world asking Bush to stop going around spreading fear about Islam. It's racist and he shouldn't be doing it.
        It has nothing to do with Law, and it has nothing to do with Free Speech. The title of this document is totally false.
        • voisine, on 01/01/2008, -0/+2And who is a member of state? Elected officials? Government employees? Employees of corporations that have government contracts?
          • pimpofpixels, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1A member state is any country which is a member of the UN. The resolution talks about general government policy.
        • Pake, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4"In other words, it's the world asking Bush to stop going around spreading fear about Islam. It's racist and he shouldn't be doing it."
          Even if that is the case, the UN has double standards. They do everything they can do to bitch and moan about Bush, but they won't do ***** about the Islamic or other countries bashing anyone else.
          • moin1097, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3Bashing isn't the problem. It's killing and/or enslaving them that's the problem.
    • curtisag, on 01/01/2008, -5/+3It's my right to tear the pages of the Koran out and wipe my ass with them if I so choose. It's called freedom, it's a novel concept that is relatively new in human society. I can say the Koran is *****, because that's my opinion. I can say the bible is *****, because that's my opinion. Limiting criticism of religion through moral relativism is nothing more than trying to force the perpetuation of ignorance down people's throats. Religion can be linked to many of the wars that have ravaged the human race since history began. It is a disease of the mind, and persons of reason should condemn it. Children all over the world are brainwashed into this stuff from an early age. If we gave children a choice to grow up first, then embrace religion if they chose to, you wouldn't see nearly as many brainwashed persons today.
      • Greyscale88, on 01/01/2008, -0/+4YOU can say whatever the ***** you want, and after this resolution guess what?! YOU STILL CAN! This is for world leaders and people who talk on a multi national scale, the UN could give a ***** less about you.
      • pimpofpixels, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3It's not a law. It the equivalent of putting a sign over the sink saying "please rinse dishes." It's essentially the member-states agreeing that it is that everybody should encourage religious tolerance in their countries.
  • Stevanoski, on 01/01/2008, -13/+5Exactly what the Democrats would love to do here.
    • GeneralFailure0, on 01/01/2008, -5/+4Why do you think that? What piece of evidence do you have to support that Democrats want to limit your civil rights in such a way or any similar way? Stop spewing partisan *****, especially that which doesn't make any sense.
  • SLuM, on 01/01/2008, -18/+19Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah."
    Sura (47:4) - "So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners,"
    Sura (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
    Sura (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

    Just some quotes from the book of peace.
    • Barb19, on 01/01/2008, -11/+6Feel like quoting the old testament while you are at it?
    • voodoochild461, on 01/01/2008, -10/+8Can't argue with scripture.
      Screw Islam, Do something UN....
    • GeneralFailure0, on 01/01/2008, -3/+10Right on, let's get rid of ALL holy books which make reference to violence.
    • vishah, on 01/01/2008, -4/+8Take verses out of context much?..In Islam fighting is only allowed for self defense.. Instead of turning the other cheek and watch our families die in front of us, we are required to fight.
      Koran states in Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors."
      The essence of the verse, is to fight back "if you are attacked by your persecutors, but don't fight back indiscriminately. Follow the rules of engagement." According to mainstream Muslim clerics, those "rules of engagement"' are explicit: women, children, and innocent civilians are off limits.
    • induren, on 01/01/2008, -6/+4SLuM, there's no religious book that's a book of peace. So peace off.
    • skinturtle, on 01/01/2008, -6/+1Why is this written with a bunhc of "thee's" "ye's" and "thou's"? The King James version of the bible is like that because it was translated in England under King James rule when they talked like that.

      And seriously..reading through the koran...what a bunch of hogwash! It even sounds childish. Measured up against the Bible...the koran is like a Dr. Seuss book!
    • heebeejeebie, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2The old testament is just as bad. All religion sucks for the most part due to the way the people that control it interpreted for their own purposes. But- fundamentalist Muslims are responsible for the majority of using terror in the name of religion at the moment.
    • philhatesyou, on 01/01/2008, -3/+1Are we quoting juicy bits from holy books? Here:

      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html
      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long

      Enjoy the rest of the week!
      • StealthTomato, on 01/01/2008, -3/+1Uhuh. That's definitely ALL in context. In fact, that URL told me right away that there was no bias at all!

        "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7"

        There's an insightful, unbiased report there. HAY GUYS, IT DOESN'T SAY! LET'S ASSUME THE WORST KAY?
        • philhatesyou, on 01/01/2008, -2/+0And you think Slum was quoting in context? Don't think he's biased? How's this... instead of just using some lame ass ad hominem attack, try and refute the substance of the argument that Judeo-Christian scripture is also chock full of the biggoted violence that folks like you use to show how barbaric those ***** heathens are. Oh wait, you ***** can't, so you have to go on making pithy little jokes.

          Come back when you've grown half a brain.
          • Stevanoski, on 01/01/2008, -0/+3Christianity isn't. Quote me anything from the new testament.
          • philhatesyou, on 01/02/2008, -0/+0"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
            -Jesus Christ

            Also, nice try at a cop out saying the New Testament, therefore Christianity, doesn't have this problem. First, it actually does. Second, even if it didn't, the Old Testament is an important part of Christian scripture and thought.
  • kconnors, on 01/01/2008, -2/+2***** islam
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.