UN racism Conference

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by muhandis89, Apr 20, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. In spite of many large nations boycotting this event,the UK chose to send a delegation-which then walked out.Perhaps we should have heeded the words of the US,who's new President,decided against sending a delegation?This conference aopears to give racism a bad name.Maybe the subject will be off Bruin's agenda in the future?
  2. If we had not sent anyone, we probably would have been called racists. Its easier for America to boycott now because there've got a black president.
    For real though, I don't understand why you would go to something like this and sit there waiting for an opportunity to leave. And I don't understand why our representitive left when most of Britain (including MPs) were condemning Israel a couple of months ago.
  3. Ah the representitives that left now have a free holiday/shopping trip paid for by UK plc Ie us mugs who pay tax
  4. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    mmm, 'scuse me, but a conference against racism in which half of the delegates walk out is no longer a conference; it's got bugger all to do with a 'united' group of nations; it doesn't address any issues of racism; it doesn't move things forward and . . . . . well, it's a complete waste of our time and money.

    What a great way to debate a topic - flounce out. I like the way that a couple of the delegates flounced out in clown wigs - suits them and their approach.
  5. The walk out was done for effect. They were waiting for the nod, then got up and walked out in unison - later announcing a kind of collective distaste that occurred at once without prior collusion. Ahmedinejhad labelled the Israeli state as 'most cruel and racist'. I can't disagree with him, having witnessed what's occurred recently and over the decades.

    They've accused him of 'anti-Semitism', however he was criticising 'Zionism' - which as we know is a completely different matter. However, the west is choosing to go all disingenuous again, to deliberately read it the wrong way - and to misrepresent the whole affair because it suits them.

    Rant over.
  6. Whatever one thinks of Ahmadinejad there is truth in what he says. The Israelis just don't like the truth being rammed down their throats in such a manner.

    Truth be told though none of those countries who stayed or walked out can claim to have entirely clean hands when it comes to the old yuman rights.

    From those who connived in the disgraceful attack on Iraq to those who keep others under a brutal occupation or others who execute minors and stifle dissent.

    Frankly they're all just as bad as each other.

    Agree with another poster, just a nice little jolly for the politicos!
  7. WE know, but I think it's likely Ahmedinejhad can't tell the difference between Israel and Zionism - he hasn't in the past.
  8. And what makes you think so?
  9. In fact some Western counties admitted that they have nothing to say, that they haven't arguments, they they fear open contest, that their support for freedom of speech is no more than empty words.

    At least we know what governments are under full control of pro-Israeli circles. I'm glad to see that that highly esteemed mr.Brown acts maily in true national interests.
  10. UN holds 'racism' conference and invites Omydinnerplate to speak.
    Omydinnerplate says something controversial.
    Delegates walk out.

    The surprise in all this is?
  11. Israel is not a racist state. Plenty of Arabs live in Israel, without any problems.

    These Arabs dont feel the 'cruel' side of Israel, because they tend not to lob missiles and send suicide bombers.
  12. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    Anyone notice how he said a 'prayer' as he started, in which he mentioned Abraham, Jesus, and the latest prophet Mohammed?

    That strike anyone as racist? Dumb (for believing that old malarky), yes, racist, no.

    I wouldn't give this nut-job the time of day, but on the other hand, anyone else who sticks this Jewish victimhood thing down my throat can do one too. Jews around the world have no more been victims SINCE WW2 than any other nationality, and they've been doing their fair bit of victimising whilst they were playing the 'pogrom' card. They've beaten up the Palestinians for 50 years, and they killed a few Brits too during a terrorist campaign.

    All these nonces walking out of that meeting in protest on behalf of Isreal the nuclear armed state that is supported by $2 billion dollars annually, plus loads and loads of top-spec weaponry from the most powerful nation in the world are just a bunch of bum-lickers.

    Ooooh that nasty I'madinnerjacket, talking dirty 'bout them poor farmers over in that tiny strip of land wot is rightfully theirs according to some religious edict!!! tsk tsk.

    Edited to add: Yes, I am looking for another fight! :twisted:
  13. He strikes me as the type who can't differentiate between a political movement and a people. I can't recall him voicing support for the two state solution or for peace with Israel as a nation. I don't think he wants to exterminate the Jews as some claim, but I do suspect that he'd like to see an Arab Palestine with the Jews living under an Arab government so they don't 'forget their place' in the grand order of things.
  14. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    As opposed to the Palestinians living under Jewish rule . . .
  15. And turning it around would somehow make it better?