UN Paid Al-Nusra Front $25 Million To Release Fijian Peacekeeper Hostages - Video

A video that has surfaced, allegedly filmed by Israeli Channel 2, purportedly shows the release of some U.N. Fijian peacekeepers that had been abducted by Syria's Jabhat al-Nusra (Nusra Front) on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.  The al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists had demanded $25 million for the release of 45 peacekeepers, and the U.N. willingly complied- using Qatari money- in spite of a mandate to not "succumb to blackmail."

In the video, it appears that the UNDOF arrived on the scene first, entering from the Israeli side of the Golan Heights. A short time later, the Nusra Front convoy arrives. Then we see what appears to be a Nusra Front official checking his laptop to make sure the money was transferred to their bank account. Then the transfer of hostages begins.

One of the Israeli Channel 2 reporters, from the other side of a border gate, asks in English an "Abu Omar" what he thinks of Israel. He replies, "our goal is peace at the end of the day, with all nations of the world."

Sure, under a global Islamic State.

And they want Israel's help with establishing a no-fly zone.

This is how the terrorists maintain power, they are well funded by fools who pay ransoms.

Video on YouTube here.

Obama Wants To Send $450 Million To Islamist Egypt

Although it was blocked by Republican congresswoman Kay Granger of Texas, Barack Obama wants to transfer $450 million to Egypt in spite of the fact that Egypt's new Islamist president Mohamed Morsi pretty much allowed our embassy in Cairo to be attacked and vandalized on 9/11, and is trying to tell us what is and isn't appropriate as far as free speech goes. At the recent U.N. General Assembly session Morsi responded to Obama's defense of free speech saying while "Egypt respects freedom of expression", Mohammed, Islam, and the Muslim culture are totally off limits. In reference to the "Innocence of Muslims", the anti-Islam film that unleashed a swath of violence across Muslim lands, he said:

“The obscenities that I have referred to that were recently released as part of an organized campaign against Islamic sanctities are unacceptable. We reject this. We cannot accept it,” Morsi said, his voice thin with anger. “We will not allow anyone to do this by word or deed.”

No? Maybe in your country, Mr. Morsi, you have control over what people say, but not in ours!

And that $450 million cash infusion is above and beyond what we already are giving them, including $1.5 billion per annum to maintain the Israeli/Egypt peace treaty. And yet when he spoke at the U.N. it was all about the Palestinians and their 'rights', and  no mention of the peace treaty.

Morsi also said Egypt would argue forcefully for the rights of Palestinians and for an end to what he called illegal occupation of Arab lands, a reference to Israeli occupation of the West Bank. He said nothing about Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, the basis for about $1.5 billion in annual U.S. aid, but has in the past said he wants to make changes.

The Egyptian president denounced Israel’s presumed nuclear weapons, a stockpile built outside the international arms control treaty. And in a further challenge
to Israel and its U.S. ally, Morsi warned against “irresponsible policies or arbitrary threats.” That was a reference to the looming possibility of a unilateral Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Islamists are no friends of the West, as moderate as some might seem. Egypt under Mubarak, as nasty as he might have been, at least kept the West, and Israel, safer from terrorists, not so with Islamists. And why are we sending money that we don't have, considering we are in major debt,  to countries that are not true allies?

Ahmadinejad Tells Ex-PM Of Japan: No "Atomic Bombs" For Iran,

Against the advice of both Prime Minister Yoshihiko Nodahe and Foreign Minister Koichiro Genba, Yukio Hatoyama, the Japanese ex-premier, paid a little visit to Iran's Ahmadinejad where Mahmoud told him that

“The Islamic Republic of Iran is fundamentally opposed to the atomic bomb and weapons of mass destruction.”

“Iran and Japan can exert a common effort to create a world without atomic weapons ... Difficult but humanitarian efforts will win in the end.”

This, from a man who claims there are no homosexuals or oppression of women in Iran, and that the Holocaust is a myth.

But the world is going to try to reason with the madman again.  The dates and location for the upcoming U.N. Security Council 5+1 talks, where Iran and the 5 permanent Security Council members ( China, France, UK , US, Russia) plus Germany will discuss Iran's nuclear agenda, have yet to be finalized, but expected to take place some time mid-April.

Meanwhile, Hatoyama told Mahmoud:

“International trust-building and respecting regulations are important part of the world community which should be seriously pursued.”

Trust-building with liars is not possible, and it's foolish to think it is. And respect?  It doesn't exist with the current leadership.

Ahmadinejad, as he has many times before, said the country was “ready for negotiations”, and that he had  “practical suggestions for the upcoming meeting.”  Can't wait to hear what those are.

Bottom line, you can't believe anything that comes out of Mahmoud's duplicitous mouth.

U.N. Resolution On Human Rights In Iran Asks For "Unfettered Access"

The following members of the U.N. General Assembly's Third  Committee (dealing with Human Rights):

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Micronesia (Federated States of), Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia,
Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America

passed a resolution with a 6 page bucket list of concerns regarding Iran's abysmal stance on human rights, and asking Iran to:

to positively avail itself of the opportunity to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur and other international human rights mechanisms, including by allowing the Special Rapporteur unfettered access to the country to carry out his mandate.

The resolution passed with 86 "yes" votes, 32 "no" votes, and 59  "abstentions".  According to the United For Iran website, the resolution gained some new votes from countries that abstained or voted no in the past, including Tunisia (surprisingly), Libya (surprisingly),  Central African Republic, Colombia, Haiti, South Korea, Haiti, Malawi, Senegal, Seychelles and Tanzania.

Among those voting "no", not surprisingly, were China, Russia; communist countries like Myanmar (Burma) and Vietnam;  all the leftist Latin countries including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba and Nicaragua; most if not all of the 'istan" countries like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. And, of course, most of the Muslim majority countries either voted  no or abstained. I was very surprised, however, that India actually voted no, but perhaps that's because of their contentious neighbour Pakistan.

Of course, why the U.N. even bothers drafting resolutions for countries that have no intention of complying is another issue. Iran is not going to let the Special Rapporteur, Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, have 'unfettered access' to the country, and they're certainly not going to change their ways simply because the U.N. "urges" or "asks" them to. It's incredibly naive to think so. The only chance for change in that country, is when (if ever) the Mullahs and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are laid to rest or in exile somewhere far away.

For a list of how each country voted, click here.

Iran's National Sport- Public Hangings

When I think of public executions I think of past centuries, certainly not something a civilized society in the 21st century would participate in. But Iran still hangs people in public squares, and they're attended by huge crowds.

In, fact, those hangings are a good time for daddies to bond with their kiddies.

And it provides great photo ops. The official Iranian Fars News Agency posted 25 of those gruesome pictures on their website for posterity. And check out the spectators' cell phones and point and shoots. 

The 'Iranian Human Rights' website claims that public executions have surged over the past few months and that

Iranian authorities announce the executions and broadcast them through the state media.

They've also called on the United Nations to help end public executions.

Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, the spokesperson of IHR, asked the international community to act immediately in order to stop these barbaric acts. He said: Public executions are not only inhumane and degrading for those executed, but also for those watching including the children". He added: "We ask the UN to take serious steps in order to put an end on this inhumane and brutalizing punishment".

 Of course, the useless U.N. is more interested in censuring Israel and promoting events like Durban 111, than dealing with barbaric practices that still exist in so many countries with Sharia law, like public hangings and stonings. Don't expect them to do anything about it!  And with Iran's track record for being the world's leader as far as executing people goes, I'm sure they won't lose that title any time soon.

JOKE OF THE DAY: Al Gore and U.N. Panel win Nobel Peace Prize

Forced to wake up ultra early, for a student matinee this a.m, I thought my overly tired brain and eyes were playing tricks on me when I saw that the illustrious Al Gore and a U.N. panel had actually won the Nobel Peace Prize for their work on, of all things, Global warming! Al Gore?! The U.N.?! Sigh. Excuse me while I bang my head against the wall.....repeatedly. Just what Gore needs to inflate his already humongous ego: another wholly undeserved award. All this glory, however, might satisfy his ego enough to deter him from making a bid for the ultimate prize: Prez of the U.S. of A., but I'm not so sure, although others are convinced it will. Then again, garnering kudos for 'saving our planet' is far less stressful than trying to save the western world from marauding religious fanatics intent on dragging us back into the dark ages, or into the ground if we refuse to submit. Or whacked-out foreign leaders armed with nuclear weapons, ready, willing and poised to strike. Why would anyone, frankly, want to take on that responsibility?! Then again, power is an aphrodisiac.

And can someone please explain why the Global Warming issue is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize? What has Global Warming to do with Peace, pray tell? There was a petition submitted to the Nobel Committee requesting that the Peace Prize be awarded to the Burmese Buddhist monastic order (Sangha), for their peaceful attempts to bring democracy to their country which would have been a far more deserving group than Gore and the useless U.N. Particularly in light of the fact that there are very differing views, in the scientific community, on the whole Global Warming issue. Apparently, Stewart Dimmock, truck driver and father of 2, sued the British government for distributing to 3,500 schools Global Warming packages which included Gore's film, claiming that

"the former U.S. Vice-President's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is unfit for schools because it is politically biased and contains serious scientific inaccuracies and 'sentimental mush'."

Although it wasn't outright banned, a U.K. court recently ruled that there are, indeed, 9 inaccuracies in Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" that must be addressed when showing the video to the school kids, along with a disclaimer stating that the film is politically biased:

1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.


3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.


5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

8. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

9. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Others blogging about this joke:
Spanish Pundit
Patjknowsitall
Chatterbox Chronicles

UPDATE:

Here's a great commentary in the UK Daily Telegraph

"So Al Gore is the joint winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. Admittedly, he has to share it with the United Nations’ climate change panel - but, even so, I think we need to declare an international smugness alert.The former US Vice-President has already taken over from Michael Moore as the most sanctimonious lardbutt Yank on the planet. Can you imagine what he'll be like now that the Norwegian Nobel committee has given him the prize? More to the point, can you imagine how enormous his already massive carbon footprint will become once he starts jetting around the world bragging about his new title?"

H/T: Jammiewearingfool

Freedom of Speech- Part 2: Defamation of Religion

Well, well, the boys and girls over at the U.N. have been busy little bees. In addition to 6 other resolutions and 2 Decisions, the Human Rights Council, on March 30, adopted resolution (A/HRC/4/L.12) condemning defamation of religions. But, in and ongoing effort to placate followers of Islam, the only religion mentioned happens to be, you got it: ISLAM!

"On combating defamation of religions, adopted by a vote of 24 in favour, 14 against, and nine abstentions, as orally amended, the Council expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations; notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions, and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities, in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001; urges States to take resolute
action to prohibit the dissemination including through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence; also urges States to provide adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance; further urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided; invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to regularly report on all manifestations of defamation of religions and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia on the enjoyment of all rights; and requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the Human Rights Council on the implementation of this resolution at its sixth session.

So, what about other religious faiths? What about defamation and incitement to hatred and violence of Jews and Christians or Buddhists by Muslims? Where's mention of that? Of course, if it had included these other religions, the Resolution would never have passed.

And can anyone guess who voted in favour of the Resolution? Let's see: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Tunisia.The 14 member states who voted against were: Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Switzerland, Ukraine and United Kingdom. And the 9 abstentions: Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Peru, Uruguay and Zambia. Not much of a surprise, other than Mexico.

Ironically, Blazing Cat Fur left the following comment on March 30:

"I remember when the cartoon controversy was hot, Muslims protested outside Queen's Park (Seat of provincial gov't). One women, obviously a resident in Canada for some years was quoted as saying. The U.N. should be brought in to set limits on free-speech. I mean what can you say to someone who thinks that way??"

What do you say when it actually happens??

The failures of the U.N.

I was going to list, individually, all of the many acknowledged failures of the U.N. from:

Somalia to
Rwanda to
Bosnia here and here

and including the whole Oil for Food Scandal that placed 10 Billion dollars in Saddam's pockets,
but it would take far too long. So, for those of you who think that the U.N. has been anything but useless, the National Center for Policy Analysis has a list of the many failures in addition to the few successes. Note the major difference between the two.

Many human tragedies could have been averted had the U.N. acted accordingly. When you don't act soon enough, or cut and run before a task is finished, or tie the hands of the Peacekeeping Force by not allowing them to engage unless fired upon, then you have trouble.

Joke of the day: U.N. approves tougher sanctions for Iran

The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved tougher sanctions on Iran for continuing with its uranium enrichment programme. So, we can happily add these newer improved ones to a string of sanctions that have already been slapped on the Iranians, all of which they'll continue to, defiantly, refuse to comply with.

Expanding on previous sanctions, whereby all member countries were ordered to stop supplying Iran with anything that could potentially be used to enhance their nuclear and missile defense programmes, Iran has now been ordered to stop selling arms to others. Ha! As if they won't, clandestinely, continue to supply the insurgents in Iraq (and elsewhere) with the weapons and arms they've already been supplying them with, now and in the past. They've already called the U.N. an illegitimate organization. Does the Security Council really think that Ahmadinejad is going to suddenly acquiesce to its demands. Please! By its previous actions (or rather, 'inaction'), that useless, wimp of an organization has proved, to all the gangster nations of the world, that regardless of the sanctions it might place on some rogue nation, it won't make a darn bit of difference. Yes, some sanctions might adversely affect the people themselves, but on the whole, I don't think the leaders really care. Saddam didn't. Castro doesn't. Kim Jong Il doesn't. Why should Ahmadinejad? How many U.N. Resolutions did Saddam flatly refuse to comply with before we invaded? No-one pays any attention to U.N. resolutions, and sanctions just don't work.

Adding to the December mandate to freeze certain Iranian foreign assets, several more organizations and people (28 in all) were added. As if that's going to force them to comply.

What's going to happen, is the U.N. Security Council members will continue to bicker over sanctioning Iran, with the usual China and Russia siding against the U.S. and Europeans, while Iran continues to dig in its heels, like a petulant child, until it finally reaches its goals: nuclear weaponry. I hope I'm wrong.