Avoiding World Conference on Racism Shows Obama's Deep Disrespect For Blacks
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
“Blacks get nothing from Obama’s White House except permission to worship him as the ultimate role model.”
On Tuesday, April 14, according to the Huffington Post, the White House placed a conference call to American “Jewish leaders,” all but assuring them the U.S. would not show up for Durban II, the international conference on racism, in Geneva, Switzerland. President Obama’s close adviser Samantha Power, of the National Security Council, said the event’s revised draft document “met two of our four red lines frontally, in the sense that it went no further than reparations and it did drop all references to Israel and all anti-Semitic language. But it continued to reaffirm, in toto, Durban I.”
Translation: although the document, under relentless U.S. pressure, has been watered down to the point of irrelevance, it remains unacceptable because it reaffirms declarations of the first World Conference Against Racism, in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. There is virtually no chance President Obama will reverse his decision to boycott Durban II, April 20-24.
We must first ask: Why is the White House reporting to “Jewish leaders” on an issue that is of interest to all Americans, most especially people of color? Has Obama arranged such briefings on Durban II for “Black leaders,” “Latino leaders,” or “Native American leaders” – representatives of constituencies that have suffered genocide, slavery, discrimination, forced displacement and all manner of racist assaults right here on American soil? No, he has not. Barack Obama knows full well that he risks nothing by disrespecting African Americans at will. Across the Black political spectrum, so-called leadership seems incapable of shame or of taking manly or womanly offense at even the most blatant insults to Black people when the source of the affront is Barack Hussein Obama.
“Barack Obama knows full well that he risks nothing by disrespecting African Americans at will.”
Several weeks ago, popular Sirius Radio Black talk show host Mark Thompson (“Make It Plain”) wondered aloud if Obama’s threat to boycott Durban II should be a “deal breaker” – a “last straw” offense against Black interests and sensibilities. It should have been. The Obama administration’s fawning, damn near servile behavior when accommodating Zionist demands – and I use the word “demands” quite purposely – was a lesson in how Power responds to constituencies it favors, fears, or at least, respects. Blacks get nothing from Obama’s White House except permission to worship him as the ultimate role model. Less than nothing, as the unfolding Durban outrage demonstrates.
Obama has done more damage to the Durban process than George Bush, who pulled out of Durban I after the conference had begun. Important language survived the 2001 disruption, such as:
“We acknowledge that slavery and the slave trade, including the transatlantic slave trade, were appalling tragedies in the history of humanity not only because of their abhorrent barbarism but also in terms of their magnitude, organized nature and especially their negation of the essence of the victims, and further acknowledge that slavery and the slave trade are a crime against humanity and should always have been so, especially the transatlantic slave trade and are among the major sources and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and that Africans and people of African descent, Asians and people of Asian.”
and,
“Urges States to adopt the necessary measures, as provided by national law, to ensure the right of victims to seek just and adequate reparation and satisfaction to redress acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and to design effective measures to prevent the repetition of such acts”
As University of Dayton, Ohio law professor Vernellia R. Randall has pointed out, pressures from the Obama White House caused revisions in the Durban II draft that
• withdrew language related to reparations;
• removed the proposed paragraph related to the transatlantic slave trade being a crime against humanity;
• removed proposed paragraphs designed to strengthen the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent; and,
• overall weakened the efforts related to people of African Descent.
And of course, language related to Palestinian rights and Israeli racism was totally eviscerated. (Samantha Power: “..it did drop all references to Israel and all anti-Semitic language.”) But none of that was enough to satisfy the Zionists, who hope to utterly destroy Durban II, and erase Durban I from the record. (Power, on remaining U.S. objections: “But it continued to reaffirm, in toto, Durban I.”)
“Durbin II should have been a deal breaker.”
George Bush’s walkout at Durban I provided a sour ending for the event, but allowed participants to make some important statements and carry out additional work over the next eight years. The United States and other countries were to report to Durbin II on residential segregation, criminal justice, police brutality, felony disenfranchisement and Katrina displacement. That cannot happen if the official American delegation is not in Geneva. Samantha Power told her Jewish leadership friends, who don’t want Durban II to occur, at all, not to worry. “In order for us to participate in the negotiations, to sit behind the placard, to be involved in a frontal way, much more would need to be done. And all four of our red lines will need to be met."
Israel and the White House speak of “red lines” that they will not tolerate being crossed in politics and diplomacy. But where are the “red lines” that so-called Black leaders will not allow to be breached? Where Barack Obama is concerned, such lines do not exist – which is why he is permitted to walk all over Black folks, with impunity.
Yes, Durbin II should have been a deal breaker. Instead, it was mostly cause for sniveling lamentation and words of “concern” or wishful predictions by Black notables that Obama would change his mind (after the damage had already been done!) and attend the conference.
The National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL), although initially registering “profound disappointment” (oh, my!) with Obama’s boycott of Durbin II, cheerily added, “we are confident that your Administration will be reversing its decision in time to participate in the conference and its remaining preparatory meetings….” That was on March 27, by which time Obama’s vandals had caused the shredding of almost every word of value in the documents. The Black lawyers’ “Open Letter to President Barack Obama” was signed by an impressive list of many scores of prominent organizations and individuals – but in its determined, concentrated meekness, should never have been expected to have any impact on the White House. And of course, it had none.
“Where are the ‘red lines’ that so-called Black leaders will not tolerate being breached?”
The likes of the NCBL would be flattered to have Obama’s people string them along – any attention would do. But Samantha Power and her boss won’t even bother, understanding perfectly well that the meek inherent nothing but contempt. In her thorough and collegial report on Durban to Jewish leaders – who are anything but meek – Power said: "We will make our decision [to attend] up closer to the date of the conference, we want to show good faith to our allies and the people who are working hard to improve the text... But we are also not interested in being involved or associated with fool's errands."
Obama’s White House has not seen fit to show the slightest glimmer of good faith to Black people (at least, those not in his immediate family or employ), and seems to consider salvaging Durbin II a “fools errand.” You know what color the “fools” are.
TransAfrica chairman Danny Glover placed an article in the April 8 issue of The Nation magazine that read like a letter to President Obama. “This should be a moment for the United States to rejoin the global struggle against racism, the struggle that the Bush administration so arrogantly abandoned,” wrote Glover. “I hope President Obama will agree that the United States must participate with other nations in figuring out the tough issues of how to overcome racism and other forms of discrimination and intolerance, and how to provide repair to victims.”
Let’s see if Glover calls Obama “arrogant” when the president finishes sabotaging Durbin II. My bet is, “disappointed” is about as strong as Glover will muster. Obama sucks the spine out of Black people.
And as long as Black notables (let’s drop the “leadership” charade) turn into invertebrates at the mere thought of Barack Obama, so long will he treat the entire group as inconsequential, harmless ciphers.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.
==========================================
http://blackagendareport.com/?...as-disrespect-blacks
==========================================

No Nation is any Greater than it's Leaders

 

“Africa must build relationships with the rest of the world independently. It should never receive friends or foes from Europe and America"....President Robert Mugabe

Original Post
What’s more damaging is that Obama gives legitimacy to the downplaying of racism, reparations and recrimination. So many people believe in the brilliance, wisdom and heart of Obama that they are willing to subdue many of their long held beliefs or concerns because he speaks against them. They want so badly for him to be a success that they are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy by refusing to frame anything that he does as a “failure” or disappointment, and or lacking, brilliance, wisdom or heart. Of course, when a white man rebukes a conference on racism, minorities will dismiss as “what do you expect….he is white and they have been the primary instigators of egregious racism”. On the other hand, when the rebuke comes from a highly respected and loved minority, then it gives credibility to the rebuke as not being a continuation of white racism, but rather, the superior position/ way forward.

I can’t say that I am surprised or that I did not see such as a consequence of a black president. I have always believe that a black president would have to overcompensate away from appearing to favor or take the “black” position on high profile issues, for fear of white backlash. Unless the majority of white people hold the position also, Obama will not move in that direction. Obama knows that his political fate and perceived success rest in the hands of whites and not blacks, even though blacks were instrumental in getting him elected. Some people on this forum ostracized me for supporting Clinton, a white woman, over Obama. Well, the main reason for that is that we would have gotten essentially the same policies (democratic) without the need to overcompensate away from mainstream black concerns in order to attempt not to stoke the racial fears of whites that it was not “pay back time” once blacks got power.

We have not seen anything yet. Just wait till things really start getting bad for white America while there is a black president in office. Of course, they cannot take it out on Obama, but they can take it out on the typical black person looking for a job, in court or in some other means.
quote:
What’s more damaging is that Obama gives legitimacy to the downplaying of racism, reparations and recrimination.


And to think, somebody on a blog I read/post on commented about the Tea-party sign that said, "Obama's Plan = White Slavery." I almost spit my coffee out when the person said Whites with that kind of paranoia want to "push blacks back to the back of the nation's consciousness." This issue alone is the biggest example of how "blacks" aren't anywhere near the forefront of the country's consciousness.

I've had my issues with the way Glenn Ford/BAR tend to exaggerate things but I feel Ford is spot-on when he talks about how this is a sure sign of disrespect to Black people. The things Ford noted about Randall's findings, while predictable, are unnerving to say the least.
As much as I support The Obama Presidency, I have to agree that is an act of disrespect.

Particularly with The President having done this without any public outreach to the African American community to say...anything.

It is a 'read-my-lips' gesture.

Not good.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Hmmm.... Interesting...

quote:
High Commissioner for Human Rights shocked by US withdrawal from Review Conference and urges States to focus on racism not politics

UN Human Rights chief Navi Pillay said Sunday she deeply regretted the decision by the United States not to attend the Durban Review Conference and urged other states to maintain their commitment to the draft outcome document that they agreed only last Friday to forward to the Conference for consideration and adoption.

"I am shocked and deeply disappointed by the United States decision not to attend a conference that aims to combat racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and other forms of intolerance worldwide," the High Commissioner said. "A handful of states have permitted one or two issues to dominate their approach to this issue, allowing them to outweigh the concerns of numerous groups of people that suffer racism and similar forms of intolerance to a pernicious and life-damaging degree on a daily basis all across the world, in both developed and developing countries. These are truly global issues, and it is essential that they are discussed at a global level, however sensitive and difficult they may be."

The United States statement announcing it would not attend the 20-24 April Durban Review Conference in Geneva nevertheless recognized and applauded the significant progress that had been made over the past few weeks, culminating in Friday’s revised text that all the states attending a Preparatory Committee agreed to forward to the main conference for consideration and approval.

The US statement cites, as its main stumbling block, the current text’s reaffirmation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), the outcome document agreed by consensus at the end of the 2001 World Summit against Racism in Durban, South Africa – but not agreed by the US or Israel which had both left the Conference before it reached its conclusion.

"I believe that difficulty could have been overcome. It would have been possible to make it clear in a footnote that the US had not affirmed the original document and therefore is not in a position to reaffirm it, which is a routine practice in multilateral negotiations to enable consensus-building while allowing for individual positions to be expressed," Pillay said. "And then we could have all moved on together, and put the problems of 2001 behind us."

The US statement also mentioned the new document’s reference to incitement to hatred as problematic, even though this is already a well-established concept under international law. "It is covered by Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Pillay said. "This is one of the key overarching human rights treaties drawn up after World War II. It was intended to ensure that the type of incitement to hatred employed by the Nazi propaganda machine in the 1930s and 40s would be prohibited by law. This necessity was tragically underlined by the role of the Radio Mille Collines, other media and politicians in creating the environment which enabled the Rwandan genocide to occur 15 years ago this month. We should not underestimate the power of incitement to hatred to fuel violence, conflict and even genocide. I therefore believe it is very relevant to include this concept in a conference designed to tackle racism and xenophobia.

"Some media have interpreted the US withdrawal as based on the continued retention of language on defamation of relgion and anti-semitism in the outcome document, when in fact no such language exists in the text adopted last week," Pillay noted. "In addition, the draft outcome document clearly states that ‘the Holocaust must never be forgotten’ and deplores all forms of racism including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism." She pointed out that in this respect it reflects the original 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.

"I fail to see why, given that the Middle East is not mentioned in this document, that politics related to the Middle East continue to intrude into the process, " Pillay said.

The High Commissioner praised the "constructiveness and flexibility of the member states that have actively participated during the weeks of difficult negotiations that led to Friday’s revised draft document." She noted that compromises were found that take into account the wishes of all states taking part in the process. "Yet the document still provides us with a meaningful outcome," she said.

"All countries that participated in the adoption of the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action must redouble their commitment to its implementation by fully participating in the Review Conference," Pillay said.

http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/story19.shtml
Envoys walk out of U.N. anti-racism conference




(CNN) -- Dozens of international envoys walked out during a speech by Iran's president Monday as he accused Israel of having a "racist government" and committing genocide.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the West of making "an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering ... in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine."

Many delegates at the controversial U.N. anti-racism conference in Geneva, Switzerland, cheered his words as a minority of diplomats -- mostly from Europe -- collected their papers and briefcases and left the room. Cameras at the scene showed empty seats where delegates from France, Finland and Denmark had been sitting.

The British and Spanish delegations also walked out, both countries' foreign affairs divisions confirmed. Watch delegates make their exit »

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a statement criticizing Ahmadinejad for using the conference "to accuse, divide and even incite."

Ban said he had spoken to the Iranian president and asked him not to focus on "divisiveness" in his address.

"It is deeply regrettable that my plea to look to the future of unity was not heeded by the Iranian president," Ban said.

During Monday's speech, Ahmadinejad paused a moment, then continued: "In fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

"It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defend those racist perpetrators of genocide," he said, echoing Tehran's official line on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel was established in 1948 as a homeland for Jewish people after the Holocaust, on land also claimed by Palestinians.

Ahmadinejad said Zionism, the Jewish national movement, "personifies racism" and accused Zionists of wielding economic and political resources to silence opponents.

He also blasted the United States-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Wasn't the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then-U.S. administration?" he demanded.

At least two protesters in brightly colored wigs interrupted Ahmadinejad as he began to speak, shouting: "You're a racist!" in accented English.

But some delegates cheered as he began his speech while security officers dragged the protesters from the chamber.

Later in the address, more protesters shouted at him from a balcony, leading him to pause and look down for a moment, a smile playing across his lips.

He also blamed the United States for the world economic crisis.

Israel withdrew its ambassador from Switzerland in protest before the conference, which the United States and a number of other countries are boycotting.

Alejandro Wolff, the U.S. deputy ambassador to the U.N., called Ahmadinejad's remarks "vile," "hateful" and "inciteful," and praised Ban's condemnation.

A number of European countries had vowed to walk out if Iran's president made offensive remarks.

"The U.K. unreservedly condemns Iranian President Ahmadinejad's offensive and inflammatory comments. Such outrageous, anti-Semitic remarks should have no place in a U.N. anti-racism forum," said Peter Gooderham, Britain's envoy to the U.N. in Geneva.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said he instructed the country's ambassador to the U.N. to leave the conference along with his European colleagues after Ahmadinejad spoke "in an unacceptable way."

An Israeli government minister said it was "absurd" that Ahmadinejad "gets a free ride at the U.N. conference which is aimed at dealing with human rights and the fight against racism.

"One can argue with Israel on its policies of defending its people against terror, but no one can compare it to what Ahmadinejad has said," Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog told CNN. "He is trying to undermine the legitimacy of the only safe haven of Jews around the world ... a member state of the United Nations, a member state which is the only democracy in the Middle East."

Ahmadinejad was the first speaker at the conference because he was the only head of state to respond to the invitation, conference spokesman Ramu Damodaran told CNN.

"Invitations are sent to all member states. They decide at what level they wish to be represented," he explained. Ahmadinejad "was the only head of state who had confirmed as of today -- and when you arrange the list of speakers, heads of state get precedence over non-heads of states."

The United States, among others, is refusing to send any envoys at all to the Durban Review Conference.

While rejecting the boycott, Navi Pillay, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, urged reporters "not allow this one intervention to mar the conference.

"I prefer to move on," she said at a news conference after Ahmadinejad's speech. She also criticized the delegates who walked out during his speech, saying his "unsavory remarks" did not "provide justification for anyone to walk out of the conference."

Pillay said Sunday that she regrets -- and is "shocked" by -- the United States' decision to boycott.

The U.S. State Department said Washington's decision was based in part on a conference document that "singles out" Israel in its criticism and conflicts with the United States' "commitment to unfettered free speech."

Australia, Canada, Germany, Poland and Italy are among those also boycotting the conference

CNN's Atika Shubert contributed to this report.




Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...onference/index.html
This just makes it look like the international (western) community wants the world to deal with racism the same way that racist whites want us to deal with it here in the U.S.--- simply do not talk about it.

I do not believe that Iran's president had to stand there using valuable time to just rail on Isreal, but at the same time we are suppose to live in a nation that believes in Freedom of Speech, so for countries to get up and walk out and for the U.S. to not be present merely because things were going to be said that some people would not like makes the U.S. and the west seem hypocritical.

I don't know each and every word that the president of Iran said about Isreal, but if what he had to say was not true, then, that would (IMO) be Isreal's opportunity to respond to his false charges and point out where he is wrong.

I think that America is making grave mistakes by obitrarily taking the side of ANY particular country, especially when or just because another country is only exercising one of the core pricipals of democracy---freedom of speech. I also think that WOMEN in general should have had a representative there to 'rail against' the treatment of women throughout this world, especially in developing nations AND particularly in Islamic countries, like Iran, for example. There should have been a woman there to rail against sexism in the world and in the middle east in a way that shows men like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that whatever he could have said about Isreal, women throughout the world and particularly in his region of the world could have taken his exact speech and replaced the word Isreal with the word women, and it probably would have been the same speech. Would he have walked out? Would Islamic countries represented have walked out.

It is hard for the world to take a nation serious about racism that practices the same injustices upon a segment of the human race by way of sexism. A man forfeits the right to complain about racism if he himself practices, encourages, holds indifference to sexism. And I personally do not believe that Isreal is innocent in that region, in fact no country or government or person is totally innocent, but how can you call out the injustices on one particulary nation and completly overlook those same injustices happening all over your own nation and region when it comes to women?----Which makes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad look just as hypocritical.
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
As much as I support The Obama Presidency, I have to agree that is an act of disrespect.

Particularly with The President having done this without any public outreach to the African American community to say...anything.

It is a 'read-my-lips' gesture.

Not good.


yeah, sadly.
Wow..so Obama is beng written-off in a 100 days huh? Who is to say he might do something later that supercedes all of what supposedly has not been addressed for us. I guess he was supposed to cover reparations during the campaign also...I say give it some time....before we conclude that Obama is not going to do schit for black folks.......
quote:
Originally posted by Kevin41:
Wow..so Obama is beng written-off in a 100 days huh? Who is to say he might do something later that supercedes all of what supposedly has not been addressed for us. I guess he was supposed to cover reparations during the campaign also...I say give it some time....before we conclude that Obama is not going to do schit for black folks.......



Giving him time isn't the issue. The issue are the actions that he's taken up to this point.
Wow...so he is going to be held to task that soon huh? If only my people would have had such a sense of urgency when the moron W was in. Maybe we could have had another civil rights movement. I personally like the fact that he was not beholden to anyone except for the electorate...I can opnly imagine what type of puppet he would be for real. Well hopefully things will happen that will show that others were too quick to rush to udgement....hopefully so..........
quote:
I say give it some time....before we conclude that Obama is not going to do schit for black folks...


Hmmm... That's funny because I don't know when and where "WE" concluded that "Obama is not going to do schit for black folks."
Nmaginate...just basing it on what i've been reading from some every since the election...hope all is kool with you brother......
The only one who came close to saying some stuff like that was Noah. Can't recall what Roarin's position was but I know nobody else who has posted on this thread has provided a basis for or espoused such a conclusion that "Obama is not going to do schit for black folks..."

Plus it's well past time out for the "just give it some time" arguments. That kind of stuff was said during the election. In fact, the argument was "WE have to get him elected first."

So. He's elected and the time for WCAR has come and there is no excuse for Obama's administration to play the WCAR the way it has. NONE.

And the irony is thick. As people have pointed out (not necessarily here on AA.org), Obama and his Administration can reach out and talk to Castro, Chavez and even Ahmadinejad but can't find a way to participate in the WCAR.... AFTER they essentially defanged it.

UN-freakin'-ACCEPTABLE.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
The only one who came close to saying some stuff like that was Noah. Can't recall what Roarin's position was but I know nobody else who has posted on this thread has provided a basis for or espoused such a conclusion that "Obama is not going to do schit for black folks..."

Plus it's well past time out for the "just give it some time" arguments. That kind of stuff was said during the election. In fact, the argument was "WE have to get him elected first."

So. He's elected and the time for WCAR has come and there is no excuse for Obama's administration to play the WCAR the way it has. NONE.

And the irony is thick. As people have pointed out (not necessarily here on AA.org), Obama and his Administration can reach out and talk to Castro, Chavez and even Ahmadinejad but can't find a way to participate in the WCAR.... AFTER they essentially defanged it.

UN-freakin'-ACCEPTABLE.


yeah
I think Obama, or should I say his handlers, or Obama and his handlers, have demonstrated a clear pattern of being hypersensitive and responsive to public sentiment, polls and the like. He demonstrated this in the election, where when public sentiment started to move away from it, he said what he had to say and threw under the bus who he needed to in order to move momentum and sentiment back in his corner. Also, Obama has an aversion to causing “divisiveness”. I think he, prefers to avoid issues that promote divisiveness.

When you take this pattern into consideration, married with the fact that black issues, normally generate negative sentiment and reaction in whites, hence, creates divisiveness, I don’t see it likely that Obama will risk it. Obama is already walking a tight rope with the economy. He can only blame Bush for so long, before people are going to link the bad affairs to him. If he really wants to lose support fast, let him seem to be taking the black side or pushing a black agenda in times where more and more whites are suffering. The only issues that Obama can side with blacks on, related to race, are issues that the majority of white people agree with.

That said, as 2012 nears, they (Democrats) are going to need strong black support again….and my only question is will black folks make them earn it….
I agree that Obama should have attended. I mean the Majority of whites wouldn't care. They don't really care about much outside their own lives, actually that could be said for most Americans in general (myself included).

But who really believes this conference will lead to action? I'll believe it when I start to see it. Otherwise it's just more politicians and intellectuals getting together and calling it "doing something". Calling attention to a problem is like them calling attention to trash on the ground, but not picking it up. If I want to watch a posturing contest, I'll turn on Pro Wrestling, at least they hit each other with chairs......
quote:
Originally posted by Khalliqa:
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
The only one who came close to saying some stuff like that was Noah. Can't recall what Roarin's position was but I know nobody else who has posted on this thread has provided a basis for or espoused such a conclusion that "Obama is not going to do schit for black folks..."

Plus it's well past time out for the "just give it some time" arguments. That kind of stuff was said during the election. In fact, the argument was "WE have to get him elected first."

So. He's elected and the time for WCAR has come and there is no excuse for Obama's administration to play the WCAR the way it has. NONE.

And the irony is thick. As people have pointed out (not necessarily here on AA.org), Obama and his Administration can reach out and talk to Castro, Chavez and even Ahmadinejad but can't find a way to participate in the WCAR.... AFTER they essentially defanged it.

UN-freakin'-ACCEPTABLE.


yeah


yeah
Well... if Israel haters like "Ahmadinejad" could somehow manage to put aside their hatred for Israel for just a moment during this conference, maybe the United States will attend

Kevin
Huh? Confused

The United States is / Israel.

That's making Ahmadinejad or Israel the country or person who DICTATES what this country does. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED. It's bs. The US likes to talk about being THE LEADER... let this mf lead then.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Huh? Confused

The United States is / Israel.

That's making Ahmadinejad or Israel the country or person who DICTATES what this country does. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED. It's bs. The US likes to talk about being THE LEADER... let this mf lead then.


..........kay.........
Nmaginate
quote:
"That's making Ahmadinejad or Israel the country or person who DICTATES what this country does. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED."

Of course it can! Like it or not, Israel is considered a friend to the United States. When certain people are allowed to hijack such an important event and spew hatred over the pulpit that offends us and our friends, it makes perfect sense to me for us to boycott such an event.
It's not like we can take over and decide who speaks and who does not, we must either swallow what offends us, or stay away; obviously we chose to stay away.

Kevin
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
Nmaginate
quote:
"That's making Ahmadinejad or Israel the country or person who DICTATES what this country does. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED."

Of course it can! Like it or not, Israel is considered a friend to the United States. When certain people are allowed to hijack such an important event and spew hatred over the pulpit that offends us and our friends, it makes perfect sense to me for us to boycott such an event.
It's not like we can take over and decide who speaks and who does not, we must either swallow what offends us, or stay away; obviously we chose to stay away.

Kevin


What exactly did Ahmadinejad say that was "hateful"? Just about everything he said can be verified with a quick trip to Google. Just because it's an unpleasant fact about a country whose dick America is on doesn't make it "hate".
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:

Well... if Israel haters like "Ahmadinejad" could somehow manage to put aside their hatred for Israel for just a moment during this conference, maybe the United States will attend

Kevin



this doesn't make any sense
EP
quote:
"What exactly did Ahmadinejad say that was "hateful"?"
I'm not sure exactly what he said that was hateful, but whatever he said, it caused 23 European Union Delegations to walk out in protest.

If that many from other countries were offended, obviously the United States would have been as well. I guess the United States knew who was invited, had an idea of what would be said and chose to stay away, rather than show up, and walk out in protest like the others did.

Kevin
quote:
I'm not sure exactly what he said that was hateful


Confused???

Kevin1122, you're the one who prefaced your remarks with:

Well... if Israel haters like "Ahmadinejad" could somehow manage to put aside their hatred for Israel

So, EP's question was rather straightforward and only ask you to justify your choice of terms:

"When certain people are allowed to hijack such an important event and spew hatred over the pulpit that..."


But, since you insist that you're not sure "exactly what he said that was hateful", I'll rest with what I've already said:

DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED

Again, "hater", "hatred", etc. was YOUR term.


quote:
If that many from other countries were offended, obviously the United States would have been as well.


Oh, brother. There's been plenty of occasions when "that many" countries have been offended and the U.S. wasn't riding with them just based on a number count. Again... DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED. By rationalized, I mean reasoning that makes sense especially for a nation like the U.S. that, again, fancies itself as a world leader. Now if the U.S. promoted itself as a follower or Israel West that would be something different.
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
Nmaginate
quote:
"That's making Ahmadinejad or Israel the country or person who DICTATES what this country does. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED."

Of course it can! Like it or not, Israel is considered a friend to the United States. When certain people are allowed to hijack such an important event and spew hatred over the pulpit that offends us and our friends, it makes perfect sense to me for us to boycott such an event.
It's not like we can take over and decide who speaks and who does not, we must either swallow what offends us, or stay away; obviously we chose to stay away.

Kevin


Oh please. Roll Eyes The absence of the U.S. at the conference in Durban has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad. Who do you think you're fooling? I suspect you are aware of the true rationale but don't give a damn to objectionable truth, so essentially there's no point in discussing the matter.

White Americans and Zionist Jews are making an awful mess of the world. No matter how much mischief is perpetrated by the state of Israel a handful in Amerikkka benefits enormously from the pittances of a pariah state - a state which I distinguish little from Nazi Germany. How ironic and sad that the state of Israel is not much different from the Nazi regime of Germany.

All of the think tanks and pundits of misinformation which has obviously brainwashed your political views are dominated by Zionist Jews. Including the think tank that groomed D'nesh and Condoskeeza Rice. The same foundation which funded Bell Curve also funded "Not Out Of Africa", and "End Of Racism".

Supporting Israel through billions of dollars of welfare is killing the US. You may learn the hard way. Israel is an outlaw state in violation of numerous international laws. With much proof to support this fact you should write your Congressman and Senator and explain to them they should stop behaving as though we're some kind of Israeli colony bowing to her every whim rather than excusing the absence of the U.S. at the racism conference for the sake of Israel.

BTW, not that you care, but the so-called Jews in Israel have absolutely NOTHING to do with the biblical Hebrews of the bible. Just wanted to throw that out there.
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident:
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
Nmaginate
quote:
"That's making Ahmadinejad or Israel the country or person who DICTATES what this country does. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED."

Of course it can! Like it or not, Israel is considered a friend to the United States. When certain people are allowed to hijack such an important event and spew hatred over the pulpit that offends us and our friends, it makes perfect sense to me for us to boycott such an event.
It's not like we can take over and decide who speaks and who does not, we must either swallow what offends us, or stay away; obviously we chose to stay away.

Kevin


Oh please. Roll Eyes The absence of the U.S. at the conference in Durban has nothing to do with Ahmadinejad. Who do you think you're fooling? I suspect you are aware of the true rationale but don't give a damn to objectionable truth, so essentially there's no point in discussing the matter.

White Americans and Zionist Jews are making an awful mess of the world. No matter how much mischief is perpetrated by the state of Israel a handful in Amerikkka benefits enormously from the pittances of a pariah state - a state which I distinguish little from Nazi Germany. How ironic and sad that the state of Israel is not much different from the Nazi regime of Germany.

All of the think tanks and pundits of misinformation which has obviously brainwashed your political views are dominated by Zionist Jews. Including the think tank that groomed D'nesh and Condoskeeza Rice. The same foundation which funded Bell Curve also funded "Not Out Of Africa", and "End Of Racism".

Supporting Israel through billions of dollars of welfare is killing the US. You may learn the hard way. Israel is an outlaw state in violation of numerous international laws. With much proof to support this fact you should write your Congressman and Senator and explain to them they should stop behaving as though we're some kind of Israeli colony bowing to her every whim rather than excusing the absence of the U.S. at the racism conference for the sake of Israel.

BTW, not that you care, but the so-called Jews in Israel have absolutely NOTHING to do with the biblical Hebrews of the bible. Just wanted to throw that out there.


Kemet You're one scary little Kitty............

Bean Pie brotha?
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
Bean Pie brotha?


lol It didn't take long...


No matter how much it tries an uncivilized pig will always return to its true nature. Poke a racist long enough and they will melt down into a typical irrational bigot no matter how much they pretend to be civil at first.
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
EP
quote:
"What exactly did Ahmadinejad say that was "hateful"?"
I'm not sure exactly what he said that was hateful, but whatever he said, it caused 23 European Union Delegations to walk out in protest.


Because most of them are pro-Israel hardliners who take the position that Israel is almost always right and the Palestinians are almost always wrong. Most of them are bought and paid for Zionists.

quote:
If that many from other countries were offended, obviously the United States would have been as well. I guess the United States knew who was invited, had an idea of what would be said and chose to stay away, rather than show up, and walk out in protest like the others did.

Kevin


Unfortunately for the West the majority of the world is not full of Zionist ass-kissers. Most nations are not nearly as behind Israel as the white Western nations are and tend to sympathize with the Palestinians. Most countries are not anti-Israel but they don't support Israel's bullyish behavior towards Palestinians or support the Euro-Israeli sense of entitlement to the land in the region. That's why most of the non-European nations clapped or at least did not walk out.

I'm not surprised that the Europeans walked out nor do I care. They don't care when Israelis slaughter thousands of Palestinians, block humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and West Bank, try to decide the Palestinians' politics for them and engage in segregation. They're of the mindset that whatever these white Jews in Israel do to these brown Palestinians is justified even though the Palestinians are aboriginal to the land. Typical.


quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Oh, brother. There's been plenty of occasions when "that many" countries have been offended and the U.S. wasn't riding with them just based on a number count. Again... DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED. By rationalized, I mean reasoning that makes sense especially for a nation like the U.S. that, again, fancies itself as a world leader. Now if the U.S. promoted itself as a follower or Israel West that would be something different.


yeah

It's because the US government is full of Republican and Democrat Zionists and Zionist lobbyists who are 1001% pro-Israeli because it serves Western interests in the region. The US is probably the most hardline pro-Zionist nation in the world. Even more so than the EU or even Israel itself. More Israeli citizens disagree with the actions of their government towards Palestinians than Americans. That's because Americans are brainwashed from an early age to believe the Holocaust somehow justifies Israel violently grabbing land and treating anyone who gets in the way as a sub-human "terrorist" completely deserving of being mowed down by IDF Uzis.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
Bean Pie brotha?


lol It didn't take long...


No matter how much it tries an uncivilized pig will always return to its true nature. Poke a racist long enough and they will melt down into a typical irrational bigot no matter how much they pretend to be civil at first.


You can't be talking about my post? God you people have no sense of humor, maybe I should make a few "Whitey" jokes or "jew" jokes.

So Zionist and Stupid Whites = ok

Bean Pie = Racists

Got it. giveup
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
EP
quote:
"What exactly did Ahmadinejad say that was "hateful"?"
I'm not sure exactly what he said that was hateful, but whatever he said, it caused 23 European Union Delegations to walk out in protest.


Because most of them are pro-Israel hardliners who take the position that Israel is almost always right and the Palestinians are almost always wrong. Most of them are bought and paid for Zionists.

quote:
If that many from other countries were offended, obviously the United States would have been as well. I guess the United States knew who was invited, had an idea of what would be said and chose to stay away, rather than show up, and walk out in protest like the others did.

Kevin


Unfortunately for the West the majority of the world is not full of Zionist ass-kissers. Most nations are not nearly as behind Israel as the white Western nations are and tend to sympathize with the Palestinians. Most countries are not anti-Israel but they don't support Israel's bullyish behavior towards Palestinians or support the Euro-Israeli sense of entitlement to the land in the region. That's why most of the non-European nations clapped or at least did not walk out.

I'm not surprised that the Europeans walked out nor do I care. They don't care when Israelis slaughter thousands of Palestinians, block humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and West Bank, try to decide the Palestinians' politics for them and engage in segregation. They're of the mindset that whatever these white Jews in Israel do to these brown Palestinians is justified even though the Palestinians are aboriginal to the land. Typical.


quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Oh, brother. There's been plenty of occasions when "that many" countries have been offended and the U.S. wasn't riding with them just based on a number count. Again... DOES NOT MAKE SENSE and CANNOT BE RATIONALIZED. By rationalized, I mean reasoning that makes sense especially for a nation like the U.S. that, again, fancies itself as a world leader. Now if the U.S. promoted itself as a follower or Israel West that would be something different.


yeah

It's because the US government is full of Republican and Democrat Zionists and Zionist lobbyists who are 1001% pro-Israeli because it serves Western interests in the region. The US is probably the most hardline pro-Zionist nation in the world. Even more so than the EU or even Israel itself. More Israeli citizens disagree with the actions of their government towards Palestinians than Americans. That's because Americans are brainwashed from an early age to believe the Holocaust somehow justifies Israel violently grabbing land and treating anyone who gets in the way as a sub-human "terrorist" completely deserving of being mowed down by IDF Uzis.


Hale Hitler rock
quote:
Originally posted by joeodd:
You can't be talking about my post? God you people have no sense of humor, maybe I should make a few "Whitey" jokes or "jew" jokes.

So Zionist and Stupid Whites = ok

Bean Pie = Racists


There are 2 huge holes in your logic:

1) I didn't say only whites are Zionists. Obama is a Zionist (though not as much as Bush).
2) ZIONISM IS NOT A RACE. Zionism is a nationalist ideology.

Judaism =/= Zionism

Judaism = a religious faith and a culture
Zionism = a nationalist ideology about some particular land in the Middle East

Get it? Many Jews do not agree with Zionism. Are they self-hating Jews?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by joeodd:
Hale Hitler rock


Only Neocons and blue dog Democrats equate Judaism with Zionism. That's like equating being white with supporting White Nationalism.

Seriously, just stop embarrassing yourself. This is getting ridiculous.
quote:
Originally posted by Empty Purnata:
quote:
Originally posted by joeodd:
Hale Hitler rock


Only Neocons and blue dog Democrats equate Judaism with Zionism. That's like equating being white with supporting White Nationalism.

Seriously, just stop embarrassing yourself. This is getting ridiculous.


Don't sweat him. He's a paid troll.
I get it, your a Muslim. Ok.......chill. Zionism, Judaism......I don't think those rockets fired from Gaza can really tell the difference.........Maybe the Jews should just accept the rockets and not complain. Consider them daily little "surprises"? I mean other countries wouldn't react harshly if their neighbor start shooting rockets into their country. Israel is just being a big Meanie! spank

BTW Hamas wants to drive ALL Jews into the sea. It's in their charter. Maybe you should have a little chat with those guys, cause I don't think they are on the same page. Just FYI
quote:
What exactly did Ahmadinejad say that was "hateful"? Just about everything he said can be verified with a quick trip to Google. Just because it's an unpleasant fact about a country whose dick America is on doesn't make it "hate".


Right, and psychologically speaking EP, that is called 'Denial'. A disorder many in the U.S. suffer from. Including some of our own black bodied, white minded citizens.
quote:
I get it, your a Muslim. Ok.......chill. Zionism, Judaism......I don't think those rockets fired from Gaza can really tell the difference.........Maybe the Jews should just accept the rockets and not complain. Consider them daily little "surprises"? I mean other countries wouldn't react harshly if their neighbor start shooting rockets into their country. Israel is just being a big Meanie!

BTW Hamas wants to drive ALL Jews into the sea. It's in their charter. Maybe you should have a little chat with those guys, cause I don't think they are on the same page. Just FYI


Are you freaking kidding me?? Actually, knowing the history of this thing, the Jews caused their own problems with Arabs and Palestinians in Central/Western Asia. They were the first ones to take a 'by any means necessary' stance to forcibly take over that area. While the entire time were supported by England.
This is why reading is fundamental. But I guess some people exemplify the saying that if you don't want a black person to know something, put it in a book, newspaper or scholarly magazine. Read, don't just listen to the talk! That is the number one way propaganda is spread, hearsay. Ugh! I feel utterly disgusted now!

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×