This Insult Cannot be Tolerated

[Lyra]

YouTube - Burning Quran 9/11

 

[SpaceYeti]

Why not? How do you plan on not tolerating it? How do we solve your percieved problem, and why should anyone else consider it a problem?

 

[Lyra]

That you do not understand the answer to these questions, on this day, is beyond my comprehension.

 

[SpaceYeti]

That you do not understand the answer to these questions, on this day, is beyond my comprehension.

Likely many things are.

But you're the one who's offended. You demand some sort of justice, yet there was no injustice to rectify. So someone burned and pissed on a book. So? Why ruffle your feathers over it?

 

[Oblivious]

SpaceYeti, do you read the news? This Quran burning has International Condemnation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/us/12jones.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/06/petraeus-warns-churchs-koran-burning/

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/09/201097164418445973.html

 

[SpaceYeti]

Good for it?

 

[Oblivious]

Oh come on, if someone goes on TV and says all black people are slaves and that all women are inferior, wouldn't you think something's wrong with that? This is no different imo.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Sure, I'd think something's wrong with that person. That doesn't mean we have the right to force our beliefs on him. So he's wrong. The best we can do is attempt to educate him.

However, this is not the same. This is a bad idea because it will incite violence by the offended people. The burning of the Qur'an is itself not the heart of the issue, but rather that there are groups who get so offended by it that they will become violent. The problem is the attitude of the violent people, not the burning of the Qur'an. They're bullies, it's not like their concerns are legitimate, they simply back them up with violence.

 

[typus]

Stop it. Debating about if an implied insult is an insult or not is just silly. Also, this guy deserves no attention at all, that any media at all covered this story in any way is just upsetting.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Stop it. Debating about if an implied insult is an insult or not is just silly. Also, this guy deserves no attention at all, that any media at all covered this story in any way is just upsetting.

Who said it's not an insult?

Further, I think this is a pretty important issue. Due we continue buckling to threats of violence? Where is the line? We can't just constantly give in to threats and pretend everything's hunky dory.

 

[typus]

Who said it's not an insult?

Further, I think this is a pretty important issue. Due we continue buckling to threats of violence? Where is the line? We can't just constantly give in to threats and pretend everything's hunky dory.

I missed your last comment and misinterpreted you before, I thought you meant burning the Quran was nuddin'. And yes, I don't think he should stop burning books because of threats, I think he should stop because his intent is to offend Muslims and get some attention.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I missed your last comment and misinterpreted you before, I thought you meant burning the Quran was nuddin'. And yes, I don't think he should stop burning books because of threats, I think he should stop because his intent is to offend Muslims and get some attention.

Perhaps some people should get offended. If our primary concern is whether or not we're hurting the feelings of people who will kill us for entering their temples, perhaps we're being a tad too soft. If there's a bee's hive in the middle of a playground, you have to get rid of it, and that involves upsetting the bees.

 

[Oblivious]

Well holocaust denial is illegal in 16 countries. Should we be so tolerant as to allow freedom of speech to its furthest extent without care for its consequences? Should holocaust deniers' right to free speech supersede historical accuracy and remembrance of such a terrible time in human history?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

 

[SpaceYeti]

Yes. Disallowing views that oppose your own is tyrannical, even when those views are foolish and silly, even when they upset people. You do not have the right to not be offended. If you disagree, you then have the right to say something against what the person just said. May the more rational position win.

Do you think Creationism should be illegal simply because it's false and silly? Should Santa Clause be illegal because he's a lie?

 

[Cognisant]

YouTube - Gurren Lagann - Clash of the Titans Trailer AMV Parody

 

[Oblivious]

Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

If a certain act of free speech has no purpose or intent but to cause malicious harm, is it worth defending? This is not Voltaire we are talking about, but the exercise of speech with no purpose but to cause harm.

 

[Cognisant]

Next up, Jesus vs Batman.
Place your bets.

Later, Skynet vs Anubis, who's badder? You decide!

 

[SpaceYeti]

The analogy you quote represents a lie which, due to having been said, causes danger. While it should not be illegal to say anything you want, it should be illegal to cause a dangerous situation. There are always exceptions to every rule. For example, it's wrong to shoot and kill people, but if you're doing it to prevent you or someone you love from getting shot and killed, it's justifiable. Similarly, you can say anything you desire, unless a direct result of saying it is obviously dangerous.

This situation does not fall under that category. What's dangerous are the conscious decisions of people made in response to what's being said. The people doing the talking are not the ones doing the dangerous thing.


*
So should insults be illegal? They serve no purpose but to insult. Should calling someone an asshole be illegal?

Now, how about this; What if the thing being insulted does not deserve respect?

 

[Oblivious]

Everyone knows from the Danish cartoon debacle that Muslims will get very agitated from any perceived attack on their religion. This is nothing new. The Quran burning was performed with the knowledge that this would breed feelings of ill will, and yet it was carried out.

This burning was carried out with the expectation of a response; the riling up of Muslims. It was designed specifically to anger them, knowing they might riot. The person burning the Quran might not even be a person wishing to make a statement. It might even be a radical who simply wants to incite violence. From a law enforcement perspective it is prudent to reduce the factors that may cause unrest.

And yes, a form of insult is already outlawed. It is called Defamation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

 

[snafupants]

Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

If a certain act of free speech has no purpose or intent but to cause malicious harm, is it worth defending? This is not Voltaire we are talking about, but the exercise of speech with no purpose but to cause harm.

Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a veritable crime. The right to free speech is subjugated by the effort to thwart riot starters. "Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute under the United States Constitution. In fact, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Schenck v. United States in 1919 declared that there are limits, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. The risk of harm from falsely shouting that was deemed greater than the right to express oneself. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, (1969) the Supreme Court established that the First Amendment does not protect speech if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law, such as a riot, that is "imminent" and "likely". The "Imminent lawless action" doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" does not have constitutional protection."

 

[SpaceYeti]

And yes, a form of insult is already outlawed. It is called Defamation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

And you agree that such laws are good?

And for the rest of your post; So what? Muslim extremists are violent. It doesn't much matter what you do, they're going to be violent. You're thinking of this far too linear. Muslim extremists kill people, they start wars, and they oppress. The Muslim religion itself is wholly unfounded and lacks merit. Now, if we're going to allow people to have such irrational and foolish lifestyles and beliefs, why not allow someone to have opposing irrational and foolish lifestyles? Why tolerate the foolishness of one belief, but not the foolishness of a belief that opposes the first? Why is it that people are getting up in arms about this video, but not the Muslim extremists who threaten people with violence?

 

[Lostwitheal]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/us-church-to-commemorate-9%1111-by-causing-another-one-201009083071/

There are some idiots around, no doubt. I think the best thing which could happen at this point would be for Muslims everywhere to just say "You know what? We're above responding to pathetic little people who do stuff like this. We pity them."

Instantly I suspect they'd gain a lot of respect around the world for doing so, and the muppets burning books would look like even bigger idiots than they already do.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not naive enough to believe that this is what will actually happen

 

[Oblivious]

I believe that with freedom comes responsibility.

If your restaurant depends on its reputation to do its business, and a baseless defamatory statement negatively affects it even if it was untrue, you should have the right to sue and seek compensation for damages.

If you had a gun, and you knew that if you put the gun to your head and pulled the trigger, you would die, would you do it?

If you had a Quran, and you knew that if you burned it in public, Muslims would riot and cause damage, would you do it?

Okay you have a Quran. You are free to burn it in private to vent your hatred of Islam. That's your freedom. Why publicize it when you know it would cause damage in society? If you were a police commissioner, your job would be to defend the citizens of your city. If you knew that book burning = riots and no book burning = no riots, I think its a no brainer.

Is it so important that you have to burn a book in public? Is your right to get off on burning books in public greater then the right of other citizens to have a riot free city?

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

All the same though, I'd like to go to that "church" and burn some bibles on the sidewalk in front and see how the react. We can call it science! Who's with me?

 

[snafupants]

SpaceYeti made a valid point earlier. Namely, that the line should be drawn somewhere because in a few decades we might not be able to put in print supposed libel about Muslims, Islam, Muhammad, or the Koran. This could morph into not being about to utter certain items about the aforesaid group. This is less of a far cry from fascism, externally imposed with vague threats no less. On a more abstract level, when Muslims get up in arms over Koran burning or depicting Muhammad, does that not just show their insecurity? If they had truly found enlightenment and contentment in their day to day, why would they care what infidels do?

 

[Oblivious]

snafu:

If America can handle the Republican party, it can handle the Muslims. Actually come to think of it. America has not handled the Republican party well at all. Scratch that one then.

I guess that would really depend on the manner of the libel. This severity of the situation would also depend heavily on the moderate Muslims increasing in number. This can only happen if they feel welcomed in America. It's really a huge balancing act.

Well you've got the Separation of Church and State. If one day they tried something so horrendously stupid like moving for sharia courts to supersede secular ones, I will be the one rioting. You can also be sure moderate Muslims, though not joining me in my riot, would show support for the basic tenets of your constitution.

Well, maybe I already live in a fascist country, but where I come from we also have the sedition act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_(Singapore)#Provision_against_racist_comments

It covers not just Muslims, but all races as well as religions.

There might be some sort of enforced peace where I come from, but life in Singapore is really carefree. I never have to worry about these racial and religious issues people have in other countries. Everyone is respectful of one another, live work and play together. We even have our own language that is a mix of all the different languages; chinese, malay (form of arabic), indian and english.

We all serve our conscription terms together and its almost like we're one huge family. If you talked to a young person here about these racial issues so prevalent in other countries you would just get blank stares because its so alien to them. If giving up my freedom to insult other people can buy such profound peace such that racial and religious conflict becomes alien, I say it's a good trade.

 

[Anthile]

Heinrich Heine said, where they burn books, in the end, they'll burn people too. That was in 1821.

 

[Chimera]

People do stupid shit? Wat?

All the same though, I'd like to go to that "church" and burn some bibles on the sidewalk in front and see how the react. We can call it science! Who's with me?

Wait for me IB!
​

 

[Oblivious]

I personally prefer to think of science as endeavour devoted to producing flying cars and find very offensive this obvious anti-flying-car discrimination dude.

 

[Black Rose]

This Insult Cannot be Tolerated

Let the religious war between Muslims and Christians begin.

Dick Cheney will be laughing his ass off knowing he was the one responsible for 9/11 being an inside job.

 

[snafupants]

snafu:

If America can handle the Republican party, it can handle the Muslims. Actually come to think of it. America has not handled the Republican party well at all. Scratch that one then.

I guess that would really depend on the manner of the libel. This severity of the situation would also depend heavily on the moderate Muslims increasing in number. This can only happen if they feel welcomed in America. It's really a huge balancing act.

Well you've got the Separation of Church and State. If one day they tried something so horrendously stupid like moving for sharia courts to supersede secular ones, I will be the one rioting. You can also be sure moderate Muslims, though not joining me in my riot, would show support for the basic tenets of your constitution.

Well, maybe I already live in a fascist country, but where I come from we also have the sedition act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_(Singapore)#Provision_against_racist_comments

It covers not just Muslims, but all races as well as religions.

There might be some sort of enforced peace where I come from, but life in Singapore is really carefree. I never have to worry about these racial and religious issues people have in other countries. Everyone is respectful of one another, live work and play together. We even have our own language that is a mix of all the different languages; chinese, malay (form of arabic), indian and english.

We all serve our conscription terms together and its almost like we're one huge family. If you talked to a young person here about these racial issues so prevalent in other countries you would just get blank stares because its so alien to them. If giving up my freedom to insult other people can buy such profound peace such that racial and religious conflict becomes alien, I say it's a good trade.

Agreed, that specious freedom of speech right would be a fair and welcome swap, or perhaps mere dampening, for profound peace in the United States; truthfully, this is a pipe dream though. America was created on dissention and violence, and recent wars, declared and undeclared, indicate little intention to relinquish world bullying. More to the issue, perhaps freedom of speech should be amended anyway. Did the founding fathers envision a world as connected as the one we live in currently? For that matter, did they imagine that their piece of paper would extend centuries beyond revolutionary times? In their day, travel from America to England was arduous and long, and communications were equally slow and problematic. In light of globalization and the pervasiveness of the media of today, updated laws should be put in place to ensure the safety and quality of life of citizens of the United States and beyond. Alternatively, we could try to muffle the rallying cries of radical muslims. This might be a euphemistic way of saying religion has outlived its usefulness.

 

[Melllvar]

Considering that freedom of expression is necessary to have a full, informed public discourse on whatever the topics of the day happen to be, I don't see how eliminating it would do anything but discourage social "progress." Sure it's all fine and good as long as the one's eliminating the right do it the right way, but who's to say they will? Whose version of what's appropriate do we go with? Freedom of expression is an inherent right, so it has to be taken away, unlike something like a "right to healthcare" which is not inherent but has to be provided by an outside source. I don't trust any group to decide for everyone where to draw the line on these things, myself included.

Besides, even what would appear to be negative actions can have positive consequences. All the racism, sectarianism, tribalism, whatever may eventually lead to better understandings of human psychology that make such modes of thinking obsolete (the same way we can disregard logical fallacies when they have been categorized and are common knowledge). I think that's a more permanent solution to certain self-destructive tendencies of people. After all, freedom of speech isn't the cause of such things, it just makes people's inner world's visible to everyone else. I'm not very familiar with Singapore, but it's hard to imagine they've succeeded in ending tribalism so much as suppressing the expression of it for fear of the consequences.

So yeah, I'd rather have mostly unlimited freedom of speech even if it lowers society's signal-to-noise ratio.

 

[typus]

Daaamn, Singapore sure has a lot of 'em Buddhists!

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Why is the child getting media coverage?

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

Religeous beleifs and politics aside, it is all childish. Im sorry if i offend people but, i find deeply religeous people to be pretty primitive, that is not to say they are stupid neccessarily, religeous beleifs dont hinder someones ability to understand the immediate problems they are faced with, but they just give people a dull one sided world view.

Religeous beleifs, political views, nationalism, are all pretty worthless, and devide people amongst themselves.

Why cant people just get along. Of course how am i any better, im simply separating myself from people by insinuating that thier beleifs shouldnt be accepted, doing the same thing they are. At least i can maintain myself without throwing fits and trying to lash out against people, holding on to the delusion that my opinion is the most rational, therefore i must conduct myself in a rational fashion.

 

[jaxin]

That you do not understand the answer to these questions, on this day, is beyond my comprehension.

What you don't comprehend is this: you're offended by the fact that somebody is an idiot. I suggest to take the time to accept the fact that there are idiots in the world.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@ Ifloathrulife,You are better because you don't try to coerce people into adopting your belief system or react in an aberrant manner in regards to those who hold different beliefs.

 

[IfloatTHRUlife]

Sweet, a few more followers and my plots against humanity will be set into motion.

*Deep maniacal laugh*

 

[Thaklaar]

Alright. So, on one hand we have an ignorant bigot. One who wishes to express his ignorant bigotry by burning a small lump of paper and ink. One that he more than likely purchased and owns. Granted, there's a small risk of touching off a brush-fire, but it's been pretty wet this summer in the southeast.

On the other hand, we have a bunch of assholes threatening to respond to this with MASSIVE DEADLY VIOLENCE!!

This is not yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. You know why? The logical, reasonable response to finding oneself in a crowded theater that is on fire is panicked flight. The logical, reasonable response to a redneck idiot burning a book is not SETTING A TORCH TO THE CITIES OF THE WEST!!

 

[dreamoftheunknown]

Disallowing views that oppose your own is tyrannical

Funny, isn't that exactly what the Quran burning idea is? Especially since it was meant to protest the construction of a Muslim recreation center two blocks away from ground zero. This "protest" is nothing more than a statement that the US is a "Christians only" club. If you're not Christian, then you're not welcome here. [Funny how these same people always claim to love the Constitution. "Religious freedom" to them means the freedom to impose their religion on everyone else. And when others have a problem with that, they want to holler that their "religious freedom" is being hindered. Whatever.] Had 9/11 been orchestrated by Christians, and some Christian pastor had decided that he wanted to build a Church a couple of blocks away from ground zero, no one would have dared suggest burning the Bible in protest. In fact, no one would have protested, at all, and we never would have heard about it.

I was offended by this whole affair, not just for the reason stated, but also on behalf of the Muslims around the world who had nothing to do with 9/11 and on behalf of our Muslim soldiers who fight against Al Qaeda. To me, this is akin to saying that all Germans are evil because of the Holocaust (and by the way, Germany is one of those countries in which Holocaust denial is illegal), or that all white people are evil because they once enslaved blacks.

To make it worse, the media gave this whole affair far too much attention, starting with the construction of the Muslim center (in a Muslim neighborhood). This was something I shouldn't have even heard about in my neck of the woods. It's an issue for New Yorkers, not the whole nation. Frankly, I don't feel that it's anyone's business outside of New York. I certainly shouldn't have heard about some no name pastor of a church in Florida of a population of a few dozen threatening to burn the Quran in protest. Not only is the idea reprehensible, but by giving it all this attention, especially after the stink the media made out of the construction of the Muslim center, has a way of legitimizing it, at least in some people's eyes. Bigotry runs deep, I see.

 

[Claverhouse]

Ecrazez l'infâme

Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre is a veritable crime. The right to free speech is subjugated by the effort to thwart riot starters. "Freedom of speech and expression is not absolute under the United States Constitution. In fact, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Schenck v. United States in 1919 declared that there are limits, such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. The risk of harm from falsely shouting that was deemed greater than the right to express oneself. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, (1969) the Supreme Court established that the First Amendment does not protect speech if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law, such as a riot, that is "imminent" and "likely". The "Imminent lawless action" doctrine states that speech that will cause, or has as its purpose, "imminent lawless action" does not have constitutional protection."

...At which point they trot out the old favorite that “there’s no right to shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre.” I wonder how many of these liberal Canadians know they’re quoting: a) an American;
and, better yet,
b) an American judge upholding espionage charges against an anti-war protester.

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic,” wrote Holmes, supporting the indictment of Charles Schenck for distributing leaflets urging draftees not to serve in the First World War. That’s the “fire”: Cindy Sheehan at a weekend protest in Berkeley.

As Colby Cosh pointed out, by that standard thousands of Canadian liberals would have been rounded up for protesting the war in Afghanistan. Cosh also notes that the analogy was already ridiculous by the time Wendell Holmes delivered it. Gas-lit 19th century playhouses were fire-risks; the electrified Winter Garden on the Broadway of 1919 wasn’t.


Mark Steyn --- Blowing Smoke



Holmes was a damned old fool anyway. If people have no right to say what they think, or do non-harming actions to express themselves, they are slaves.


And whilst I disagree with Steyn on most things, another person I disagree with would be the late conservative Bill Buckley, yet he once gave the perfect answer as to consequence of fighting evil:


"And if we die: we die."




Claverhouse



Pat Buchanan pointed out that: 'President Wilson shut down antiwar newspapers, prosecuted editors, and put Socialist presidential candidate and war opponent Eugene Debs in prison, leaving him to rot until Warren Harding released him and invited the dangerous man over to the White House for dinner.'


The last link is quite interesting, leading to a PDF of the NY Tunes original print. Wilson's 'Liberal' capitalism was far nastier to socialists than the Kaiser's government or that of the British Empire...

*****
​

Perhaps Holmes' ultradeferential jurisprudence could be defended if it were compelled by the text or original meaning of the Constitution. In reality, however, many of his decisions went directly against the text and purpose of the constitutional provision in question. For example, he voted to uphold racially restrictive zoning and peonage laws despite the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was clearly intended to forbid government-mandated racial discrimination in property and contract rights, and voted to uphold peonage laws despite the plain text of the Thirteenth Amendment, which unequivocally forbids "involuntary servitude."


One could also defend Holmes on the ground that he was merely a product of his times. On many of these issues, however, he was actually in dissent, which suggests that he wasn't merely reflecting the consensus view of the day.


Finally, one could respect Holmes more if he upheld these abhorrent laws despite his personal distaste for them. In many of these cases, however, he either approved of the laws in question or was indifferent to them. His enthusiasm for mandatory sterilization in Buck v. Bell is well-known. But he was also indifferent to or mildly supportive of even very extreme segregation laws, and various harsh restrictions on freedom of speech and press. More generally, Holmes was a kind of Social Darwinist of the political process who believed that majority rule was a force of nature that must almost always be deferred to.


Volokh

 

[Words]

Heinrich Heine said, where they burn books, in the end, they'll burn people too. That was in 1821.

I can't comprehend the analogy and I doubt I will see the two as analogous. The connection I'm thinking has relative conditions.

To unavoidably judge with subjectivity on what is right or wrong and when to decide, I believe this is what mainly separates each human's reactions. The key is brightened hierarchal values.

 

[Causeless]

I thought I should be offended at first, but the a voice kicked in in my head,

"Know what? Fuck, DO IT! Let's see just how deadly pointlessness can be! Taking bets on a body count."

Then again, that's me, from the warped perspective of thinking that most people view "Life" with far more sacredness than it deserves.

 

[Anthile]

I can't comprehend the analogy and I doubt I will see the two as analogous. The connection I'm thinking has relative conditions.

To unavoidably judge with subjectivity on what is right or wrong and when to decide, I believe this is what mainly separates each human's reactions. The key is brightened hierarchal values.

Spoiler

Heine was a Jew. They burned his books too.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Is it so important that you have to burn a book in public? Is your right to get off on burning books in public greater then the right of other citizens to have a riot free city?

I would say 'yes'. The reasoning being as I've already said. The rioters, in this case, made the conscious decision to riot. The blame is on them, and people should be held responsible for what they do, not what other people do in response to what they do.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Funny, isn't that exactly what the Quran burning idea is?

No. Nobody's limiting anyone from anything. Protesting something is a protest, not an enforcement. Protesting something is voicing a strong opinion about it, not disallowing it outright.

 

[pjoa09]

huh.. burning paper.. where is the problem again? oh right global warming and resources..

 

[lightspeed]

I have no deep feelings for such things. There's a huge difference between state sponsored book burnings, like with the Nazis, and some fringe hick bible study group burning the Koran. I will be very plain and simple when describing my thoughts...

I don't agree with the opinions of that certain pastor that threatened to burn the Koran. I have no idea who this kid is on youtube burning the Koran. I do believe there is a great deal of irony here...suggesting that it's wrong to be intolerant to a belief system, which it's self is the very definition of intolerance. I don't mind when a bible or flag is burned. I may or may not have burned money, flags, bibles myself. It's no big deal. I believe that if people are so insecure about what they believe, that a mere copy, or symbolic duplication is destroyed, then perhaps they're making a mountain out of an ant hill.

I want to know what it is about the Koran that somehow makes it above any other guideline for indoctrination?

I dare say that my beliefs are written on my soul, and I didn't inherit them from any religious book written by men.

I've always thought that when people do meet their maker, they are going to be very surprised to find out that God himself isn't very big on organized religion, and those who use his name as an inspiration for violence, are worse than any infidel or sinner.

The hypocrites will be damned!

 

[Lyra]

There is the numinous Islamic way and the profane Western way. There can be no compromise.

'After taking the high seat to preach to the assembly, Fa-Yen raised his hand and pointed to the bamboo blinds. Two monks went over and rolled them up in the same way. Fa-Yen said, "One gains, one loses." '

-Koan

 

[Lyra]

A really sly trick of the kuffar of the West is that they manage to convince not only a majority of their own peoples, but also millions of millions of people around the world, that this UN organization represents and upholds “peace”, “security”, and is committed to “freedom” – whereas the reality, the truth, is: (1) that this so-called “peace” is surrender to the kuffar of the West, or adopting the ways and Tawagheet of the kuffar of the West; (2) that this so-called “security” means maintaining the security of the West and allowing the West to keep its military, political, and economic superiority; and (3) that this so-called “freedom” is only the illusory “freedom” of allowing the kuffar of the West to retain their power, and their control, over their own lands, and over all the lands of the world.

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:

“When they [the deniers] seek compromise, they only desire you to compromise.” 68: 9 Interpretation of Meaning
​

The sly kuffar of the West then had their UN organization create so-called “international peace-keeping forces” – always under the ultimate control of the West – although in reality these so-called “international peace-keeping forces” were just a means whereby the West, who controlled the Security Council, could do what they wanted or felt was necessary, under the pretext of the so-called “international law” which they themselves had manufactured according to their Tawagheet.


Credit: DWM