UN Objections....

[Rat Faced]

Could someone please explain to me why:

"the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance".

Is objected to by Bush?

They wish to replace it with:

"the targeting and deliberate killing by terrorists of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance".



What is wrong with the original definition?

Surely its wrong for everyone to do this, not just Terrorists... :unsure:

It doesnt say "accidental killing" it says: "targeting and delibrate killing"..

...is this something the Bush administration does already or something? :rolleyes:

[Rat Faced]

Quote of the Day


US President George Bush and other world leaders appealed for global action to prevent conflict, protect human rights and suppress terror.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

And Genghas Khan wishes to stop people riding horseback. :rolleyes:

[Biggles]

Quote of the Day


US President George Bush and other world leaders appealed for global action to prevent conflict, protect human rights and suppress terror.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

And Genghas Khan wishes to stop people riding horseback. :rolleyes:


and take up crochet I believe.




I have to say that it is depressing that a number of people (not just GW) have diluted and degraded the original wording of some quite good UN texts. I thought people wanted the UN to be stronger and firmer about this kind of thing.

However, I would agree completely that in that particular sentence the words "by terrorists" are completely redundant. No one should kill civilians and non combatants period. This is not a difficult concept.

[JPaul]

If they insert "by terrorists" then one needs to decide which groups are terrorists.

Who does POTUS propose makes those decisions.

I agree it is redundant, bearing in mind the phrase " .... the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants ....". Does he forsee an instance when groups other than terrorists may wish to do this.

[tracydani]

Who does POTUS propose makes those decisions.
He's already decided. But don't worry, if he's made a mistake he can always change his mind and add someone else to the list :)

[whypikonme]

The US is doing it all the time, there is plenty of proof of that. Look at the wedding they shot up in Afghanistan. That was targeted by spy planes, then shot up by a gunship, they didn't have a clue who was down there, but deliberately targeted and killed them. Now they're doing it in Iraq. All this is really just a name change, from collateral damage to legal murder. l'll bet Israel has a hand in this too.

[tracydani]

Obviously someone is afraid peace and happiness may break out in the region.

It is plain to me that those people in the wedding party were terrorists, why else would they hold such an event which was so clearly meant to spread further fears of peace and happiness among the people.

They got what they deserved, and it is a good thing we have someone like Bush to save us from terrorists of all kinds.

[GepperRankins]

in a way these changes could save the UN. the US will do its own thing anyway so we might as well let them.

[Helghast004]

Stupid americans think they can do whatever they want...oh wait. :(

Yeah dont see the need to change it.

[vidcc]

http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/050210/danziger.gif

[ahctlucabbuS]

"the targeting and deliberate killing of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance".

Is objected to by Bush?

They wish to replace it with:

"the targeting and deliberate killing by terrorists of civilians and non-combatants cannot be justified or legitimized by any cause or grievance".



Stupidity, enshrouding: Pick one - or both.