WorldNetDaily: UN sponsors Palestinian terror!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

From that bastion of right-wing crapola, WingNutDaily (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51005):

'United Nations killed my son'

Dunh dunh dunh dunh!

JERUSALEM - The United Nations bears responsibility for the murder of Israeli civilians killed in the past few years by Palestinian suicide bombers, families of terror victims here said.

"The U.N. is partly responsible for the death of my son," said Miri Avitan, whose son Assaf was killed in Jerusalem by a Palestinian suicide bomber in December 2001.

"Money that was meant for the Iraqi [people] got to Saddam and he wrote a check to reward the murderers of my kid," Avitan said.[…]

The family members made their statements in a recently released book, "The U.N. Exposed: How the United Nations Sabotages America's Security and Fails the World" by the Fox News Channel's Eric Shawn.

I should write a book titled, The Scandal Pimps Exposed: How the U.S. Constantly Relies on the UN While Its Right-wing Jack-offs Compulsively Trash It. I wonder if Regnery will publish it?

Shawn documents how some of the $10 billion obtained illegally by Hussein as part of the oil-for-food program between 1997 and 2002 was used to fund families of Palestinians suicide bombers.

You know you're dealing with a lying scandal pimp when they use that $10 billion dollar figure -- five and a half times the actual number. Hussein got $1.8 billion dollars in kick-backs from the Oil-for-food program and the other $8.3 billion was from oil sales and smuggling that had nothing to do with the program. There's no doubt that these folks are intentionally lying when they say it -- the Volcker Report and the Duelfer Report are both unambiguous on that point.

The U.N. Security Council launched the oil-for-food program in 1996 so Iraq could raise funds for food, medicine and other humanitarian goods in spite of sanctions against the Hussein regime.[…]

See how important a dumb audience is for the conservative media? AlterNet's savvy readers probably understand that the Security Council is, effectively, the five permanent members. Of course it was the U.S. and UK that pushed for and helped shape Oil-for-food because the "UN sanctions" that they had previously jammed through the Security Council were killing an embarrassing number of Iraqi children.

According to the rules outlined by the Security Council, Iraq was allowed to choose its own suppliers and oil traders. Under the program, the Security Council established a separate committee made up of member states, the so-called "661 Committee," to approve all contracts issued by the Iraqi government.

And only the U.S. and British missions insisted on reviewing and approving every contract. They rejected a few based on the fact they might be "dual use" -- usable for weapons production -- but never much bothered about the ones that clearly had kickbacks built into them. All of this was widely reported in the mainstream media as far back as 1998 and only became a "UN scandal" five years later when Kofi Annan pointed out that the invasion of Iraq was, you know, illegal.

A more accurate version of this argument is that the multinationals that paid bribes to Hussein -- including Halliburton subsidiaries and several companies from the Carlyle Group --helped pay the families of suicide bombers. Of course, even that's silly -- the $1.8 billion Hussein squeezed from the contractors over those six years was a drop in the bucket next to the rest of his sources of funding.

But it's as good and accurate a story as any of the rest.

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.

http://alternet.org/blogs/themix/38842/#more

[incanada1234 0]

These threads are starting to bore me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

These threads are starting to bore me.

Because it challenges your rigid views?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Certain elements of the government and media seem to rely on their audience not knowing the facts. And they are apparently not desirous of educating them.

Seem to remember a while ago that people were defending Karl Rove et al over the Plame affair, claiming that no crime had been committed. What should have been a relatively black and white affair (and would have been if it was a member of the 'other side' who did it, becomes a complex semantic argument about what constitutes 'illegal disclosure' and 'classified information'.

[incanada1234 0]

These threads are starting to bore me.

Because it challenges your rigid views?

No. Because how long can we rehash every debate/argument on these forums?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

These threads are starting to bore me.

Because it challenges your rigid views?

No. Because how long can we rehash every debate/argument on these forums?

Until one side admits defeat or simply dies of exhaustion.

[incanada1234 0]

Until one side admits defeat or simply dies of exhaustion.

Alright, I'm aiming for April 18, 2068.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

These threads are starting to bore me.

Because it challenges your rigid views?

No. Because how long can we rehash every debate/argument on these forums?

I posted this specific topic to expose what is an obvious and deliberate lie. You make it clear with your selection of avatars that you are politically minded and you're never shy about giving your political opinions on this forum so what's the dealio? If you're bored how about stepping away from your computer for awhile?

[incanada1234 0]

Yeah, I guess I really am just getting bored of all the Republican/Christian/Muslim bashing. Can't we at least choose another group of people to bash? What about those dern vegitarians?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yeah, I guess I really am just getting bored of all the Republican/Christian/Muslim bashing. Can't we at least choose another group of people to bash? What about those dern vegitarians?

The vegan and yuppie bashing thread was yesterday. Steven was quite gracious on it, too Please try to keep up!

[Alex+R 0]

Yeah, I guess I really am just getting bored of all the Republican/Christian/Muslim bashing. Can't we at least choose another group of people to bash? What about those dern vegitarians?

I like the idea of "Republican-bashing." Sounds as if they were born that way and can't change their worldview.

I also like the idea of Republican-bashing because it sounds fun.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yeah, I guess I really am just getting bored of all the Republican/Christian/Muslim bashing. Can't we at least choose another group of people to bash? What about those dern vegitarians?

Calling someone on a lie isn't bashing. It's holding them accountable. Truth never takes sides.

[incanada1234 0]

Yeah, I guess I really am just getting bored of all the Republican/Christian/Muslim bashing. Can't we at least choose another group of people to bash? What about those dern vegitarians?

I like the idea of "Republican-bashing." Sounds as if they were born that way and can't change their worldview.

I also like the idea of Republican-bashing because it sounds fun.

Wow, um...good one? You must be one of those open-minded democrats I'm so fond of.

The vegan and yuppie bashing thread was yesterday. Steven was quite gracious on it, too Please try to keep up!

Oh, I must've missed that one.

Wait, did you just write "Steven" and "gracious" in the same sentence??

[Alex+R 0]

Yeah, I guess I really am just getting bored of all the Republican/Christian/Muslim bashing. Can't we at least choose another group of people to bash? What about those dern vegitarians?

I like the idea of "Republican-bashing." Sounds as if they were born that way and can't change their worldview.

I also like the idea of Republican-bashing because it sounds fun.

Wow, um...good one? You must be one of those open-minded democrats I'm so fond of.

My point was, bashing a Christian is not the same as bashing a Republican, although I haven't seen any "bashing" going on here. Republicans choose to hold the views they hold. Usually facilitated by ignoring the facts (see original post).

Your label of "bashing" to me is a strong indication that you'd rather just hold your opinions, not have them challenged, then call Republicans victims when someone brings up a view that does not fit with yours. Looks like the person who needs to open their mind a bit is not me.

And I'm not a democrat.

[incanada1234 0]

Republicans choose to hold the views they hold. Usually facilitated by ignoring the facts (see original post).

Oops, I think you hit the wrong keys there. It's actually spelled D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T. There ya go.