Full Version: 2009 convocation of the WCARRDXARI
UN delegates met last week to plan out a series of discussion sessions culminating in the 2009 convocation of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance (or WCARRDXARI for short).
From:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_no...rael_durban.php
From Colin Powell on the conference in 2001:
Apparently the UN is going to have another conference of this nature. Here's another source.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull
Other notes are that keynote speakers at the 01 conference were people like Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro. Furthermore, planning meetings for the 01 conf were held in Tehran. (surely not "Jew" friendly)
Let's debate....
1. If the UN allowed such inflammatory speech from 2001 participants and did nothing about it, will they stop it at the 2009 conference?
2. Considering the previous outcomes, should the US attend this conference?
3. If Anti-American statements are made at the 09 conference, should the US continue to be the largest funder of the UN?
4. If largely anti-semetic statements were made, planning meetings for the first conference were handled in Tehran, should we demand that planning meetings for the 09 conference be held in say... Dallas? Atlanta? Would there be a different "tone" to the meetings if they were handled on US soil?
From:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_no...rael_durban.php
QUOTE
Anti-Israel forces used the United Nations World Conference Against Racism -- held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001 -- to continue their campaign to de-legitimize Israel with unfounded charges of racism. In addition, the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel forces tried to eliminate any mention of anti-Semitism as being a form of racism. In their warped view, Israel is guilty of racism but groups and nations that spread virulent hatred of the Jews are not.
From Colin Powell on the conference in 2001:
QUOTE
Today I have instructed our representatives at the World Conference Against Racism to return home. I have taken this decision with regret, because of the importance of the international fight against racism and the contribution that the Conference could have made to it. But, following discussions today by our team in Durban and others who are working for a successful conference, I am convinced that will not be possible.
I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of 'Zionism equals racism' or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world - Israel - for censure and abuse.
I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of 'Zionism equals racism' or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world - Israel - for censure and abuse.
Apparently the UN is going to have another conference of this nature. Here's another source.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull
Other notes are that keynote speakers at the 01 conference were people like Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro. Furthermore, planning meetings for the 01 conf were held in Tehran. (surely not "Jew" friendly)
Let's debate....
1. If the UN allowed such inflammatory speech from 2001 participants and did nothing about it, will they stop it at the 2009 conference?
2. Considering the previous outcomes, should the US attend this conference?
3. If Anti-American statements are made at the 09 conference, should the US continue to be the largest funder of the UN?
4. If largely anti-semetic statements were made, planning meetings for the first conference were handled in Tehran, should we demand that planning meetings for the 09 conference be held in say... Dallas? Atlanta? Would there be a different "tone" to the meetings if they were handled on US soil?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 5 2007, 11:28 AM) 
Let's debate....
1. If the UN allowed such inflammatory speech from 2001 participants and did nothing about it, will they stop it at the 2009 conference?
No. I think it's a good idea to bring these people out into the daylight. Let's be honest about it. 1. If the UN allowed such inflammatory speech from 2001 participants and did nothing about it, will they stop it at the 2009 conference?
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 5 2007, 11:28 AM)
2. Considering the previous outcomes, should the US attend this conference?
Well if we don't people will whine and complain and the UN will probably call for the extermination of Jews outright and then deny they ever said it despite audio evidence. Frankly given the corruption of the UN (and the World Bank for that matter) the US should pull out of the UN and definitely stop funding it.QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 5 2007, 11:28 AM)
3. If Anti-American statements are made at the 09 conference, should the US continue to be the largest funder of the UN?
The US should pull out of that useless vestige and take back the valuable real estate in NYC.QUOTE(aevans176 @ Sep 5 2007, 11:28 AM)
4. If largely anti-semetic statements were made, planning meetings for the first conference were handled in Tehran, should we demand that planning meetings for the 09 conference be held in say... Dallas? Atlanta? Would there be a different "tone" to the meetings if they were handled on US soil?
Good question. However it won't change the fact that there are people on the Earth who want to push Israel into the sea so should we be excited that they aren't saying out loud anymore?This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.