If Islam were willing to treat other religions in the manner it demands others treat Islam, then there would be no problem.

krome on September 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

If Islam had never existed, there would still be a huge problem with Mr Ban’s remarks; even if we make allowance for the fact that English is not his first language, what he said is still idiotic, clueless, thoughtless, waffle.

“Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose,” Ban told a news conference.
“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”

Whose justice, Ban? Whose purpose? Yours? The communists’? The islamists’? Certainly not those crazy Tea Partiers’? Obama and his ilk try to humiliate my values and beliefs every day. Does this mean they’re legitimate targets of the sort of reaction we saw in Benghazi?

Rhetoric from liberals prokes me just about every minute of every day.

I think liberals calling consevatives evil, cruel, wanting to kill grandma and starve children, Nazi, racists, and I’d need a roll of toilet paper to list them all–is both provocative and humiliating.

Liberals think the same about conservatives. Atheists hate Christian. Some minorities hate some majorities and vice versa.

Try Googling Muslim videos about Jews. Just make sure you have your vomit bag handy

Has Mr. Ban denounced Iran’s call to elimante Israel from the face of the Earth? Crickets. Perhaps he doesn’t find that provocative.

Does Mr. Ban think Muslims calling for jihad provocative? Crickets.

Where do you draw the line?

And how do you determine if someone was provoked or humiliated unintentionally?

And what if the person speaking doesn’t consider his words to be provocative or humiliating?

Mr. Ban is an excellent example of all the reasons the US needs to abandon the UN. It’s a completely worthless and corrupt organization trying to implement world governance for its own power and benefit.

The UN has never solved a real problem.

Their sanctions don’t work (because everyone is still dealing with the targetted countries on the black market.

The UN Peacekeeping forces worthless. A platon of them couldn’t win a pillow fight with a 5 year old girl.

The studies and science sponsored by the UN is worthless. It little more than a form of political science where the outcome is predetermined, the people to do the studies are selected for their politically correct positions, and then the data and computer models are tuned to give the desired political results.

Time to declare the UN experiment a failure and move on.

There was a point to the United Nations after WWII, with two superpowers in a struggle over the world who did not speak to each other directly. Adjoran on September 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Alger Hiss presided over the organizing conferences held in San Francisco.

Care to revise your statement about what the point of the UN was?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkzPPk79ZZI&feature=player_embedded

Look at the content faces of our future lords and masters as the dhimmi does his duty!

Intentionally desecrated flags, disrespectful effigies of our leaders/citizens used in violent protests, crucifix soaking in urine, fecal matter on the virgin Mary, killing the unborn or defenseless, anything the Phelps loons do, & Bill Maher are all offensive to me and/or the people I know & love.

However, the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens are mature rational adults who don’t threaten violence, but protest in peace. Which is something that most in UN really don’t seem to understand, let alone appreciate.
With that, I wouldn’t trade the schizophrenic world view of leftists for all the gold in the world.