I’m not a Republican or a Democrat, so I evaluate any political claims about the “the other side’s” motivations or actions with skepticism.

…Or is it only you who gets to be right? Do you have anything beyond repeated assertion here?

In this article, we have proof that the UN is not willing to support article 19 in their own Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

To prove that the UN is also motivated by their need to fleece Americans, we can look at their response to the most horrific disaster of this century, the Tsunami. Immediately after the disaster struck, “15,000 troops, a carrier task force and a Marine expeditionary force deployed to the region, with the U.S. Navy effectively setting up a “sea base” off the coast of Indonesia. This flotilla of ships enabled supplies to be transported to the coastline, where ports and roads were all but washed away. As the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, commented, “We literally built a city at sea for no other purpose than to serve the needs of other people.”
Only the U.S. military had the ability to conduct such an operation.”

Across the Western world, individuals contributed more than $5 billion to the victims of the disaster. While they were contributing, and while the US military was saving lives, Jan Egeland, U.N. humanitarian gave a press conference in New York City attacking the “stinginess” of wealthy nations.

I’m sure he enjoyed an fine dinner and parked illegally (without being ticketed – diplomatic immunity) after his press conference, as UN matchstick men are wont to do.

The right to criticize any person, any religion, any leader and any idea is (supposedly) guaranteed by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Which (if the UN stood for anything at all) would mean that Danes have the right to make stick figure drawings and caricatures of any subject that they choose. You have the right to criticize their actions, you have the right to complain, but you and your legal institutions should not have the right to put people in jail for doing this.

Muslim law is based one simple principle – the Muslim man is superior to all other men, to all women and to all forms of life in the universe. Therefore, Muslim men tend to support sharia laws.

But sharia laws also prevent free expression, because if anyone was allowed to speak their minds, they would have to point out that Muslim men are not superior beings, which would destroy the entire foundation of these laws.

Unfortunately, free dialogue (prohibited by Sharia) leads to innovation and technological progress. You can’t wage war or succeed economically without free thought, innovation and technological progress. So, in the end, Sharia laws guarantee that Muslim men, in their effort to enforce their belief in their inherent superiority, will always be ten steps behind everyone else.

Cheers.

How many Christians are left where Hamas rules? Christians in Egypt get attacked by the religion of peace. Sudan. Etc…

Those are but a few examples of your fairness Mehmet.

The issue was about the so-called Danish cartoons.

Christians, almost all sects, do believe that Jesus is the Son God. We moslems, though with highest respect and reverence for Jesus, do not believe that and we can in a civilised and intellectual level can argue about the principle. However, if in any Moslem country some moron said Jesus was just a son of a bitch, we would make sure that he would spend a considerable part of his life in jail. Worst still in some of the very conservative Moslem countries could even mean a death sentence. One does not insult beliefs of other people. I have the right to criticise any political idealogy, religious dogma, but that does not give me the right to insult values that other people hold dear. Imagine what would happen if I shouted that ugly statement in St.Peters Square on a Sunday morning or in a small US town in the Bible belt.

So please cut the crap and be fair. Freedom of Speech does not give me the right to call anyone a thief, a whore or whatever. So why should that Danish son of bitch have the right to insult what I believe in.

Regards