2 Comments »

1. "Asked what hopes the Prime Minister had for the UN Summit, the PMOS said that it was an important summit"

   Translation:

   "Neither I nor the PM could give a toss about the UN summit…"

   "As we had set out last week, we were hopeful that it would adopt a new resolution on terrorism which would not just set out commitments on fighting terrorism but also commit countries to take action against the incitement of terrorism"

   Translation:

   "We’re hoping the UN will allow itself to be conned (shouldn’t take too much) along with the majority of the electorates of the UK and USA into the widespread curtailment of basic civil rights all over the globe in the name of the war on terra"

   Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 12 Sep 2005 on 4:23 pm | Link

2. Following the UN summit-

   We are supposed to be helping the US in a war on ‘terror’ but what has become crystal clear is that ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’ cannot be defined by the UN.

   One might speculate that without a definition any ‘war on terror’ will have the potential to be illegal – only when a definition is agreed will one know for sure which actions were legal and which illegal.

   If, as was reported, the definition will be retrospective for about 20 years then George and Tony need to delay the definition clause for 20 or so years to be sure that they will not be guilty of ‘war crimes’.

   The "targeting of innocent civilians" obviously can’t be included in the text because of the documented incidents where the US, UK, Israel and others have deliberately targeted civilians.

   Ah I hear someone say but how about ‘guilty civilians’ – to which I would need to respond that one of the ‘freedoms’ of so called democracy is the assumption of innocence.

   I presume that this leaves every nation free to define ‘terrorism’ to suit the needs of the individual countries – which will be great if the UK government will publish a definition that stands critical scrutiny.

   And while I’m spouting off…….

   What have the highly paid permanent UK staff at the UN been doing if we can get to the state where a resolution is proposed but then -everyone- starts arguing about freedom fighters and terrorists. The whole idea of these summits is that the permanent staff of most nations at the UN come to an understanding before the summit so that we [the great unwashed] don’t witness the sort of debacle that discredits the UN as an organisation.

   Comment by Roger Huffadine — 16 Sep 2005 on 4:58 pm | Link

---

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.