Free In Idaho!

This, reported with a straight face, by the New York Times

UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 10 — The Security Council approved a resolution on Friday that broadened the United Nations mandate in Iraq to include efforts to promote national reconciliation, help settle border disputes, encourage internal dialogue and lay the groundwork for a national census.

Though not specifically mentioned in the text, the resolution also raises the allowable ceiling for United Nations international staff in Iraq significantly, to 95 members by the end of October from 65 currently.

Alright then, we’re good.

I can just hear the NPR reporter intoning those words “promote national reconciliation, help settle border disputes, encourage internal dialogue and lay the groundwork for a national census”…  and hey, I’ll bet you didn’t know this

Since it was established in 2003, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq has focused on providing electoral assistance, monitoring human rights and helping develop institutions for representative government.

That is an important function for the UN you know, monitoring human rights.  They’re pretty good at developing institutions for representative government too.  And how are the Iraqis receiving the news?

Some Iraqi leaders greeted the resolution for the expanded mandate warily, as a potential encroachment on Iraqi sovereignty. Sadr Adeen al-Qubanchi, a senior leader with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, one of the major Shiite parties, said he welcomed the expanded United Nations role, but “with the condition that Iraqi autonomy is respected.”

They’re wise not to trust the UN when it comes to their sovereignty, but really, they’ll have their hands full encouraging internal dialogue, so I doubt they’re much of a threat at this point… the UN is the least effective of all the terrorist organizations operating in Iraq,  so it is the least of Iraq’s problems.

Are you aware that some real, and a lot of wannabe jihadis are using YouTube to spread their hate speech and graphically violent videos of our American soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Have you ever watched one of those videos?  Doesn’t it just PYO?  Are you PO’d enough to do something about it?  How about joining Operation Smackdown?

Here is an excerpt from an Open Letter to YouTube posted over at Operation Smackdown

..YouTube removes videos on grounds of hate speech. Recently, a video was removed, and account closed, that contained nothing but a person sitting in front of a camera explaining how pleased he was that journalist Daniel Pearl had his head cut off. If that’s sufficient grounds to qualify as hate speech, why aren’t videos celebrating attacks on, and the death of, Coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan also hate speech? YouTube removes videos of fights in schoolyards that kids upload from their cell phones. If it’s unacceptable violence to show school kids wrestling and pulling at each other’s hair, why is it acceptable to show videos of IED detonations, especially when they celebrate those deaths?

..YouTube removes videos on grounds of animal abuse. Can you explain why videos showing (and celebrating) IED’s detonating below a vehicle full of people doesn’t constitute unacceptable ‘human abuse’? Some videos require people to click a button to ‘verify’ they’re over 18 to view them, and some of the jihad videos are behind such screens. But you also claim such videos must abide by your Terms of Use. If you don’t allow porn behind such screens, why would you allow hate speech and graphic violence behind them?

Could be, YouTube doesn’t really give a rip that pictures of Americans being killed by snipers or blown up by IEDs could be considered “aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war”?  Some misguided “fundamentalist liberal” sense of free speech, perhaps?

..YouTube also claims it is not responsible for content uploaded by its users, and that if content is found in violation of its standards, it will be removed when users flag them as ‘inappropriate’. When you review flagged videos, and choose to keep them online, do you assume responsibility for those videos then? You might wish to consult with your legal staff on this question. If you aren’t responsible for content even after YouTube personnel have reviewed it, why review or ever delete anything at all? Perhaps you should add a note to videos that have been flagged, stating that YouTube has reviewed it and found the contents acceptable. It could prevent us from bothering to flag them in the future, and give everyone a clearer idea as to what you consider ‘appropriate content’.

At any rate, go read the whole letter, check out the site, read the posts, follow the comments, go see some of these disgusting videos, and get involved.  Flagging videos is not as immediately satisfying as making load booms and punching holes in targets, it will make you sad and angry, but ultimately, it’ll mean more.