Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
The U.N. is incompetent for running "refugee camps" that are absolutely overrun with gun-toting members of terrorist organizations. As an umbrella, i believe the outrage can properly be stated that the U.N. is incompetent for not screening the recipients of their aid to determine the individual's justifiable and compensatable need for relief.
I generally despise public housing in this country, except that which provides for elderly (a bit broad), veterans, and families with dire and unexpected needs like handicapped children that are not the result of personal choices (like gangbangers who get shot into a wheelchair). Yet, while public housing is often overrun by guntoting thugs, just like Jenin, the guntoting thugs aren't frequently known to threaten the public housing officials with death if they don't provided better gigs.
Its hard to like guntoting thugs in either circumstance, but its hard to like the passer-outers of public money when they knowingly distribute the public money to the guntoters, especially if the aid is positively influenced in any way by the guntoting. Yet, the U.N.'s position seems to be, hey, just quit threatening us and we'll give you whatever we can. Of course, that wouldn't be providing aid and comfort to terrorists, would it?
With our money?
|
Whether gun-toting thugs can be screened from refugee camps or public housing is invariably a function, at the very least in large part, of the resources committed to the problem. I suspect that UN refugee camps are underfunded relative to Chicago Public Housing.
Surely the thugs in Jenin think they have better chances of extorting money from the UN. If it would work in Chicago, or San Francisco, someone might try it. Again, a question of law enforcement resources. As in so many other contexts, you get what you pay for.
In my experience, people living in public housing feel much the way you do about it. The difference being that they don't have a choice.
Threaded Mode