I saw this yesterday evening on LGF, UN Official: Terrorist Label is Not Helpful. Mark Malloch Brown (who we've heard from before) is busy making a hash of the English language. In a bit of self-contradictory prattle which could almost be lifted from a Monty Python sketch about politicians he tells us that while Hezbollah uses terrorist methods, we mustn't refer to it as a terrorist organisation because they do not carry al-Queda membership cards.

Mr. Brown's position on world politics seems to be the familiar blame-America-first-last-and-always garbage which we have heard over and over throughout my lifetime. With respect to the longstanding Middle East conflict his position is particularly pernicious. Effectively he takes the position of a Hezbollah sympathizer. Other than through his demented public statements I have no indication of what the man is really about, but the little I have heard from him would lead a resonable man to believe that he may indeed be one.

Here's my question: how would his position be different if he were not a Hezbollah sympathizer?

I think it is clear that: 1. The leadership of the UN are all sympathizers to islamofacist terrorism and 2. It is not appropriate for the leadership of an "international organisation" to position itself as an ally of terrorists. This sort of thing should be denounced roundly by the leaders of civilized nations. We invite our own destruction to ignore the throughgoing corruption of the UN that Mr. Brown represents in his public statements.