Pointing Fingers over Islam dispute

Comrades, there has been much debate lately concerning Islam and terrorism in the micronational world. A far away nation known as Rajputistan, located in the sub-continent of India, motioned in the Council of the OAM for a resolution to ultimately ban Muslim nations from joining. The resolution, I can assure, completely failed. Infact, it failed right then and there, and that is only testament to the complete dignity and responsibility of the member states of the OAM. Sandus would have opposed the bill in legislation, however, the bill was then banned by the General Secretary, M. Bralesford of Egtavia.

However, what is most frightening is that some nations, although they claimed to be opposed, defended it in a very strange, I’m-doing-this-but-I’m-not-at-the-same-time way. The Chairman of the Revolutionary Council and the President of the Nemkhav Presidium, who both detested the resolution, were angry. Quite so, Rajputistan’s basis for the resolution was that Islam has been destructive to rights and to physical objects, referring to terrorism; yet, Chairman Soergel, who this March visited the Tunisian Republic – a Muslim nation, detested this. Chairman Soergel declared that such things are “untrue and unfound”, citing his trip, his own events with the religion and his many Muslim friends. Comrade Mejakhansk, too, provided and defended Islam and Muslims as did M. Bralesford, both exclaiming that the resolution was discriminatory. M. Bralesford, to the dismay of Bradley of Dullahan (Can we start clapping?), cited Resolution 28, which provides that delegates who offend or discriminate against other delegates may and will be removed from the OAM. Well, M. Bradley explained to Bralesford that such Resolution should not be his citation for the disciplinary action, although giving no citation passed by the Council in the form of a resolution.

What is more worrying than this? Many delegates claimed that Rajputistan’s “freedom of speech” was being hindered. I hate to break it to them but we aren’t citizens of a nation arguing this, but delegates of an international organization. The OAM does not and, should it, should not provide freedom of speech for members. Such freedom of speech should be applicable, yes, and it is, but what these delegates propose should happen is that delegates should be given all right, even after offending an entire population and people, to continue to offend and declare ignorant statements.

Not only has this resolution been failed, but both Sandus and Nemkhavia have received war threats from Rajputistan:

This is to warn Sandu[s]……….

This is my first and last warning to you small and weak nation..
How dare you condemned Rajputistan!

You have to officially ask sorry else be redy for a war. ILM and
Rajputistan could declare war! So I think you have to officially
declare that you are very sorry for what you did.

Your Friend,
Maharawal Harshvardhan Singh Rawlot

Oh, the irony; I don’t believe he meant “friend”. The problem is that such apology is completely unfound and can not be made, as this was a discriminatory act against Muslims and that is something the Revolutionary Council highly deplores and condemns. Not only is this ultimatum undiplomatic and, rather, very barbaric, but it also brings into question who exactly the terrorist is. Regardless, the Chairman has said he won’t be making any such apology and, should war come, he will simply not recognize the conflict, as the DPRS does not officially recognize Rajputistan.

And yet, a Rajputistani official has released this statement concerning the ultimatum:

War on Nemkhavia and Sandus:- I didn’t declare any war on either Nemkhavia or Sandus! I just warned them and try to put pressure on them in sighning a treaty. I would only declare war on them if they didn’t except my proposel. We are 470+ personed nation. We are having the strongest army, and if nations like Nemkhavia and Sandus condemned Rajputistan, then what would I reply to my people? They would say that I’m a insufficient ruler.

And, yet, no such treaty was ever received or drafted and sent to any office of any official of the Central People’s Government. And, then, why would you threaten war if you wish to make friends? The DPRS is not afraid of Rajputistan, being a micronation several thousand miles away and being a nation with an autocratic ruler. It seems that either Rajputistan has a policy of xenophobia or is a nation that has little-to-no rule of law.