It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saudi Arabia 'seeking to head United Nations Human Rights Council'

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I say get rid of the UN and everyone minds their own damned business.

Bunch of preachy bastards everywhere.


You know Beezer, you hit the nail on the head every time!

I second your motion!




posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw




I'm not saying the US is perfect, far from it,
but let's go toe to toe if you want on
Saudi vs US human rights



Guatemala syphilis experiment

en.wikipedia.org...

US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s

www.cnn.com...

A "killing field" in the Americas: US policy in Guatemala


United Fruit Company

Under dictator Jorqe Ubico (1931-1944), American-owned United Fruit Company (UFC) gained control of forty-two percent of Guatemala's land, and was exempted from taxes and import duties. The three main enterprises in Guatemala -- United Fruit Company, International Railways of Central America, and Empress Electrica -- were American-owned (and controlled by United Fruit Company). Seventy-seven percent of all exports went to the US and sixty-five percent of imports came from the US.

"10 Years of Springtime"

Repressive governments have plagued Guatemala throughout its history, with alternating waves of dictators being the rule. But, between 1945 and 1954, there was a period of enlightenment -- an experiment with democracy called the "10 Years of Springtime" -- that started with the election of Juan Jose Arevalo to the presidency.

While in power from 1945 to 1951, Arevalo established the nation's social security and health systems and a government bureau to look after Mayan concerns. Arévalo's liberal regime experienced many coup attempts by conservative military forces, but the attempts were not successful.

Arévalo was followed by Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán who became president in democratic elections in 1951. At the time, 2% of landowners owned 70% of the arable land and farm laborers were kept in debt slavery by these landowners. Arbenz continued to implement the liberal policies of Arevalo, and instituted an agrarian reform law to break up the large estates and foster individually owned small farms. The land reform program involved redistribution of 160,000 acres of uncultivated land owned by United Fruit Company. United Fruit was compensated for its land.

United Fruit, Eisenhower and the end of reform

United Fruit was a state within the Guatemalan state. It not only owned all of Guatemala's banana production and monopolized banana exports, it also owned the country's telephone and telegraph system, and almost all of the railroad track. In addition to redistributing United Fruit land, the government also began competing with United Fruit in the production and export of bananas.

Important people in the ruling circles of the US, involved with United Fruit Company, used their influence to convince the US government to step in. (Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' law firm had prepared United Fruit's contracts with Guatemala; his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, belonged to United Fruit's law firm; John Moors Cabot, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, was the brother of a former United Fruit president; President Eisenhower's personal secretary was married to the head of United Fruit's Public Relations Department.)

In 1954, Eisenhower and Dulles decided that Arbenz finally had to go, and the US State Department labeled Guatemala "communist". On this pretext, US aid and equipment were provided to the Guatemalan Army. The US also sent a CIA army and CIA planes. They bombed a military base and a government radio station, and overthrew Arbenz Guzmán, who fled to Cuba.

The coup restored the stranglehold on the Guatemalan economy of both the landed elite and US economic interests. President Eisenhower was willing to make the poor, illiterate Guatemalan peasants pay in hunger and torture for supporting land reform, and for trying to attain a better future for themselves and their families. In order to ensure ever-increasing profits for an American corporation, the US State Department, the CIA, and United Fruit Company had succeeded in taking freedom and land from Guatemala's peasants, unions from its workers, and hope for a democratic Guatemala from all of its people.

Aided by the US, Colonel Castillo Armas became the new president. The US Ambassador furnished Armas with lists of radical opponents to be eliminated, and the bloodletting promptly began. Under Armas, thousands were arrested and many were tortured and killed. United Fruit got all its land back. As an extra present, the Banana Worker's Union was banned. Armas disenfranchised one-third of the voters by barring illiterates from voting. He outlawed all political parties, labor confederations, and peasant organizations. He closed down opposition newspapers and burned "subversive" books. The "Springtime" had ended.


It wasn't that long ago....(This is where the term "Banana Republic" stems from...)

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

Diego Garcia....go down that rabbit hole.

Monsanto (An American Company) is tied to all this...

Ignoring U.S. Abuse and Violations: Human Rights Watch’s Hypocrisy Over U.N. Human Rights Council

www.globalresearch.ca...

Please Note: Just the tip of the iceberg....



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: intrepid
I put forth Iceland. Any gov't that jails bankers for screwing the citizens sounds like they get "human rights".


Sorry,
most people in Iceland are white. 93% are descendants of Norwegian settlers and Celts from Ireland and Scotland.

They have little to no experience with racial issues.

They have little to no racism because they are mono-cultural.
Meaning they have no experience with multi-culturalism and they
can not understand others cultures and their problems.



How do you explain that the current president is German then?


OMG, you mean they let a white guy be President of the Human Rights Council,
well, off with their heads
white privilege!!!!!!!!
must replace him with slave owners (excuse me human traffickers) to balance things out shouldn't we?
Knock me over with a feather, a white German, OMG, we all know whites are absolutely the worst human rights violators of all.
Yes, yes, replace him with slavers (oops human traffickers) and homosexual beheaders!



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Ya know? This condescending crap is really making a logical debate difficult. It was YOUR contention that a white person couldn't do the job. Apparently it ain't so.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: grandmakdw




I'm not saying the US is perfect, far from it,
but let's go toe to toe if you want on
Saudi vs US human rights



Guatemala syphilis experiment

en.wikipedia.org...

US apologizes for infecting Guatemalans with STDs in the 1940s

www.cnn.com...

A "killing field" in the Americas: US policy in Guatemala


United Fruit Company

Under dictator Jorqe Ubico (1931-1944), American-owned United Fruit Company (UFC) gained control of forty-two percent of Guatemala's land, and was exempted from taxes and import duties. The three main enterprises in Guatemala -- United Fruit Company, International Railways of Central America, and Empress Electrica -- were American-owned (and controlled by United Fruit Company). Seventy-seven percent of all exports went to the US and sixty-five percent of imports came from the US.

"10 Years of Springtime"

Repressive governments have plagued Guatemala throughout its history, with alternating waves of dictators being the rule. But, between 1945 and 1954, there was a period of enlightenment -- an experiment with democracy called the "10 Years of Springtime" -- that started with the election of Juan Jose Arevalo to the presidency.

While in power from 1945 to 1951, Arevalo established the nation's social security and health systems and a government bureau to look after Mayan concerns. Arévalo's liberal regime experienced many coup attempts by conservative military forces, but the attempts were not successful.

Arévalo was followed by Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán who became president in democratic elections in 1951. At the time, 2% of landowners owned 70% of the arable land and farm laborers were kept in debt slavery by these landowners. Arbenz continued to implement the liberal policies of Arevalo, and instituted an agrarian reform law to break up the large estates and foster individually owned small farms. The land reform program involved redistribution of 160,000 acres of uncultivated land owned by United Fruit Company. United Fruit was compensated for its land.

United Fruit, Eisenhower and the end of reform

United Fruit was a state within the Guatemalan state. It not only owned all of Guatemala's banana production and monopolized banana exports, it also owned the country's telephone and telegraph system, and almost all of the railroad track. In addition to redistributing United Fruit land, the government also began competing with United Fruit in the production and export of bananas.

Important people in the ruling circles of the US, involved with United Fruit Company, used their influence to convince the US government to step in. (Secretary of State John Foster Dulles' law firm had prepared United Fruit's contracts with Guatemala; his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, belonged to United Fruit's law firm; John Moors Cabot, Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, was the brother of a former United Fruit president; President Eisenhower's personal secretary was married to the head of United Fruit's Public Relations Department.)

In 1954, Eisenhower and Dulles decided that Arbenz finally had to go, and the US State Department labeled Guatemala "communist". On this pretext, US aid and equipment were provided to the Guatemalan Army. The US also sent a CIA army and CIA planes. They bombed a military base and a government radio station, and overthrew Arbenz Guzmán, who fled to Cuba.

The coup restored the stranglehold on the Guatemalan economy of both the landed elite and US economic interests. President Eisenhower was willing to make the poor, illiterate Guatemalan peasants pay in hunger and torture for supporting land reform, and for trying to attain a better future for themselves and their families. In order to ensure ever-increasing profits for an American corporation, the US State Department, the CIA, and United Fruit Company had succeeded in taking freedom and land from Guatemala's peasants, unions from its workers, and hope for a democratic Guatemala from all of its people.

Aided by the US, Colonel Castillo Armas became the new president. The US Ambassador furnished Armas with lists of radical opponents to be eliminated, and the bloodletting promptly began. Under Armas, thousands were arrested and many were tortured and killed. United Fruit got all its land back. As an extra present, the Banana Worker's Union was banned. Armas disenfranchised one-third of the voters by barring illiterates from voting. He outlawed all political parties, labor confederations, and peasant organizations. He closed down opposition newspapers and burned "subversive" books. The "Springtime" had ended.


It wasn't that long ago....(This is where the term "Banana Republic" stems from...)

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

Diego Garcia....go down that rabbit hole.

Monsanto (An American Company) is tied to all this...

Ignoring U.S. Abuse and Violations: Human Rights Watch’s Hypocrisy Over U.N. Human Rights Council

www.globalresearch.ca...

Please Note: Just the tip of the iceberg....


Ok, so how is Saudi's record better?

How are the Saudi's ideas of human rights better?

Please enlighten me - this is a thread about Saudi being chosen to head the human rights council of the UN.

Please do a side by side comparison of evil US and how Saudi human rights are superior.

I never said the US was perfect, or should head it, you are reading things into what I said that are not there.

Please return to the topic at hand.

Why you think Saudi should be head of the human rights council and how their morality and treatment of citizens is superior to the US and/or all other countries on the earth.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

I can't stand persecution complex. It's like that twerp in kindergarten that when someone broke a bone or got a gash would stub their toe and scream like they had a limb cut off.

Yeah...



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Nevermind

edit on 6/7/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: grandmakdw

Ya know? This condescending crap is really making a logical debate difficult. It was YOUR contention that a white person couldn't do the job. Apparently it ain't so.



I was being sarcastic.
Sorry you didn't catch it.

I keep forgetting to write "sarcasm" when that is what I am being.

We really need a sarcasm emoticon.

Of course, white people can be objective, in my opinion,
just not in the opinion of many many people who post on ATS.
I was just trying to head off someone coming in and screaming white privilege.



edit on 5Sun, 07 Jun 2015 17:17:54 -0500pm60706pmk070 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Good lord...I haven't laughed that hard in months.

Either the world is well beyond the point of having gone mad, or someone has a sense of humor



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
It's almost as ridiculous as IRAN heading the council, which was the rotation last year.

Or for that matter, the UNITED STATES.

The United States has a horrible human rights record compared to other western nations.

1) No Federal law banning discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. People can still be legally fired simply for telling their boss they're gay.

2) Death penalty in place in several states and for certain Federal offenses. The US death by lethal injection causes many, many issues and is NOT a pain free death.

3) Largest prison population of ANY country per capita. A "For Profit" prison system (especially when considering juvenile detention) with judges that are bribed by prison companies to keep people (especially juveniles) incarcerated longer.

4) Voting rights denied for large blocks of the population simply based on where they live or having a criminal record. People in the USA aren't allowed to VOTE if they have a criminal record, but ARE allowed to run for office.

5) The only country in the world with a "for profit" health care system. In every other western country, health care is free, or heavily subsidized by the Government. Health care in most other western countries is a basic human right, in the USA, you have to make sure you go to the right hospital, even if you have insurance.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

USA wants to stop Saudi Arabia being chair of the Human Rights Committee? Look within, before casting stones (pun intended) at others.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw




Ok, so how is Saudi's record better?

How are the Saudi's ideas of human rights better?



Saudi Arabia's record is far worse than the U.S (and the U.S are no angels in the Human Rights dept -no country is). That speaks volumes about S.A.



Why you think Saudi should be head of the human rights council and how their morality and treatment of citizens is superior to the US and/or all other countries on the earth.



You must of missed my OP....

Bloody heck....lol, what's going on here?! I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone all of the sudden.
edit on 7-6-2015 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
It's almost as ridiculous as IRAN heading the council, which was the rotation last year.

Or for that matter, the UNITED STATES.

The United States has a horrible human rights record compared to other western nations.

1) No Federal law banning discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. People can still be legally fired simply for telling their boss they're gay.

2) Death penalty in place in several states and for certain Federal offenses. The US death by lethal injection causes many, many issues and is NOT a pain free death.

3) Largest prison population of ANY country per capita. A "For Profit" prison system (especially when considering juvenile detention) with judges that are bribed by prison companies to keep people (especially juveniles) incarcerated longer.

4) Voting rights denied for large blocks of the population simply based on where they live or having a criminal record. People in the USA aren't allowed to VOTE if they have a criminal record, but ARE allowed to run for office.

5) The only country in the world with a "for profit" health care system. In every other western country, health care is free, or heavily subsidized by the Government. Health care in most other western countries is a basic human right, in the USA, you have to make sure you go to the right hospital, even if you have insurance.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg.

USA wants to stop Saudi Arabia being chair of the Human Rights Committee? Look within, before casting stones (pun intended) at others.


Ok, I hear you

Now please list for me all the reasons that Saudi would be a good choice.

Please address
slavery (opps human traficking)
womens rights
gay rights
racial equality
and why we should ignore these things

because of their superior morality and human rights - please list.

You seem to be making a case that Saudi is a good choice and that we in the US should not object because we are not perfect. So please expound on why you think all the above items should be ignored in favor of allowing them to head the human rights council of the UN.

Just claiming the US is nearly as bad is not in my opinion a reason
to ignore their little faults.

I AM NOT saying the US should head the council.
I am saying that Saudi should not.
I am also saying that the US IS superior to Saudi when it comes to human rights, not perfect, not for a long shot, but we DO have a responsibility to object to slavers, women oppressors, homosexual murderers, racial oppresors heading a human rights council; regardless of how bad you think the US is.
edit on 5Sun, 07 Jun 2015 17:35:20 -0500pm60706pmk070 by grandmakdw because: addition - last 2 paragraphs



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

Two murderers stand in front of you, the one on the right killed 28 people, the one on the left killed 5. The one on the left isn't less of a murderer because they killed less people. Both are murderers.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Seems totally legit. A country that beheads people on a scale only second to ISIS, heading up a council on human rights. Why not?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw

Two murderers stand in front of you, the one on the right killed 28 people, the one on the left killed 5. The one on the left isn't less of a murderer because they killed less people. Both are murderers.


So Saudi's
slavery is equal to racism in the US according to you?
treatment of women is equal to the way women in the US are treated by law?
people who refuse to bake cakes are equal to those who behead LGBT?

so you are saying the Saudi morality is equal
and if you are making the case for Saudi as a moral leader of the world,
their morality is superior?

Should we then follow their moral example and treat
LGBT, women, and domestic servants in the same manner as Saudi?
If one is as bad as the other as you claim,
maybe we should reinstitute the Saudi morally superior stance
as you claim the two are at least equal.

You really want Saudi to be the leader of the morality of the world?

I am flabergasted at everyone who thinks I am advocating the US head it instead,

when what I am saying is that Saudi's human rights violations
do not border on evil
but are pure unadulterated
and most importantly unapologetic evil itself.

Especially when it comes to religious freedom,
treatment of women and LGBT, freedom of speech, racial equality, and
worst of all slavery.

Why are so may of you defending it? I just don't get it,
these things are NOT equal at all.

If you think they are then we should
just all acquiesce and go with
what may of you are claiming is
the superior morality or at the least equal morality of the Saudi culture!

That seems to be the case many of you are making here
by saying that US and Saudi culture are equally bad
and equally evil.




edit on 5Sun, 07 Jun 2015 17:47:50 -0500pm60706pmk070 by grandmakdw because: addition spelling format



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Kofi Annan.

Kofi Annan's report of March 2005 "In Larger Freedom" went much further by calling for the Commission's abolition and the establishment of a smaller Human Rights Council which would meet year-round and have its membership restricted to countries that will "abide by the highest human rights standards."

Following lengthy negotiations and several draft resolutions, the General Assembly overwhelmingly voted in favor of creating a new Council. The Council remains large at 47 members, distributed by region, with states elected by an absolute majority of the General Assembly. The resolution calls upon states to take into account a candidates human rights record. Although the new resolution did not go as far as some member states and human rights organizations hoped, the majority supported its adoption. The US was one of only four member states that voted against the adoption of the text.

Yuh see, O'l Kofi wasn't so stupid after all, but he just couldn't come out say it like it is because it's a contradiction in terms for the UN as a whole which seeks to have all countries as participants, while the UN human rights council under his dictum, would leave most of the UN chamber empty of just about everybody, that left him with the line, "abide by the highest human rights standards." Thing is, despite the original intent of the UN as stated, it has created a system that propagates an ease to corrupt smaller countries by the powerhouse countries in house, by a wink and a nod and parcels of brown envelopes.
Riddle me this, how many states, countries, kingdoms or federations have been expelled from the UN?



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: grandmakdw

I was the first reply in the thread, I don't think that it should go to Saudi's, I think there Human Rights Violations are numerous but there's really no need to be defending the US in order to condemn the Saudi's. Wrong and wronger? That's a silly game... and the white christian persecution crap really makes me want to vomit.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 07:24 PM
link   
While I think personally the job should be handled by a group of countries that are known for trying to advance human rights, no matter what happens, I think Saudi Arabia should definitely NOT get the job. Because when they think human rights, they are thinking male human rights first and foremost.. and then racial human rights.. and so on. They would be a very poor representative. Why anyone would think a country that punishes a woman for adultery for being raped should represent human rights across the globe boggles the mind.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: NthOther

I nominate Norway or Finland.


Yes, they are the only suitable countries.



posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: grandmakdw

I was the first reply in the thread, I don't think that it should go to Saudi's, I think there Human Rights Violations are numerous but there's really no need to be defending the US in order to condemn the Saudi's. Wrong and wronger? That's a silly game... and the white christian persecution crap really makes me want to vomit.


You said Christian, not me, you are projecting something on me I never said.

White persecution, never said that either, you read into what I said because it touched a nerve.

I simply implied, and then said that many on ATS think that white people are incapable of being fair when it comes to human rights. You see that viewpoint all over ATS, frequently. I was simply making the point that many on ATS would object to any white person on a human rights council because white people are inherently racist, but are too blind to realize they are racist because they are so privileged. That is exactly what is taught to the military and to school children regarding white privilege. It is actually our government's current assertion and what they are actually teaching children and the military.

You were the one that said that the evils of the US were equal to the evils of Saudi, when the only evils I mentioned were slavery, oppression of women, murder of LGBT. I was asking you what Obama's government (since he is in charge today, now) is doing that you find equal to what the Saudi government is doing today, now.

Well, if you vomit because of my statement maybe you'll lose a little weight, win - win!


edit on 8Sun, 07 Jun 2015 20:19:52 -0500pm60706pmk070 by grandmakdw because: spelling small addition grammer




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join