Banned UN Speech: "Human Rights Nightmare"

Originally posted by Astyanax
Thank you for the kind words, Souljah. You seem to have missed the point of my little screed, though, which is that the UN isn't the impotent (or evil) entity many people, especially Americans, seem to think it is.

Perhaps I didn't make myself plain enough. No matter; subz has clarified the issue with a good deal more moral force than a dissolute old libertine like me could possibly muster. Subz's post explains, far better than mine, where the blame for UNCHR's uselessness really lies, and why blaming the UN for it is a bit like a murderer blaming his hands for strangling his wife.

Au contraire Mon Amie - I understood your point very well.

But I still think that UN is completly incompetant to perform the tasks they are supposed to. And as you said, you know how the roots of the creation of UN go and you still think it is a "good" entitiy? Well I have trouble understanding you. UN is just one step away from implementing One World Government - they already have a One World Army and they already have a One World HeadQuarters; yet they are still incapable of doing really good deeds for the People of this planet. I mean, so many countries are in the United Nations, yet they always find a way to argue between each other and not to reach ONE resolution, which would be enforced by EVERYBODY. Nope. It is just tricks and games - like always in the politics. Nothing ever changes. There are numerous wars right now on the globe. Genocides. Famine. Hunger. Human Rights abuses. You name it. Feels like nobody is actually doing anything to stop that or prevent it. Or if they do - it takes time for all the members to finally agree on something; and then it comes the power of the veto of one of the more powerful members and suddenly all that talking and deciding goes to nothing. Either way - it is just a bunch of politicians, and we all know how they act: When they are not kissing babies, they are stealing their lollipops!. Which means they are cheating and lying all the time. Each country has them - why would those in UN be any different?

Originally posted by Souljah
how corrupt and selective United Nations really is.

Wow! Souljah ... I'm agreeing with something that you posted.
The planets must be in some special allignment or something!

Seriously .. the UN is very selective. Slavery is still alive and well in
Africa and South East Asia ... and yet we hear nothing out of
the UN because those things aren't anything that help push it's own
corrupt agenda (or make illegal $$$ for it's members).

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Wow!

Souljah ... I'm agreeing with something that you posted.
The planets must be in some special allignment or something!

I guess this is an indicator for the End of Times!

Seriously .. the UN is very selective. Slavery is still alive and well in
Africa and South East Asia ... and yet we hear nothing out of
the UN because those things aren't anything that help push it's own
corrupt agenda (or make illegal $$$ for it's members).

Well they are just a bunch of politicians - what do you expect from them? To really change something for the better? Well there were very few of those, and almost all of the got shot in the head sooner or later. I think most politicians just want more power, to which they are addicted - and of course; MORE MONEY!

The thing that gets me is this. People complain that he is a pro Israel Zionist while not even commenting on the things he said. I am pretty sure a dyed in the wool Zionist could care less about people in Darfur or Chechyna so why would he mention them?

There are many injustices in the world that are glossed over by the UN in my opinion, take Tibet as a prime example.

Pavil, don't be an idiot. This is the oldest trick in the book. "The people I hate are lying when they say they love the little man and I'm telling the truth when I say I love the little man!"

This guy is just horrible.

Originally posted by vox2442
Everything you see, hear or read is there for a reason

Absolutely. And that isn't even the half of it. All communications are ultimately for the benefit of the sender, not the receiver.

This is true, not merely of human communications but of all communications, even those of plants (1). Such, at least, is the broad consensus among evolutionary biologists (2). The idea was at the heart of a seminal paper, 'Animal signals: information or manipulation?' (3) by Richard Dawkins and John Krebs, published in 1978. It was strongly resisted at first, but the evidence kept on piling up, and now it's pretty much part of the orthodoxy.

It doesn't mean that all signals are attempts to mislead, by the way. 'Honest' signals, too, are for the benefit of the sender, as explained here. The explanation is based on the handicap theories of Amotz Zahavi (yes, Souljah, he's an Israeli!)

If only more people knew this, and bore it in mind when watching television, reading ATS, etc., there'd be a lot less ignorance and confusion in the world.

Anyway, vox2442, there's really no need to be so ashamed of your former profession. We are all manipulators at the end of the day. It's what we do with our abilities, not having them in the first place, that matters.

Now, as to that ignorance and confusion...

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Seriously .. the UN is very selective. Slavery is still alive and well in Africa and South East Asia ... and yet we hear nothing out of the UN because those things aren't anything that help push it's own corrupt agenda (or make illegal $$$ for it's members).

Yes indeed, FlyersFan, slavery is, as you put it, alive and well in Africa and Southeast Asia -- not to mention South Asia, Russia, Eastern and Western Europe and even in your beloved US of A. You may read more about it in the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, adopted by the General Assembly in 2000.

Many UN agencies are active against slavery and human trafficking, among them UNHCR, UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA and ILO (that's UNHCR, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, by the way, not UNCHR). If you want to find out what these agencies are doing about the problem you assumed was being swept under the carpet, go to their home pages and take a look.

After having done this, you may yet find yourself agreeing with Souljah that

Originally posted by Souljah
I still think that UN is completly incompetant

...though if that is the case I don't really understand, Souljah, why you're so afraid of their

One World Army and... One World HeadQuarters

Which army would that be, by the way? The shackled, puny, underfunded, under-equipped peacekeeping forces to which all member States contribute? Or perhaps the evil One Worlders are raising a secret army amid the grasslands of Mongolia or somewhere equally remote?

Well never mind. I suppose I'd better address your main point:

...so many countries are in the United Nations, yet they always find a way to argue between each other and not to reach ONE resolution, which would be enforced by EVERYBODY.

Well, as you will see from the links posted above, that's simply not true. And besides...

Any attempt to solve any problem you care to name, from slavery in Africa to public education in the United States, will be against the interests of certain individuals and groups. They will therefore oppose your attempt to impose a solution on them. How are you going to deal with that? What would Souljah do?

Would you use force? Is that your solution? Would you, for example, invade a sovereign State to impose justice, liberty and equality (as interpreted by you) on its population? Do you imagine that you, or anyone else, have a right to do that? Or that any sovereign State would agree to it?

Or are you one who imagines that all the problems of the world could be solved 'if only we could all agree to get along, brothers and sisters'? How naive. The problems of the world, if amenable to solution at all, will only be solved by finding acceptable compromises between all the various parties with interests in the matter (4). There is no hope of attaining any such compromise as long as one party views itself as 'right' and sees all the others as 'wrong'. Yet that is exactly your standpoint -- and that, de plus, of your hero Mr. Neuer.

The only way to solve these problems, then, is through endless discussion, controversy and eventual compromise, inching forward a step at a time and then, more often than not, being set at least half a step back, yet persevering against endless disillusion and discouragement in the belief that, however slow progress towards a mutually agreeable solution may be, you will eventually get there.

That is how the UN operates. It is also how most other processes that yield social results (at any scale, on any level) operate. The Northern Ireland peace process furnishes a typical example. I understand this may not be enough for idealists like yourself, or for people who are too naive, prejudiced or paranoid to understand the mechanisms of democratic politics, but there it is, I'm afraid, and you had better get used to it, because it's not going to go away.

Finally *sighs*, I suppose I have to address this:

And as you said, you know how the roots of the creation of UN go and you still think it is a "good" entitiy? Well I have trouble understanding you. UN is just one step away from implementing One World Government...

Well, as you said, your interpretation of the facts of history is very much in keeping with the tone of Above Top Secret. I, on the other hand, interpret the facts in far more conventional terms, against a backdrop of wider historical knowledge and some slight personal experience of political and administrative process. So, yes: on the whole, I believe the UN is a good institution. I have interacted with its various agencies on several occasions and while I agree that it is inefficient, wasteful, often self-serving and all too often fails in its intent, the same may be said of nearly any bureaucratic institution. And yes, it is often involved in corruption because it draws on the governments and people of its member States for resources and personnel, and many of these governments and people are themselves corrupt. Yet I am convinced that, in spite of all its failings, the United Nations answers to the Churchillian description of democracy -- far from perfect, but the best option available. Instead of railing against it for not being perfect, let's try to make it better.

Besides, what's wrong with One World Government anyway?

NOTES

(1) Yes, plants communicate. A flower is a come-hither signal to pollinators. A fruit communicates its readiness to be eaten. Even the changing colours of leaves in autumn are interpreted by some biologists as a signal designed to deter parasites.

(2) If you'd like to read more about signalling theory, the Wikipedia page is a fine place to start.

(3) Citation, for those who'd like to look it up: Dawkins, R. & Krebs, J. R. 1978: 'Animal signals: information or manipulation?' in Behavioural Ecology: an evolutionary approach, 1st ed. (Krebs, J. R. & Davies, N.B., eds) Blackwell: Oxford, pp 282-309. A selection of quotations from it in other papers shows just how widely influential Dawkins and Krebs' work has been.

(4) The shorthand term for such parties is 'stakeholders', a word very often found in UN and related-agency documents.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Astyanax]

One World Government, it's an emotive concept. It conjours up images of Nazism and Stalinism, but I find the concept unduly maligned.

If you look at it in a pure statisitical manner, we have a 50/50 chance of getting a "good" "decent" government whereas with hundreds of governments the chances are much more inclined to give us bad governments.

The notion of One World Government isnt bad, it's bad governments that are. And if I could be assured a just and decent One World Government I would welcome it with open arms.

Nationalism is as much a method of keeping us divided and held down as the Right/Left paradigm and racism.

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Pavil, don't be an idiot. This is the oldest trick in the book. "The people I hate are lying when they say they love the little man and I'm telling the truth when I say I love the little man!"

This guy is just horrible.

See what I mean. Attack the messenger but pay no attention to the message whatsoever. Would it have been different if Mahatma Gandhi had given the speech?
Maybe you would listen to the words then. The truth is the UN pays little attention to some conflicts and tons to others, why is that? The last three genocides in recent memory ( Darfur, Bosnia and Rwanda) all were but ignored by the UN and the world till they were done deals. Sure the UN does some good things but there are huge holes that make them look inept.

Originally posted by pavil


See what I mean. Attack the messenger but pay no attention to the message whatsoever. Would it have been different if Mahatma Gandhi had given the speech?
Maybe you would listen to the words then. The truth is the UN pays little attention to some conflicts and tons to others, why is that? The last three genocides in recent memory ( Darfur, Bosnia and Rwanda) all were but ignored by the UN and the world till they were done deals. Sure the UN does some good things but there are huge holes that make them look inept.

Have a look here:

www.ohchr.org...

This is the agenda for the current session. Take a read through the documents on the page. Just click on "E" for english and it will give you a PDF of the report presented.

Read through those and tell me how accurate UN watch is in their allegation that the UN Human Rights Council is obsessively focused on Israel, or their allegation that Darfur is being ignored, or that the rights of women are being ignored, or that human rights issues are being ignored in 191 countries around the world. Read through that site. Start at that page, read it, and then read the rest of it.

As for your accusations regarding the genocides in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur, I suggest you take a look at the Security Council - where the power to deal with these issues actually resides.

Astyanax - I just have to admit, I love your posts! Even if I do not completly agree with you, there is certainly a great way of presenting information. Yet I think your view is too naive. I mean, you certainly know alot about United Nations and they way it functions. But have another part of the story to tell - you asked why do I fear One World Government? Well that is just step apart for the New World Order; tell me, do you like the idea of N.W.O.? I kind of do not. But I think it is already being slowly implemented into our world; look at European Union (that is where I live): one currency, one government, one army; it sounds kind of like "Ein Folk! Ein Reich! Ein Fuhrer!" if you know what I mean?

The New World Order is being implemented gradually, citing the foundation of the Federal Reserve, Colonialism, American Imperialism, the formation of the United Nations, formation of the World Health Organization, the World Bank and the WTO, the formation of the European Union and the Euro currency, the formation of the North American Union and the Amero currency, Zionism and the goal of Greater Israel, African Union and the September 11 attacks as major milestones. You understand? It is not a fast process - but the plans are old.

All of this is run from behind the curtain, by the big capitalist plutocrats such as David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission. It is claimed that the real purpose of globalization (the economic aspect of the New World Order) is to enable the big capitalists who run the transnational corporations to exploit the workers to the maxiumum possible extent and thus gain more profits for themselves.

Or for example, the Council on Foreign Relations - itself supposedly a front for the "international bankers", as well as, it is claimed, the inspiration for the founding of the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, and World Trade Organization. This thesis agrees with the right-wing libertarian opinion who sees a future socialist World State as the only way to achieve an orwellian collectivist oligarchy freed from the need to subordinate the world's production to the consumers of a free market economy.

Meaning that the very creationg and the roots of United Nations are closely connected to the dreams of Secret Government - the dreams of Secret Societies, which have planned for so long to install a World Wide Control of their own. So how can you even think, that United Nations is actually a creation of some "noble men", who realy wanted to change the World and make it better and protect human rights? As it looks to me, the only things that they do, is just something to show to the people - something to prove they are not completly useless after all - yet behind the curtains the real things happen. If the people in power wanted to change things, they would have done that already. But sadly wars usually mean profit - and profit usually means more money - and more money usually means, that politicians will do just about anything to get it. Which brings us back to the topics of corruptiion and selective politics of the United Nations.

Mr Neuer's speech was profound in it's context. Just the mere fact that the president of the UN Council denegrated him for his bold statements shows the UN to be fascists in it's attitudes and frameworks.

The president's reaction to the speech if anything proved that there are no human rights, even within the UN.

Mr. Neurer would be better as UN president, unlike the present one. I got the impression that he was part of the Illumanati the way he downed Mr. Neurers speech.

Originally posted by vox2442
Read through those and tell me how accurate UN watch is in their allegation that the UN Human Rights Council is obsessively focused on Israel, or their allegation that Darfur is being ignored,

Ok sorry. The UNHRC isn't obsessively focused on Israel, only 3 of the 4 Special Sessions it held related to Israel. The last was about Darfur. I am not saying that Israel shouldn't be monitored, I just point out that they have their feet held to the fires more that other nations.

As for Darfur, the killings continue so I can't commend the UN for it's actions. In fact the UN continues to not call it a genocide when Arab Muslims specifically target African Muslims for killing, rape and displacement. What exactly do you call that? The UN is like Nero fiddling when Rome burns.

It is a total joke to have countries who have very oppressive governments on the human rights watch.

It is also a total joke for a Zionist, or pro Israeli spokesman to try to point out that the U.N. rights watch is corrupt. Of course it is corrupt when you have many countries who have bad human rights records on the council, but that doesn't take away from the documented facts that Israel practices racist apartheid, discimination, indescriminate slaughter of civilians babies children, women the elderly, ethnic cleansing, targeted assassinations, numerous violations of U.N. resolutions. It is so hypocritical to say their enemies are violating U.N. resolutions when Israel has probably violated the most U.N. resolutions in the history of the U.N. There is no defense for that.

[edit on 31-3-2007 by D_Mason]

Gosh, I'm all hot and flustered from so many compliments. Thank you.

On the subject of one world government and the soi-disant New World Order, I fear we shall have to to disagree. No matter how convincing the circumstantial evidence you adduce for it, you will never convince me that such a conspiracy exists. This is not the place to go into the reasons why, though if you wish we can debate the subject on another thread.

I see you have put me down as a Friend. Again, I thank you. And I agree, too; judging from your inputs in other threads, our views have a lot in common.

Souljah. We are in total accord here. The Human Rights Council is a twisted joke.

Elanor Roosevelt, something of a personal hero of mine, must be spinning in her grave, to see what has become of her great dream.

Condemn Israel when neccessary, ok, I can get behind that. But condemn others when neccessary as well. How else do you bring attention to issues that need addressing by the rest of the world.

Good thread. Credit where credit is do. If I had one, I'd send a WATS your way. Since I'm fresh out, good thoughts will have to suffice...

Well, Soulja we actually agree; I'm not sure that it will ever happen again but who knows?

This speech confirms that which I have long believed that the UN Human Rights Commission is a sick joke. I've no problem with holding Isreal's feet to the fire when needed but there are many others that also need to be held accountable.

As Seagull said credit where credit is due. I still have two votes and you'll have to recieve one of them. Good thread.

That was a very interesting video, kudos to your finding of it.

I think that it should be brought to light how widespread the abuse of human rights is, on some scale. I'd go as far to say that every country in the World has people suffering within. It thereby does not say alot about our world governments if the UN cannot do alot to change this. The last time I remember anything being brought up about the "Silence of the UN" was during the Rwandan genocide, where three UN members (Kofi Annan included) were raised position in what would appear to be a payoff for keeping quiet (I shall post a link at the bottom).

However, using Israel as an example of the poor victim is absurd. That would be like someone entering your house, then raping your wife, beating your children, then going to the police if you tried to stop him. Israel is not demonized enough in society today, and what Hillel Neuer doesn't say about the "dictators" in Palestine is that the infighting amongst Palestinians has only flared up after Israel starting funding and arming Abbas and the Fatah movement against Hamas. And to compare the killings there to the killings by the IDF would show a very large difference.

Link for UN/Rwandan Silence:

www.corpwatch.org...