Do human rights organizations support genocide?

I have just had a heated facebook debate with an old friend, who has lived most of her life in Greece, but has relatives in Syria and has visited the place. Obviously the debate was about the conflict in Syria. To put it extremely black and white - she claimed the rebels were the bad guys exclusively and that this conflict should be handled internally, I claimed that Assad and the rebels were properly both bad, and that I thought the international community should stop the conflict.

The debate ended with her claiming that human rights organizations support the genocide which is happening in Syria, and me saying that I did not find that believable - to which she replied that "we can't agree on everything".

She is not the first person I've heard make such statements, but I have yet to be presented with any examples or evidence which would convince me of such a thing. I know of a few instances where people have confused the research that is done around overpopulation with propaganda condoning genocide, but otherwise I am pretty ignorant on the subject.

So if anyone has any good examples where human rights organizations have supported genocide, please let me know!
I am curious to know what the theories are on this, and if there is any reliable sources out there confirming such a statement?

reply to post by Mads1987


That statement in itself sounds like an oxymoron.....human rights....supports....genocide? I would have to say that is an isolated opinion from your friend....Or they wouldn't be called "human rights" no?

reply to post by Chrisfishenstein


Haha, indeed. That exact thought crossed my mind as well.
But you have got to admit, human rights organization would be a great cover for an evil empire.

While in principle some organizations may not agree with it, there have been instances in history where some organizations were either powerless, or unwilling, to intervene while any genocides were being carried out.

I don't think they support genocide, but I do think they don't really do anything about it until it's all over the MSM and they can benefit financially from it.

The only way I think Genocide applies as a very well defined term with specific meaning would be the overall war across the region between Sunni and Shia Islam. Shia is the very strong minority while Sunni's taste the ability to wipe them out, to a person and within current lifetimes. They seem almost rabid at the prospect. I don't understand the passions that drive it and I don't pretend to. I simply understand very clearly how the passions exist and those following it are VERY passionate about seeing that end result come to pass.

Outside of that? It's a nasty nasty war within the borders of Syria that *ALL* the outsiders should have stayed clear out of. If enough Syrians don't like the current Government? It's a nation of many millions of people. They see the path to join and fight.....IF that was the will of the majority. Apparently, it's not by their determined lack of involvement.

Syria is like Israel in that respect.

Syrian-American and Palestinian-American men who have never served in the Syrian military and who are planning to visit Syria should check with the Syrian Embassy in Washington, D.C. prior to traveling concerning compulsory military service.

Effective June 1, 2011, the period of mandatory military service for men who have completed the fifth grade is 18 months. The period of mandatory military service for men who have not completed the fifth grade is 21 months.

Source

Military service is by conscription and there isn't an option involved. (Although..UNLIKE Israel, you can buy your way out of it for around $500 U.S.... ) Point being...If the common people wanted this? They know how to fight, they know where and with whom to fight. I think the fact it's gone on and requires massive outside support speaks volumes on that.

reply to post by Mads1987


No proof, but where could you hide human rights abuses better than under a human rights organization which gets reported on only by media controlled by human rights abusers?

Thanks for the responses so far guys! But it seems like there isn't much intel on this subject. So there is properly nothing to it.

But I was thinking that the idea of human rights organizations being a cover for something more sinister, could tie in with some or all of the NWO conspiracies I used to hear so much about. That either the UN, Illuminati or some other elite organization would try to take over the world. Don't see people talking that much about this kind of stuff anymore, but I recall seeing an Penn & Teller Bullsh*t episode on these kind of theories once.

But then again, I've never really believed in these things. I think the world elite is pretty content where they are at the moment, and I don't see why they would want all of the hassle of controlling the world, when they can have the common man do it for them, and still get paid at the same time.

reply to post by th3dudeabides


Because in Europe at least the ECtHR does not work that way, any one can lodge an appeal for abuse of a right. That said the conventions and treaty's are entirely voluntary to enter into, and if a sovereign state decided to breach it there is little that such organisations could do, except apply retrospectively if the perpetrators are ever brought to trial. The International Criminal Court works on a similar principle, only once such people are in court can they act.

@ OP inability to act is not support for an act. How would a human rights organisation even be able to prevent genocide? By actively taking part in /supporting conflict? As far as Syria goes I see most organisations are critical of both sides.