UN Human Rights Chief takes Front row seat to hear Ahmadinejad in Tehran

[Nemesis6]

Like I said: Spin all you want. Go into technicalities even. Post over 30 quotes, whatever. In the end, though, it doesn't matter, because the U.N. are still incredibly stupid and hypocritical for having anything to do with this lunatic conference. By the way, no condemnations from Arbour yet about Ahmi's little hatefest speech at the event yet. If they do distance themselves from it, they have a heck of a way of showing it. But then again, an organization that puts countries like Sudan, Cuba and Iran in charge of overseeing human rights, while letting themselves be coerced by the Arab and Muslim dictatorships in their midst not to have someone as moderate as the country of Denmark in the security council because a person from this country drew their so-called Prophet. They allow anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism to go unchallenged at their own conferences, and they attend those of others where the same is practiced. Some organization.

 

[No Limit]

I don't think you know what the hell you are talking about. Again, we are talking about a conference of over 100 nations, many of which are already part of the UN.

But as stern pointed out why are you not jumping on the UN when they attend anything to do with Israel or with america for that matter. Your human rights record isn't that great, neighter is our american record. You are a hypocrite. You look the other way when we do this shit but when brown people do it it's evil all of the sudden. This is no different than you defending terrorism when the jews were doing it. How ****ing blind can you be when you can't see the obvious hypocracy in your statements. And because of that do you honestly believe anyone here takes you seriously?

 

[Nemesis6]

"Your human rights record"... O_O
Why am I an Israeli all of a sudden? Aren't you being a little presumptuous?

Anyway - Why do I not jump on the America-is-bad wagon? Well, that wagon is quite full already isn't it. Besides, America is facing its problems and for the most part, it's still struggling with them. America and Israel has problems with human rights as with any country, but they are in no way comparable to Jumhuriye Islamiye Iran... Yet, they are the main targets of the U.N, even though they are not the ones hanging gay people from cranes, committing mass-murder on political dissidents, killing/flocking adulterers, and killing women for being raped! The list goes on. While you can argue as much as you want about their foreign policy and the flaws inherent within, a bad decision regarding foreign policy doesn't constitute being on the same level as Iran as far as domestic human rights goes. That is just ludicrous.

 

[kirovman]

Yet, they are the main targets of the U.N

I'm in agreement with the rest of your post, but I'm not sure if I agree that the US are the targets of the rest of the UN, as an organisation at least.

I think for most part, the "anti-Americans" are just in fact anti-Bush.

 

[Nemesis6]

Actually, I made a mistake there, or at least I think I might have: As far as I know, America is not a target of the U.N. as far as spineless resolutions go, that would be Israel, on that I'm certain and as I've said: Statistics back me up quite nicely on that one.

The whole anti-American/anti-Bush is a very fine line, and Americans, too need to realize that. I'll cite an example: Playing Zombie Master, a British guy says that all Americans are "xenophobic ****tards". An American responds by trying to rationalize this bullshit by talking about how he personally didn't know anyone who voted for Bush. So Americans might think that when people say stuff like that, it's just because of the foreign policy of George Bush, but in what I think is the majority of instances, there's a lot more to it, but Americans don't like to realize that, especially the Liberals/Democrats/whatever because it undermines part of the basis of their opposition to George Bush; People hate America ONLY because of him.

Much the same goes with Israel. Take this San Francisco protester for example: http://www.jcrc.org/israel/_common/nazi_kikes.jpg
This is one of the more obvious examples, but this sort of reasoning: "X is only doing Y because of Z" fails when it comes to racism. Racism will take on any form when it comes to legitimacy. You see, for example: I am not "anti-Semitic", I just want the evil J---Israelis to stop killing the Palestinians!

When you can blame/hide your own xenophobic and/or racist beliefs under the guise that you are simply opposed to the actions of said race/whatever, you're in the safe zone and that's a large portion of modern racists operate to keep their opinions from getting dismissed. Final example, I swear: We're not the "German Nazi Party" we're just the "German Nationalist Front".

 

[No Limit]

a bad decision regarding foreign policy doesn't constitute being on the same level as Iran as far as domestic human rights goes.

Sure, that makes sense. Our bad policy kills 500,000 Iraqi children it's not a big deal because we are good. Saddam kills less people than that but we should destroy his country and kill more innocent people in the process because he is evil. That makes perfect sense.

Why can't you see this shit from both sides, and that is we are both totally ****ed up. So people like you playing the holier than thou card all the time is a huge part of the problem.

 

[Nemesis6]

To make a minor detail clear: Saddam has killed millions of people. His deathtoll is well over 500,000. As I said: The conditions in Iraq doesn't equate America being on the same level as Iran as far as human rights go, because for one, America didn't kill all those people. The vast majority of them have been killed by the terrorists.

 

[CptStern]

To make a minor detail clear: Saddam has killed millions of people. His deathtoll is well over 500,000.

only if you include those killed during the iraq-iran war ..but why would you attribute soldiers as casualties in a declared war when we're talking about civilians?

As I said: The conditions in Iraq doesn't equate America being on the same level as Iran as far as human rights go

that's like saying a murderer isnt the same as a mass murderer ..they both murder do they not?

because for one, America didn't kill all those people.

causation Nemesis ..their actions brought about the breakdown of law and order, by LAW it is their responsibility as occupiers to ensure their occupied land is secure ..in fact there could be civil lawsuits that sue the US government for not providing security

The vast majority of them have been killed by the terrorists.

according to the respected medical journal the Lancet the majority were killed by coalition forces:

Their most significant finding was that the vast majority (79 percent) of violent deaths were caused by â??coalitionâ? forces using â??helicopter gunships, rockets or other forms of aerial weaponry,â? and that almost half (48 percent) of these were children, with a median age of 8.

I'll take the Lancet's word for over some random guy on the internet who gets his information from blogs

http://zmagsite.zmag.org/Feb2006/davies0206.html

 

[K e r b e r o s]

only if you include those killed during the iraq-iran war ..but why would you attribute soldiers as casualties in a declared war when we're talking about civilians?

Because the Lancet and other such studies, like Iraqibodycount.net, include all forms of casualties -- such as people getting sick and dying, falling off bridges, Baathist Soldiers killed on the start of the war.

But, I see you're point! :thumbs:

according to the respected medical journal the Lancet the majority were killed by coalition forces

Not so much respected. As for deaths caused from aerial bombardment, the Insurgents strip the weapons off the dead ones to make them appear as civilians and then exploit the corpses to whatever purposes infront of the media.

If we get into a debate about this later, I'll happily provide what I can.

 

[CptStern]

Because the Lancet and other such studies, like Iraqibodycount.net, include all forms of casualties -- such as people getting sick and dying, falling off bridges, Baathist Soldiers killed on the start of the war.

the lancet does field studies similiar to polling, Iraqibodycount goes by verified casualties alone, they're not the same, nor do they include soldiers, only civilians

Not so much respected.

funny how no one disputes the number of people killed during the genocide in rwanda ..guess who came up with the figure? the Lancet ...again what you say, your opinion of the Lancet is completely meaningless ..just because YOU say they're not respected doesnt make it so (funny how the British Medical association suddenly finds itself without respect because they do a study on iraq, it has nothing to do with supporters of the war trying to discredit their finding ..nosireebob)

As for deaths caused from aerial bombardment, the Insurgents strip the weapons off the dead ones to make them appear as civilians and then exploit the corpses to whatever purposes infront of the media.

yes especially the children, there's a ton of photos of dead iraqi children who are actually terrorists in disguise ..:upstare: ..giving me some half-assed excuse does nothing, you must prove it

If we get into a debate about this later, I'll happily provide what I can.

please do, please provide evidence that says that 40% of the casualty figures were children who were in fact terrorists stripped of their clothing ...even if this were true (you'd have to be retarded to believe it though) is it true in every single case? as of 2006 the Lancet had a figure of 655,000 civilian casualties ..are you saying that the majority of the 79% were actually terrorists in disguise? that's over 300,000 terrorists? the majority of those ..terrorists in disguise ........right

 

[No Limit]

To make a minor detail clear: Saddam has killed millions of people. His deathtoll is well over 500,000. As I said: The conditions in Iraq doesn't equate America being on the same level as Iran as far as human rights go, because for one, America didn't kill all those people. The vast majority of them have been killed by the terrorists.

I was talking about the sanctions we enacted against them in the 90s which lead to the death of over 500,000 iraqi children. I wasn't even counting the deaths which resulted from our invasion in 2003. If you add that up we are talking about casualties past the million range, that's more than have died from the genocide in Sudan.

So yes, Iran is evil. Saddam was evil. And in essance we are evil too. It's just a ****ed up world we live in. And the only way we are ever going to fix that is through diplomacy, something you seem to be against. So if you are against diplomacy what are you for?

 

[Nemesis6]

Sanctions against tyrannical regimes, in my opinion that's still part of foreign policy. It still doesn't put the USA alongside Iran as far as human rights go. America, while it has made bad choices, is not "evil". You can't always foresee the consequences of your actions when it comes to things like sanctions, and while the goal of these sanctions can be disastrous, if they are well-intended, they are not per-se "evil", just wrong.

 

[CptStern]

Sanctions against tyrannical regimes, in my opinion that's still part of foreign policy.

the sanctions were never aimed at the regime but at it's civilian populace

read this

http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0808-07.htm



here are the declassified documents mentioned in the article

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0504rept_91.html

It still doesn't put the USA alongside Iran as far as human rights go.

executing a person for political ideology is nothing compared to purposefully sentencing 1.2 million iraqis (500,000 of them children) to a horrible death

America, while it has made bad choices, is not "evil".

nope sorry but as I've outlined above they definately took the evil route ..you dont purposefully target children and then call it "a mistake"

You can't always foresee the consequences of your actions when it comes to things like sanctions

yes you can, in fact they did assessments trying to predict what the outcome would be:

Effects of Bombing on Disease Occurrence in Baghdad

"Food- and waterborne diseases have the greatest
potential for outbreaks in the civilian and military
population over the next 30 to 60 days.

Increased incidence of diseases will be attributable to
degradation of normal preventive medicine, waste disposal,
water purification/distribution, electricity, and decreased
ability to control disease outbreaks. Any urban area
in Iraq that has received infrastructure damage will have
similar problems."

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0504rept_91.html

"assessment is that major disease outbreaks currently have not occurred in Baghdad or Basrah. For severe outbreaks to develop, a protracted war or more extensive collateral damage would have to occur.

However, conditions are favorable for communicable disease outbreaks, particularly in major urban areas affected by coalition bombing...."

".....most likely diseases during next sixty-ninety days (descending order): diarrheal diseases (particularly children); acute respiratory illnesses (colds and influenza); typhoid; hepatitis A (particularly children); measles, diphtheria, and pertussis (particularly children); meningitis, including meningococcal (particularly children); cholera (possible, but less likely)."

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_0pgv072_90p.html

and while the goal of these sanctions can be disastrous, if they are well-intended, they are not per-se "evil", just wrong.

sorry ...evil

 

[No Limit]

Do I hear crickets chirping?

 

[CptStern]

I saw a tumbleweed drift by a minute ago

 

[Nemesis6]

read this
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0808-07.htm

A list of the people who actively contribute to that site, known extremists/nutjobs in bold:

Noam Chomsky
Howard Zinn Eric Alterman Alexander Cockburn Jeff Cohen Juan Cole Joe Conason Robert Fisk Arianna Huffington Jesse Jackson Naomi Klein Paul Krugman Michael Moore Molly Ivins Ralph Nader Ted Rall Robert Reich Frank Rich Arundhati Roy Robert Scheer Cindy Sheehan Katrina vanden Heuvel

I would say another source, but when I check the place from which it originates, the immediate thing I notice is a picture of Cindy Shieehen, sorry, I doubt its credibility. Besides, I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, so I'm not gonna buy into the whole "America intentionally murdered children" thing just yet.

executing a person for political ideology is nothing compared to purposefully sentencing 1.2 million iraqis (500,000 of them children) to a horrible death

Yeah, but there's still a difference between putting sanctions against a country without thinking of the consequences and hanging gay people from cranes. As I said before: One is stupid, the other one is evil. The people who put the sanctions into place have to live with the consequences today, whereas the people who sentence girls to death for being raped... well, they still haven't figured out that this is wrong, now have they?


I guess I'll give you a concession - Both are evil, but there's a difference in intent. Anyway, on the original topic I stand firm: The U.N are still idiots for letting themselves be associated with Iran, participating in Ahmi's regular "evil Zionist entity" speeches kind discredits your organization.

 

[No Limit]

How did I know you were going to discredit the source? I must be psychic. It took you 2 days to come up with that? Would you like me to go back through some of the sources you posted over the years and point out who contributes to those sources?

But see, your right wing, preprogrammed reponse doesn't really work in this case because he gave you the declassified government documents that prove exactly what the article says. Are you going to call our own government biased and unreliable?

 

[No Limit]

Missed the edit so I am going to add on to this. Why do you keep repeating that the UN backed Iran on this? How many times does this have to be repeated. This conference involved over 100 countries, the only association with Iran was the fact that Iran is a member. So is all of south america, so is all of africa, so is all of the middle east (besides Israel of course), and so is most of Asia.

 

[Nemesis6]

As far as I know, I haven't said they back Iran, what I've said or implied it seems, is that it's a little strange when the supposed Human Rights Commissioner of one the biggest multinational organizations; The U.N, attend hatefests in a country of one of the worst human rights abusers of our time. I thought they were supposed to set an example... But still, after all that controversy, they're still United. Like they were in the Durban conference.

The fact that they kill 21 political dissidents right after the Human Rights Commisioner of the U.N leaves, well, that's just cosy, and I'm sure that Ms. Arbour would like to look away from that, and focus on the nice smile of Ahmadinejad as he talks about how, if the world was calm, Europe would kill the Zionists.

 

[CptStern]

A list of the people who actively contribute to that site, known extremists/nutjobs in bold:
I would say another source, but when I check the place from which it originates, the immediate thing I notice is a picture of Cindy Shieehen, sorry, I doubt its credibility. Besides, I'm not knowledgeable on this subject, so I'm not gonna buy into the whole "America intentionally murdered children" thing just yet.

nice try but you fail ...first of all that commondreams link is just a summary of the declassified US documents and second of all the people you listed arte some of the most respected intellectuals in the US ..you're going to have to do better than saying they're "nutjobs" ..anyways I provided the actual documents, did you bother reading them? why dont you try discrediting that source?

Yeah, but there's still a difference between putting sanctions against a country without thinking of the consequences and hanging gay people from cranes.

ya thanks for taking the time to read the documents I provided ...they detailed exactly what the outcome would be before during and after ...saying "without thinking" is just being ignorant of the facts in front of you ..seriously what is the use of debating you if you dont bother looking at the material you're up against?

As I said before: One is stupid, the other one is evil. The people who put the sanctions into place have to live with the consequences today, whereas the people who sentence girls to death for being raped... well, they still haven't figured out that this is wrong, now have they?

really?

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

doesnt look like they thought the deaths of 500,000 children was all that wrong

I guess I'll give you a concession - Both are evil, but there's a difference in intent.

yes the intent was to so deprive iraqis of basic necceseties of life that they would rise against saddam ...500,000 children dead to overthrow a single person ...you're right, it's all about intent

 

[No Limit]

As far as I know, I haven't said they back Iran, what I've said or implied it seems, is that it's a little strange when the supposed Human Rights Commissioner of one the biggest multinational organizations; The U.N, attend hatefests in a country of one of the worst human rights abusers of our time. I thought they were supposed to set an example... But still, after all that controversy, they're still United. Like they were in the Durban conference.

The fact that they kill 21 political dissidents right after the Human Rights Commisioner of the U.N leaves, well, that's just cosy, and I'm sure that Ms. Arbour would like to look away from that, and focus on the nice smile of Ahmadinejad as he talks about how, if the world was calm, Europe would kill the Zionists.

Way to select which part you respond to. We could go in circles over this, you keep repeating the same bullshit no matter what is said so I'm not going to bang my head in to the wall here. So please, do respond to what I posted above that or to what stern just posted, I would love you to explain these declassified government documents. Kind of hard to attack the credibility of these documents so I'm curious as to what other preprogrammed right wing response you will come up with.