UN Bias Hurts The World

Anything and Everything about Uplink

Moderators: bert_the_turtle, jelco, Chris, Icepick, Rkiver

Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:59 pm

Stewsburntmonkey wrote: He is one of those guys who has a need to call people stupid from time to time to feel good about himself. It is sad but that is all he cares about.


Wait a sec. I made a topic insulting no-one except corrupt people in the UN, you started arguing and now this whole topic was just my way to 'call someone stupid'. Right.
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:24 pm

If you care so much, write to the UN. I don't see the purpose of telling us - we can't get him fired. If for any reason any country where food was required was not given when it could have been, then I quite agree something is wrong, but I don't care what else he is or isn't doing. Maybe israel IS responcibile for Palestinian food shortages.

You could just put it on the israeli flag: "the UN sucks!"

There is a world outside of israel and palestine. A world full of problems. I guess the ones which let you talk about how no one likes israel and are biased against it are in our interest. If you're right about the guy, then in my eyes, you're as bad as the person you're complaining about, so, go away and try and help fix all the problems you see with the world rather than 'win' arguements with us. Just think, you could be the next George Galloway!

Seriously, we're fed up of you hiding 'omg ISRAEL' behind all these problems with the world. The UN may well, and probably do, do it, and you definately do. Don't even pretend you don't. Maybe the UN do it just to piss you off. I really wouldn't blame them if they did.
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:28 pm

The GoldFish wrote:There is a world outside of israel and palestine. A world full of problems.


How do you manage to make a whole post, including THAT line, and still not see my point?

My entire point is that the UN does not realise "there is a world outside israel and palestine. A world full of problems."

That's the precise fucking point of this topic, it proves exactly that contention, can't you see that?
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:54 pm

I am just going to add a couple of interesting facts:

If you look at the latest published annual report (2003) from the UN High Commissioner For Human Rights there are special sections devoted to Angola, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Columbia, Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia and Montenegro. These are in addition to the sections devoted to each of the various world regions (only North America and Austrailia don't have sections). Serra Leone also has a seperate special section.

The word "Burundi" appears 47 times in the report. The word "Israel" appears 12 times (5 of which appear in tables listing contributors to the UN). Uganda has nearly as many substantive mentions as Israel does. Haiti and Liberia have nearly twice as many as Israel. Hell even Eritrea has its own special mission for human rights. Even if you add the references to Palestine there are far less total mentions of the Israeli situation than there are of Burundi. And Iraq gets nearly twice as many mentions still.
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
The GoldFish
level5
level5
Posts: 3961
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 9:01 pm
Location: Bowl / South UK
Contact:

Postby The GoldFish » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:00 pm

The GoldFish wrote:I quite agree something is wrong.
Sorry for agreeing with your point that something is wrong. I'll try harder to argue with the factual basis you and they are pinning crap to next time.
-- The GoldFish - member of former GIT and commander in chief of GALLAHAD. You could have done something, but it's been fixed. The end. Also, play bestgameever!
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:50 pm

A few more bits of information:

About the source of the article presented by Curiosity in his first post:

www.sourcewatch.org wrote:UN Watch is a non-government organisation based in Geneva.

Its mission-statement is "to promote the balanced, fair, and non-discriminatory application of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, and to encourage respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, gender, culture, language, or religion".

A January 2001 media release from the American Jewish Committee describes UN Watch as having been established in 1993 by Morris Abram, the former U.S. Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva and Honorary President of the American Jewish Committee.

"Since the creation of UN Watch, much of its efforts has focused on monitoring the continuing discriminatory treatment of Israel in the UN system and attitudes toward Jews in the world body, as well as those matters which concern American interests. UN Watch has also tackled such issues as reform, gender equality, protection of religious liberty, and promotion of tolerance," the media release stated.

Un Watch was established with "with the generous assistance of Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress"

In 1999 "the American Jewish Committee and the World Jewish Congress reached an agreement, approved by the international board of UN Watch, to transfer full control of the organization to AJC, an agreement that went into effect on January 1, 2001," the media release stated.

Many Web Directories have UN Watch wrongly listed under United Nations Organizations. A contributing factor for this could be that UN Watch and its members continously portray their organization as if it were part of the United Nations itself. Thus, it's former Executive Director Andrew Srulevitch on the 10th of November 2003 wrote in the Jerusalem Post: "As the only nongovernmental organization exclusively mandated to monitor the integrity of the United Nations, UN Watch will gladly pick up that gauntlet. The UN Charter requires UN officials to have "the highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity." [UNRWA Commissioner-General Peter] Hansen fails this test, having demonstrated his pro-Palestinian bias on several occasions." link Original Article (http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/pu ... 014271.htm)

Although UN Watch is part of the American Jewish Committee, UN Watch's website (http://www.unwatch.org) does not say so, although it has last been updated in March 2004.

UN Watch has an active role in providing articles and 'analysis' to pro-Israel organisations around the world, although mainly focused in Israel and the US.

Personnel

The current [July 2004] Executive Director of UN Watch is Hillel C. Neuer, a Canada based lawyer and writer on political affairs. This position has previously been held by Michael D. Colson, a Canadian-born attorney [1997], and by Andrew Srulevitch [2002].

David A. Harris is the current Chair of UN Watch. Mr Harris is also Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee [ACJ].




You can take a look at the website for Special Rapporteur on the right to food and see how biased it is yourself.

I should also point out that focused attention is really the only way things get done. This is a general statement as I do not believe the UN has ignored the miriad of world concerns and become obsessed with Israel (it seems only the Israelis are obsessed with Israel). But if you have an list of important things to do (lets say open heart surgury and arguing a case before the supreme court) would you try to do both at the same time? I would certainly hope not. You pick one and focus all your attention on it and then move on to the next. You will notice this is generally the only way important stuff gets done. Big problems need champions to focus enough attention on them to affect change.

I should also point out that I am no fan of Jean Ziegler, he is rather extreme for my tastes. However he has done some good work, specifically calling out Swiss banks for their role in laundering money for the Nazis that was stolen from Holocaust victims.
Deepsmeg
level5
level5
Posts: 6510
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:26 pm
Location: Register 2102
Contact:

Postby Deepsmeg » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:16 pm

I'll save Curiosity the effort...

OMG U LY U TOK TEH PART OF TEH SIET & USDE TI 2 SUPORT UR LIES.
U DIDNT REFRENCE TEH ENTRIE SITE!!!?!?!?!
Image
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:19 pm

SBM still thinks he has a better working knowledge of the UN and its mandate than people who monitor it for a living.

And you know, I never claimed it was a UNO. And the fact that is sticks up for Israel and Jews is not something that makes it bad or wrong in any way. It watches the UN for anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bias AS A CONSULTATIVE NGO and calls the UN on it when it sees issues. The problem with this is...?

Oh noes! When it sees problems in the UN, it calls them on it! Bias! :roll:

In fact, trying to defame the people behind a 33-page exhaustive report on something and ignore every piece of the evidence is just silly.

Also, why you're rambling on about 'big problems' and 'one at a time' is beyond me. The Israel/Palestinian thing is not the worlds biggest problem and is not something that the treatment of every other problem has to pause for while it's sorted out. "Needing champions"?! Most of the world champions the paleestinians, it doesn't need someone else to ignore his job and contribute.

And referencing his own official site (which is actually just a little sub-bit of the UNHCHR site) proves precisely nothing.
Last edited by Curiosity on Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:32 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Banker
level3
level3
Posts: 437
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 6:10 pm

Postby Banker » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:21 pm

OMG1!!1!!! D|_|/\/\B@SS CURIO @R£ 6£771N S7R8 PWNED!1

:lol:

Seriously, Curio never ceases to amuse me, even in my most idiotic moments he still manges to take the prize.. Congrats.
Me300 wrote:I love how Banker has the uncanny capability cussing all the time while making his arguments.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:24 pm

BANKER DIE YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT

I'M FUCKING WINNING THIS ARGUMENT

I'M GOING TO RIP YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF AND MAKE YOU BLEED YOU SHIT

FUCK YOU ANNOY ME, YOU DUMB PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT

DIE UNDER A FUCKING BRIDGE AND DO THE WORLD A FUCKING FAVOUR YOU PIECE OF SHIT

ALTERNATIVELY GIVE ME AN ADDRESS SO I CAN PERSONALLY STRANGLE YOU
Deepsmeg
level5
level5
Posts: 6510
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:26 pm
Location: Register 2102
Contact:

Postby Deepsmeg » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:35 pm

So, this thing that is monitoring the UN FROM ONE POINT OF VIEW ONLY, is a reliable and unbiased source?
Image
Darksun
level5
level5
Posts: 6461
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2002 7:08 pm
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby Darksun » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:47 pm

Curiosity wrote:[b]I'M FUCKING WINNING THIS ARGUMENT


Alright...

I'M GOING TO RIP YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF AND MAKE YOU BLEED YOU SHIT


Whoops. Not a good way to win an argument. Though arguably effective in ending it.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:49 pm

Deepsmeg wrote:So, this thing that is monitoring the UN FROM ONE POINT OF VIEW ONLY, is a reliable and unbiased source?


It looks for anti-Israel and anti-Jew bias at the UN. That's it's job. That's why it's an NGO which has CONSULTATIVE STATUS WITH THE UN. And then when it finds what it's meant to be looking for, you lot say 'well they were looking' and that it's somehow biased.

Anyway, how many ways are there to interpret the actions of Jan Ziegler. From "another point of view" is ignoring his job to pursue a pro-palestinian, anti-Israel agenda, right?

You're making a ridiculous, circular, self-defeating argument.

It's like the argument against those who monitor the media for anti-Israel bias. They find some (plenty actually) and you go 'but they were looking for it and they're biased'. Which is a non-sensical way to look at things and essentially means no-one can ever say anything because everyone has a point of view. Except you lot, you lot all of course operate from unbaised positions. :roll:
Last edited by Curiosity on Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 pm

sbm wrote:
Curiosity wrote:You're making a ridiculous, circular, self-defeating argument.


He just asked a question and there was nothing circular about it. . .


Is he really making any LESS OF AN ARGUMENT because he phrased it as a question?

*giggle*

You see how easy it is to make an argument seem like asking a question?

And yes, it is circular to say 'they can't find anti-Israel bias because they're looking for anti-Israel bias', because you get stuck in a big never-ending loop of them looking for something and it goes round and round.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:07 pm

I don't think he implied they couldn't find a bias. I think the implication was they couldn't help but find a bias. And a circular argument is one in which the conclusion is stated as a primise. No conclusion was even given, so this wasn't even an argument and certainly wasn't a circular argument.

(note I deleted the post that was quoted. I felt it was an unneccessary and rather trivial comment.)

It seems funny that you are complaining about a perceived UN bias, but then go on to argue that a bias is perfectly fine. . .

Anyway the issue I meant to raise was that this group tries to make people believe it is a true watchdog organization, but in actual fact is simply an pro-Israel lobby. It uses deception to hide its motives. If it were more open about its affiliations and purpose it would be far more credible (and if it actually did something beyond simple propaganda).
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests