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

UN Bias Hurts The World

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:22 am

Hey guess what!
The rampant anti-Israel, pro-palestinian UN Bias actually harms poor, starving people in poor, starving countries!

http://www.unwatch.org/pbworks/blind_to_burundi.pdf

Jean Ziegler, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, has made over 30 statements relating to food problems in the palestinian territories in the last few years. This is more than the combined amount of comments he has made about the situation in:
Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda.

Now, this might be acceptable if the palestinians were worse off in food terms than the rest of these countries. But that isn't the case. The rate of malnutrition among children in every single one of the above-mentioned countries is AT LEAST 5 TIMES HIGHER, and in some cases 10 to 15 TIMES HIGHER, than ths rate of malnutrition of children in the palestinian territories.

So, why is the guy in charge of Food Problems for the UN entirely ignoring his job and instead pursuing a pro-palestinian and anti-Israel agenda (that's right, the clear majority of his releases are critical of Israel and hold them responsible)?

He has issued SEVEN specific press-releases blaming Israel for palestinian food shortages. For more than half of Food Emergency countries (all of which are worse off than the palestinian territories) he has never made a single press-release.
How many statements has the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food made about Burundi, a country where almost the majority of children are malnourished (15 times higher than in the palestinian territories)? None.

The palestinian territories have the lowest percentage of malnourished children compared with any other state in the Arab Middle East, East Asia, the Pacific, South Asia, Sub-Sahran Africa and Latin American. Except Chile. And yet the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has focused on the palestinian territories far more than anywhere else.

The UN. What a fine upstanding institution. Based on what was it? Justice?

Yeah. Right.

It's a place that neglects the poor and starving in the world in favour of a political campaign.

Maybe the next stop Bob Geldof should make on his campaign to relieve the starving people of Africa should be the UN Headquarters to demand they get a person in charge of Food Problems who actually does their job.
Last edited by Curiosity on Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:33 am

Stuff like this just makes people look stupid. Counting the number of UN statements about something is simply stupid. Different situations are handled in different ways. The UN can't do much about the Israeli situation so they make statements about it, get over it or better yet stop supporting the illegal occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people.

Simply accusing anyone who is critical of Israel as being part of some anti-Israeli conspiracy is simply stupid.

I know you want a big deal to made about this so you can spout off again (just remember that last time you ended up being called an crazy fool by nearly every one), but I will not be go much beyond what I have said here (at least with you, anyone else who wants a real discussion would be a welcome sight).
Last edited by Stewsburntmonkey on Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:38 am

Ah yes. Lets dismiss out of hand a mountain of evidence that the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food is neglecting his duties to a criminal extent and instead blame Israel for it!

This is not counting UN Statements. This is counting how much attention the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food actually PAYS and DRAWS to people who do not have enough food in the world.

The UN actually doesn't need to do much about the food situation in the palestinian territories comapred to so many countries. Dozens upon dozens of countries have far more malnourished children. So why does the guy who is the head of UN Food Problems talk about the food problems in the palestinian territories than in any country?

Shall I make this really clear to you?

*The palestinian territories has less of a proportion of malnourished children than literally dozens of other countries.
*The man in charge of looking at Food Problems for the UN spends more time and effort on talking about the Food situation in the palestinian territories than on the Food situation anywhere else.

Only you could come along and try to defend this behaviour.
Last edited by Curiosity on Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:43 am

Because the food situation is Palestinian lands is a result of Israel's breach of internation law. Other nation's food problems are generally not. Also a great deal of aid is funneled into those other nations through sources outside the UN. I am obviously not privy to the inner workings of the various UN offices, but making such a broad and incindiary statement based on such shallow information is simply stupid.
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:47 am

Firstly, the word is 'incendiary'. And if you want to shut your eyes to the extent of criminal bias in the UN, that's fine, you do that.

Secondly, you assert that the palestinian food problem is down to Israel. But... if the cause of the palestinian food problem is Israel, then why do they have a SMALLER food problem than anywhere else in the Arab Middle East (or lots of other places)? Funny how the 'occupied' and 'oppressed' are starving less than those that are apparently neither of those things...

You have no actual basis for your claim that the palestinian food problem is down to Israel, because it would seem an "Israeli occupation" gives the "occupied area" a far smaller food problem than in a good chunk of the world, including the vast majority of the region that the "occupied area" is part of.

The fact remains, very simply, the palestinian territories have a tiny food problem compared to so many other places. And yet the man who is incharge of UN food problems talks about the palestinian food problem many times more than the food problem of any other place on Earth.

You can think that's right if you want. If you weren't a biased, Israel-hating moron who seemingly has to contradict every single word I say regardless of the weakness of his case, you'd see it's wrong.

EDIT: Wow, I just noticed! You explained perfectly yourself why the man responsible for UN Food Problems spends more time on a place with a comparatively tiny food problem than he does on any other place on Earth, including dozens of places with far larger food problems:
"Because the food situation is Palestinian lands is a result of Israel's breach of internation [sic] law. Other nation's food problems are generally not."

It's because he thinks it's Israel's fault. And when it comes to the UN, that's all that matters.

FURTHER EDIT: "but making such a broad and incindiary statement"
I have noticed that when it comes to criticising the Iraq War, Israel, even you own government, you are the first in line with the broad criticisms and "incendiary statements". You do it in this very topic - "stop supporting the illegal occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people."
But now, someone launches a well-evidenced, comprehensively-documented, well-targeted criticism of your beloved UN and you have the gall to deride them for being 'incendiary'? *Chokes on the hypocrisy*

Hmm... interesting. I do remember being called a 'crazy fool' by a lot of people. I also remember pointing out that you had made 3 ridiculously stupid remarks that no-one else had expressed any support for and had somehow twisted the opinion (through shameless defaming and false portrayal of me and my opinions as some sort of extremism) of most people, despite the fact most of them agreed with me. They and you shut up when I laid out simply my and your positions on the 3 key issues and they saw how stupid you were being. Yes, you're an incredibly manipulative shit, who plays on the preconceptions and views of people who are not paying much attention in order to twist support for yourself, I'll give you that. Why do you think I've repeated myself in such clear language over and over in this topic? It's because if I don't, you'll lie and misrepresent what I'm saying and spin it to gain support for you.
Last edited by Curiosity on Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:32 am, edited 4 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 1:18 am

I think Spain probably does more damage which it's shameless whoring of UN funds.

Still, I'm sure Israel is far more important.

Blah blah blah, long story short, I don't give a damn.
-- 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 1:26 am

Spain shamelessly whores EU funds (well, they probably whore UN funds too), but they're more famous, and in the news at the moment, (as part of the whole EU budget thing), for whoring EU funds.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:58 am

Stating my belief that you should not support illegal actions is not incendiary. The fact is Israel is acting illegally. I support Israel, just not many of its actions (the illegal and -in my view immoral- ones). The fact that the occupation is illegal is not incendiary, it is a fact. By incendiary I mean the sort of unsupported (or poorly supported) propaganda like you began this topic with.

There is no food problem in Israel so it should follow that if Israel is occupying Palestinian land there should be no food issues there either. That is not the case however. The UN makes its statements because there have been problems with flow of food into Palestinians lands (in many cases apparently due to Israeli actions). The UN is there to deal with these issues when they arise between nations (as in the case of Israel and the occupied territory). Most of the other places you cite have food issues caused by internal problems which the UN has virtually no mandate to deal with. Too many people forget the UN really only has authority (and very little at that) to deal with conflicts between nations (and some authority to deal with issues reguarding fundamental human rights).
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:54 am

sbm wrote:Stating my belief that you should not support illegal actions is not incendiary.


I think the way you said it was the incendiary manner, you know with all the use of the word 'oppressed' and other emotive terms. I provide a complex and well-documented, calculated report, and you decry it as 'incendiary'.

sbm wrote:I support Israel, just not many of its actions (the illegal and -in my view immoral- ones).


I supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq, just not many of its actions, you know like mass-murdering Kurds and invading Kuwait (the illegal and -in my view immoral- ones). :lol:

Saying you support something is incredibly easy.

I support North Korea, just not many of its actions, you know like secretly acquiring nuclear weaponry and starving its population to death etc...

sbm wrote: The fact that the occupation is illegal is not incendiary, it is a fact.


Says you. We can argue about the right to occupy captured land in a defensive war for the purposes of defence and until peace treaties are signed until the cows come home.

sbm wrote: By incendiary I mean the sort of unsupported (or poorly supported) propaganda like you began this topic with.


Poorly supported propaganda? So the 33-page report (I linked) demonstrating, detailing and evidencing the claims in excruciating detail is "poorly supported"? Ah no, doesn't count, sbm has declared it 'poorly-supported'. Yes, I think I see what constitutes 'poorly supported propaganda' in your eyes. It's a claim of which you disapprove...

sbm wrote:There is no food problem in Israel so it should follow that if Israel is occupying Palestinian land there should be no food issues there either. That is not the case however.


You would think. Except for the fact that every Arab country in the Middle East has a bigger food problem than the palestinian territories, including the ones bordering Israel and the territories. Israel does not have a big food problem (although actually there are a lot of poor and hungry people) because it is a modern, first-world, developed country. If the palestinian territories were a country, I think they'd be more likely to be like the Arab Middle East than they are to be like Israel. Just seems more likely. So basically, you're talking unsubstantiated bullshit and making ridiculous presumptions when actually other presumptions would be far more likely and accurate. It's almost deliberate lies, isn't it?

sbm wrote:The UN makes its statements because there have been problems with flow of food into Palestinians lands (in many cases apparently due to Israeli actions). The UN is there to deal with these issues when they arise between nations (as in the case of Israel and the occupied territory).


Like most of what you say, sounds nice, but scrutiny is bad for it. I'm not talking about "the UN" in such general terms. I am talking about the "UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food", the guy in charge of World FOOD PROBLEMS for the UN. His job is not to lambast Israel at every opportunity (believe me, the rest of the UN has that covered), his job is to do with FOOD. Nowhere in his mandate does it say a word about "food problems between nations". Nowhere. His mandate is simply food problems in the world. You are a deliberate, malicious, liar. So why is it that he concentrates so much on an area with a much lower food problem than other swathes of the planet?

sbm wrote:Most of the other places you cite have food issues caused by internal problems which the UN has virtually no mandate to deal with.


You use the mandate bullshit a lot too I've noticed. The Human Rights Commission passes half its resolutions to do with Israel (well, it fits the mandate!), the UN GA pass more resolutions on Israel than anyone or anything else (well, it fits the mandate!), the UN ignore huge problems killing hundreds of thousands in the world to go after Israel (well, it fits the mandate!)
Let me make this clear and end these lies. The UN and indeed "UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food", are not constrained by some sort of stringent mandate that stops him or them dealing with any area except the palestinian territories :o
He does make SOME comments on and press-releases about and draws some attention to other countries where there are people without food (as is his job), but he spends far too much time on the territories. His job is to look at Food Problems for the world! Every country is his mandate! Why is he obsessed with reporting and talking about food problems in a place with a tiny comparative problem?

sbm wrote:Too many people forget the UN really only has authority (and very little at that) to deal with conflicts between nations (and some authority to deal with issues reguarding fundamental human rights).


If they only had authority to deal with that, then they wouldn't have the ridiculous amount of branches and sub-sections that they do. They have someone (a well supported someone) to look at World Food Problems, so why does he obssess over a relatively tiny area while saying jack about the rest of the planet? You cannot use 'mandate' bullshit to cover this one. His mandate is the world, and he neglects it.

Seriously, only you could defend this shit. So, what's the tack you're taking in the Saddam defence, I'd plead insanity if I were you.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:22 am

The UN has a system whereby all departments are required to give updates on issues raised by the Security council. Someone always raises the Isreali non-compliance, and so Ziegler always has to discuss palestinian problems.

For the last time: the UN only has a mandate on INTERNATIONAL affairs. If a country is starving because the crops failed or because their govenment is useless, that's not the UN's business. But if a country is starving because of the actions of another, the UN has a mandate (and a duty) to comment.

So, curio, that's the UN, the BBC, ABC, CNN, the EU, OPEC, the entire arab world and pretty much all of every global govenment except a minority in the US. Maybe it would be best if you just listed the people who WERN'T "biased against Isreal". :roll:
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:41 am

Hehe. SBM lies. He lies about the UN mandate and so do you. You play on the ignorant and lazy and lie repeatedly and maliciously.

According to you liars, the only place the UN would ever intervene would be the palestinian territories, Tibet, until recently Lebanon. etc.

This is bullshit and lies. The UN deals with problems all over the world, between nations and not. It maintains peacekeepers in Haiti! Is Haiti a problem between nations? NO! This is one example of hundreds where the UN deals with a situation not involving other countries. You have created a baseless illusion of a mandate that would prevent the UN doing many things THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES AND IS DOING AS WE SPEAK. These are called lies.

It has a WORLD FOOD PROBLEM head!
NOWHERE in his mandate is a single word about him having to only deal with certain situations. In fact his mandate is to deal with the WORLD. His mandate is to inform the UN AND THE WORLD ABOUT FOOD PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD. Nothing about "between nations". Indeed, he TALKS ABOUT COUNTRIES THAT HAVE FOOD PROBLEMS NOT BETWEEN NATIONS. You are liars. Poor liars at that.

You are also so incredibly arrogant that you think you can dismiss a 33 page NGO report as being 'poorly-supported', even when it has been written and put together by people who know FAR MORE THAN YOU ABOUT THE UN. The arrogance is breathtaking. You have appointed yourselves world arbiters, and you know so little.

You are also ignorant. You seem to have no knowledge of how the UN operates beyong some bizarre and false opinions you seem to have picked up from the media. You utterly misinform and falsely portray the whole issue of the UN mandate, and the only explanation is lies or ignorance.

doormat wrote:The UN has a system whereby all departments are required to give updates on issues raised by the Security council. Someone always raises the Isreali non-compliance, and so Ziegler always has to discuss palestinian problems.


You also give this stuff about every department having to report about UNSC issues or something. Could you show me where you got that from? Because it sounds like shit to me. Are you saying that the UN High Comm. for Refugees, will have to comment on Iranian nuclear proliferation if it gets referred to the UNSC? What about Jan Ziegler, will he be there chatting about it too?
And even these bullshit lies do not face the issue. Jan Ziegler makes more PUBLIC STATEMENTS and PRESS STATEMENTS about Israel than about starving countries. Is making lots of press statements another requirement of all UN agencies?
The sheer audacity of your lies is breathtaking. You could only get away with these ina forum where you believe that people know nothing about what you're discussing. Faced with a knowledgeable floor in real debate, you would be laughed out the room.

Go wallow in your pit of falsehood and self-congratulation you scum. You are liars and you know it and wallow in it. Any person reading this with a shadow of objectivity and knowledge in their mind would laugh at the lies you have told. I knew I should have expected lies from you. After the cheap personal shots, misinformation, misrepresentation, demagoguery and other twisted behaviours, audacious and obvious lies were just tht next logical step. You think you can lie with impunity and laugh off anything that doesn't conform to your views. It's sickening.
Deepsmeg
level5
level5
Posts: 6510
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:26 pm
Location: Register 2102
Contact:

Postby Deepsmeg » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:22 am

What are you trying to do?
What are you hoping to get out of this?
Image
Curiosity
level5
level5
Posts: 1641
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 5:37 pm

Postby Curiosity » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:39 am

Stop sbm and doormat lying pathologically?
User avatar
Montyphy
level5
level5
Posts: 6745
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 2:28 pm
Location: London, England

Postby Montyphy » Fri Jun 17, 2005 11:51 am

Once upon a time there was this document. A document containing information about a country and it's weaponary. Some world leaders read this document and didn't like what they read. These leaders decided something had to be done about this country and it's weapons so they went to war it. Several months down the line and now people doubt the information contained in the document which upset the leaders.

So Curiosity, can you blame people for not having trust in documents that claim to contain facts on a situation?
Uplink help: Check out the Guide or FAQ.
Latest Uplink patch is v1.55.
Deepsmeg
level5
level5
Posts: 6510
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 1:26 pm
Location: Register 2102
Contact:

Postby Deepsmeg » Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:10 pm

Woah...
YOU started it this time, Curiosity.

What did you think would happen after making your first post?
Other than SBM and/or Banker jumping on it straight away?
Image

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests