Saudi Arabia Wants to Head the UN Human Rights Council

by **Ganos Lao** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:17 pm

Petrokovia wrote:
Ganos Lao wrote:
They feel Mugabe is standing up against the imperialism of the West, etc.

It's that old "we don't care that he kills his own people; we just care he uses rhetoric we like that he doesn't really care for" chestnut again.

Hell, we had ISIS sympathizers, even one who said he was a member on his sig, posting on the ISIS megathread.

We also had two DPRK supporters....

I honestly think it's people just wanting to seem hip and cool. I mean, bashing the West/America is hip and cool, right? And no, I'm not saying either is perfect, but come on now....

If bashing the West is hip and cool, I must be a megahipster, 'cause I hate hte entire world! Everyone sucks!

Humor aside, I agree it seems that a lot of people tend to just follow someone they like, and try to handwave bad things they do. And that really sucks, because a lot of times, it's really bad things that should be discussed, and people continue to say "nope IDK."

People won't discuss it because they'll think you're some "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" guy or something to that effect. They'll handwave whatever stands in the way of their position. For example, there's the guys who supported ISIS on the megathread - they were calling others uncivilized while supporting the guys who burn people in cages and use little girls as sex slaves. I could go on and on but it seems you already know what's up. It just irks me to see that sort of behaviour from people.

by **Petrokovia** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:21 pm

Ganos Lao wrote:
Petrokovia wrote:If bashing the West is hip and cool, I must be a megahipster, 'cause I hate hte entire world! Everyone sucks!

Humor aside, I agree it seems that a lot of people tend to just follow someone they like, and try to handwave bad things they do. And that really sucks, because a lot of times, it's really bad things that should be discussed, and people continue to say "nope IDK."

People won't discuss it because they'll think you're some "AMERICA FUCK YEAH!" guy or something to that effect. They'll handwave whatever stands in the way of their position. For example, there's the guys who supported ISIS on the megathread - they were calling others uncivilized while supporting the guys who burn people in cages and use little girls as sex slaves. I could go on and on but it seems you already know what's up. It just irks me to see that sort of behaviour from people.

Preachin' to the choir on this one. XD I like the Soviet Union for it's steps toward equality, but not for its Gulags or failed economy. I like the US for its freedoms, but not its tendency for revoking those freedoms, or the NSA, or the US's crappy congress. I wish people could see the good and bad in everything, and focus on both.

Alas, not the case. Anyway, we should probably get back on the particular topic of SA wanting to be head of the UNHRC.

by **Zurkerx** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:23 pm

Hmm, how can I put this?

NO!

by **Zakuvia** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:27 pm

HRC for a country that still practices crucifixion? Amongst other lovely little cultural 'oopsies'.

by **Mysterious Stranger** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:27 pm

That would make a mockery of the Human Rights Council.

by **Insaeldor** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:30 pm

Oh Jesus Christ. Might as well have have North Korea head the Peacebuilding Commission if this is the kind of half asses job their going to do.

by **Both Nations** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:31 pm

The Saudis aren't exactly the shining beacon of goodness. Really, the HRC should be putting them under every sanction under the sun.
But, you know. The UN.

by **Insaeldor** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:33 pm

Zakuvia wrote:HRC for a country that still practices crucifixion? Amongst other lovely little cultural 'oopsies'.

Like the 85 beheadings they've done in just about six months?

by **Zurkerx** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:35 pm

Insaeldor wrote:
Zakuvia wrote:HRC for a country that still practices crucifixion? Amongst other lovely little cultural 'oopsies'.

Like the 85 beheadings they've done in just about six months?

Well, that's no surprise and that is not the only thing they do.

by **Magthere** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:36 pm

My own opinion

by **Purger** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:37 pm

Go for it Saudi Arabia.

by **Insaeldor** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:42 pm

Purger wrote:Go for it Saudi Arabia.

And why exactly should they? I mean it's not like they have supplied weapons and funding to several terrorist organizations and holds one of the worst Human Rights records in history just above some of the more draconian African states and North Korea. Plus the whole persecution of religious minorities and overall horrid treatment of women.

But fuck it why not have a state with one of the worst human rights records run the HRC. I mean it only makes perfect sense right?

by **Purger** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:47 pm

Insaeldor wrote:
Purger wrote:Go for it Saudi Arabia.

And why exactly should they? I mean it's not like they have supplied weapons and funding to several terrorist organizations and holds one of the worst Human Rights records in history just above some of the more draconian African states and North Korea. Plus the whole persecution of religious minorities and overall horrid treatment of women.

But fuck it why not have a state with one of the worst human rights records run the HRC. I mean it only makes perfect sense right?

It would lessen the influence of the western countries to use the UN to spread their ideology. Even if Saudi Arabia gets to lead the HRC what exatcly bad can happen anyway?

by **Big Brain City** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:51 pm

Purger wrote:
Insaeldor wrote:And why exactly should they? I mean it's not like they have supplied weapons and funding to several terrorist organizations and holds one of the worst Human Rights records in history just above some of the more draconian African states and North Korea. Plus the whole persecution of religious minorities and overall horrid treatment of women.

But fuck it why not have a state with one of the worst human rights records run the HRC. I mean it only makes perfect sense right?

It would lessen the influence of the western countries to use the UN to spread their ideology. Even if Saudi Arabia gets to lead the HRC what exatcly bad can happen anyway?

You're seriously going to spread this bullshit?
Why not do what I'm not doing, and not let your hatred of America spill into you spewing bullshit in support of crucifiers, fundamentalist asswipes, and Wahhabist scum?

by **Insaeldor** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:55 pm

Big Brain City wrote:
Purger wrote:It would lessen the influence of the western countries to use the UN to spread their ideology. Even if Saudi Arabia gets to lead the HRC what exatcly bad can happen anyway?

You're seriously going to spread this bullshit?
Why not do what I'm not doing, and not let your hatred of America spill into you spewing bullshit in support of crucifiers, fundamentalist asswipes, and Wahhabist scum?

Honestly I'd prefer a bunch of liberal capitalist over oppressive wahhabist any day.

by **Purger** » Sat May 23, 2015 7:59 pm

Big Brain City wrote:You're seriously going to spread this bullshit?
Why not do what I'm not doing, and not let your hatred of America spill into you spewing bullshit in support of crucifiers, fundamentalist asswipes, and Wahhabist scum?

If you know my post history you would notice I am a great opponary of Islam, mass immigration and the "cultural enrichmnet" promoted by the left. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and similar countries are spreading their agenda into European countries thanks to the naivness and corruption of politicians so they do not need the UN to do that.

But the West is also spreading their agenda by funding gay NGOs in countries which there is no supports among the ordinary people. So, it is better to have a pat position between the two in the UN.

by **Kelinfort** » Sat May 23, 2015 8:13 pm

Boycott the Saudi's and ban them from the UN. Hell, Iran is vastly superior to these Wahhabites.

by **Ganos Lao** » Sat May 23, 2015 8:14 pm

Purger wrote:It would lessen the influence of the western countries to use the UN to spread their ideology. Even if Saudi Arabia gets to lead the HRC what exatcly bad can happen anyway?

Called it.

by **Glorious KASSRD** » Sat May 23, 2015 8:19 pm

Ganos Lao wrote:
Purger wrote:It would lessen the influence of the western countries to use the UN to spread their ideology. Even if Saudi Arabia gets to lead the HRC what exatcly bad can happen anyway?

Called it.

That you did. Because once again, people think representing all views is more important than doing things that make sense. Like for example, electing a nation with good human rights to the human rights council.

by **Pandeeria** » Sat May 23, 2015 8:20 pm

Go team USA! Next year it'll be Israel!

by **Lalaki** » Sat May 23, 2015 8:21 pm

If anything, America should massively increase the pressure on the Saudi government if it truly claims to defend democracy.

by **Geilinor** » Sat May 23, 2015 8:22 pm

Saudi Arabia has a warped view of human rights and should be prevented from heading the council.

by **Glorious KASSRD** » Sat May 23, 2015 8:22 pm

Pandeeria wrote:Go team USA! Next year it'll be Israel!

No, North Korea and Somalia can co-lead! If your going crazy, go full on psycho-crazy, RIGHT!?

by **Pandeeria** » Sat May 23, 2015 8:24 pm

Glorious KASSRD wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:Go team USA! Next year it'll be Israel!

No, North Korea and Somalia can co-lead! If your going crazy, go full on psycho-crazy, RIGHT!?

Both of those aren't on team USA though.

I guess South Korea would work. Or any of the ruinous dictatorships in central America.

Saudi Arabia Wants to Head the UN Human Rights Council

Who is online