6 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

"  'Murica" ???? Inflammatory? check. Trolling? check. Nonsensical? check.

 

Can you please address the topic rather than desperately trying to get a rise out of people reading the news thread. Ty

 

 This is another masterstroke by Trump. The UN has been a bad joke for way too long, and recent events where they attacked the Trump administration were farcical. Respect our borders or we we will leave, nicely played Trump. Again.

Murica.....I think Dums***istan is far more apt

Perhaps if Israel stopped committing human rights abuses the UNHRC (and other Human Rights organizations) would stop raising concerns over Israeli human rights abuses.

 

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps if Israel stopped committing human rights abuses the UNHRC (and other Human Rights organizations) would stop raising concerns over Israeli human rights abuses.

 

 

Perhaps if the UNHRC would apply its criticism in a more balanced manner, your faux argument would apply.

53 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

The USA is taking a new direcftion - to the 'right'.  Public organisations like UNHRC and the UN itself have been going 'left' for decades.

The UN is not a political entity in itself - it is centrist. Its policies are voted on by its members (for the UNHRC - the membership of that Council) on the principle of 1 country 1 vote.

 

If your belief is that the UN is going "left" then its because the world is voting "left" on the council.

 

The current regime in the US has a hard time with 1 country 1 vote as it pays more than these other countries - its my opinion that the Donald prefers the "he who pays the piper" model. They pay more because when the UN was setup (in America of all places) it was decided that non-voluntary contributions would be based on a calculation involving each countries GDP.

 

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Unless mistaken, this was mentioned even during Trump's campaign. Certainly long before the current Mexican border issues. While the latter may have provided the final push, "more to do" is, IMO, inaccurate. If anything, it is "more to do" with Trump's agenda of disengaging the US from international commitments.

Correct, but please let’s not remove this action from the context of its timing and the stated pretext.

 

The timing strongly suggests Trump is trying to get ahead of the UNHCR criticising Trump’s forced seperation of children from their families and caging those children in concentration camps.

 

The stated pretext for the decision is a green flag to hawks within Israel and the Israeli givernment telling them very clearly that the US will not only fail to protest Isaraeli human rights abuses but act to undermine the UNHCR.

 

Be assured, Israel will respond by committing more abuses.

Edited June 20, 20188 yr by Chomper Higgot

Countries now not members of the UN Human Rights Council:

 

US

Eritrea

Iran

North Korea

1 hour ago, matta said:

I am not a US citizen

 

2 years ago they say America first, now we can say its America alone. From almost any organization the US has withdrawn  and the result is that the also lose their credibility. They are not the world leader anymore where everyone looked up to. I think that they are making a mess but time shall tell

I don't see why anyone is surprised by this. The USA doesn't even respect the human rights of its own citizens, there seems to be a mass shooting in the states weekly and nothing is done. The USA is a laughing stock with zero respect or credibility and is nothing more than a bully with smaller countries but crumbles when faced with China or Russia as seen in Syria.

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Perhaps if the UNHRC would apply its criticism in a more balanced manner, your faux argument would apply.

Right you are.

 

And Amnesty International too?

 

All those other human rights organizations riddled with bias against Israel.

 

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps if Israel stopped committing human rights abuses the UNHRC (and other Human Rights organizations) would stop raising concerns over Israeli human rights abuses.

 

Hear hear.
If the USA devoted as much energy as it does defending Israel against criticism, into enforcing UN resolutions and ending 51 years of apartheid and the illegal brutal occupation of 4.5 million indigenous people that the USA supports and finances, then there would be no need to criticize Israel for its human rights abuses.

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Correct, but please let’s not remove this action from the context of its timing and the stated pretext.

 

The timing strongly suggests Trump is trying to get ahead of the UNHCR criticising Trump’s forced seperation of children from their families and caging those children in concentration camps.

 

The stated pretext for the decision is a green flag to hawks within Israel and the Israeli givernment telling them very clearly that the US will not only fail to protest Isaraeli human rights abuses but act to undermine the UNHCR.

 

Be assured, Israel will respond by committing more abuses.

 

I wasn't "removing" anything from anywhere. If anything, that's what your reasoning is about. The fact stands that this was talked about long ago. You want to allege it's "more to do" with current events, go ahead - but you'll need more than your opinion to substantiate that.

 

Be assured that Israel will not "respond" by committing more abuses. Israel commits human rights abuses. So do other countries. The body in question tends to disproportionately focus on Israel's abuses, while ignoring others - including those by member countries etc.

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Right you are.

 

And Amnesty International too?

 

All those other human rights organizations riddled with bias against Israel.

 

 

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

My comment was with regard to the body in question. It wasn't a wholesale denial of Israel committing human rights abuses. Amnesty International may be biased as well, if not to the same degree exhibited by UNHRC.

 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I never suggested the number of Jews has any influence on ‘supposed Israeli power’, I never even mentioned ‘Israeli Power’ supposed or otherwise.

 

Perhaps you were looking to be offended.

 

Let’s talk about the US shielding Saudi Arabia (for any reason you like) when the US announces it is leaving an international organisation because of alleged bias against Saudi Arabia. (Ie when that’s the topic of conversation and not an attempt at whataboutary).

 

 

And i did not say you did, I clearly said the other poster?

 

@dexterm

 

More lame deflections.

The topic isn't about "no need to criticize Israel for its human right abuses", but rather deals with the US position that the UNHRC does so in a biased manner.

 

 

@oilinki

 

Doubt you have a clear grasp of what "membership" works in this case. Alternatively, you are aware, and simply posting intentionally misleading rubbish.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council

Edited June 20, 20188 yr by Morch

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I wasn't "removing" anything from anywhere. If anything, that's what your reasoning is about. The fact stands that this was talked about long ago. You want to allege it's "more to do" with current events, go ahead - but you'll need more than your opinion to substantiate that.

 

Be assured that Israel will not "respond" by committing more abuses. Israel commits human rights abuses. So do other countries. The body in question tends to disproportionately focus on Israel's abuses, while ignoring others - including those by member countries etc.

“Be assured that Israel will not "respond" by committing more abuses.”

 

Put a pin in that we’ll come back to it later.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Be assured that Israel will not "respond" by committing more abuses.”

 

Put a pin in that we’ll come back to it later.

 

 

 

I have no doubts you will. But it still wouldn't make it true. Israel's human right abuses are not a "response" to the UNHRC nor to the US administration's actions.

Just now, Morch said:

 

I have no doubts you will. But it still wouldn't make it true. Israel's human right abuses are not a "response" to the UNHRC nor to the US administration's actions.

I have not suggested that Israeli human rights abuses are response to the UNHCR.

 

I have suggested that this decision by the US to withdraw from the UNHCR with the stated pro-Israel pretext is a green flags for hawks in Israel society and Israel government that the US will not only not object to Israeli human rights abuses but will act to undermine the international community’s objections.

 

I predict this will result in the Israeli government and forces committing more abuses.

 

 

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

You can predict whatever you like, but I doubt you've got a meaningful way of substantiating it. Not that it would stop you from claiming it correct the next time an alleged instance of human rights abuse comes up.

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Chomper Higgot

 

You can predict whatever you like, but I doubt you've got a meaningful way of substantiating it. Not that it would stop you from claiming it correct the next time an alleged instance of human rights abuse comes up.

And of course anyone who reports abuse is biased.

 

What I find disturbing Morch, is that while you frequently make detailed arguments explaining your point of view in the context of the realpolitik within the region, you go completely tone deaf over the idea the US withdrawal is a green flag to Israeli hawks.

 

Without your previous history of posts that address the wider implications of the words and actions of third parties on the Israel/Palestine conflict I might conclude you lack the ability to understand.

 

Your previous posts are a clear indication you do understand the impact of the words and actions of third parties on this conflict, the conclusion has to be your refusal to accept that the US is by these words and actions emboldening the Israeli hawks is pure bias on your part.

Edited June 20, 20188 yr by Chomper Higgot

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And of course anyone who reports abuse is biased.

 

What I find disturbing Morch, is that while you frequently make detailed arguments explaining your point of view in the context of the realpolitik within the region, you go completely tone deaf over the idea the US withdrawal is a green flag to Israeli hawks.

 

Without your previous history of posts that address the wider implications of the words and actions of third parties on the Israel/Palestine conflict I might conclude you lack the ability to understand.

 

Your previous posts are a clear indication you do understand the impact of the words and actions of third parties on this conflict, the conclusion has to be your refusal to accept that the US is by these words and actions emboldening the Israeli hawks is pure bias on your part.

 

I never claimed "anyone who reports abused is biased". That would be you falsely insinuating things. Similarly (and disregarding the "disturbing" nonsense bit), there wasn't anything remotely "tone deaf" about my comment regarding your assertions. Unless pointing out that they do not seem to rely on much counts. 

 

In my experience, both on this forum and in real life, people often tend to assume or postulate "obvious" connections between things. I don't think that's often how it works out. Unless one is staunchly insisting on a simplistic point of view. Essentially, you've made an assertion you can't substantiate, and now you're simply deflecting criticism. Nothing new there.

 

By the way, does the UNHRC and such avoiding calling out Hamas/Islamic Jihad emboldens these organizations to further engage in violence? Or does the above notion applies only when it suits?

 

Not much interest in your petty insults, especially not when no such comments are directed at posters far more one-sided then I may ever be. All the more so  coming from a poster not suspected of not being biased himself...

1 hour ago, MRToMRT said:

The UN is not a political entity in itself - it is centrist. Its policies are voted on by its members (for the UNHRC - the membership of that Council) on the principle of 1 country 1 vote.

 

If your belief is that the UN is going "left" then its because the world is voting "left" on the council.

 

The current regime in the US has a hard time with 1 country 1 vote as it pays more than these other countries - its my opinion that the Donald prefers the "he who pays the piper" model. They pay more because when the UN was setup (in America of all places) it was decided that non-voluntary contributions would be based on a calculation involving each countries GDP.

 

As with Brexit and Trump, the people are voting out left-wing lunancy in Govt, but they cannot influence bodies likew UN.

Only their elected Govt reps can and that can mean them withdrawing exactly as Trump has done as he said he would.

 

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

As with Brexit and Trump, the people are voting out left-wing lunancy in Govt, but they cannot influence bodies likew UN.

Only their elected Govt reps can and that can mean them withdrawing exactly as Trump has done as he said he would.

 

I am not questioning your politics (you have the right to any position you may wish politically) - just pointing out what you said was factually incorrect re the UN or the UNHRC being left (or right)

Edited June 20, 20188 yr by MRToMRT

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

DMO7 has already provided an example, which also includes a disgusting proven lie regards the Democrats; refer below. 

Donald J. Trump

USA

✔@realDonaldTrump

 

Democrats are the problem. They don’t care about crime and want illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. They can’t win on their terrible policies, so they view them as potential voters!

11:52 PM - Jun 19, 2018

 

Trump is unfit for the Office of the President of the USA.

 

Reading is hard.

 

"illegal immigrants"..."like MS-13"

 

Unless you think that having MS-13 members as neighbours is a good thing.

42 minutes ago, MRToMRT said:

I am not questioning your politics (you have the right to any position you may wish politically) - just pointing out what you said was factually incorrect re the UN or the UNHRC being left (or right)

Fair enough. But you dont seem to understand how the UN actually works,

There are 44,000 people, according to UN Careers, who work for the UN, and they do not seek the politicians 'approval' when creating or managing their 'programs'.

They technically answer to their politicians - but not really - the politicians only get involved in the big issues/decisions - they couldnt get involved in everything - not possible.

Like most Governemnt employees they are very left wing orientated, and many are just plain biased - look it up.

 

https://careers.un.org/lbw/home.aspx?viewtype=WWD

 

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Fair enough. But you dont seem to understand how the UN actually works,

There are 44,000 people, according to UN Careers, who work for the UN, and they do not seek the politicians 'approval' when creating or managing their 'programs'.

They technically answer to their politicians - but not really - the politicians only get involved in the big issues/decisions - they couldnt get involved in everything - not possible.

Like most Governemnt employees they are very left wing orientated, and many are just plain biased - look it up.

 

https://careers.un.org/lbw/home.aspx?viewtype=WWD

 

I often read it but do not know what it truly means. please what is left wing Bias?orientation?

3 minutes ago, dragonballz said:

Ok another fake news story . try reading it correctly or if english is not your first language ask someone to translate 
"illegal immigrants, no matter how bad they may be, to pour into and infest our Country, like MS-13. "
translated for you " bad illegal immigrants like ms 13 infest our country "
Obviously to english readers he is not say all immigrants infest usa AND YOU KNOW IT !!!!

And in the same sentence he is saying that's what the Democrats want.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

And in the same sentence he is saying that's what the Democrats want.

Democrats want any immigrants as they know they will vote for them .do you think ultra rich  people like pelosi , clinton etc actually give a toss about refugees ? 

A few troll posts removed.   Next move will be to remove the trolls.

 

11 hours ago, dave_boo said:

Reading is hard.

 

"illegal immigrants"..."like MS-13"

 

Unless you think that having MS-13 members as neighbours is a good thing.

Incorrect - Trump is alleging all "illegal migrants' are "infesting" the US, usual dog whistle far right wording. Plus you and others ignore Trump's constant lies and misinformation regards his border control policy. 

 

Trump has now revoked his child separation policy, after his Administration putt up 14 different defences of the policy in a matter of days.

 

Trump is  unfit for the Office of the President of the USA.

11 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Fair enough. But you dont seem to understand how the UN actually works,

There are 44,000 people, according to UN Careers, who work for the UN, and they do not seek the politicians 'approval' when creating or managing their 'programs'.

They technically answer to their politicians - but not really - the politicians only get involved in the big issues/decisions - they couldnt get involved in everything - not possible.

Like most Governemnt employees they are very left wing orientated, and many are just plain biased - look it up.

 

https://careers.un.org/lbw/home.aspx?viewtype=WWD

 

 

Sorry but thats categorically incorrect. Every single sentence you wrote is untrue. You are just making this up as you go along. Its so incorrect I am lost for words and not going to waste anymore time on you as you obviously don't want to base your opinions on facts.