Rights groups condemn election of Saudi Arabia to UN's new women's rights agency, laud defeat of Iran
New York, November 10, 2010 — Human rights groups condemned today's election of Saudi Arabia to the governing board of the UN's new women's rights agency.
"It's morally perverse to reward a country that lashes rape victims, and that systematically subjugates women in every walk of life, with the power to negatively influence the global protection of women's rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, who is currently visiting New York to monitor today's vote.
UN Watch organized a worldwide internet campaign to mobilize public opinion against the candidacies of Iran and Saudi Arabia: www.facebook.com/stopiran. The non-governmental human rights group lauded the democratic governments who pushed to defeat Iran, but Neuer expressed "deep regret that there has been complete silence on the offensive election of the fundamentalist and misogynist regime in Riyadh. The realpolitik of oil should never justify actions that legitmize the discrimination of women.
UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.
As a refresher, Saudia Arabia is where: it’s illegal for women to drive or leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian and where girls were pushed into a burning building because they were trying to flee without covering their ‘obscene’ female faces.
Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.
That pretty much sums up the UN for me; they put countries like China and Libya in charge of human rights, and countries like Saudi Arabia in charge of women's issues. I really don't see how anyone can take an organization like that seriously.
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.
Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.
Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.
Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...
Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?
However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
I like how Westerners throw around terms like human rights and womens' rights like they're some kind of universal laws.
It's amazingly arrogant to masquerade what are basically western morals as "human" rights.
Lesser developed countries should have a say on what they believe entails human rights. If they believe macheting off arms is legitimate political dialogue who are we to say otherwise?
avantgarde wrote:I like how Westerners throw around terms like human rights and womens' rights like they're some kind of universal laws.
It's amazingly arrogant to masquerade what are basically western morals as "human" rights.
Lesser developed countries should have a say on what they believe entails human rights. If they believe macheting off arms is legitimate political dialogue who are we to say otherwise?
Thats fine, but then Western Democracies shouldn't be a part of it.
avantgarde wrote:I like how Westerners throw around terms like human rights and womens' rights like they're some kind of universal laws.
It's amazingly arrogant to masquerade what are basically western morals as "human" rights.
Lesser developed countries should have a say on what they believe entails human rights. If they believe macheting off arms is legitimate political dialogue who are we to say otherwise?
I feel that it is demanded of civilized countries to call out barbarians on their horrendous practices.
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.
Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...
Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?
However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nonsense.
What UN resolution in Kosovo?
What UN resolution in Afghanistan?
Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.
avantgarde wrote:Lesser developed countries should have a say on what they believe entails human rights. If they believe macheting off arms is legitimate political dialogue who are we to say otherwise?
We are the people who have a judao-christian morality which is offended by the actions of these countries, that's why we speak out, because it is offensive and we believe, morally wrong to inflict these actions upon other human beings.
To a lesser extent there are certain guidelines that are universal, playing tennis with newborn infants and cattleprods would be considered barbaric across the world.
And perhaps most importantly, in the case of less developed countries, we are the fethers with the big guns and cash. That's the only reason China is allowed to get away with acting like the world's stinkiest scrotum and certain arabic nations are also spoilt in their vile actions, they got more cash or guns.
Rights groups condemn election of Saudi Arabia to UN's new women's rights agency, laud defeat of Iran
New York, November 10, 2010 — Human rights groups condemned today's election of Saudi Arabia to the governing board of the UN's new women's rights agency.
"It's morally perverse to reward a country that lashes rape victims, and that systematically subjugates women in every walk of life, with the power to negatively influence the global protection of women's rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, who is currently visiting New York to monitor today's vote.
UN Watch organized a worldwide internet campaign to mobilize public opinion against the candidacies of Iran and Saudi Arabia: www.facebook.com/stopiran. The non-governmental human rights group lauded the democratic governments who pushed to defeat Iran, but Neuer expressed "deep regret that there has been complete silence on the offensive election of the fundamentalist and misogynist regime in Riyadh. The realpolitik of oil should never justify actions that legitmize the discrimination of women.
UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.
As a refresher, Saudia Arabia is where: it’s illegal for women to drive or leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian and where girls were pushed into a burning building because they were trying to flee without covering their ‘obscene’ female faces.
This story seems to only really be telling half the truth of the situation, especially considering it's from a human rights group that campaigned to prevent Iran and Saudi Arabia from entering this exact position and doesn't say anything beyond "they did it!". One would wonder why they were elected to this office, the story itself certainly seems to be little more then an exclamatory hitpiece. It could be an attempt at being inclusive to as to attempt to influence Saudi Arabias treatment of women for the better. Who knows, this article is too gakky to say.
But hey, it's not like We just sold them sixty billion dollars worth of weapons and have implicitly supported their bloody regime for 30 years. Clearly the U.N. is something we would be doing so much better without. I mean, really, it's not like we've ever done anything alone in that area that could be considered in poor taste.
Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.
Rights groups condemn election of Saudi Arabia to UN's new women's rights agency, laud defeat of Iran
New York, November 10, 2010 — Human rights groups condemned today's election of Saudi Arabia to the governing board of the UN's new women's rights agency.
"It's morally perverse to reward a country that lashes rape victims, and that systematically subjugates women in every walk of life, with the power to negatively influence the global protection of women's rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, who is currently visiting New York to monitor today's vote.
UN Watch organized a worldwide internet campaign to mobilize public opinion against the candidacies of Iran and Saudi Arabia: www.facebook.com/stopiran. The non-governmental human rights group lauded the democratic governments who pushed to defeat Iran, but Neuer expressed "deep regret that there has been complete silence on the offensive election of the fundamentalist and misogynist regime in Riyadh. The realpolitik of oil should never justify actions that legitmize the discrimination of women.
UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.
As a refresher, Saudia Arabia is where: it’s illegal for women to drive or leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian and where girls were pushed into a burning building because they were trying to flee without covering their ‘obscene’ female faces.
This story seems to only really be telling half the truth of the situation, especially considering it's from a human rights group that campaigned to prevent Iran and Saudi Arabia from entering this exact position and doesn't say anything beyond "they did it!". One would wonder why they were elected to this office, the story itself certainly seems to be little more then an exclamatory hitpiece. It could be an attempt at being inclusive to as to attempt to influence Saudi Arabias treatment of women for the better. Who knows, this article is too gakky to say.
But hey, it's not like We just sold them sixty billion dollars worth of weapons and have implicitly supported their bloody regime for 30 years. Clearly the U.N. is something we would be doing so much better without.
So you support Saudi Arabia on the agency? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Rights groups condemn election of Saudi Arabia to UN's new women's rights agency, laud defeat of Iran
New York, November 10, 2010 — Human rights groups condemned today's election of Saudi Arabia to the governing board of the UN's new women's rights agency.
"It's morally perverse to reward a country that lashes rape victims, and that systematically subjugates women in every walk of life, with the power to negatively influence the global protection of women's rights," said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based UN Watch, who is currently visiting New York to monitor today's vote.
UN Watch organized a worldwide internet campaign to mobilize public opinion against the candidacies of Iran and Saudi Arabia: www.facebook.com/stopiran. The non-governmental human rights group lauded the democratic governments who pushed to defeat Iran, but Neuer expressed "deep regret that there has been complete silence on the offensive election of the fundamentalist and misogynist regime in Riyadh. The realpolitik of oil should never justify actions that legitmize the discrimination of women.
UN Watch is a Geneva-based human rights organization founded in 1993 to monitor UN compliance with the principles of its Charter. It is accredited as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) in Special Consultative Status to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and as an Associate NGO to the UN Department of Public Information.
As a refresher, Saudia Arabia is where: it’s illegal for women to drive or leave the house without being accompanied by a male guardian and where girls were pushed into a burning building because they were trying to flee without covering their ‘obscene’ female faces.
This story seems to only really be telling half the truth of the situation, especially considering it's from a human rights group that campaigned to prevent Iran and Saudi Arabia from entering this exact position and doesn't say anything beyond "they did it!". One would wonder why they were elected to this office, the story itself certainly seems to be little more then an exclamatory hitpiece. It could be an attempt at being inclusive to as to attempt to influence Saudi Arabias treatment of women for the better. Who knows, this article is too gakky to say.
But hey, it's not like We just sold them sixty billion dollars worth of weapons and have implicitly supported their bloody regime for 30 years. Clearly the U.N. is something we would be doing so much better without.
So you support Saudi Arabia on the agency? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Much like you, I don't know enough about the situation to actually have an informed and useful opinion. Unlike you I know enough not to scream about it like a child. You don't know the reasons behind their election, you don't care. You just hate the UN and you'll take anything at face value that makes them even the littlest bit less legitimate.
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.
Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...
Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?
However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nonsense.
What UN resolution in Kosovo?
What UN resolution in Afghanistan?
Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.
Kosovo: As part of the Nato force the US attacked a fellow UN member without evidence of immediate thread.
Afghanistan: Kind of a big one really: "no member nation can use military force except in self-defense" The Un did not sanction the war, they felt it didn't meet those terms.
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.
Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...
Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?
However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nonsense.
What UN resolution in Kosovo?
What UN resolution in Afghanistan?
Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.
Kosovo: As part of the Nato force the US attacked a fellow UN member without evidence of immediate thread.
Afghanistan: Kind of a big one really: "no member nation can use military force except in self-defense" The Un did not sanction the war, they felt it didn't meet those terms.
So in other words you just blew smoke out your ass because there are NO resolutions from the UN. gotcha. Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!
Frazzled wrote:Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!
What has that got to do with anything I have said?
whatwhat wrote:Yeh this is dumb. But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
And we all know that the British create ill-formed half opinions based only on what they see on the internet and Sky1.
Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
Well, for the US to actually be engaged in a war, Congress has to formally declare war. That last happened on June 5, 1942 (against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania). So, from the US perspective, we haven't been engaged in any wars since 1945...
Ok so the US weren't breaking UN policy because their definition of something is different to the UN's?
However you want to put it, the US broke UN regulations in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nonsense. What UN resolution in Kosovo? What UN resolution in Afghanistan? Iraq violated existing UN resolutions. We were already in s astate of war under pre-existing UN resolutions.
Kosovo: As part of the Nato force the US attacked a fellow UN member without evidence of immediate thread. Afghanistan: Kind of a big one really: "no member nation can use military force except in self-defense" The Un did not sanction the war, they felt it didn't meet those terms.
So in other words you just blew smoke out your ass because there are NO resolutions from the UN. gotcha. Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere! Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!
I'm pretty sure he typed regulation, not resolution. I know, they both start with R's. We all make mistakes like this, it's ok. Also wasn't the falklands war defensive on the part of the UK since the islands were their territory?
whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...
The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.
EDIT: That's why people make fun of the UN. Because it's a joke. At it's best, it's the largest humanitarian aid organization in history, but somehow it even manages to fail in that regard pretty often.
Back on topic: Yeah. Saudai Arabia on the women's rights agency thing. That's not ironic at all.
whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...
The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.
The UN isn't a body of enforcement. It's a collection of member states. The UN is just a building, concrete has a hard time enforcing rules and regulations. Stop pretending that the UN is an independent entity from the countries that it's made up from.
whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...
The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.
Did I say they did have a monoploy.
Is it possible to make an observation about America without one of you thinking It's a you vs them thing?
whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...
The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.
The UN isn't a body of enforcement. It's a collection of member states. The UN is just a building, concrete has a hard time enforcing rules and regulations. Stop pretending that the UN is an independent entity from the countries that it's made up from.
They aren't. They're saying that many of the countries that make up the UN are gak holes that we shouldn't bother consulting about anything other than witch-doctory and how to mistreat women.
whatwhat wrote:When did I say the word resolution?
Frazzled wrote:Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!
What has that got to do with anything I have said?
The UN isn't a body of enforcement. It's a collection of member states. The UN is just a building, concrete has a hard time enforcing rules and regulations. Stop pretending that the UN is an independent entity from the countries that it's made up from.
That's the joke Shuma. Rules and regulations are meaningless when you're relying on the honors system. EDIT: It has its uses I suppose, but when you tell a country "stop doing that" it's absurdly funny that you actually have no means by which to stop them.
whatwhat wrote:Did I say they did have a monoploy.
Is it possible to make an observation about America without one of you thinking It's a you vs them thing?
It's me vs them? Good thing the UN can't do anything meaningful in the world or I'd really be in trouble.
And my comment was to correct yours. We make fun of the UN because it really is a joke of an organization. Not because we ignore it (EDIT: Ironically, we ignore it for the same reason we make fun of it. Because it can't do anything to stop us). Is it impossible to make a comment in regards to another comment without someone making an assumption about the person making the comment?
ShumaGorath wrote:Much like you, I don't know enough about the situation to actually have an informed and useful opinion. Unlike you I know enough not to scream about it like a child. You don't know the reasons behind their election, you don't care. You just hate the UN and you'll take anything at face value that makes them even the littlest bit less legitimate.
You heard it here, Shuma won't answer whether its ok for Saudi Arabia to be on the agency. Thats epic.
They aren't. They're saying that many of the countries that make up the UN are gak holes that we shouldn't bother consulting about anything other than witch-doctory and how to mistreat women.
Kinda defeats the point of the institution then. If you want a club of rich countries who get along we already have the G8 and G20, the U.N is about creating a forum for world governments so as to allow for the airing of political grievances without resorting to war between individual states. It's not perfect because superman isn't sitting in a chair at the top ready to punch every little dictator in the mouth who doesn't want to "listen to his peers".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Much like you, I don't know enough about the situation to actually have an informed and useful opinion. Unlike you I know enough not to scream about it like a child. You don't know the reasons behind their election, you don't care. You just hate the UN and you'll take anything at face value that makes them even the littlest bit less legitimate.
You heard it here, Shuma won't answer whether its ok for Saudi Arabia to be on the agency. Thats epic.
Give me a break, all I said was that I know absolutely nothing about the situation. Neither do you. Just do research or stay silent. You don't know enough to have a valid opinion here and volume doesn't make you more right then anyone else. It's bad enough that the article you posted was sourced directly from a lobbying group against the admission of Saudi Arabia in this very position, you started from a bad place and really, you're just dragging yourself further down with the crybaby rhetoric.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's not perfect because superman isn't sitting in a chair at the top ready to punch every little dictator in the mouth who doesn't want to "listen to his peers".
So the US should invade more countries and the UN will be perfect?
You heard it here, Shuma wants the US to start more illegal wars in order to create Utopian new world order. That's epic.
whatwhat wrote:When did I say the word resolution?
Frazzled wrote:Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!
What has that got to do with anything I have said?
It means you're a hypocrite.
Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I.
Frazzled why don't you just change your name to the united states. That way whenever someone makes a negative observation about your country it can be like they are attacking you...oh no wait that's already what you do right? Sorry. Well just for the record, my name is not the The united Kingdom. And whatsmore I never even voted for the government your saying I'm party to.
ShumaGorath wrote:It's not perfect because superman isn't sitting in a chair at the top ready to punch every little dictator in the mouth who doesn't want to "listen to his peers".
So the US should invade more countries and the UN will be perfect?
You heard it here, Shuma wants the US to start more illegal wars in order to create Utopian new world order. That's epic.
whatwhat wrote:Did you actually read that? Or did you clout your head with a baseball bat?
So, when the US government ignores the UN, we're all responsible (because like, we all totally wanted to go to war in Iraq and want to be a law unto ourselves) but then you're not responsible for the decisions of your government?
I'm sorry. Perhaps I've missed the point but that certainly seems to be the implication.
whatwhat wrote:Did you actually read that? Or did you clout your head with a baseball bat?
So, when the US government ignores the UN, we're all responsible (because like, we all totally wanted to go to war in Iraq and want to be a law unto ourselves) but then you're not responsible for the decisions of your government?
I'm sorry. Perhaps I've missed the point but that certainly seems to be the implication.
Which part of "But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else." makes you think I'm talking about American individuals?
I guess you did clout your head with a baseball bat then? Or maybe you didn't even need to.
whatwhat wrote:Which part of "But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else." makes you think I'm talking about American individuals?
Oh whatwhat. Frazzled states "This is why we make fun of the UN" 'we' of course implying Americans. You respond "the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN" creating a broad implication that all Americans agree with what their government does. You then respond later, that you "are not responsible for the actions of your government."
Maybe you clunked your head with a baseball bat? That's a rather simple 2+2 equation.
whatwhat wrote:Which part of "But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else." makes you think I'm talking about American individuals?
Oh whatwhat. Frazzled states "This is why we make fun of the UN" 'we' of course implying Americans. You respond "the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN" creating a broad implication that all Americans agree with what their government does. You then respond later, "that you are not responsible for the actions of your government."
Maybe you clunked your head with a baseball bat? That's a rather simple 2+2 equation.
"the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN"
funny because i don't think I typed that.
I did remember you saying "I'm an ejit" a few times though. Nice being misquoted huh?
Why don't we play a game of: type a statement in a agreement of yourself then put it in quotation marks and tag it to someone else.
ShumaGorath wrote:I wish you would all... Clout.. You heads with baseball bats.
I'm going to assume thats some sort of britishism for hitting.
whatwhat wrote:Actually I was basing that opinion on the fact in the past fifteen or so years USA has ignored UN regulations on going to war about three times now. But yeh you're right, don't trust Sky1 for news... the simpsons, prison break and 24 are full of gak!
What? Someone is ignoring the UN? QUICKLY! Do something- Oh wait... The UN can't do anything... Maybe that's why everyone ignores the UN when it's decisions are inconvenient or disliked...
The US doesn't have a monopoly on ignoring UN resolutions/regulations/decisions. Everyone's done it in some way. You know why? Becaase the UN is a powerless body of people who stand around (or sit) blabbering on about problems but don't ever make real pushes to solve them. Even when the UN passes a resolution, the only punishment the UN can dish out for ignoring it is to pass another resolution condemning your ignoring the previous resolution that is likely to be just as equally ignored.
The UN isn't a body of enforcement. It's a collection of member states. The UN is just a building, concrete has a hard time enforcing rules and regulations. Stop pretending that the UN is an independent entity from the countries that it's made up from.
They aren't. They're saying that many of the countries that make up the UN are gak holes that we shouldn't bother consulting about anything other than witch-doctory and how to mistreat women.
whatwhat wrote:funny because i don't think I typed that.
Sure? In response to:
Here's an example of why the UN is laughed at in the US
You said:
But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
The implication being that we make fun of the UN because we want to be a law unto ourselves. Perhaps if that is not what you wanted to imply, you should have stayed on topic as to the question of the legitimacy of Saudai Arabia being on a women's rights organization, rather than going with a "bash the US" statement?
whatwhat wrote:funny because i don't think I typed that.
Sure? In response to:
Here's an example of why the UN is laughed at in the US
You said:
But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else.
Doesn't look much like "the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN" to me.
LordofHats wrote:The implication being that we make fun of the UN because we want to be a law unto ourselves. Perhaps if that is not what you wanted to imply, you should have stayed on topic as to the question of the legitimacy of Saudai Arabia being on a women's rights organization, rather than going with a "bash the US" statement?
Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend said stupid statement by saying I implied differently.
whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.
No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.
whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.
No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.
Monster Rain wrote:As an impartial observer, I'm going to have to agree with LordofHats on this one.
Well lets have it down on the record... you think
"Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I."
contradicts:
"But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else."
whatwhat wrote:When did I say the word resolution?
Frazzled wrote:Interesting you cite Kosova. I believe a certain island nation was involved as well. UN violators everywhere!
Evidently the UK also violated the UN in the Falklands. Bad Brits bad! bad! no haggis for you!
What has that got to do with anything I have said?
It means you're a hypocrite.
Right because I'm responsible for the actions of my government arent I.
Frazzled why don't you just change your name to the united states. That way whenever someone makes a negative observation about your country it can be like they are attacking you...oh no wait that's already what you do right? Sorry.
Exactly. I am a Texan (the other states just folllow along). Someone has to, and the quarter said "heads."
whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.
No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.
It's not like any of you have managed to put out a coherent and logical opinion on this issue yet anyway.
whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.
No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.
It's not like any of you have managed to put out a coherent and logical opinion on this issue yet anyway.
It would have been interesting, but I gave up having a real discussion on UN policy when someone had to go off and make a sweeping generalization about Americans, which I could have let go, but then he had to go and contradict himself, and I felt the need to point it out, but apparently explaining that contradiction 3 times wasn't enough for him to get the point.
So here we are again, in another thread that could have been much more informative.
whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.
No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.
It's not like any of you have managed to put out a coherent and logical opinion on this issue yet anyway.
It would have been interesting, but I gave up having a real discussion on UN policy when someone had to go off and make a sweeping generalization about Americans, which I could have let go, but then he had to go and contradict himself, and I felt the need to point it out, but apparently explaining that contradiction 3 times wasn't enough for him to get the point.
So here we are again, in another thread that could have been much more informative.
No, it wasn't going to be any better. Not with frazzled screaming like his heads cut off about his faux hit-piece article concerning a situation that realistically, no one here knew a damn thing about. This was doomed from the start.
whatwhat wrote:Seriously just drop it. I was clear in what I implied. You just made a stupid statement about me contradicting it and now your trying to defend yourself.
No you made an ignorant (and off topic) statement and then contradicted yourself and are trying to avoid admitting you did so.
It's not like any of you have managed to put out a coherent and logical opinion on this issue yet anyway.
It would have been interesting, but I gave up having a real discussion on UN policy when someone had to go off and make a sweeping generalization about Americans, which I could have let go, but then he had to go and contradict himself, and I felt the need to point it out, but apparently explaining that contradiction 3 times wasn't enough for him to get the point.
So here we are again, in another thread that could have been much more informative.
Your unbelievable. Welcome to ignore. + your getting archived under stupidity in my brain.
whatwhat wrote:Which part of "But we all know this is not the reason the US clashes with the UN. That's more to do with the US wanting to be a law to themselves an no one else." makes you think I'm talking about American individuals?
Oh whatwhat. Frazzled states "This is why we make fun of the UN" 'we' of course implying Americans. You respond "the US wants to be a law unto itself and that's why we make fun of the UN" creating a broad implication that all Americans agree with what their government does. You then respond later, that you "are not responsible for the actions of your government."
Maybe you clunked your head with a baseball bat? That's a rather simple 2+2 equation.
Wait is this a real baseball bat or some wussy British version?
Nah. Frazzled never takes OT seriously. He;s just waiting for some British patriot to leap in and start ranting about the differences between the Falklands and WW2.
Fortunately, I'm too smart to fall that particular hook.
I'm unsure whether to file away your idea on how to win an argument for future reference though: the idea being to misquote someone several times to make it look like they said what you were accusing them of saying and then, if that desn't work, just say they must have implied something different than what their statement literally means.
I know it's hard, I understand the drive.. the need.. to reach through the screen and strangle the guy who disagrees with you, to feel the last few strands of his very life spill from your fingers like sand on a beach. And not just any beach either, but a really, really nice one, where you've got a nice bit of shade and the all nude Swedish girls volley ball team are practising and need a physio and you happen to have a magic sponge with you... yeahhh.. like that.
But, it's radical I know, as opposed to just continually going "Uh uh ! you did mean X/Y/Z " , and going steadfastly nowhere, just accept the fact that the other person might not have meant what you "think" they did and move on. Ta.
Nah. Frazzled never takes OT seriously. He;s just waiting for some British patriot to leap in and start ranting about the differences between the Falklands and WW2.
Fortunately, I'm too smart to fall that particular hook.
I know it's hard, I understand the drive.. the need.. to reach through the screen and strangle the guy who disagrees with you, to feel the last few strands of his very life spill from your fingers like sand on a beach.
I know it's hard, I understand the drive.. the need.. to reach through the screen and strangle the guy who disagrees with you, to feel the last few strands of his very life spill from your fingers like sand on a beach.
ShumaGorath wrote:No, it wasn't going to be any better. Not with frazzled screaming like his heads cut off about his faux hit-piece article concerning a situation that realistically, no one here knew a damn thing about. This was doomed from the start.
The article contiained all of the relevant information. Putting Saudi Arabia in charge of the panel on women's rights is like recruiting the guys who turn up on To Catch a Predator to run your Girl Scout troop. Do you think that would be a good idea?
ShumaGorath wrote:No, it wasn't going to be any better. Not with frazzled screaming like his heads cut off about his faux hit-piece article concerning a situation that realistically, no one here knew a damn thing about. This was doomed from the start.
The article contiained all of the relevant information. Putting Saudi Arabia in charge of the panel on women's rights is like recruiting the guys who turn up on To Catch a Predator to run your Girl Scout troop. Do you think that would be a good idea?
Again a simple yes or no is easy on this one. Bueller? Bueller?
ShumaGorath wrote:No, it wasn't going to be any better. Not with frazzled screaming like his heads cut off about his faux hit-piece article concerning a situation that realistically, no one here knew a damn thing about. This was doomed from the start.
The article contiained all of the relevant information. Putting Saudi Arabia in charge of the panel on women's rights is like recruiting the guys who turn up on To Catch a Predator to run your Girl Scout troop. Do you think that would be a good idea?
Oh? Did it say why it was put on the panel? Did it say what the panel did? I mean, honestly, unless this panel is led by a fething wizard who can wave his hand and make womens rights happen then I think you don't have ANY of the relevant information here. All you know is that A: it's a panel that has something to do with womens rights, and B: it has saudi arabia as an elected member of the panel (member not leader, but then I can't expect people to actually read the article, can I?).
Asking this forum to actually use a measure of intelligence when constructing opinions is like asking a bear to make you a paper airplane. It's just going to scream and attack you or run away.
Its a panel on women's rights. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst women's rights offenders. Unless the agency prmotes the oppression of womeon's rights its a travesty. Its funn y you're able to convict the US or Republicans on way less information.
Shuma obfiscating for rights abusers since 2010...
Its a panel on women's rights. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst women's rights offenders. Unless the agency prmotes the oppression of womeon's rights its a travesty. Its funn y you're able to convict the US or Republicans on way less information.
A panel on womens rights could imply that it requires it's members to work harder on womens rights offenses. It could imply that members pledge to adopt a set of universal laws. Hell, it could be a tacit promise to "do better". It's a panel on "womens rights", thats fething meaningless, you don't know what they do, how they do it, what they want, and who they require it of. You have none of the information besides the focus of conversations.
Its funn y you're able to convict the US or Republicans on way less information.
Actually, I don't. I just know a hell of a lot more then you, so when I do you assume I'm spouting off about nothing. Given how quick you are to make assumptions about situations you know nothing about this doesn't surprise me.
Shuma obfiscating for rights abusers since 2010...
How are you a mod when you can't even avoid trolling your own threads?
The United Nations on Wednesday rejected Iran's bid for a seat to the board of the new U.N. agency to promote equality for women after fierce opposition from the United States and human rights groups to Tehran's treatment of women.
But the U.N. accepted the bid of Saudi Arabia, which is also opposed by human rights groups.
The new agency was formed after a General Assembly resolution adopted in July merged four U.N. bodies dealing with women's issues into one with greater clout to represent half the world's population. The resolution calls for a 41-member executive board, with 35 members chosen by regional groups and six representing donor nations.
Kk, so it's part of the organization and is a regional representative? Neat. Does that mean it's bound to attempt to work on it's womens rights record now? Or does membership magically make one immune to the edicts of a group that has no actual power outside of the members of it's group?
Is this one of those things where its toothless group that can only police it's members, but it's bad because it has members that need policing?
It's pretty much a travesty to have any state that is, Shiiite based or under sharia law, as anything "defending" human rights. But alas that is one of the problems with the UN.
GG
p.s. Lord of hats proved he has a bigger penis and can pee farther than what what...just saying.
generalgrog wrote:It's pretty much a travesty to have any state that is, Shiiite based or under sharia law, as anything "defending" human rights. But alas that is one of the problems with the UN.
GG
I don't see how being a Shiite is a UN problem.
p.s. Lord of hats proved he has a bigger penis and can pee farther than what what...just saying.
Roight. *insert complimentary wall of text that thoroughly deconstructs and disproves GG's above statement*
Women not being able to drive is fair enough. I mean the young males of Saudi show a maturity beyond their female counterparts when it comes to motor vehicles...
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh? Did it say why it was put on the panel? Did it say what the panel did? I mean, honestly, unless this panel is led by a fething wizard who can wave his hand and make womens rights happen then I think you don't have ANY of the relevant information here. All you know is that A: it's a panel that has something to do with womens rights, and B: it has saudi arabia as an elected member of the panel (member not leader, but then I can't expect people to actually read the article, can I?).
I know more than that, but just what you posted is enough to condemn it. SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel. You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.
ShumaGorath wrote:Oh? Did it say why it was put on the panel? Did it say what the panel did? I mean, honestly, unless this panel is led by a fething wizard who can wave his hand and make womens rights happen then I think you don't have ANY of the relevant information here. All you know is that A: it's a panel that has something to do with womens rights, and B: it has saudi arabia as an elected member of the panel (member not leader, but then I can't expect people to actually read the article, can I?).
I know more than that, but just what you posted is enough to condemn it. SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel. You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.
Normal logic escapes the UN. Hence why they are a terrible organization and toothless.
SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel.
And if the panel involves promises of reform by it's members?
You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.
Uhuh. Right. Being a member of a panel that includes over 40 countries promising to make women's rights issues a priority makes them the leader of the group and makes the group a mockery.
Normal logic escapes the UN. Hence why they are a terrible organization and toothless.
How you people avoid drowning in the rain is beyond me.
SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel.
And if the panel involves promises of reform by it's members?
You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.
Uhuh. Right. Being a member of a panel that includes over 40 countries promising to make women's rights issues a priority makes them the leader of the group and makes the group a mockery.
Normal logic escapes the UN. Hence why they are a terrible organization and toothless.
How you people avoid drowning in the rain is beyond me.
How you still have your teeth is a mystery. Are you this lippy with people in person?
SAUDI ARABIA, a country where women can't drive, is on a panel about human rights. That right there is enough to say that the panel is a sick joke, as is the organization hosting the panel.
And if the panel involves promises of reform by it's members?
You can defend this nonsense all you want, but no one sensible thinks that hiring child predators to run girl scout troops or putting a country with a terrible record on women's rights in charge of promoting women's rights is a good idea.
Uhuh. Right. Being a member of a panel that includes over 40 countries promising to make women's rights issues a priority makes them the leader of the group and makes the group a mockery.
Normal logic escapes the UN. Hence why they are a terrible organization and toothless.
How you people avoid drowning in the rain is beyond me.
How you still have your teeth is a mystery. Are you this lippy with people in person?
Yeah, I'm also in good shape and I don't run into as many internet tough guys in person so it's less of an issue. I have no more issue telling people when they're flat out wrong in reality then I do here. I enjoy it.
Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
I know more than that,
I highly doubt that.
but just what you posted is enough to condemn it.
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
No, it's really not. You think a panel composed of half of the planets population is some sort of flawless magic judicating body that makes up rules on womens rights just so that it can ignore them since it has a flawless record? The entire point of the panel is for the countries on it to promise to work towards better rights for women the world over. You think thats gonna be accomplished by keeping the offenders out? That would defeat the entire point of it all.
Stormrider wrote:
How you still have your teeth is a mystery. Are you this lippy with people in person?
Try using the ignore button it's worked wonders for me. Sure some threads have him responding every other post, so you have to see "post ignored" a lot but it's better than the alternative.
No, it's really not. The entire point of the panel is for the countries on it to promise to work towards better rights for women the world over. You think thats gonna be accomplished by keeping the offenders out? That would defeat the entire point of it all.
Can you seriously not comprehend that concept?
Yes it really is.
Can you seriously not comprehend the concept that the Saudis aren't going to change their Religion-based human rights policies, and will most likely work within that panel to make its policies more accepting of their savagery?
No, it's really not. The entire point of the panel is for the countries on it to promise to work towards better rights for women the world over. You think thats gonna be accomplished by keeping the offenders out? That would defeat the entire point of it all.
Can you seriously not comprehend that concept?
Yes it really is.
Can you seriously not comprehend the concept that the Saudis aren't going to change their policies, and will most likely work within that panel to make its policies more accepting of their savagery?
How the feth are they going to do that on a panel with no power to do anything but call for voluntary promises by member states? What, are they going to work hard to ensure that no one else makes any promises because saudi arabia doesn't want to be near other countries in a room making non binding promise that it doesn't even have to make?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Stormrider wrote:
How you still have your teeth is a mystery. Are you this lippy with people in person?
Try using the ignore button it's worked wonders for me. Sure some threads have him responding every other post, so you have to see "post ignored" a lot but it's better than the alternative.
Here’s the thing, the UN was originally built as an organisation to facilitate discussion between nation states, to reduce the risk of another world war. This was a pretty sensible approach given the context at the time.
The world since then has changed a lot, increasing inter-connectedness has required the UN to take on all kinds of administrative and regulatory positions, and we’ve come to value the rights of the individual regardless of their nation of origin.
This has left the UN somewhat at mixed purposes. The original goal is inclusive, as it seeks to include all countries in international dialogue. But this latter goal is exclusive to a large extent, if you , then some nations will not meet those standards and must be excluded from the dialogue.
These crossed purposes are what produces silly results like Saudi Arabia being placed on the council for women’s rights. By the initial scope of the UN no such body should exist, by the latter it should only feature those nations with excellent records on women’s rights. But the UN is somewhere in between, so it gets a result somewhere in between.
Meanwhile, it’s very funny that the US would wig out at Iran being included, but be alright with Saudi Arabian inclusion. It seems you can be a horrible to women as you want, as long as you keep saying you’re their ally.
We should just chasticize them for what they're doing, instead of making them a part of an organization that deals with those problems. Eventually they'd sort it out while we'd do the better part of ignoring it.
Stormrider wrote:How am I dense, oh benveolent master of everything? Please educate me on how awesome the UN is and why it's such a shining example of humanity?
I'm not posting on a toy forum to give you an education you don't even want. You go out, take some classes, read some news, maybe do some research, then come back here. We'll see if you've managed to learn anything. Sound good?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Destrado wrote:We should just chasticize them for what they're doing, instead of making them a part of an organization that deals with those problems. Eventually they'd sort it out while we'd do the better part of ignoring it.
Yeah, that's really worked out well so far hasn't it? They sure do seem to be changing quick so that all dem westerners don't make angry faces at them. I mean, really, all the west does is give them billions upon billions every year for oil. They'll cave soon, all they really want is our approval.
ShumaGorath wrote:How the feth are they going to do that on a panel with no power to do anything but call for voluntary promises by member states? What, are they going to work hard to ensure that no one else makes any promises because saudi arabia doesn't want to be near other countries in a room making non binding promise that it doesn't even have to make?
It gives their practices an air of legitimacy, which the International Community should not be doing. This is also not the only reason that I think the UN is a joke, so let's not make it seem like this one act is what made me change my mind about them.
sebster wrote:Meanwhile, it’s very funny that the US would wig out at Iran being included, but be alright with Saudi Arabian inclusion. It seems you can be a horrible to women as you want, as long as you keep saying you’re their ally.
I have huge problems with the Saudi Inclusion. Isn't that what this thread is about?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:I'm not posting on a toy forum to give you an education you don't even want. You go out, take some classes, read some news, maybe do some research, then come back here. We'll see if you've managed to learn anything. Sound good?
Oh boy.
I suppose there's no one who's educated that has a different opinion than you then?
It gives their practices an air of legitimacy, which the International Community should not be doing.
You mean rather then the legitimacy they gain when we sell them 60 billion worth of weapons? Trillions for oil? Tacitly aprove of every act of their government for half a century while ignoring the fact that they are a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship?
Yeah, being on the panel. Thats whats giving them legitimacy. Yep. Thats the thing. Thats the whoooooole thing. Clearly if they weren't on that panel they'd collapse and the women would be driving the next day.
This is also not the only reason that I think the UN is a joke, so let's not make it seem like this one act is what made me change my mind about them.
Yeah, I bet all your reasons are just as rock solid.
Oh boy.
I suppose there's no one who's educated that has a different opinion than you then?
There aren't many on this forum. I know a good number, they give me a better run for my money then I get here.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, that's really worked out well so far hasn't it? They sure do seem to be changing quick so that all dem westerners don't make angry faces at them. I mean, really, all the west does is give them billions upon billions every year for oil. They'll cave soon, all they really want is our approval.
I was being sarcastic, honest. Their religion never was any good towards women, and the kind of reforms it takes for centuries of that won't magically disappear, but it has to start somewhere. Keep on being intolerant doesn't make us better than them, but most people don't even try to think like them before voicing their opinions.
I think it's atrocious what's happening regarding women's rights, and everyone here thinks so too, but they don't stop buying Nikes made in China (or miniatures for that matter). So people will only complain when it's not something that directly "hurts" them. If it is, they'll either be hypocrites about it, or ignore it completely, twiddle their thumbs, and pretend it's not there. At least something was done, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem.
It gives their practices an air of legitimacy, which the International Community should not be doing.
You mean rather then the legitimacy they gain when we sell them 60 billion worth of weapons? Trillions oil? Tacitly aprove of every act of their government for half a century while ignoring the fact that they are a totalitarian theocratic dictatorship?
Yeah, being on the panel. Thats whats giving them legitimacy. Yep. Thats the thing. Thats the whoooooole thing. Clearly if they weren't on that panel they'd collapse and the women would be driving the next day.
Reading is tech. I said giving their human rights abuses an air of legitimacy. Stop mixing the contexts of the conversation. It makes talking to you, as pleasant as it is, slightly more coherent. You have no inkling of what my position on that particular subject is; this couldn't be any more apparent.
ShumaGorath wrote:
This is also not the only reason that I think the UN is a joke, so let's not make it seem like this one act is what made me change my mind about them.
Yeah, I bet all you're reasons are just as rock solid.
Just like my tasty abs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Oh boy.
I suppose there's no one who's educated that has a different opinion than you then?
There aren't many on this forum. I know a good number, they give me a better run for my money then I get here.
How do you get them to be around you for that long irl? You must have a pool.
Reading is tech. I said giving their human rights abuses an air of legitimacy. Stop mixing the contexts of the conversation. It makes talking to you, as pleasant as it is, slightly more coherent.
Legitimacy is a social construct within peer groups, being on the panel gives no legitimacy to Saudi Arabia because it has none to give and Saudi Arabia asks for none. You don't like it how that panel somehow gives their acts legitimacy, but thats a non issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with womens rights or the nations involved, it's just a feel good issue for you personally since in the end thats all that "legitimacy" in this context can mean.
Just like my tasty abs.
*drool*
How do you get them to be around you for that long irl? You must have a pool.
Reading is tech. I said giving their human rights abuses an air of legitimacy. Stop mixing the contexts of the conversation. It makes talking to you, as pleasant as it is, slightly more coherent.
Legitimacy is a social construct within peer groups, being on the panel gives no legitimacy to Saudi Arabia because it has none to give and Saudi Arabia asks for none. You don't like it how that panel somehow gives their acts legitimacy, but thats a non issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with womens rights or the nations involved, it's just a feel good issue for you personally since in the end thats all that "legitimacy" in this context can mean.
Ah. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the point in the thread where we begin arguing semantics.
Also, my problem with Saudi Arabia's record on womens rights has nothing to do with womens rights according to Mr. Gorath. What he lacks in knowledge and social grace he makes up for in sheer gall.
Stormrider wrote:How am I dense, oh benveolent master of everything? Please educate me on how awesome the UN is and why it's such a shining example of humanity?
I'm not posting on a toy forum to give you an education you don't even want. You go out, take some classes, read some news, maybe do some research, then come back here. We'll see if you've managed to learn anything. Sound good?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Destrado wrote:We should just chasticize them for what they're doing, instead of making them a part of an organization that deals with those problems. Eventually they'd sort it out while we'd do the better part of ignoring it.
Yeah, that's really worked out well so far hasn't it? They sure do seem to be changing quick so that all dem westerners don't make angry faces at them.
I do read news, I know a hell of a lot more than you give me credit for. Maybe it conlficts with your narrow view of the world, doesn't mean I am wrong. It means we disagree. I don't need lectures from supposed geniuses that are so utterly dependent on collectivism and the tenents thereof. International Policing agencies and "peacekeeping" operations are a Band-Aid over cancer.
The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems. Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.
The countries that had just finished WWII were members of the League of Nations, an experiment in international government that was an abject failure in preventing dictatorships from forming, or having any teeth to deal with breaches of treaties or agreements (1932–34 World Disarmament Conference, which did not stop Germany from arming themselves for WWII), they condemned Italy's invasion of Abyssinia but did nothing tangible to stop it, the Mukden Incident in 1932 was met with much condemnation and scorn of Imperial Japan, but not military interdiction, and would have been completely legal to invade Japan for their unwarranted invasion of Manchuria and China, but they sat on their hands and decided against it after Japan left the LON in 1933. They didn't want to break an abitrary law that prevented them from using force unless it was in self defense. It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity" There is goodness, but not nearly enough to outweigh all of the vile gak that has happened throughout history.
Since the League of Nations was a dismal failure at preventing wars, why would the UN be any better? It follows much of the same international rules and procedures, but has more members now.
Since we pay 22% of the dues to this sham of an idea, it kind of hacks me off that we have sworn enemies of this nation go the General Assembly to talk down at us on our own soil. It's noble to let your enemies voice their opinions, but they don't percieve it as noble. Ahmedinejhad thinks of us as a bunch of cowards who are so bound up in political correctness and "rules" that prevent us from really being able to change anything.
The rampant corruption of the UN should be enough to disband it's exsistence. Not just their chronic bungling of situations that have easy solutions.
Don't lecture me anymore, you're a child who's been lied to so long and you believe it. The UN is a modern Potemkin village.
I do read news, I know a hell of a lot more than you give me credit for. Maybe it conlficts with your narrow view of the world, doesn't mean I am wrong. It means we disagree. I don't need lectures from supposed geniuses that are so utterly dependent on collectivism and the tenents thereof. International Policing agencies and "peacekeeping" operations are a Band-Aid over cancer.
The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems. Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.
Yep, it also helps that a majority of the worlds wealth and military power is within the security council, and with Indias test sponsorship on it almost half the worlds population too. You'd be hard pressed to set up an international body with preconditions that can force major economic or military powers to take disadvantaged positions. The security council exists because there are a few nations with the means to hold power over the rest, it's a formalized version of economic and military clout. I mean, I know you dislike how russia and china can say "No", but then they aren't our slaves, so they're going to do that anyway.
The countries that had just finished WWII were members of the League of Nations, an experiment in international government that was an abject failure in preventing dictatorships from forming, or having any teeth to deal with breaches of treaties or agreements (1932–34 World Disarmament Conference, which did not stop Germany from arming themselves for WWII), they condemned Italy's invasion of Abyssinia but did nothing tangible to stop it, the Mukden Incident in 1932 was met with much condemnation and scorn of Imperial Japan, but not military interdiction, and would have been completely legal to invade Japan for their unwarranted invasion of Manchuria and China, but they sat on their hands and decided against it after Japan left the LON in 1933. They didn't want to break an abitrary law that prevented them from using force unless it was in self defense. It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity" There is goodness, but not nearly enough to outweigh all of the vile gak that has happened throughout history.
It's as if it wasn't a proactive military peacekeeping army in the first place!
Since the League of Nations was a dismal failure at preventing wars, why would the UN be any better? It follows much of the same international rules and procedures, but has more members now.
It's ability to impose meaningful economic sanctions gives it some teeth in regards to dealing with minor dictatorial powers, though again, it's job isn't to forcibly prevent war. That has never been it's job. It never will be.
Since we pay 22% of the dues to this sham of an idea, it kind of hacks me off that we have sworn enemies of this nation go the General Assembly to talk down at us on our own soil. It's noble to let your enemies voice their opinions, but they don't percieve it as noble. Ahmedinejhad thinks of us as a bunch of cowards who are so bound up in political correctness and "rules" that prevent us from really being able to change anything.
He's also the democratic leader of a country that we hate because he's the result of a coup against the previous dictatorial government that we supported. Not that any of this has to do with the U.N. anyway. Besides, we spend just as much time there railing against Iran, and they are under numerous sanctions that wouldn't exist were it not for the U.N.
Yeah, it makes total sense to hate an organization because a guy can complain about us ten minutes after we ban half of all international trade to his country. I mean, really, it's so against our interests to suffer his thorny words for the small ability to massively effect international political trade and discourse without ever putting a soldier on the ground. Honestly, what were we thinking? Why would we want disproportionate control over world economics when we have to hear our enemies say bad things about us.
The rampant corruption of the UN should be enough to disband it's exsistence. Not just their chronic bungling of situations that have easy solutions.
Because that corruption wouldn't just be open and legal black market trade without the U.N.? Yeah, oil for food is so much worse then the billions funneled to dictators around the world by the U.S., China, and Russia just to keep security tabs in all regions. Are you saying that corruption would cease without the U.N.? That issues of repressive governments would disappear if the people no longer had a skyscraper they could whine in?
Don't lecture me anymore, you're a child who's been lied to so long and you believe it. The UN is a modern Potemkin village.
I'm gonna lecture you until the sun burns down or you stop needing it. I'm not holding out much hope that I won't see the sky go black though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Reading is tech. I said giving their human rights abuses an air of legitimacy. Stop mixing the contexts of the conversation. It makes talking to you, as pleasant as it is, slightly more coherent.
Legitimacy is a social construct within peer groups, being on the panel gives no legitimacy to Saudi Arabia because it has none to give and Saudi Arabia asks for none. You don't like it how that panel somehow gives their acts legitimacy, but thats a non issue. It has absolutely nothing to do with womens rights or the nations involved, it's just a feel good issue for you personally since in the end thats all that "legitimacy" in this context can mean.
Ah. Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the point in the thread where we begin arguing semantics.
Also, my problem with Saudi Arabia's record on womens rights has nothing to do with womens rights according to Mr. Gorath. What he lacks in knowledge and social grace he makes up for in sheer gall.
Here, look up what legitimacy is, when you come back I'll expect my apology in a formal letter. I like the Didot font, though if you hand write it I'll be especially pleased.
sebster wrote:These crossed purposes are what produces silly results like Saudi Arabia being placed on the council for women’s rights. By the initial scope of the UN no such body should exist, by the latter it should only feature those nations with excellent records on women’s rights.
You see, I agree with Shuma on this. By including Saudi Arabia on the panel it could be a move to try and encourage a country with a poor women's rights track record to take steps to improve (or at least promise to). GHowever, given that Saudi Arabia was accepted and Iran was denied shows that this a more likely to be political showboating. As you said, the track record may not matter, but whether you're buddies with the US probably does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:
The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems. Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.
Wait. The People's Republic of China were actually refused recognition for years, and certainly weren't given their veto power for being on the winning side of WWII.
Stormrider wrote:The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems.
It’s important to remember the General Assembly is just one part of the UN.
Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.
Umm, no. Just no. The purpose of the UN has never been, and will never be, a club of approved democracies. It works on the idea that you need include every nation in international debate to avoid war.
Second up, China was included because at the time of inclusion it was controlled by the US aligned KMT, and it was felt a powerful China could work as another bloc against the Soviets. Unfortunately, the KMT were grossly corrupt and lost control of China to the communists, which embarrassed the hell out of the US (who’d been backing the KMT), who then continued to argue the KMT was the rightful government of China, despite having fled to Taiwan and having no presence on the mainland.. As a result, for a decade or two Taiwan had veto power in the UN. When they actually used it, this embarrassed the hell out of everyone and forced the US to admit that the communists were really in control of China.
It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity"
Umm, no. There’s a long held idea that it’s best for a nation to look after it’s own affairs. It’s very weird that you wouldn’t understand this, given the US was the champion of this idea through most of the 20th C.
The idea that one should invade sovereign powers to prevent human rights abuses is a very recent phenomenon, born out of the growing dominance of power of the
Since we pay 22% of the dues to this sham of an idea, it kind of hacks me off that we have sworn enemies of this nation go the General Assembly to talk down at us on our own soil.
Sworn enemies? Your understanding of international affairs sounds like a fifth rate fantasy novel.
And 22% is an interesting number, as each nation’s dues are based on it’s proportion of world GPD, capped at 22% maximum. The US comes in at around 25% of GDP, and is the only country to exceed the cap. That’s right, the US is the only country to receive a reduced rate on it’s dues to the UN.
You wouldn’t know it from hearing Americans complain, though.
The rampant corruption of the UN should be enough to disband it's exsistence. Not just their chronic bungling of situations that have easy solutions.
This is an almost ridiculous level of generalisation. Do you even know the major branches of the UN?
There is a depressing amount of analogies being used in this thread.
Using an analogy to try and make a persuasive, cogent argument is like making a sandwich using only your penis - sure, it's possible, but would YOU eat it?
ShumaGorath wrote:And if the panel involves promises of reform by it's members?
It doesn't, as Frazzled already pointed out. See, that gets back to the 'I know more than that part'. And even if it did involve such promises, which again it doesn't, it still makes the panel a joke.
Uhuh. Right. Being a member of a panel that includes over 40 countries promising to make women's rights issues a priority makes them the leader of the group and makes the group a mockery.
It makes them one of the leaders of the group, and yes it makes the entire group a joke. "Makes it a mockery" isn't really proper grammar, so I wouldn't say that.
How you people avoid drowning in the rain is beyond me.
You are the one who thinks that putting countries with the worst women's rights records in charge of the panel on improving women's rights makes sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:No, it's really not. You think a panel composed of half of the planets population is some sort of flawless magic judicating body that makes up rules on womens rights just so that it can ignore them since it has a flawless record? The entire point of the panel is for the countries on it to promise to work towards better rights for women the world over. You think thats gonna be accomplished by keeping the offenders out? That would defeat the entire point of it all.
Man you must have drunk a lot of UN brand kool-aid to get this kind of logic. How long will it be until you argue that parole boards must be composed of criminals too?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
Stormrider wrote:It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity"
Umm, no. There’s a long held idea that it’s best for a nation to look after it’s own affairs. It’s very weird that you wouldn’t understand this, given the US was the champion of this idea through most of the 20th C. The idea that one should invade sovereign powers to prevent human rights abuses is a very recent phenomenon, born out of the growing dominance of power of the
It's interesting that the Brits and others like to needle the US over joining WW2 'late' by not intervening in the fight until Pearl Harbor, and yet whenever a discussion of the UN comes up the idea is treated as some weird idea no one has ever heard of, and that no one should ever possibly do. (It's also always amused me that the Brits completely forget that they did the same thing when Germany invaded Austria and Czeckoslovakia)
Stormrider wrote:The UN has a track record of being a bloated, international bureacracy, that ends up doing a circular firing squad in trying to fix problems.
It’s important to remember the General Assembly is just one part of the UN.
Giving Veto power to nations that aren't intertested in cooperating with the west (Russia, China) was a symptom of those nations being on the winning side of WWII. In hind sight, it was a terrible idea, but my objection to the very exsistence of the UN goes far deeper than that.
Umm, no. Just no. The purpose of the UN has never been, and will never be, a club of approved democracies. It works on the idea that you need include every nation in international debate to avoid war.
Second up, China was included because at the time of inclusion it was controlled by the US aligned KMT, and it was felt a powerful China could work as another bloc against the Soviets. Unfortunately, the KMT were grossly corrupt and lost control of China to the communists, which embarrassed the hell out of the US (who’d been backing the KMT), who then continued to argue the KMT was the rightful government of China, despite having fled to Taiwan and having no presence on the mainland.. As a result, for a decade or two Taiwan had veto power in the UN. When they actually used it, this embarrassed the hell out of everyone and forced the US to admit that the communists were really in control of China.
It's like watching a woman get raped, instead of dragging the rapist off of her and gutting him, you stand there and go, "oh dear, I might get in trouble with my clicque of idealistic fools who believe in the goodness of humanity"
Umm, no. There’s a long held idea that it’s best for a nation to look after it’s own affairs. It’s very weird that you wouldn’t understand this, given the US was the champion of this idea through most of the 20th C.
The idea that one should invade sovereign powers to prevent human rights abuses is a very recent phenomenon, born out of the growing dominance of power of the
Since we pay 22% of the dues to this sham of an idea, it kind of hacks me off that we have sworn enemies of this nation go the General Assembly to talk down at us on our own soil.
Sworn enemies? Your understanding of international affairs sounds like a fifth rate fantasy novel.
And 22% is an interesting number, as each nation’s dues are based on it’s proportion of world GPD, capped at 22% maximum. The US comes in at around 25% of GDP, and is the only country to exceed the cap. That’s right, the US is the only country to receive a reduced rate on it’s dues to the UN.
You wouldn’t know it from hearing Americans complain, though.
The rampant corruption of the UN should be enough to disband it's exsistence. Not just their chronic bungling of situations that have easy solutions.
This is an almost ridiculous level of generalisation. Do you even know the major branches of the UN?
Iran is a sworn enemy of America, they have said multiple times thatt they want to annihilate the Zionists and the Great Satan the United States. Interperet that how you will.
I am also perfectly aware of the the sub- committess in the UN. Do they actuallty prevent what they are set out to do? The IAEA is toothless (as we witnessed in the 90's concerning Iraq and their weapon programs), haven't done anything to stop North Korea's weapons program (except for those scary "economic sanctions") and has believed the Iranian regime's quest for Enriched Uranium is just for peaceful purposes. Which I could believe, if they weren't working on new delivery systems to drop them on Israel. You can wag your finger at someone only so many times before they don't buy your threats.
The UN is a failed model, it's a failure at it's mission at preventing wars, it doesn't stop human rights violations, it still can't feed the hungry, hasn't stopped nukes from going to rogue regimes in the world. Where's their crowning achievement?
As for my analogy, it's more of a personal matter for me. I can't stand watching someone get hurt (if someone is jumped by a group of muggers, there's a rape,etc...) and I could have helped them. Sorry, I wont sit by and watch a beatdown, I will help out the outnumbered party any way I can. Probably a poor example of international politics, but still somewhat relevant to some nations out there (Kuwait in 1991).
Stormrider wrote:
As for my analogy, it's more of a personal matter for me. I can't stand watching someone get hurt (if someone is jumped by a group of muggers, there's a rape,etc...) and I could have helped them. Sorry, I wont sit by and watch a beatdown, I will help out the outnumbered party any way I can. Probably a poor example of international politics, but still somewhat relevant to some nations out there (Kuwait in 1991).
Stormrider wrote:The UN is a failed model, it's a failure at it's mission at preventing wars, it doesn't stop human rights violations, it still can't feed the hungry, hasn't stopped nukes from going to rogue regimes in the world. Where's their crowning achievement?
To think that it could possibily do as much is laughable. To think that it's a failure because it has not been able to prevent four of the greatest world problems is equally laughable. The number of peace missions, negotiations involved, help around the globe, etc., aren't that famous in the media simply because none of them are "crowning achievements", which I suppose would be ending world hunger.
Stormrider wrote:haven't done anything to stop North Korea's weapons program (except for those scary "economic sanctions") and has believed the Iranian regime's quest for Enriched Uranium is just for peaceful purposes. Which I could believe, if they weren't working on new delivery systems to drop them on Israel. You can wag your finger at someone only so many times before they don't buy your threats.
North Korea is a very tricky subject, but I am curious to hear about your proposed solution. Because economic sanctions are the only thing they can do, short of declaring war. So, negotiations are still on the table.
Iran's case is also tricky, and I'll join in with you saying it was a failure. There's a lot of hate going against the west in there, particularly the US. Not because it is a major power within the UN, mind you, but because of it's world policing politics.
Stormrider wrote:As for my analogy, it's more of a personal matter for me. I can't stand watching someone get hurt (if someone is jumped by a group of muggers, there's a rape,etc...) and I could have helped them. Sorry, I wont sit by and watch a beatdown, I will help out the outnumbered party any way I can. Probably a poor example of international politics, but still somewhat relevant to some nations out there (Kuwait in 1991).
Ok, this may be news to you or not, but Kuwait's human rights abuses record was and remains appalling. We were hardly 'helping the little guy out' as the little guy was an equal bastard (who we then reinstated...) but rather ensuring Saddam did not establish a stronger hold of the area's oil.
That war and the subsequent one in that region have been about enforcing Western trade interests and keeping the oil market running.
This notion of benevolently lending a hand to the oppressed would be great if it weren't for the lack of it demonstrated elsewhere in the world. Why, for example, have we not rolled the machine over to Zimbabwe and kicked that repulsive bastard Mugabe out of power?
Why aren't we stamping order and democracy on Rwanda or Somalia or the 'republic' of Congo? No fething oil, that's why.
Why is it we aren't toppling the hateful Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, if as has been cited here, they are such bastards? They got lots of oil and trade it to the West is the reason.
Stormrider wrote:As for my analogy, it's more of a personal matter for me. I can't stand watching someone get hurt (if someone is jumped by a group of muggers, there's a rape,etc...) and I could have helped them. Sorry, I wont sit by and watch a beatdown, I will help out the outnumbered party any way I can. Probably a poor example of international politics, but still somewhat relevant to some nations out there (Kuwait in 1991).
Ok, this may be news to you or not, but Kuwait's human rights abuses record was and remains appalling. We were hardly 'helping the little guy out' as the little guy was an equal bastard (who we then reinstated...) but rather ensuring Saddam did not establish a stronger hold of the area's oil.
That war and the subsequent one in that region have been about enforcing Western trade interests and keeping the oil market running.
This notion of benevolently lending a hand to the oppressed would be great if it weren't for the lack of it demonstrated elsewhere in the world. Why, for example, have we not rolled the machine over to Zimbabwe and kicked that repulsive bastard Mugabe out of power?
Why aren't we stamping order and democracy on Rwanda or Somalia or the 'republic' of Congo? No fething oil, that's why.
Why is it we aren't toppling the hateful Monarchy of Saudi Arabia, if as has been cited here, they are such bastards? They got lots of oil and trade it to the West is the reason.
WEstern interests, Japan, and Asia. At the time, Europe, and Japan were much more dependent on foreign oil than the US.
whatwhat wrote:Hear ye, hear ye. It's frazzled's united states vs the m'fethin world. Impartiality is dead in dakkadakka's off topic forum.
Now and forever.
And yea did the might of Frazzled stride the known OT like a Colossus. A queso eating Colossus!
See if you adopted some full auto weiner dogs from the local weiner dog rescue you too would be properly armed for OT battle.
Emperors Faithful wrote:You see, I agree with Shuma on this. By including Saudi Arabia on the panel it could be a move to try and encourage a country with a poor women's rights track record to take steps to improve (or at least promise to). GHowever, given that Saudi Arabia was accepted and Iran was denied shows that this a more likely to be political showboating. As you said, the track record may not matter, but whether you're buddies with the US probably does.
Therein lies the conundrum, do you continue to include nations because inclusiveness is good for stability, or do you begin to exclude nations who don't meet the standards?
If I say I am beginning to hate weiner dogs is that reflective on the country I live in? Considering I'm supposed to be representing them according to you Frazzled.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:It's interesting that the Brits and others like to needle the US over joining WW2 'late' by not intervening in the fight until Pearl Harbor, and yet whenever a discussion of the UN comes up the idea is treated as some weird idea no one has ever heard of, and that no one should ever possibly do. (It's also always amused me that the Brits completely forget that they did the same thing when Germany invaded Austria and Czeckoslovakia)
Who mentioned the war? Where did that come from?
The US isolationists dominated those arguing that nations should keep to their own business. This is just a fact, and all I was saying. There was no needling over US involvement in any war, don't read things into other people's posts that just aren't there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:Iran is a sworn enemy of America, they have said multiple times thatt they want to annihilate the Zionists and the Great Satan the United States. Interperet that how you will.
And when people say that stuff in gakky fantasy novels, you know the bad guy is going to get thrown off the tower onto the spikes in the last chapter. In real life, it's just crap that people say and it means nothing.
I am also perfectly aware of the the sub- committess in the UN. Do they actuallty prevent what they are set out to do? The IAEA is toothless (as we witnessed in the 90's concerning Iraq and their weapon programs), haven't done anything to stop North Korea's weapons program (except for those scary "economic sanctions") and has believed the Iranian regime's quest for Enriched Uranium is just for peaceful purposes. Which I could believe, if they weren't working on new delivery systems to drop them on Israel. You can wag your finger at someone only so many times before they don't buy your threats.
Given you think I was talking about sub-committees and the IAEA, it appears you don't have any understanding of what the UN actually does. The majority of the UN's operations are in WHO, WIPO, IMF, the World Bank, ICAO, IMO, and a bunch of other organisations that operate to maintain international trade and relations.
The UN is a failed model, it's a failure at it's mission at preventing wars, it doesn't stop human rights violations, it still can't feed the hungry, hasn't stopped nukes from going to rogue regimes in the world. Where's their crowning achievement?
Because success only occurs when it is absolute. Just like capitalism is a failure because there are still people in the world who aren't rich beyond their wildest dreams.
whatwhat wrote:If I say I am beginning to hate weiner dogs is that reflective on the country I live in? Considering I'm supposed to be representing them according to you Frazzled.
Not only is it reflective, I daresay you are on the hairy edge of consigning all of Britannia to heck for your blespheming. To heck I say!
On the positive, British Bull dogs are epic cool, if also epic drooly. Kiss a bulldog, it just saved your soul!
Pugs are even cooler, because they are low profile bulldogs.
Anyway, the point about putting Saudi Arabia on the panel instead of Iran, is that since Saudi Arabia is a close US ally, there is a much better prospect of influencing Saudi Arabia to influence the rest of the Arab nations to improve their Women's Rights record. (None of them are a shining light.)
SA has actually made some limited changes in recent years, which are the start of normalising the position of women, while Iran has been going backwards compared to when the Shah was in charge.
I am a Brit who has lived in Saudi Arabia for nearly 2 years now so I think I'm qualified to talk (type on this). Lets clear some misconceptions up shall we................
It is NOT illegal for women to drive in KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). It is just not accepted for women to drive in the cities, and there is a big difference there. Indeed, most women in rural areas drive. My Wife when she came over to visit drove my truck once we were out the city, no problems. Driving in KSA in the city is Life and Death, I cannot exaggerate this. It is the worst driving conditions I have driven in and I've driven in plently 3rd world backwater countries. Nudging cars to get out your way is common practice. My wife if given the choice, refused to drive in the city as she felt totally unsafe.
It is NOT illegal for a women to walk around without permission or with a guardian. The most popluar past time for women is shopping, and they do that on their own, or in groups of women. Beleive me, I know, no other city I've visited has so many shopping malls!
You need to understand the culture, to understand their perspective. Family is No. 1 importance (after Islam) and is kept very private. People beleive that their wives and daughters are private, not to be leered at by every red blooded male. The West and the Middle East are 2 extremes. In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible, in the East its the opposite. Both are wrong in my opinion and the middle ground should be a happy medium. Yes, making women dress 'conservatively' is wrong, but then so is women in Clubs wearing Bikini tops, belts, and not much else. How many women in the UK feel uneasy walking past a building site only to be 'Wolf Whistled' at? That would never happen here, women are safe, not leered at. That is not to say I agree with having to cover up completly, but there are positives.
Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
Women can work, its just difficult for women to work. A lot of the traditional western women only jobs (and I'm NOT being sexist when I say this) like cleaning, secreterial work, nursing are deemed to be to low for Saudis to do, so they hire Philipino's or Indians to do this. At the moment, most of the major supermarkets are in a big drive to recruit women cashiers, this is seen as a massive step forward.
There is very little or no crime in KSA. I leave the truck unlocked, as my house. No one steals as it is a 'shamefull' crime. That and the penalties are so high. High penatiles = low crime. In the UK its the opposite, no (or little) deterent = high crime. A pregancy outside of marrage is unheard of in KSA. How does the West compare to that????
Maybe KSA was elected becasue of the huge moves being made by the King to include women??? What isn't reported by the OP...... In Riyadh the biggest university in the Gulf region is being built, for women only. The Muttawa (relegious Police) have been banned from interfering with the course material (again, unheard of) in order to ensure an educational course without Islamic influences. In Damman last year a Science academy was opened, a mixed sex campus where everone is allowed to drive, and women are not required to wear an Abya. Again, the King banned the Muttawa from the campus and additionally stripped one of the more vocal protesting Inams (Priests) of his title and power. In KSA women control most of the money. In marriage, the joint bank account is in the womens name, not the mans.
The problem with KSA is the 2 opposing forces at work. On one side is the King, a reformer, trying to change (and doing so) the culture for the better of all especially women. On the opposite, you have the traditional Islamic view, which see's the change as an invasion of western values. Change is happening, and its changing at an incredible pace, its just that we (the West) think its not. Go back 100 years, how many women worked in the UK? Not many is your answer, they stayed at home to look after the household and family (which is what women here do). Even now there is still many cases of women being paid less than their male counterparts in the same job.
I'm not supporting or defending, but you need to live here or at least understand the culture before casting judgement. The Media only report the bad, not the good.
It doesn't, as Frazzled already pointed out. See, that gets back to the 'I know more than that part'. And even if it did involve such promises, which again it doesn't, it still makes the panel a joke.
Frazzled didn't point anything out, he quoted an article that had no information on what the panels activities are. For reference, here they are, since you don't know.
The Commission's mandate was expanded in 1987 by ECOSOC resolution 1987/22 to include the functions of promoting the objectives of equality, development and peace, monitoring the implementation of measures for the advancement of women, and reviewing and appraising progress made at the national, subregional, regional and global levels. Following the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women, the General Assembly mandated the Commission to integrate into its programme a follow-up process to the Conference, regularly reviewing the critical areas of concern in the Beijing Platform for Action and to develop its catalytic role in mainstreaming a gender perspective in United Nations activities. The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) again modified the Commission's terms of reference in 1996, in its resolution 1996/6, to include, inter alia, identifying emerging issues, trends and new approaches to issues affecting equality between women and men.
Looks like part of the mandate for members IS the advancement of women's rights. So.... Having Saudi Arabia on the panel would imply that they are now under this mandate and in theory have to make progress on this issue? Yep. Funny how that works.
It makes them one of the leaders of the group, and yes it makes the entire group a joke. "Makes it a mockery" isn't really proper grammar, so I wouldn't say that.
The list of the leaders is as follows:
H.E. Mr. Garen Nazarian (Armenia) of the Eastern European Group of States, Chair
Ms. Leysa Sow (Senegal) of the African Group, Vice Chair
Mr. Filippo Cinti (Italy) of the Western European and other States Group, Vice Chair
Mr. Tetsuya Kimura (Japan), of the Asian States Group, Vice Chair
Ms. María Luz Melon (Argentina) of the Latin American and Caribbean Group, Vice Chair
Hmm, no Saudi Arabia there. I mean, if everyone with a panel membership is a leader then that makes sense, but since everyone in the organization is a panel member that kinda throws the concept of leadership out the window.
You are the one who thinks that putting countries with the worst women's rights records in charge of the panel on improving women's rights makes sense.
There are clouds outside, I fear for you.
Man you must have drunk a lot of UN brand kool-aid to get this kind of logic. How long will it be until you argue that parole boards must be composed of criminals too?
Because Saudi Arabia is in jail until we say otherwise? Seriously? That half baked analogy is the best defense you had?
TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible
What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.
TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible
What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.
I think he lives in Newcastle Upon Tyne on friday around 11pm.
TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible
What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.
If you're old enough to drink, go into any bar / club on a Friday night!!!
Seriously, its just 2 extremes. Go to Magaluf (known as MegaMuff) in Majorca, and see what the women wear there! I'm not saying its wrong or right, its just 2 extreme views.
TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible
What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.
If you're old enough to drink, go into any bar / club on a Friday night!!!
Seriously, its just 2 extremes. Go to Magaluf (known as MegaMuff) in Majorca, and see what the women wear there! I'm not saying its wrong or right, its just 2 extreme views.
tbh I don't know if American women have the same: 'wear extremely little' attitude that european women do on nights out.
TheSecretSquig wrote: In the West, women walk around with everything on show in the skimpyist clothing possible
What part of 'the West' are you living in because perhaps I should move there. Most women generally wear business casual, or t-shirt and jeans. If it is a hot day perhaps shorts. The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis. I'll take T-Shirt and jeans any time over having to cover yourself from top to bottom at all times.
I think he lives in Newcastle Upon Tyne on friday around 11pm.
Wigan actually in Greater Manchester, but very similar dress code to Newcastle!!
whatwhat wrote:tbh I don't know if American women have the same: 'wear extremely little' attitude that european women do on nights out.
Speaking as a guy who went to college in Florida, shorts with an inseam of zero and halter tops were pretty much the school's female uniform in the summer.
ShumaGorath wrote:Looks like part of the mandate for members IS the advancement of women's rights. So.... Having Saudi Arabia on the panel would imply that they are now under this mandate and in theory have to make progress on this issue?
Nope. It means they're no on the board making decisions about progress on the issue and can derail any progress. Funny how that works. Next you're going to be telling me that putting China, Libta, and North Korea in charge of improving human rights in general is really sensible.
Because Saudi Arabia is in jail until we say otherwise? Seriously? That half baked analogy is the best defense you had?
It's a good analogy, but I'm not really suprised that you lack the intellectual ability to comprehend it. PUT GUY WITH BAD RECORD ON THING IN CHARGE OF IMPROVING RECORD ON THING IS BAD. Do you get that one?
whatwhat wrote:tbh I don't know if American women have the same: 'wear extremely little' attitude that european women do on nights out.
Speaking as a guy who went to college in Florida, shorts with an inseam of zero and halter tops were pretty much the school's female uniform in the summer.
So girls wear hotpants and halter tops in summer in florida? That's erm, not that surprising. Not really what I was getting at with that statement. But yeah I suppose it does contrast with Saudi Arabia.
Hot pants and halters are considered casual wear that acceptable to parade around in on a campus of higher learning. Clubbing wear is significantly more daring.
Nope. It means they're no on the board making decisions about progress on the issue and can derail any progress.
As ipposed to being off the board and having the boards decisions be totally irrelevant to it's actual purpose? A club composed of people with great womens rights records that can only do anything within the club itself ISN'T GONNA DO gak FOR WOMENS RIGHTS. But I've now come to the realization that you are legitimately incapable of understanding that concept.
Funny how that works. Next you're going to be telling me that putting China, Libta, and North Korea in charge of improving human rights in general is really sensible.
Better get inside.
It's a good analogy,
No, it really isn't. It's non sensical and irrelevant in the extreme.
but I'm not really suprised that you lack the intellectual ability to comprehend it.
Miracles.
PUT GUY WITH BAD RECORD ON THING IN CHARGE OF IMPROVING RECORD ON THING IS BAD. Do you get that one?
Saudi arabia is now on a 45 member panel. It is not on the advisory board. It is at the lowest level of membership that a country can be in. It is not a paying contributer. It is not on the board that makes decisions concerning scheduling. It is a "member". I already posted who the leaders are. Fraz posted who the contributing members are.
They are not in charge.
I'm going to say that again, since maybe you have to read things twice to understand them
THEY ARE NOT IN CHARGE.
Christ.
We're laughing at you, not with you.
I'm sorry, i fell asleep over how repetitive you are.
Hot pants and halters are considered casual wear that acceptable to parade around in on a campus of higher learning. Clubbing wear is significantly more daring.
Right. Yeah that's the same here. It was ahtman's comment "The majority of women do not go around in mini skirts, or thong bikinis on a regular basis." that made me doubt it.
Hot pants and halters are considered casual wear that acceptable to parade around in on a campus of higher learning. Clubbing wear is significantly more daring.
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Yeah, let me amend that. Instances of reported rape are more common in the UK but instances of rape in Saudi Arabia are higher. Its hard to get accurate statistics when you jail, beat, or put to death rape victims for adultery. Doesn't give good incentive to report it to the religious police.
Saudia arabia does not have the lowest instance of rape in the world.
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Yeah, let me amend that. Instances of reported rape are more common in the UK but instances of rape in Saudi Arabia are higher. Its hard to get accurate statistics when you jail, beat, or put to death rape victims for adultery. Doesn't give good incentive to report it to the religious police.
So your knowledge is based on the Book of Shuma again? Got you.
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Yeah, let me amend that. Instances of reported rape are more common in the UK but instances of rape in Saudi Arabia are higher. Its hard to get accurate statistics when you jail, beat, or put to death rape victims for adultery. Doesn't give good incentive to report it to the religious police.
Saudia arabia does not have the lowest instance of rape in the world.
The scary thing is Shuma and I are in agreement. To bring forth charges of rape you have to have multiple witnesses else you're subject to being charged with adultery or related offenses.
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Yeah, let me amend that. Instances of reported rape are more common in the UK but instances of rape in Saudi Arabia are higher. Its hard to get accurate statistics when you jail, beat, or put to death rape victims for adultery. Doesn't give good incentive to report it to the religious police.
So your knowledge is based on the Book of Shuma again? Got you.
Yeah, given the "reported statistics" the US would have roughly forty times the number of rapes per 100,000 people. Forgive me for trusting sources other then directly reported criminal statistics by a notoriously corrupt body.
Between 1995 and 2000, according to INTERPOL data, the rate of murder decreased from 0.83 to 0.71 per 100,000 population, a decrease of 14.5%. The rate for rape decreased from 0.6 to 0.14, a decrease of 76.7%. The rate for aggravated assault decreased from 17.75 to 0.12, a decrease of 99.3%.
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Yeah, let me amend that. Instances of reported rape are more common in the UK but instances of rape in Saudi Arabia are higher. Its hard to get accurate statistics when you jail, beat, or put to death rape victims for adultery. Doesn't give good incentive to report it to the religious police.
So your knowledge is based on the Book of Shuma again? Got you.
Yeah, given the "reported statistics" the US would have roughly forty times the number of rapes per 100,000 people. Forgive me for trusting sources other then directly reported criminal statistics by a notoriously corrupt body.
Erm, which source is it your trusting here?
Melissia wrote:
whatwhat wrote:So your knowledge is based on the Book of Shuma again? Got you.
While I too disagree with his method of coming to the conclusion, I don't disagree with the conclusion itself.
Having the lowest number of reported rapes does not mean that the number of rapes itself is low.
Sure but it also doesn't account for unreported rapes in western countries either.
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Yeah, let me amend that. Instances of reported rape are more common in the UK but instances of rape in Saudi Arabia are higher. Its hard to get accurate statistics when you jail, beat, or put to death rape victims for adultery. Doesn't give good incentive to report it to the religious police.
So your knowledge is based on the Book of Shuma again? Got you.
Yeah, given the "reported statistics" the US would have roughly forty times the number of rapes per 100,000 people. Forgive me for trusting sources other then directly reported criminal statistics by a notoriously corrupt body.
Erm, which source is it your trusting here?
Melissia wrote:
whatwhat wrote:So your knowledge is based on the Book of Shuma again? Got you.
While I too disagree with his method of coming to the conclusion, I don't disagree with the conclusion itself.
Having the lowest number of reported rapes does not mean that the number of rapes itself is low.
Sure but it also doesn't account for unreported rapes in western countries either.
Foreign embassies continued to receive many reports that employers abuse foreign women working as domestic servants. Some embassies of countries with large domestic servant populations maintain safehouses to which their citizens may flee to escape work situations that include forced confinement, withholding of food, beating and other physical abuse, and rape.
Embassies, escaped women, expatriates, and a helping of common sense given the rate of such crimes in virtually every other region under sharia law on the planet.
Many foreign domestic servants flee work situations that include forced confinement, beating and other physical abuse, withholding of food, and rape. The authorities often forced domestic servants to return to their places of employment. The Government states that it does not believe that trafficking in persons is a problem because foreign workers come to the country voluntarily. It primarily focused on identifying and deporting illegal workers, and did not devote significant effort or resources to antitrafficking activity.
ShumaGorath wrote:the rate of such crimes in virtually every other region under sharia law on the planet.
And they are not on the list why?
Not official UN members? It includes tribal pakistan, yemen, southern afghanistan, and a whole slew of other places that the UN doesn't have a direct reporting member for. Also, that list didn't have every country on the planet.
ShumaGorath wrote:the rate of such crimes in virtually every other region under sharia law on the planet.
And they are not on the list why?
Not official UN members? It includes tribal pakistan, yemen, southern afghanistan, and a whole slew of other places that the UN doesn't have a direct reporting member for. Also, that list didn't have every country on the planet.
Shuma stated Saudi had more rapes than the UK and said he had sources to back it up, so far we've seen none. + None of those do either. All your proving is what we already know about Saudi's bad record on womens rights. + Your actually presenting more evidence of reported rapes, not less.
ftr Shuma. I actually agree with the point made that the number of reported rapes does not mean the number of rapes. What I'm disagreeing with is how you can make the statement there are more rapes in Saudi than in the Uk on the basis of no source whatsoever. And instead are rellying on what you deem to be true by your own ideals and prejudices.
Shuma stated Saudi had more rapes than the UK and said he had sources to back it up, so far we've seen none. + None of those do either.
ftr Shuma. I actually agree with the point made that the number of reported rapes does not mean the number of rapes. What I'm disagreeing with is how you can make the statement there are more rapes in Saudi than in the Uk on the basis of no source whatsoever. And instead are rellying on what you deem to be true by your own ideals and prejudices.
I said I'm pretty sure, which implies that I don't have emprical evidence and I stated that I trust sources, numerous ones, pertaining to the real crime situation on the ground in Saudi Arabia. The crime statistics they release are clearly doctored, they have massive issues with human trafficking, and they have a set of laws that logically reduce the reporting population for sex crimes heavilly. They do all this while under a set of laws that makes places like northern africa, afghanistan, and pakistan some of the most dangerous places to be a women in the world.
You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry. Go ahead, keep believing that Saudi arabias violent crimes dropped 93% overnight and that they have the lowest per capita rapes on that list.
I'm sure we can all trawl the internet to find news articles to fit our arguments. Fact, there is more Rape per person in the US or Europe than the Middle East. For a woman to be raped in the Middle East means she was 'unprotected' by her family, a source of great shame on her family.
I'll think you'll find the reason the rape victim was lashed, not because she was raped, but because she broke the law. One case I read the victim was lashed because she got into a car with 4 men she did not know. The punishment for this is lashes. The men were punished for rape, but the media do not report this part, because the sensational part is the punishment of the victim.
The punishment for driving dangerously (if you ever got caught) is a fine, and 20 lashes. The punishment for being a passenger in a car being driven dangerously, is the same fine, and 40 lashes. The view here you are just as guilty as you should have made the driver stop, if you didn't then you were enjoying / part of the crime. As I said, there is little crime, as the punishments are so high, it acts as a very good deterent. The little brats who shoplift from GW, if the punishment was they would (potentially) lose their left hand and become an outcast from their family because of the shame, I bet they would quickly change their attitudes.
How many reported cases of Rape are there in western countries. Girls who go out, get too drunk and wake up to Mr. X only to cry rape after. I'm not blaming the girls here, but I've seen it myself both men and women so drunk on a night out they are in a heap on the roadside and wouldn't have a clue if their wallets were taken or anything. How many Men are raped, but then NEVER report the crime for the percieved shame it would bring them (more than you think if you beleive the statistics on the net).
Yes the system in KSA emposes strict rules for 'Moral Conduct' and especially women. But that same system is designed to protect them. Its not perfect, but it is changing. Like I said, I suspect KSA was approved for the Womens Rights Committe because of the good things that the Country is doing to promote womens rights, but because its not 'sensational' the media simply ignore it!
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Yeah, let me amend that. Instances of reported rape are more common in the UK but instances of rape in Saudi Arabia are higher. Its hard to get accurate statistics when you jail, beat, or put to death rape victims for adultery. Doesn't give good incentive to report it to the religious police.
So your knowledge is based on the Book of Shuma again? Got you.
I've been trying to stay out of this argument (although it is funny). But, ShumaGorath totally wins this point. You can't compare reported crime rates in a head-to-head fashion when the culture around said crime is drastically different.
The website you linked is interesting, but if you mouse over the "definition" link, even they admidt this is a better indicator for how effective law enforcement is than actually crime rate.
Grakmar wrote:I've been trying to stay out of this argument (although it is funny). But, ShumaGorath totally wins this point. You can't compare reported crime rates in a head-to-head fashion when the culture around said crime is drastically different.
The website you linked is interesting, but if you mouse over the "definition" link, even they admidt this is a better indicator for how effective law enforcement is than actually crime rate.
yes we know that.
ShumaGorath wrote:You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry.
Oh you don't now, no? Because that's what you stated earlier.
Grakmar wrote:I've been trying to stay out of this argument (although it is funny). But, ShumaGorath totally wins this point. You can't compare reported crime rates in a head-to-head fashion when the culture around said crime is drastically different.
The website you linked is interesting, but if you mouse over the "definition" link, even they admidt this is a better indicator for how effective law enforcement is than actually crime rate.
yes we know that.
ShumaGorath wrote:You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry.
Oh you don't now, no? Because that's what you stated earlier.
I stated "I'm pretty sure".
Here i'll quote myself using the quote button.
ShumaGorath wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Does "I'm pretty sure" mean "I have a mountain of evidence with absolute authority" in the UK now?
Grakmar wrote:I've been trying to stay out of this argument (although it is funny). But, ShumaGorath totally wins this point. You can't compare reported crime rates in a head-to-head fashion when the culture around said crime is drastically different.
The website you linked is interesting, but if you mouse over the "definition" link, even they admidt this is a better indicator for how effective law enforcement is than actually crime rate.
yes we know that.
ShumaGorath wrote:You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry.
Oh you don't now, no? Because that's what you stated earlier.
I stated "I'm pretty sure".
Here i'll quote myself using the quote button.
ShumaGorath wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Does "I'm pretty sure" mean "I have a mountain of evidence with absolute authority" in the UK now?
Im referring to the "Forgive me for trusting sources other then..." comment. The "trusted sources" which you have yet to point out.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I said I'm pretty sure, which implies that I don't have emprical evidence and I stated that I trust sources, numerous ones, pertaining to the real crime situation on the ground in Saudi Arabia. The crime statistics they release are clearly doctored, they have massive issues with human trafficking, and they have a set of laws that logically reduce the reporting population for sex crimes heavilly. They do all this while under a set of laws that makes places like northern africa, afghanistan, and pakistan some of the most dangerous places to be a women in the world.
You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry. Go ahead, keep believing that Saudi arabias violent crimes dropped 93% overnight and that they have the lowest per capita rapes on that list.
And no Western Country 'Doctors' their reports on Crime? The UK was blasted a few years ago because it showed that crime had dropped significantly in a year. What they didn't explain was how they'd downgradded some crimes like joyriding in order that it didn't show up on the reports.
I'm not saying that KSA is a saintly country, but put it into contex with US/Europe, their is a different culture here which lends itself to a lower crime. Its just that the Media report the sensational stuff. If in the West, the punishment for theft was the loss of a limb, you'd see the theft rate drop like an Essex Girls skirt at the sight of B.Pitt in their bedroom. If the punishment for being drunk and disorderly was lashes, you'd see a lot more sober people in the town centres at night.
Grakmar wrote:I've been trying to stay out of this argument (although it is funny). But, ShumaGorath totally wins this point. You can't compare reported crime rates in a head-to-head fashion when the culture around said crime is drastically different.
The website you linked is interesting, but if you mouse over the "definition" link, even they admidt this is a better indicator for how effective law enforcement is than actually crime rate.
yes we know that.
ShumaGorath wrote:You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry.
Oh you don't now, no? Because that's what you stated earlier.
I stated "I'm pretty sure".
Here i'll quote myself using the quote button.
ShumaGorath wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Does "I'm pretty sure" mean "I have a mountain of evidence with absolute authority" in the UK now?
Im referring to the "Forgive me for trusting sources other then..." comment. The "trusted sources" which you have yet to point out.
Point to me a source that claims sexual crime rates in Saudi Arabia are low outside of ones directly presented by the saudi arabian government. Until then how about we assume I trust all of them but those.
Grakmar wrote:I've been trying to stay out of this argument (although it is funny). But, ShumaGorath totally wins this point. You can't compare reported crime rates in a head-to-head fashion when the culture around said crime is drastically different.
The website you linked is interesting, but if you mouse over the "definition" link, even they admidt this is a better indicator for how effective law enforcement is than actually crime rate.
yes we know that.
ShumaGorath wrote:You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry.
Oh you don't now, no? Because that's what you stated earlier.
I stated "I'm pretty sure".
Here i'll quote myself using the quote button.
ShumaGorath wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Does "I'm pretty sure" mean "I have a mountain of evidence with absolute authority" in the UK now?
Im referring to the "Forgive me for trusting sources other then..." comment. The "trusted sources" which you have yet to point out.
Point to me a source that claims sexual crime rates in Saudi Arabia are low outside of ones directly presented by the saudi arabian government. Until then how about we assume I trust all of them but those.
I'm not here to prove you wrong Shuma. I'm just bringing you up on something you have little basis for, and sources you state you have but don't at all. The fact that there is a lack of evidence saying otherwise doesn't mean your right. That's not really how it works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean here is no evidence disproving god outright yet, should we therefore just asume he exists?
And no Western Country 'Doctors' their reports on Crime? The UK was blasted a few years ago because it showed that crime had dropped significantly in a year. What they didn't explain was how they'd downgradded some crimes like joyriding in order that it didn't show up on the reports.
A 93% drop isn't just a small level of doctoring. It's flat out insanity. Dropping rates of rape by 73% in a year is just as bad. These aren't doctored carefully, they're doctored plainly and with an obvious intent to obfuscate much higher numbers. These aren't pedestrian crimes or victimless ones, these are sexual and violent crimes that are typically the bellweather for the health of a law system.
I'm not saying that KSA is a saintly country, but put it into contex with US/Europe, their is a different culture here which lends itself to a lower crime.
And I'm saying that thats not true in the slightest, and only with the very heavily and very obviously doctored post 95 crime statistics do they come out smelling like roses. You don't stop 80% of all crime in five years by doing anything short of killing 80% of your population, that's just not how it works.
Its just that the Media report the sensational stuff. If in the West, the punishment for theft was the loss of a limb, you'd see the theft rate drop like an Essex Girls skirt at the sight of B.Pitt in their bedroom. If the punishment for being drunk and disorderly was lashes, you'd see a lot more sober people in the town centres at night.
Historically draconian physical punishments have not served to lesson petty crime rates. They didn't in medieval england, they didn't in the soviet union, they don't in modern china. To assume they do in Saudi Arabia while relying on state crime statistics in a state with a notoriously incapable law set is foolish. I don't think it's rape town, but their track record with human trafficking alone should set off dozens of alarms when assuming they are one of the best in the world concerning womens rights related crimes.
Point to me a source that claims sexual crime rates in Saudi Arabia are low outside of ones directly presented by the saudi arabian government. Until then how about we assume I trust all of them but those.
Common sense would answer this for you. In a country where the segregation of sex's is STRICLY enforced so women and men do not mix socially, compared to a country where men and women can mix freely and do whatever they like with each other socially, its obvious which country would lend its environment to more Rape.
If you go to Maccy D's in KSA, women / familys have their own queue line, seperated by a partition, from a queue line for single men. Women / familys eat in one section of the restaraunt, single men the other, and frosted glass seperates them. How do you even 'eye up' a woman who looks like every other women in an Abya???
There is no entertainment here (other than shopping Malls) so the environment doesn't naturally encourage the sexs to mix. No bowling, Cinema, bars etc. Even the Zoo has Women Only days, Men Only days and Family days. If, as single man I go on a family or women day, I don't get in.
Grakmar wrote:I've been trying to stay out of this argument (although it is funny). But, ShumaGorath totally wins this point. You can't compare reported crime rates in a head-to-head fashion when the culture around said crime is drastically different.
The website you linked is interesting, but if you mouse over the "definition" link, even they admidt this is a better indicator for how effective law enforcement is than actually crime rate.
yes we know that.
ShumaGorath wrote:You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry.
Oh you don't now, no? Because that's what you stated earlier.
I stated "I'm pretty sure".
Here i'll quote myself using the quote button.
ShumaGorath wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Does "I'm pretty sure" mean "I have a mountain of evidence with absolute authority" in the UK now?
Im referring to the "Forgive me for trusting sources other then..." comment. The "trusted sources" which you have yet to point out.
Point to me a source that claims sexual crime rates in Saudi Arabia are low outside of ones directly presented by the saudi arabian government. Until then how about we assume I trust all of them but those.
I'm not here to prove you wrong Shuma. I'm just bringing you up on something you have little basis for, and sources you state you have but don't at all. The fact that there is a lack of evidence saying otherwise doesn't mean your right. That's not really how it works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean here is no evidence disproving god outright yet, should we therefore just asume he exists?
Thats why I said "pretty sure". Can we go back to the discussion now? I mean basically every stat tracking body in the UN and every major western country on the planet paints SAs crime rates at an order of magnitude higher then reported. They have one of the largest human trafficking black markets on the planet and their crime statistics are so clearly doctored a child could have drawn a more convincing set of stats with crayon. Like I stated before with stormy, I'm not going to give you a world education. Go look the gak up yourself, I've already posted crime statistics from a ten year period and quoted testimonial concerning embassy accounts of rape and kidnapping. This isn't an issue with a nice piechart for you to gawk at, like with most difficult issues it's difficult to boil down into a "Top 65 rapeiest places in the world" list because the stats don't reliably track like that in places with poor governance.
You want an education in foreign crime rates go to cambridge or something.
Common sense would answer this for you. In a country where the segregation of sex's is STRICLY enforced so women and men do not mix socially, compared to a country where men and women can mix freely and do whatever they like with each other socially, its obvious which country would lend its environment to more Rape.
Funny then how the best and worst countries in the world for rape both have entirely mixed populations, while saudi arabia, a country that lies about it's statistics and forces rapes to go unreported lest the victim be punished segregates women. It's an irrelevant thing to note since without an accurate case study you can't really objectively state that a lack of contact reduces rape. A lack of contact visibly ups the chances of rape in actual rape statistics, especially concerning prisons.
Historically draconian physical punishments have not served to lesson petty crime rates. They didn't in medieval england, they didn't in the soviet union, they don't in modern china. To assume they do in Saudi Arabia while relying on state crime statistics in a state with a notoriously incapable law set is foolish. I don't think it's rape town, but their track record with human trafficking alone should set off dozens of alarms when assuming they are one of the best in the world concerning womens rights related crimes.
Let me pose a question then. Which Country would you most likely shoplift in (assuming you were in aposition to do this) ?
Country West: Punishment = slap on wrist, possible ban from said shop
Country East: Punishment = Loss of Limb, outcasted from family because of shame caused
And your answer is............................................................
TheSecretSquig wrote:I'm sure we can all trawl the internet to find news articles to fit our arguments. Fact, there is more Rape per person in the US or Europe than the Middle East. For a woman to be raped in the Middle East means she was 'unprotected' by her family, a source of great shame on her family.
More REPORTS of rape. Big difference. Your statement above is one reason any statistics are extremely suspicious. It used to be that way here too.
Grakmar wrote:I've been trying to stay out of this argument (although it is funny). But, ShumaGorath totally wins this point. You can't compare reported crime rates in a head-to-head fashion when the culture around said crime is drastically different.
The website you linked is interesting, but if you mouse over the "definition" link, even they admidt this is a better indicator for how effective law enforcement is than actually crime rate.
yes we know that.
ShumaGorath wrote:You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry.
Oh you don't now, no? Because that's what you stated earlier.
I stated "I'm pretty sure".
Here i'll quote myself using the quote button.
ShumaGorath wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:Women do not need to queue for anything, ever! They jump straight to the front of any queue and will always be served first. My Wife when walking around the Souk (markets) loved it as normally she's hasslted by every stall owner to buy something. Not here she isn't, they will not talk to her incase they offend me. Women are protected in this country as they are not stalked, hasstled. Yes there are RARE cases of this happening, but for every 1 event, there is probably 100,000 similar events in the UK.
I'm pretty sure instances of rape are more common in saudi arabia then they are in the UK.
Does "I'm pretty sure" mean "I have a mountain of evidence with absolute authority" in the UK now?
Im referring to the "Forgive me for trusting sources other then..." comment. The "trusted sources" which you have yet to point out.
Point to me a source that claims sexual crime rates in Saudi Arabia are low outside of ones directly presented by the saudi arabian government. Until then how about we assume I trust all of them but those.
I'm not here to prove you wrong Shuma. I'm just bringing you up on something you have little basis for, and sources you state you have but don't at all. The fact that there is a lack of evidence saying otherwise doesn't mean your right. That's not really how it works.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean here is no evidence disproving god outright yet, should we therefore just asume he exists?
Thats why I said "pretty sure". Can we go back to the discussion now? I mean basically every stat tracking body in the UN and every major western country on the planet paints SAs crime rates at an order of magnitude higher then reported. They have one of the largest human trafficking black markets on the planet and their crime statistics are so clearly doctored a child could have drawn a more convincing set of stats with crayon. Like I stated before with stormy, I'm not going to give you a world education. Go look the gak up yourself, I've already posted crime statistics from a ten year period and quoted testimonial concerning embassy accounts of rape and kidnapping. This isn't an issue with a nice piechart for you to gawk at, like with most difficult issues it's difficult to boil down into a "Top 65 rapeiest places in the world" list because the stats don't reliably track like that in places with poor governance.
You want an education in foreign crime rates go to cambridge or something.
Yeh that's right you said pretty sure. I see that. Thanks for letting me know three times now. You then went on to say you based what you said on sources, which you have still to point out. "Go look the gak up yourself" doesn't really cut it.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I said I'm pretty sure, which implies that I don't have emprical evidence and I stated that I trust sources, numerous ones, pertaining to the real crime situation on the ground in Saudi Arabia. The crime statistics they release are clearly doctored, they have massive issues with human trafficking, and they have a set of laws that logically reduce the reporting population for sex crimes heavilly. They do all this while under a set of laws that makes places like northern africa, afghanistan, and pakistan some of the most dangerous places to be a women in the world.
You want per capita instances of unreported rape from me? Don't got that. Sorry. Go ahead, keep believing that Saudi arabias violent crimes dropped 93% overnight and that they have the lowest per capita rapes on that list.
And no Western Country 'Doctors' their reports on Crime? The UK was blasted a few years ago because it showed that crime had dropped significantly in a year. What they didn't explain was how they'd downgradded some crimes like joyriding in order that it didn't show up on the reports.
I'm not saying that KSA is a saintly country, but put it into contex with US/Europe, their is a different culture here which lends itself to a lower crime. Its just that the Media report the sensational stuff. If in the West, the punishment for theft was the loss of a limb, you'd see the theft rate drop like an Essex Girls skirt at the sight of B.Pitt in their bedroom. If the punishment for being drunk and disorderly was lashes, you'd see a lot more sober people in the town centres at night.
No they just leave the country and party then come back. Or beat the hell out of/kill their servants.
Wait, the same country that has lashed women for being dragged into cars and then raped, because you know she shouldn't have been there.
Sorry but I have no respect for a country where women can't drive, go outside without permission and are seen as property. It's 2010 not 1310, someone send Saudia Arabia a calendar, they've obviously got the wrong one.
Point to me a source that claims sexual crime rates in Saudi Arabia are low outside of ones directly presented by the saudi arabian government. Until then how about we assume I trust all of them but those.
Common sense would answer this for you. In a country where the segregation of sex's is STRICLY enforced so women and men do not mix socially, compared to a country where men and women can mix freely and do whatever they like with each other socially, its obvious which country would lend its environment to more Rape.
Yes the one where the women are oppressed. Thanks for supporting my argument.
Historically draconian physical punishments have not served to lesson petty crime rates. They didn't in medieval england, they didn't in the soviet union, they don't in modern china. To assume they do in Saudi Arabia while relying on state crime statistics in a state with a notoriously incapable law set is foolish. I don't think it's rape town, but their track record with human trafficking alone should set off dozens of alarms when assuming they are one of the best in the world concerning womens rights related crimes.
Let me pose a question then. Which Country would you most likely shoplift in (assuming you were in aposition to do this) ?
Country West: Punishment = slap on wrist, possible ban from said shop Country East: Punishment = Loss of Limb, outcasted from family because of shame caused
And your answer is............................................................
The one where I have less money to purchase things with legitimately, as is the actual correlating statistic. People don't steal because it's fun in any statistically meaningful amount. They steal because it's their means of obtaining needed items.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Wait, the same country that has lashed women for being dragged into cars and then raped, because you know she shouldn't have been there.
Sorry but I have no respect for a country where women can't drive, go outside without permission and are seen as property. It's 2010 not 1310, someone send Saudia Arabia a calendar, they've obviously got the wrong one.
UN fail once again.
Please read my post from a few pages back BEFORE you post drawl. It is NOT illegal for women to drive here, my Wife has driven here only 3 weeks ago. A woman does NOT need permission to go out and about here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Historically draconian physical punishments have not served to lesson petty crime rates. They didn't in medieval england, they didn't in the soviet union, they don't in modern china. To assume they do in Saudi Arabia while relying on state crime statistics in a state with a notoriously incapable law set is foolish. I don't think it's rape town, but their track record with human trafficking alone should set off dozens of alarms when assuming they are one of the best in the world concerning womens rights related crimes.
Let me pose a question then. Which Country would you most likely shoplift in (assuming you were in aposition to do this) ?
Country West: Punishment = slap on wrist, possible ban from said shop
Country East: Punishment = Loss of Limb, outcasted from family because of shame caused
And your answer is............................................................
The one where I have less money to purchase things with legitimately, as is the actual correlating statistic. People don't steal because it's fun in any statistically meaningful amount. They steal because it's their means of obtaining needed items.
Doesn't amke the crime of theft acceptable. And you didn't answer the question because we both know the answer would screw your argument.
Doesn't amke the crime of theft acceptable. And you didn't answer the question because we both know the answer would screw your argument.
I already answered it. Do I need to steal? In that case I do it. That is how crime statistics concerning theft break down, harsh punishment does little but deter repeat offenses. You think china has such a large drug problem because it's laws aren't tough enough? You think the theft in the Congo is so prevalent because they're "lenient" on people? Need trumps punishment every time.
Doesn't amke the crime of theft acceptable. And you didn't answer the question because we both know the answer would screw your argument.
I already answered it. Do I need to steal? In that case I do it. That is how crime statistics concerning theft break down, harsh punishment does little but deter repeat offenses. You think china has such a large drug problem because it's laws aren't tough enough? You think the theft in the Congo is so prevalent because they're "lenient" on people? Need trumps punishment every time.
Thankyou for supporting my argument. Its need and desperation. In the UK, most shoplifting is done on the spare of the moment, NOT need. Now, if in the UK the punishment was as I've stated, the spare of the moment crime would disappear.
And no you didn't answer it. Given the same set of personal circumstances, which country would you steal in?
@Scarlett Squig - Unless there's been some major changes in the past couple of years a lot of Saudi's would not allow their women to drive. So illegal or not, its still looked down upon, as is going out without a Guardian.
No matter how much you want to defend the country, it still oppresses women, and heck, female travelers are warned not to go there. And even if you do go there you're not allowed to leave the airport until a "sponsor" arrives. Foreign women who are married to Saudi men aren't allowed to leave the country without his permission.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:@Scarlett Squig - Unless there's been some major changes in the past couple of years a lot of Saudi's would not allow their women to drive. So illegal or not, its still looked down upon, as is going out without a Guardian.
Also hows that womens vote coming along?
This is a BIG difference from you saying its ilegal to drive. My Wife part time in the UK Drag Races her own Hot Rot she built. I'd consider her in some circumstances a better driver than I. However, I would NOT let her drive in any city in KSA. It is life and death here on the roads in the cities. She would not argue with me. I'd do this for her safety. Does this make me an dominant oppressive male? Everyday I drive to work here and pass multiple car accidents that wouldn't look out of place in a horror film.
Going out without a guardian is as common as in the UK. I live here, I know. Women are everywhere on there own.
As for the vote, I think you need to change your statement......................... "Also, hows that vote comming on".
The King rules, there is no vote for anyone, women or men.
Doesn't amke the crime of theft acceptable. And you didn't answer the question because we both know the answer would screw your argument.
I already answered it. Do I need to steal? In that case I do it. That is how crime statistics concerning theft break down, harsh punishment does little but deter repeat offenses. You think china has such a large drug problem because it's laws aren't tough enough? You think the theft in the Congo is so prevalent because they're "lenient" on people? Need trumps punishment every time.
Thankyou for supporting my argument. Its need and desperation. In the UK, most shoplifting is done on the spare of the moment, NOT need. Now, if in the UK the punishment was as I've stated, the spare of the moment crime would disappear.
Except thats never happened in any country in history that implemented draconian physical punishments. So no. It wouldn't. Just like it didn't in SA which had a rate of theft an order of magnitude higher in during the 1995-2000 period before they began to doctor their crime statistics nationally. Saudi arabia has a lower reported theft rate then is implied under vlad the impaler, who would kill you family if you stole. It has a lower reported rate of theft then north korea which punishes people for three generations. It's not "the culture" it's "the corruption" that causes SAs crime rates to be so "low".
And no you didn't answer it. Given the same set of personal circumstances, which country would you steal in?
If I need to steal then both, if I don't then neither.
Melissia wrote:No matter how much you want to defend the country, it still oppresses women, and heck, female travelers are warned not to go there. And even if you do go there you're not allowed to leave the airport until a "sponsor" arrives. Foreign women who are married to Saudi men aren't allowed to leave the country without his permission.
I agree. Its just not as bad as people make out. And the argument I've put accross (if you take the time to read previous posts on pg 5 i think) is that the King is making big changes in support of women.
As I live here, you're Airport scenario is untrue. Its all about what which type of visa you have. Nieither women or men come here as tourists, as tourist visa's don't exist. I arrive at the airport, and am free to leave / go where ever. When my Wife came for a visit, no one checked if I was waiting for her, same when my parents came.
The scenario your descibing is for a sponsored workers visa, which is not the majority of visas. You think thats bad, I go to the US, alll my personal details MUST be forwarded to US border customs before the plane lands, I'm photographed and fingerprinted, and I've not done anything other than arrive!!!
As for the vote, I think you need to change your statement......................... "Also, hows that vote comming on".
The King rules, there is no vote for anyone, women or men.
There where local elections in 2005, women where not allowed to vote, just because it is currently under suspension, doesn't mean it never happened, and when it did happen they where banned.
Melissia wrote:No it's not, it's for just traveling to the country, no workers visa involved.
I live here. I've made multiple visits back home to the UK. I've NEVER had to wait for a 'sponsor' to come and escort me from the airport. This was the same for my Wife when she'd visited, and my parents, and the same for guys I work with from the US, Aus, Ger and Spain.
I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but seeing as I've done it / live here, I think I'd know. I have a standard visa. Then there is a business visa, no escort required. Then there is a Pilgrim visa for Muslims peforming Hajj, no escort required. A worker visa (the minority of visa applications) do require an ecort.
If there is a social stigma for the victim of a rape and possibly punishment for it as well it's not hard to see how the cases of rape being reported could be far, far lower than they actually are.
Regardless, this is off of the U.S. Department of State's travel guide for Saudi Arabia:
Saudi religious police have accosted or arrested foreigners, including U.S. citizens, for [...] association by a female with a male to whom she is not related.
[...]
Most women in these areas [particularly Riyadh and the central part of the Kingdom] therefore wear an Abaya and carry a headscarf to avoid being accosted.
[...]
Women who are arrested for socializing with a man who is not a relative may be charged with prostitution. Some restaurants, particularly fast-food outlets, have refused to serve women who are not accompanied by a close male relative. In addition, many restaurants no longer have a "family section" in which women are permitted to eat. These restrictions are not always posted, and in some cases women violating this policy have been arrested.
[...]
Women visitors and residents are required to be met by their sponsor upon arrival. [...] Women considering relocating to Saudi Arabia should be keenly aware that women and children residing in Saudi Arabia as members of a Saudi household (including adult American-citizen women married to Saudi men, adult American-citizen women who are the unmarried daughters of Saudi fathers, and American-citizen boys under the age of 21 who are the sons of Saudi fathers) require the permission of the Saudi male head of their household to leave the country. Married women require their husband's permission to depart the country, while unmarried women and children require the permission of their father or male guardian. The U.S. Embassy can intercede with the Saudi government to request exit permission for an adult American woman (wife or daughter of a Saudi citizen), but there is no guarantee of success, or even of timely response. Mothers are not able to obtain permission for the departure of minor children without the father's agreement.
[...]
A married woman should be aware that she must have her husband's permission to depart or for their children to depart Saudi Arabia. This is true even if the woman and/or children are U.S. citizens and even if her husband does not have Saudi nationality.
[...]
Short-term male visitors may drive on their U.S. driver's license. American men employed in Saudi Arabia should obtain a local driver's license with the Department of Traffic Police. Women are not allowed to drive or ride bicycles on public roads.
Melissia wrote:Women visitors and residents are required to be met by their sponsor upon arrival. [...]
Did you replace "Women traveling alone, who are not met by sponsors, have experienced delays before being allowed to enter the country or to continue on other flights. " with [...] yourself or was the version I found different to the one you did.
Well you missed out a fairly important bit don't you think? I mean, a bit which contradicts you.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The scentence I just gave you comes straight after the one your saying backs up your point:
"Women visitors and residents are required to be met by their sponsor upon arrival. Women traveling alone, who are not met by sponsors, have experienced delays before being allowed to enter the country or to continue on other flights."
Not really. The point that I'm making is that these rules, laws, and regulations are all specifically aimed at oppressing women. And that part certainly doesn't change that fact.
Melissia wrote:Not really. The point that I'm making is that these rules, laws, and regulations are all specifically aimed at oppressing women. And that part certainly doesn't change that fact.
No, this was your point in particular:
Melissia wrote:you're not allowed to leave the airport until a "sponsor" arrives
Are you trying to tell me that I don't know my own point? That somehow I, the poster behind these posts, do not know what I am trying to say?
Dude, just stop.
No, that was never my argument. I merely listed that as an example of the Saudi laws oppressing women because I had read it off of two separate travel sites when researching for this discussion.
I think the real point was that you actually listed several things, the possible weakest one was picked and has been pounded on until it seems like it was the only one.
Melissia wrote:Are you trying to tell me that I don't know my own point? That somehow I, the poster behind these posts, do not know what I am trying to say?
Dude, just stop.
No, that was never my argument. I merely listed that as an example of the Saudi laws oppressing women because I had read it off of two separate travel sites when researching for this discussion.
What? Lets see...
You said...
Melissia wrote:No matter how much you want to defend the country, it still oppresses women, and heck, female travelers are warned not to go there. And even if you do go there you're not allowed to leave the airport until a "sponsor" arrives.
You were rebuted with...
TheSecretSquig wrote:As I live here, you're Airport scenario is untrue. Its all about what which type of visa you have. Nieither women or men come here as tourists, as tourist visa's don't exist. I arrive at the airport, and am free to leave / go where ever. When my Wife came for a visit, no one checked if I was waiting for her, same when my parents came.
The scenario your descibing is for a sponsored workers visa, which is not the majority of visas. You think thats bad, I go to the US, alll my personal details MUST be forwarded to US border customs before the plane lands, I'm photographed and fingerprinted, and I've not done anything other than arrive!!!
To which you responded...
Melissia wrote:No it's not, it's for just traveling to the country, no workers visa involved.
...
TheSecretSquig wrote:I live here. I've made multiple visits back home to the UK. I've NEVER had to wait for a 'sponsor' to come and escort me from the airport. This was the same for my Wife when she'd visited, and my parents, and the same for guys I work with from the US, Aus, Ger and Spain.
I'm not sure where you are getting your info from, but seeing as I've done it / live here, I think I'd know. I have a standard visa. Then there is a business visa, no escort required. Then there is a Pilgrim visa for Muslims peforming Hajj, no escort required. A worker visa (the minority of visa applications) do require an ecort.
Then you posted your source...
Melissia wrote:You're not a female traveler.
Regardless, this is off of the U.S. Department of State's travel guide for Saudi Arabia:
Women visitors and residents are required to be met by their sponsor upon arrival. [...]
Leaving out the key line...
"Women traveling alone, who are not met by sponsors, have experienced delays before being allowed to enter the country or to continue on other flights."
Which contradicts what you first said: "And even if you do go there you're not allowed to leave the airport until a "sponsor" arrives."
Now you're saying you were "I merely listed that as an example of the Saudi laws oppressing women because I had read it off of two separate travel sites when researching for this discussion." Funny how you refuted the dismissal of your comment for several posts if that was "merely listed that as an example"
It's a big statement you made. It's basically saying women can't travel in Saudi Arabia unless they have a contact in the country to meet with. Fact is it's wrong. Lets clear that up without whining about how i'm trying to say what your point is.
Ahtman wrote:I think the real point was that you actually listed several things, the possible weakest one was picked and has been pounded on until it seems like it was the only one.
Stating women can't travel to Saudi arabia without someone in the country to meet them is a weak statement?
Besides if that's the basis on which you've listed one fact is false you can't easily trust everything else.
Ahtman wrote:I think the real point was that you actually listed several things, the possible weakest one was picked and has been pounded on until it seems like it was the only one.
Stating women can't travel to Saudi arabia without someone in the country to meet them is a weak statement?
No, I'm saying stating the same thing four or five times is unnecessary. The two of you kept saying the same thing to each other repeatedly. You made your point, move on.
whatwhat wrote:Besides if that's the basis on which you've listed one fact is false you can't easily trust everything else.
I believe what we have here is an fallacist's fallacy.
All I can say is that the US page you are getting your info from is very out of date. People I work with including myself have their wives (some their daughters) come and visit on a regular basis. There is no requirement whatsoever for them to be met at the airport. My friend who is a AUS national could not pick his wife up from the airport due to work. Having travelled to KSA several times before, she simply got in a taxi to the compound, no issues whatsoever.
Having been to the US for a holiday, I'd take arriving in KSA anytime over being stuck in a queue for an hour, photographed, fingerprinted and having all my details stored in a Government Database as what happens when a non US citizen arrives in the US. Every country has their own Visa requirements / restrictions, but your information is well out of date / incorrect.
As for unescorted women being arrested, again your information is incorrect / out of date. The Muttawa (religous Police) do not have any powers (unless escorted by a Policeman which is rare) to arrest anyone anymore as their power was stripped by the King. They are also banned from many shopping Malls, restaraunts and entertainment (if there is such a thing in KSA) establishments. There are less and less on the street now, due to the King trying to reform the country. Unfortunatly, the die hard traditionalists are protesting about this. The days of Muttawa walking around with their canes to whack peoples ankles is long gone.
My Wife has and many other peoples wives go round town using Taxi's and buses, totally unescorted. On a few occassions, there have been confrontations with the Muttawa, but nothing more than them asking people to cover their hair.
As for women being refused in restaraunts, the only one I've seen asking women to be escorted was a Burger King (now closed). Most of the users of such establishments are women, not men so it would be stupid for them to be refused entry.
As for not being able to leave the country without the permission of the 'Head of the Family', in some US states it is ilegal for an -16yr old to 'run away' (can't quote which ones, just saw it on some programe that swapped kids for a week). In the UK unless you are 17 or over, a letter of consent is required from your parents to book any service through a recognised Travel Agent. Every country has its way of control.
You have to understand the culture here. Family is everything and any activity outside of marriage is frowned upon. By not allowing unmarried couples or single women to book hotel suites, puts another barrier to prevent adultery or something happening outside a marriage. I'm not saying I agree with this, but unless you understand the culture, you can't appreciate the laws.
TheSecretSquig wrote:
Having been to the US for a holiday, I'd take arriving in KSA anytime over being stuck in a queue for an hour, photographed, fingerprinted and having all my details stored in a Government Database as what happens when a non US citizen arrives in the US.
Your comrades in Saudi Arabia had something to do with that.
whatwhat wrote:Besides if that's the basis on which you've listed one fact is false you can't easily trust everything else.
I believe what we have here is an fallacist's fallacy.
No it isn't. I said therefore you "can't easily trust everything else" not therefore everything is is false too.
That isn't what a fallacist's fallacy means.
A Fallacist's Fallacy means an argument is dismissed on the basis that one point is flawed, when in fact there could be many other good points in said argument. That's not what I did.
Frazzled wrote:
Your comrades in Saudi Arabia had something to do with that.
Are women allowed to work there?
Women can work here, as said in previous posts. But it is a new trend, the King is battling with the traditionalists to reform the country. Most Ex Pat wives who wish to work get a job in teaching or nursing. The major Supermarkets are actively trying to recuit women cashiers and workers. The King has built universities exclusively for women. He wouldn't be doing this if there was no intent to give them jobs. All the people getting an eduction (that isn't influenced by Islam - read previous post pg 5 I think) will want job regardless of their sex.
As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.
TheSecretSquig wrote:
As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.
Conspiracy theory? Check their backgrouonds boyo. Now everything you've said is suspect.
American Airlines Flight 11
Main article: American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).[7]
Two flight attendants called the American Airlines reservation desk during the hijacking. Betty Ong reported that "the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B."[8] Flight attendant Amy Sweeney called a flight services manager at Logan Airport in Boston and described them as Middle Eastern.[8] She gave the staff the seat numbers and they pulled up the ticket and credit card information of the hijackers, identifying Mohamed Atta.[9]
Mohamed Atta was heard speaking over the air traffic control system, broadcasting messages he intended for the passengers.[10]
“ We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport.
Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.
Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves.
”
[edit] United Airlines Flight 175
Main article: United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (United Arab Emirati), Fayez Banihammad (United Arab Emirati), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi).[7]
A United Airlines mechanic was called by a flight attendant who stated the crew had been murdered and the plane hijacked.[11]
[edit] American Airlines Flight 77
Main article: American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).[7]
Two hijackers, Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed were identified by clerks as having bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 from Advance Travel Service in Totowa, New Jersey with $1,842.25 in cash.[8] Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, used a cell phone to call her mother in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. Unlike the other flights, there was no report of stabbings or bomb threats. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, it is possible that pilots were not killed and were sent to the rear of the plane.[12] Passenger Barbara Olson called her husband, Theodore Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, stating the flight had been hijacked and the hijackers had knives and box cutters.[13] Two of the passengers had been on the FBI's terrorist-alert list: Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.
Forensic remains of the five hijackers were found at the Pentagon, along with remains of the victims.[14]
[edit] United Airlines Flight 93
Main article: United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).[7]
Passenger Jeremy Glick stated that the hijackers were Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, and carrying knives.[15][16]
Hijacker Ziad Jarrah also mistakenly broadcast messages intended for passengers over the air traffic control system:
TheSecretSquig wrote:
As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.
Conspiracy theory? Check their backgrouonds boyo. Now everything you've said is suspect.
Different topic completely, watch the 'Loose Change' video. Lets not de-rail the topic, start a new one or go onto 'abovetopsecret.com' or some simlar site.
And Saudi / US relationships can't be that bad, you've only just sold them $30b worth of F-15's!
No you can't drop it that easily. True or False: Saudi Arabian nationals were among the terrorists that performed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A simple true or false will do.
TheSecretSquig wrote:
As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.
Conspiracy theory? Check their backgrouonds boyo. Now everything you've said is suspect.
Different topic completely, watch the 'Loose Change' video. Lets not de-rail the topic, start a new one or go onto 'abovetopsecret.com' or some simlar site.
And Saudi / US relationships can't be that bad, you've only just sold them $30b worth of F-15's!
>>>Endorses Loose Change
>>>Accuses others of being conspiracy theorists
Oh, and a Fallicist's Fallacy is the assumption that if part of a premise is false that the conclusion must be false. It is possible to be wrong in a premise and still have a correct conclusion.
Even if it isn't conspiracy there was no need for you to bring that up anyway Frazzled. The actions of a minority group of Saudi Arabians do not mean anything. I know you struggle to comprehend how someone can be independant of the nation they were born in but please, that's dumb.
No he didn't. What he meant was. "feth of and watch loose change or something" as in, that discussion is not relevant here.
Ahtman wrote:Oh, and a Fallicist's Fallacy is the assumption that if part of a premise is false that the conclusion must be false. It is possible to be wrong in a premise and still have a correct conclusion.
Pretty much the same thing as what I just said. Either way it's not what I did.
whatwhat wrote:Even if it isn't conspiracy there was no need for you to bring that up anyway Frazzled. The actions of a minority group of Saudi Arabians do not mean anything. I know you struggle to comprehend how someone can be independant of the nation they were born in but please, that's dumb.
It means he's ing wrong and a crackpot if he believes optherwise. Therefor his stories are just that. Er kommt mit unrein Hände.
whatwhat wrote:Even if it isn't conspiracy there was no need for you to bring that up anyway Frazzled. The actions of a minority group of Saudi Arabians do not mean anything. I know you struggle to comprehend how someone can be independant of the nation they were born in but please, that's dumb.
It means he's ing wrong and a crackpot if he believes optherwise. Therefor his stories are just that. Er kommt mit unrein Hände.
Now theres a better example of a Fallicist's Fallacy
Frazzled wrote:No you can't drop it that easily. True or False: Saudi Arabian nationals were among the terrorists that performed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A simple true or false will do.
Different Topic, Sorry.
And my answer is 'undecided'. This is based on reading other theories about the tragdey other than the 'official' US Government version.
For a country (KSA) that 'aledgely' breed terrorists who target the US, the US sure does like to sell them weapons and do business with them..................
Off to bed now, its 1.15am and I've work in 6 hours. Its been 'fun'.
It is what you did, actually. you treated the conclusion as false because one part of the premise (women have to be escorted) was weak. That is practically the definition.
I don't believe that was what he was saying at all by bringing Loose Change up. It seemed to me he was saying to watch Loose Change to prove Saudis weren't involved.
It is what you did, actually. you treated the conclusion as false because one part of the premise (women have to be escorted) was weak. That is practically the definition.
I don't believe that was what he was saying at all by bringing Loose Change up. It seemed to me he was saying to watch Loose Change to prove Saudis weren't involved.
Well while are putting words in other mouths here...
Ahtman wrote:I blatently can't read.
I didn't make any comment on Melisias conclusion all I did was say you can't easily trust the other points (which were given without sources also) knowing one is false.
I didn't make any comment on Melisias conclusion all I did was say you can't easily trust the other points (which were given without sources also) knowing one is false.
Maybe you didn't come across like you meant to, that is possible, you are a bit of an drama queen.
Frazzled wrote:No you can't drop it that easily. True or False: Saudi Arabian nationals were among the terrorists that performed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A simple true or false will do.
Different Topic, Sorry.
And my answer is 'undecided'. This is based on reading other theories about the tragdey other than the 'official' US Government version.
For a country (KSA) that 'aledgely' breed terrorists who target the US, the US sure does like to sell them weapons and do business with them..................
Off to bed now, its 1.15am and I've work in 6 hours. Its been 'fun'.
Allrighty then. I guess that whole Passport/visa thing can't be trusted.
So yea, why should we believe anything else you just put up?
Frazzled wrote:No you can't drop it that easily. True or False: Saudi Arabian nationals were among the terrorists that performed the 9/11 terrorist attacks. A simple true or false will do.
You should stop doing the yes or no thing, it makes you look simplistic and unable to handle nuanced positions.
I didn't make any comment on Melisias conclusion all I did was say you can't easily trust the other points (which were given without sources also) knowing one is false.
Maybe you didn't come across like you meant to, that is possible, you are a bit of an drama queen.
As I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you is in your mind Ahtman. You need to remember that the mood you believe a poster to be in is quite often more indicative of your own mood than theirs. Ya big drama queen.
TheSecretSquig wrote: As for your first comment, thats a different topic, lets not get onto 9/11 conspiricy theories.
Conspiracy theory? Check their backgrouonds boyo. Now everything you've said is suspect.
Different topic completely, watch the 'Loose Change' video. Lets not de-rail the topic, start a new one or go onto 'abovetopsecret.com' or some simlar site.
And Saudi / US relationships can't be that bad, you've only just sold them $30b worth of F-15's!
Saudi Arabia is the biggest bankroller of anti western islamic terrorism in the world, it has been for decades, it will be until it runs out of money. To hide the fact that the Saudis play a double game with both sides is silly, it's pretty well known to every intelligence community on the planet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
whatwhat wrote:
Ahtman wrote:I blatently can't read.
I didn't make any comment on Melisias conclusion all I did was say you can't easily trust the other points (which were given without sources also) knowing one is false.
Maybe you didn't come across like you meant to, that is possible, you are a bit of an drama queen.
As I'm sure everyone who disagrees with you is in your mind Ahtman. You need to remember that the mood you believe a poster to be in is quite often more indicative of your own mood than theirs. Ya big drama queen.
In fairness you do come off as a drama queen in quite a few of your posts.
And you come across as an absaloute witch. Just saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The line "I have no more issue telling people when they're flat out wrong in reality then I do here. I enjoy it. " comes to mind.
whatwhat wrote:And you come across as an absaloute witch. Just saying.
Well, being part of an ex nazi brain trust using genetic manipulation to create the first true Übermensch I do kind of come off as slightly full of myself sometimes. I promise though, it's really just because I'm the smartest man on the planet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:And you come across as an absaloute witch. Just saying.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The line "I have no more issue telling people when they're flat out wrong in reality then I do here. I enjoy it. " comes to mind.
It's not my fault the wargaming community has almost no knowledge concerning economics, politics, foreign relations, or philosophy. I just do what I can to set 'em straight! I'm doing a community service!
I think that the drama queen assessment is fairly accurate. What, with the way you tend to use phrases like "ffs" at the drop of a hat, and the fact that you turn what might be reasonable points into hyperbole whenever you're questioned.
whatwhat wrote:So your knowledge is based on the Book of Shuma again? Got you.
I would read that book. I disagree with the guy a lot, but he is fething hysterical.
Melissia wrote:Translation of whatwhat's last post: "I don't agree with you and I'm going to dismiss any and all evidence you present no matter where it comes from."
Why does that seem familiar to me?
ShumaGorath wrote:It's not my fault the wargaming community has almost no knowledge concerning economics, politics, foreign relations, or philosophy. I just do what I can to set 'em straight! I'm doing a community service!
Because no one who's educated would have a... wait a minute.
Melissia wrote:Translation of whatwhat's last post: "I don't agree with you and I'm going to dismiss any and all evidence you present no matter where it comes from."
Melissia wrote:Translation of whatwhat's last post: "I don't agree with you and I'm going to dismiss any and all evidence you present no matter where it comes from."
Why does that seem familiar to me?
You have it tatood on your left ass cheek.
No, that can't be it. I have a map of Gibraltar there. It wasn't actually a dig at you. I truly wish I'd done that a little more artfully. Ah well. Live and learn.
Oh no neither was I. I truly do have that tattooed on my left ass cheek. I thought you might have gone to the same tattoo guy and chose it from his portfolio. My mistake.
Allrighty then. I guess that whole Passport/visa thing can't be trusted.
So yea, why should we believe anything else you just put up?
Monster Rain wrote:
Melissia wrote:Translation of whatwhat's last post: "I don't agree with you and I'm going to dismiss any and all evidence you present no matter where it comes from."
dogma wrote:See, that first sentence is an excellent example of behaving as a drama queen.
The picture added after the edit is another example.
The other day my Pot called my kettle black.
My coffee pot called the kettle a wussy ferener that does nothing but whine when it gets hot and and hurt its feelings.
I can't really say anything to that huh? Not without fitting into your universally broad definition of whining which basically includes anything which constitutes defending yourself from accusation. Whereas if I were to call you a bigot for example I'd actually have some ground to stand on. I wouldn't respond to that acusation if I were to you, that would be whining remember.
dogma wrote:See, that first sentence is an excellent example of behaving as a drama queen.
The picture added after the edit is another example.
The other day my Pot called my kettle black.
My coffee pot called the kettle a wussy ferener that does nothing but whine when it gets hot and and hurt its feelings.
I can't really say anything to that huh? Not without fitting into your universally broad definition of whining which basically includes anything which constitutes defending yourself from accusation. Whereas if I were to call you a bigot for example I'd actually have some ground to stand on. I wouldn't respond to that acusation if I were to you, that would be whining remember.
Certainly nothing to do with the topic. Quit spammin' and get back to talking about, you know, Saudi Arabia's position, both their stance and that given to them by the U.N.
Has anyone seen any press releases from the Saudi government about this?
A note (from searching Wikipedia): The World Economic Forum 2009 Global Gender Gap Report ranked Saudi Arabia 130th out of 134 countries for gender parity.
Tyyr wrote:I think he means you're bigoted against whiny drama queens.
Which is just good common sense I thought.
1. Well thats a true statement there.
2. I thought he was saying I was bigtoed against kettles, which, as a good redblooded American I am. All right thinking Americans drink the third greatest gift of the New World: coffee. But again, WTF?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:
Tyyr wrote:I think he means you're bigoted against whiny drama queens.
Which is just good common sense I thought.
No I mean in general, he's a bigot.
Oh I see. Losing argue, begin personal attacks, (for no clear reason). I like that. Reported so I don't ban you offhand for personal attacks.
See it really is a cheap trick huh, all I have to do is say you're whining and you can't defend yourself without looking like you actually are whining. School kids use the same trick.
Frazzled wrote:What personal attack again? (thats attack on your side #3)
I believe it was a wussy ferener that does nothing but whine when it gets hot and and hurt its feelings
The whole last two pages have actually just been devoted to throwing unprovoked personal attacks at me. All 'm doing is returning fire. So quit whining.
whatwhat wrote:See it really is a cheap trick huh, all I have to do is say you're whining and you can't defend yourself without looking like you actually are whining. School kids use the same trick.
Amazing or perhaps astonishing as it might seem for the OT board, this thread is...is... well... you can read -- well I say that, but one can never be too sure of these things and it would go someway to explaining some of the ....odder... posts we see..hmm... food for thought there perhaps. Which is good, as it is, in the UK anyway, lunchtime.
Be sure to tune in next for the next "exciting" and "informative" hot topic de jour, coming far, far sooner than anyone would like or believe possible.
*insert complimentary wall of text that thoroughly deconstructs and disproves GG's above statement*
The entire point of the panel is for the countries on it to promise to work towards better rights for women the world over. You think thats gonna be accomplished by keeping the offenders out? That would defeat the entire point of it all.
ing wrong and a crackpot if he believes optherwise. Therefor his stories are just that. Er kommt mit unrein Hände.
