Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

U.N Were to bestow Human Rights award on Gaddafi in March

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,006 Daithi 1


    UN Report Offers Smoking Gun Proof of NATO & U.S. Lies

    Posted: 2011/06/22
    From: Mathaba
    mqgj468.jpg





    Several of the NATO countries, including Denmark, Germany, Spain and Italy, as well as Australia, PRAISED Colonel Muammar Qaddafi for his excellent work in human rights and were set to give a United Nations award to him and Libya in March. Yet, in a complete about-face they waged war on Libya instead. Kevin Rudd? You and those you conspire with will answer for this.



    By Dennis South

    Here is a type of "smoking gun" proof that NATO and the U.S. has been operating through a smokescreen of lies, as well as intimidation. Please read the following January 4, 2011 report of the 16th Session of the United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review:

    http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

    Before NATO and the U.S. started bombing Libya, the United Nations was preparing to bestow an award on Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and the Libyan Jamahiriya, for its achievements in the area of human rights. That's right--the same man, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, that NATO and the United States have been telling us for months is a "brutal dictator," was set to be given an award for his human rights record in Libya. How strange it is that the United Nations was set to bestow a human rights award on a "brutal dictator," at the end of March.

    So, I ask a question. Who is this "brutal dictator" that the United Nations General Assembly Human Rights Council was preparing to bestow an award to, for human rights, sometime at the end of March? So, they would have us believe that they knew that he was a "brutal dictator," yet decided to give him an award for human rights?! Astounding! Astounding the lies that we're being told by the media, NATO and the U.S. government. Absolutely astounding! Not surprising, but astounding! But more astounding still, is the fact that, time after time after time, much of the American public--without questioning--believes every single word that comes from the "news" media.

    It is noteworthy to read the following couple of sentences from the General Assembly's report:

    "Several delegations also noted with appreciation the country's commitment to upholding human rights on the ground. Additional statements, which could not be delivered during the interactive dialogue, owing to time constraints, will be posted on the extranet of the universal periodic review when available."

    In a footnote of that report, there is a list of countries that praised Colonel Gaddafi and the Libyan Jamahiriya (state of the masses), in support of the General Assembly Human Rights Council's decision to bestow this award upon Colonel Gaddafi. I simply present the list. The reader can look at the list and make his or her own judgement regarding the credibility level, or perceived credibility level, of any of the particular countries listed:

    Denmark, China, Italy, The Netherlands, Mauritania, Slovenia, Nicaragua, The Russian Federation, Spain, Indonesia, Sweden, Norway, Ecuador, Hungary, South Africa, The Phillippines, Maldives, Chile, Singapore, Germany, Australia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Angola, Nigeria, Congo, Burundi, Zambia, Rwanda, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Zimbabwe.

    If you have been paying any attention to the news, you will note that a few of the above-listed countries suddenly made an about-face, and decided to start supporting NATO and the U.S. in their war of aggression. Why? Why else!? Money. That's always the bottom line, and there's no doubt that it will all be exposed, at some time in the future, just as was exposed the lies that the U.S. government told its citizens, and the world, about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. And those same countries were just about to bestow an award on Colonel Gaddafi, for human rights, after having carefully studied Libyan society. So, what's this about the "brutal dictator?" It's what my big brother would call it: CHEWED UP GRASS [Bull****!! For the delicate amongst you, pardon my colorful language].

    So, I'm wondering: Who do we believe? The news media, that's been telling us, for months, that Colonel Gaddafi is a "brutal dictator." Or do we believe this January 4th, 2011 report from the General Assembly of the United Nations? No way am I trying to "bless" the UN, which has its flaws (as we've all witnessed). But, I worked at the International Office of a university once, and I learned that the UN, despite its flaws, is capable of doing some very good work, though it is my opinion that a new international United Nations should be formed, with headquarters in Libya.

    Again: This award was set to be given to Colonel Gaddafi at the end of March. Next thing you know, Libya got bombed.

    So, if you hear that your country will soon be given an award by the United Nations, for human rights, LOOK THE HELL OUT! Because you're about to be BOMBED!


«1

Comments



  • Some home truths about Libya




  • Does that report actually say he was going to get an award? It's not the easiest thing to read, so I may have missed that part, but it seems to be a delegation went to Libya to check on any human rights violations. And they were saying that Libya has vastly improved and pointed out any areas they had trouble with. They then gave a huge list of areas to work on in order to keep improving.

    The author of the article didn't seem to read it. The list of countries he gives as having praised Libya is actually a list of countries who's full opinions aren't carried in the document due to time constraints. If you read through the points they make, there's a lot of things they have problems with.

    Not much of a smoking gun. More of a damp squib.

    And the second propaganda piece is something that would make Goebbels blush.




  • Yeah the video of Quathaffi cruisin around theStreets of Libya standin out the sunroof is a bit odd, but the Bits at the Start about the Libyan Standard of living are all true, also the bits about Libya issuing Debt Free money, the bits about the 'Rebels' first acts including the formation of a rotschield style Usury central bank, thats also true, the bits about 1.7 Million people in Green square protesting at the Bombings, thats true, the bits about Quathaffis social programs, thats true, the Bits aboutthe Lockerbie witness' recantation, Thats true.

    I wonder is the bit about Libya wanting payment for its Oil in gold Dinar True???????




  • humanji wrote: »
    Does that report actually say he was going to get an award? It's not the easiest thing to read, so I may have missed that part, but it seems to be a delegation went to Libya to check on any human rights violations. And they were saying that Libya has vastly improved and pointed out any areas they had trouble with. They then gave a huge list of areas to work on in order to keep improving.

    The author of the article didn't seem to read it. The list of countries he gives as having praised Libya is actually a list of countries who's full opinions aren't carried in the document due to time constraints. If you read through the points they make, there's a lot of things they have problems with.

    Not much of a smoking gun. More of a damp squib.

    And the second propaganda piece is something that would make Goebbels blush.

    It is a little difficult to read and maybe "award" was a bit over jealous but the regime were indeed to be praised by the U.N for it's progress in humanitarian efforts in March 2011 as the following article more clearly points out.

    GENEVA, Feb. 28 – UN Watch, which heads the Global NGO Campaign to Remove Libya from the UN Human Rights Council, today called on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, EU foreign minister Catherine Ashton and UN rights chief Navi Pillay to urge the council president to cancel a planned resolution praising Libya’s human rights record, scheduled to be adopted in the current session.
    Despite having just voted to suspend Libya from its ranks (to be finalized by the UNGA tomorrow), the UN Human Rights Council, according to the agenda of its current session, is planning to “consider and adopt the final outcome of the review of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.” According to the council’s timetable, the lengthy report hailing Libya’s human rights record will be presented on March 18, and then adopted by the council at the end of the month. The report, which the UN has published on the council website, is the outcome of a recent session that was meant to review Libya’s human rights record.
    “Although the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism is often described by council defenders as its saving grace, the vast majority of council members used it to falsely praise the Gaddafi regime for its alleged promotion of human rights,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, a Geneva-based human rights monitoring organization. “The report is a fraud, an insult to Libya’s victims, and should be withdrawn immediately.”
    http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2011/02/28/hall-of-shame-un-human-rights-council-to-adopt-report-praising-gaddafi-regime/

    And the bits that Mahatma coat mentioned are true also :pac:




  • I am convinced that this bombing campaign by NATO was not to help the people but to secure the oil for the big oil company's. NATO and by NATO I mean the Brits and the French are going down the same road as the yanks . We come in peace shoot to kill.


  • Advertisement


  • Heres an interesting vid i got with an admittedly brief search :)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82dbclFV_70


    Not sure exactly how much of this is true,but its a possible briefing on the current situation as i havent a clue about Lybia myself.

    Also an interesting comment on youtube i thought to post as well.

    "Russia Today is propaganda outlet, which dehumanize the enemies of Russian Government: Muslim chechens, Finns, Ukrainians etc. However, there is some truth about Gadaffi... Gadaffi is Secular Dictator, the "Rebels" are part from Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and other muslim nationalists.
    Do you want the Secular rule of Gadaffi? Or Do you preffer Islamic Emirate, which is ready to nuke Israel and Europe?"


    Id just add that when i hear Al Qaeda i still think CIA lol




  • Yeah the video of Quathaffi cruisin around theStreets of Libya standin out the sunroof is a bit odd, but the Bits at the Start about the Libyan Standard of living are all true, also the bits about Libya issuing Debt Free money, the bits about the 'Rebels' first acts including the formation of a rotschield style Usury central bank, thats also true, the bits about 1.7 Million people in Green square protesting at the Bombings, thats true, the bits about Quathaffis social programs, thats true, the Bits aboutthe Lockerbie witness' recantation, Thats true.
    But even Hitler was kind to his dogs. Sorry to Godwin, but the video doesn't go near any of the problems that Libya has, many of which are mentioned in the report in the OP. He may have done some things right, but he's also don't many things wrong. The video paints a painfully rose-tinted view of things there.
    I wonder is the bit about Libya wanting payment for its Oil in gold Dinar True???????
    I'm fairly sure that I heard that was true (but that's vague enough of a comment to possibly be wrong :D ).
    Daithi 1 wrote:
    It is a little difficult to read and maybe "award" was a bit over jealous but the regime were indeed to be praised by the U.N for it's progress in humanitarian efforts in March 2011 as the following article more clearly points out.
    But does that not show that they were mistaken? Granted, it can be taken that they were cover for themselves for the upcoming civil war, but it can equally be taken as them realising they'd made a colossal mistake.




  • See thats the Thing tho init


    what qualifies him as Evil

    42 Years in power, Lots of advancement for his nation, altho all through that point he shuns the 'normal' democratic process which we understand in favour of a revolutionary comittee, which it mustbe said did have some levels of public involvement and grassroots support, he funds terrorists and generally gives the finger to Western powers, theres a bit of handwringing a few tough words and the odd bombing run against him when the US needs a bogeyman to distract from domestic issues, but for the most part he's left to his own decvices.

    Then he makes moves to Shift from the USDollar for his oil and lo and behold NATO are arming rebels and bombing the everlovinSh!te out of him

    Shades of Sadam again




  • See thats the Thing tho init


    what qualifies him as Evil

    42 Years in power, Lots of advancement for his nation, altho all through that point he shuns the 'normal' democratic process which we understand in favour of a revolutionary comittee, which it mustbe said did have some levels of public involvement and grassroots support, he funds terrorists and generally gives the finger to Western powers, theres a bit of handwringing a few tough words and the odd bombing run against him when the US needs a bogeyman to distract from domestic issues, but for the most part he's left to his own decvices.

    Then he makes moves to Shift from the USDollar for his oil and lo and behold NATO are arming rebels and bombing the everlovinSh!te out of him

    Shades of Sadam again

    It's sickening and telling when the controlled media/US/Nato springs into action.

    Where's the footage of genocide in Rwanda and East Timor?

    If Rwanda produced oil instead of coffee, we'd be seeing pictures from there instead.




  • Is there anyone here that genuinely feels,thinks or believes that this happened over humanitarian issues?


  • Advertisement


  • ed2hands wrote: »
    It's sickening and telling when the controlled media/US/Nato springs into action.

    Where's the footage of genocide in Rwanda and East Timor?

    If Rwanda produced oil instead of coffee, we'd be seeing pictures from there instead.

    If the Ivory coast produced oil instead of chocolate then we'd be see- oh wait.

    Unfortunately in the post (and possibly pre) Iraq climate - damned if you do, damned if you don't.




  • Torakx wrote: »
    Is there anyone here that genuinely feels,thinks or believes that this happened over humanitarian issues?

    see above :D

    I'm not really joking. This is what he said the day the no fly zone was authorised over Libya.
    Its not rosy, but I am ****ing dancing today over this
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71223546&postcount=241




  • Torakx wrote: »
    Is there anyone here that genuinely feels,thinks or believes that this happened over humanitarian issues?

    No, I think its a bloody disgrace what's happening in Libya.




  • ed2hands wrote: »
    It's sickening and telling when the controlled media/US/Nato springs into action.

    Where's the footage of genocide in Rwanda and East Timor?

    If Rwanda produced oil instead of coffee, we'd be seeing pictures from there instead.

    Oh Timor has Oil, The carve up was done by Suharto and Whitlam before the invasion in the 70's




  • Oh Timor has Oil, The carve up was done by Suharto and Whitlam before the invasion in the 70's

    That's how Obama ended up in Indonesia. The Obama mamma Ann Dunham was working for Rockefeller and possibly even the CIA in Indonesia while the US-backed Suharto was massacring his own population.




  • See thats the Thing tho init


    what qualifies him as Evil

    42 Years in power, Lots of advancement for his nation, altho all through that point he shuns the 'normal' democratic process which we understand in favour of a revolutionary comittee, which it mustbe said did have some levels of public involvement and grassroots support, he funds terrorists and generally gives the finger to Western powers, theres a bit of handwringing a few tough words and the odd bombing run against him when the US needs a bogeyman to distract from domestic issues, but for the most part he's left to his own decvices.

    Then he makes moves to Shift from the USDollar for his oil and lo and behold NATO are arming rebels and bombing the everlovinSh!te out of him

    Shades of Sadam again

    But his revolutionary comittee acted like the old Soviet union. People were spying on their friends and families. Dissidents were executed. The Us didn't need to create a bogeyman. Qaddafi was on.
    Torakx wrote: »
    Is there anyone here that genuinely feels,thinks or believes that this happened over humanitarian issues?

    Well see, I don't think it's a black and white situation where it can either be for oil or out of the goodness of their hearts. I think it was done on humanitarian grounds in the hopes/knowledge that they would benefit greatly from it.

    Iraq was invaded, companies took over the oil wells and the oil went to China. This time around, they keep the locals in control of the oil and the locals feel they owe their saviours enough to give them cheap oil.




  • humanji wrote: »
    But his revolutionary comittee acted like the old Soviet union. People were spying on their friends and families. Dissidents were executed. The Us didn't need to create a bogeyman. Qaddafi was on.



    Well see, I don't think it's a black and white situation where it can either be for oil or out of the goodness of their hearts. I think it was done on humanitarian grounds in the hopes/knowledge that they would benefit greatly from it.

    Iraq was invaded, companies took over the oil wells and the oil went to China. This time around, they keep the locals in control of the oil and the locals feel they owe their saviours enough to give them cheap oil.


    So basically, you're saying they did it for oil, under the guise of a humanitarian mission ?




  • Has anyone here actually read this PDF? Its quite interesting actually.




  • Daithi 1 wrote: »
    So basically, you're saying they did it for oil, under the guise of a humanitarian mission ?
    No, it was a humanitarian mission but the possibility of getting oil was an extra incentive. It's not the only factor. Politics is far too complicated to whittle it down to wanting oil or not.




  • humanji wrote: »
    No, it was a humanitarian mission but the possibility of getting oil was an extra incentive. It's not the only factor. Politics is far too complicated to whittle it down to wanting oil or not.



    It does beg the question.. Why didn't NATO step in at an earlier time ? . By NATO's and numerous States admittance, Gaddafi's humanitarian efforts had greatly improved by 2011, the standard was the highest in Countries history.
    Granted it is difficult to pin NATO's intervention down to one reason but it's not so difficult to exclude a particular reason for it ~ humanitarian.


  • Advertisement


  • Western Nations and companies were benefiting a lot more while Gadaffi was in power than now; where there is a lot of uncertainty. Many western companies had spent billions or were about to spend billions on exploration which they may now lose.




  • Daithi 1 wrote: »
    It does beg the question.. Why didn't NATO step in at an earlier time ? . By NATO's and numerous States admittance, Gadaffi's humanitarian efforts had greatly improved by 2011, the standard was the highest in Countries history.
    Granted it is difficult to pin NATO's intervention down to one reason but it's not so difficult to exclude a particular reason for it ~ humanitarian.
    Well the thing is, the UN can't just decide on a whim to aid a rebellion. Even something as simple as agreeing to send aid to the victims of a natural disaster can be drawn out due to bureaucracy. So dealing with something so complex as a civil war isn't as easy as flipping a coin. Just looking at it from a PR perspective, Iraq and Afghanistan were disasters, so most countries would be very weary of getting involved in anything like that again.

    Then there's the cost of military action, both in money and friendly casualties. The nations of the UN and NATO think of themselves first, as all nations do. When the balance is in their favour, they act. That's why so many genocides and war crimes are let alone, because it's not in the best interests of those who can actually help, to help. If they can help with minimum fuss and loss, then they do. And in the case of Libya, the natural resources that they have can sweeten the deal.




  • Western Nations and companies were benefiting a lot more while Gadaffi was in power than now; where there is a lot of uncertainty. Many western companies had spent billions or were about to spend billions on exploration which they may now lose.

    While they may lose out through Gadaffi's toppling, they stood to lose more by not going along with the gang.




  • humanji wrote: »
    Well the thing is, the UN can't just decide on a whim to aid a rebellion. Even something as simple as agreeing to send aid to the victims of a natural disaster can be drawn out due to bureaucracy. So dealing with something so complex as a civil war isn't as easy as flipping a coin. Just looking at it from a PR perspective, Iraq and Afghanistan were disasters, so most countries would be very weary of getting involved in anything like that again.

    Then there's the cost of military action, both in money and friendly casualties. The nations of the UN and NATO think of themselves first, as all nations do. When the balance is in their favour, they act. That's why so many genocides and war crimes are let alone, because it's not in the best interests of those who can actually help, to help. If they can help with minimum fuss and loss, then they do. And in the case of Libya, the natural resources that they have can sweeten the deal.


    I hadn't thought the decision to intervene was made on a whim either, the Gaddafi demonization effort had been in play for decades. Although NATO were to praise Libya for their humanitarian efforts, certain states couldn't turn down the opportunity to jump on the Egypt/Syria/Yemen revolutionary bandwagon and make it seem as though Libya was experiencing a similar revolution of their own, for those states own financial gains, not to free Libyans from a cruel dictator. It seems it was an opportunity they couldnt turn down no matter how obvious the actual reasons for it were.
    Our opinions dont differ greatly, just, which came first, financial gain or humanitarian mission. I believe it was the latter and I believe the evidence in this and other threads clearly shows it.




  • Daithi 1 wrote: »
    the Gadaffi demonization effort had been in play for decades.

    Ah here, there wasn't much effort needed to demonize someone who acted like Gadaffi




  • Ah here, there wasn't much effort needed to demonize someone who acted like Gadaffi

    Coming from someone who has been conditioned to believe the demonization of Gaddafi, that statement doesn't hold much water.




  • Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Coming from someone who has been conditioned to believe the demonization of Gaddafi, that statement doesn't hold much water.

    I suppose sponsoring terrorism makes him a saint :rolleyes:




  • I suppose sponsoring terrorism makes him a saint :rolleyes:

    Sponsoring terrorism is all the rage at the moment, haven't you noticed ?




  • Daithi 1 wrote: »
    Sponsoring terrorism is all the rage at the moment, haven't you noticed ?

    I see, so you think its a good thing then


  • Advertisement


  • Torakx wrote: »
    Heres an interesting vid i got with an admittedly brief search :)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82dbclFV_70


    Not sure exactly how much of this is true,but its a possible briefing on the current situation as i havent a clue about Lybia myself.

    Also an interesting comment on youtube i thought to post as well.

    "Russia Today is propaganda outlet, which dehumanize the enemies of Russian Government: Muslim chechens, Finns, Ukrainians etc. However, there is some truth about Gadaffi... Gadaffi is Secular Dictator, the "Rebels" are part from Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and other muslim nationalists.
    Do you want the Secular rule of Gadaffi? Or Do you preffer Islamic Emirate, which is ready to nuke Israel and Europe?"


    Id just add that when i hear Al Qaeda i still think CIA lol

    I actually cant watch Russia Today at all, some of there so called 'independent journalists' that they had on during the conflict were astonishingly opinionated short of being idiotic in their links.

    There was one blonde girl looked like a young hippy and it was like listening to an incredibly juvenile school girl, the lack of charisma and facts missing from her reports were blatantly obvious and this girl was reporting from near the front line in Libya. I had to switch it off as she was annoying me so much.


Advertisement