U.S. Plans to Withdraw From UN Human Rights Council Today

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
You are out of your fucking mind if you think Gaza is a concentration camp. That demeans and waters down the horrible situation that concentration camps were/are.

You should go talk to the Native American tribes forced onto reservations if you think situations like that are so peachy.

Not all concentration camps are Nazi-level Holocaust factories or Stalinesque Gulags. You are aware that the US had concentration camps of its own during WWII, right?

Now, let me guess, you're going to start arguing about what the dictionary definition of what concentration and camp is? See its a good thing! So many people want to be in the camp, its just simple supply and demand! You supply the camps and people are gonna naturally concentrate to them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
You should go talk to the Native American tribes forced onto reservations if you think situations like that are so peachy.

You are an idiot. You are trying to frame it as me saying concentration camps are not so bad. What I said is Gaza is not a concentration camp.

Not all concentration camps are Nazi-level Holocaust factories or Stalinesque Gulags. You are aware that the US had concentration camps of its own during WWII, right?

I'm assuming you mean the internment camps that many Americans that had Japanese ancestry were subjected to. Yes, not all were death camps. Had your dumbass followed, you would have seen the context that my comment was placed in.

Now, let me guess, you're going to start arguing about what the dictionary definition of what concentration and camp is? See its a good thing! So many people want to be in the camp, its just simple supply and demand! You supply the camps and people are gonna naturally concentrate to them!

Nope, because that is not needed.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
The human rights council is a sham. When they allow countries with such horrible human rights records on and then completely ignore those countries while attacking countries like the US and Israel it just shows how hypocritical they are.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
You are out of your fucking mind if you think Gaza is a concentration camp. That demeans and waters down the horrible situation that concentration camps were/are.

It's common for critics of Israel to use hyperbolic "Nazi" analogies. It's a classic form of Jew baiting.
 
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
It's common for critics of Israel to use hyperbolic "Nazi" analogies. It's a classic form of Jew baiting.

Is the author of this article "Jew baiting"?

Nothing Makes Sense Here: A Journey Along the Fences and Barbed Wire Suffocating the Gaza Strip

"Nothing makes sense here, at the fence of the huge concentration camp called Gaza: the residents who helplessly watch the bulldozers closing in on them, intensifying the siege and the strangulation."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...-the-concentration-camp-called-gaza-1.5976637
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
I find the complaints against the HRC to be unconvincing. While I agree that it spends more time condemning human rights abuses in Israel than it does in other countries with worse records that doesn't change the fact that the human rights abuses it's condemning in Israel are very real. In the phrase 'biased against Israel' the part that US conservatives care about isn't the 'biased' part, it's the 'against Israel' part.

For once in his worthless life Boris Johnson is right. The HRC has issues but it's still a valuable thing to have.

You really think it's OK for certain countries to use an international human rights organization to attack their geopolitical enemies, all the while calling attention away from their own deplorable human rights records, which in turn makes it easier for them to continue that way? I think the HRC as presently constituted is counter-productive to human rights.

Over 50% of this organization's resolutions have been against one country. Seriously? There are over 200 countries in this world, many with worse human rights issues. This council sat with its thumb up its ass while more people were being murdered in Darfur in a single month than have died in the entire history of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Sudan is, of course, a predominantly Muslim country, and there is a large voting bloc of Arab nations on the Council.

I personally do not trust an organization whose priorities are as skewed as this to accurately assess the human rights situation anywhere. What you're basically saying is, sure, they are very biased in what situations they choose to call attention to, but we can trust them to be absolutely accurate in their assessment of those situations. I don't buy it.

As for those who are saying we lose "power" by stepping down, I'm not buying that either. All the "power" we've had hasn't in 12 years changed a single thing about how the organization functions. It's still corrupt. And its corruption de-legitimizes the UN which I think is an essential organization.

I don't know if Trump's motives are good here. Maybe he's trying to distract from what's going on at the border. But I support this decision nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Is the author of this article "Jew baiting"?

Nothing Makes Sense Here: A Journey Along the Fences and Barbed Wire Suffocating the Gaza Strip

"Nothing makes sense here, at the fence of the huge concentration camp called Gaza: the residents who helplessly watch the bulldozers closing in on them, intensifying the siege and the strangulation."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...-the-concentration-camp-called-gaza-1.5976637

Two things have been called "concentration camps" that I'm aware of. The Nazis camps, and Gaza. The camps we put the Japanese in have always been called "internment camps." Perhaps there is an occasional analogy made elsewhere, but calling a swath of territory which is not a camp of any sort a "concentration camp" where the very loose analogy could have been made countless times in other situations but has not, isn't a coincidence. Someone is trying to suggest that the Jews are just like their Nazi oppressors, and they say this knowing it is going to upset Jews. There is no other explanation since Gaza is not a camp of any sort. This is a figurative analogy. Any other analogy could be used, or no analogy at all. One could simply describe the conditions there without the Nazi comparison being made.

Oh yeah, to your point, namely: look, I found a Jew who also says it's a concentration camp. Therefore, it isn't Jew baiting. I've heard this many times before. Jews are an ideologically diverse group of people. Of course you are going to find some who will agree with...basically anything.

There are also black conservatives who argue that black people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop whining about non-existent racism. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them, and it certainly doesn't mean that because some black people said it, the white people who say it are somehow immunized from the charge of racism.
 
Last edited:

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,806
126
You really think it's OK for certain countries to use an international human rights organization to attack their geopolitical enemies, all the while calling attention away from their own deplorable human rights records, which in turn makes it easier for them to continue that way? I think the HRC as presently constituted is counter-productive to human rights.

Over 50% of this organization's resolutions have been against one country. Seriously? There are over 200 countries in this world, many with worse human rights issues. This council sat with its thumb up its ass while more people were being murdered in Darfur in a single month than have died in the entire history of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Sudan is, of course, a predominantly Muslim country, and there is a large voting bloc of Arab nations on the Council.

I personally do not trust an organization whose priorities are as skewed as this to accurately assess the human rights situation anywhere. What you're basically saying is, sure, they are very biased in what situations they choose to call attention to, but we can trust them to be absolutely accurate in their assessment of those situations. I don't buy it.

As for those who are saying we lose "power" by stepping down, I'm not buying that either. All the "power" we've had hasn't in 12 years changed a single thing about how the organization functions, and it never will. It's still corrupt. And its corruption de-legitimizes the UN which I think is an essential organization.

I don't know if Trump's motives are good here. Maybe he's trying to distract from what's going on at the border. But I support this decision nonetheless.

They might be serial Israel condemners, but the US has been a serial Israel apologist blocking any and every UN Resolution for decades. Israel could have cut off most of these condemnations if only they took heed decades ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
They might be serial Israel condemners, but the US has been a serial Israel apologist blocking any and every UN Resolution for decades. Israel could have cut off most of these condemnations if only they took heed decades ago.

I'm a critic of many Israeli policies and actions, particularly those of the current regime, and some of past regimes. However, the situation and history there is far more complex than is presented by certain people on the left. It isn't quite the one-sided "good versus evil" narrative that is presented.

Moreover, whatever your assessment of Israel's conduct, failing to condemn others with worse records means a bias is in play. That bias must be addressed because it isn't acceptable for an international organization who takes money from every member country to address human rights issues in the world at large to focus over half its total attention and resources on one tiny country. That means they have little to no credibility on pretty much anything. And it means they are failing to do their job properly.

As to the US being biased in favor of Israel, perhaps that has been the case with the exception of the Obama administration. However, your argument is just another form of whataboutism. Are you really trying to say that it is OK for a body which is suppose to represent all member states to be biased because the US as an individual country is biased the other way?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,806
126
I'm a critic of many Israeli policies and actions, particularly those of the current regime, and some of past regimes. However, the situation and history there is far more complex than is presented by certain people on the left. It isn't quite the one-sided "good versus evil" narrative that is presented.

Moreover, whatever your assessment of Israel's conduct, failing to condemn others with worse records means a bias is in play. That bias must be addressed because it isn't acceptable for an international organization who takes money from every member country to address human rights issues in the world at large to focus over half its total attention and resources on one tiny country. That means they have little to no credibility on pretty much anything. And it means they are failing to do their job properly.

As to the US being biased in favor of Israel, perhaps that has been the case with the exception of the Obama administration. However, your argument is just another form of whataboutism. Are you really trying to say that it is OK for a body which is suppose to represent all member states to be biased because the US as an individual country is biased the other way?

Not whataboutism, it's directly related to why Israel gets condemned so much. Israel keeps committing the same acts over and over because the US has blocked consequences for those repeated acts over and over. The 2 issues live in a symbiotic relationship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,441
9,343
136
Two things have been called "concentration camps" that I'm aware of. The Nazis camps, and Gaza. The camps we put the Japanese in have always been called "internment camps." Perhaps there is an occasional analogy made elsewhere, but calling a swath of territory which is not a camp of any sort a "concentration camp" where the very loose analogy could have been made countless times in other situations but has not, isn't a coincidence. Someone is trying to suggest that the Jews are just like their Nazi oppressors, and they say this knowing it is going to upset Jews. There is no other explanation since Gaza is not a camp of any sort. This is a figurative analogy. Any other analogy could be used, or no analogy at all. One could simply describe the conditions there without the Nazi comparison being made.

Oh yeah, to your point, namely: look, I found a Jew who also says it's a concentration camp. Therefore, it isn't Jew baiting. I've heard this many times before. Jews are an ideologically diverse group of people. Of course you are going to find some who will agree with...basically anything.

There are also black conservatives who argue that black people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop whining about non-existent racism. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them, and it certainly doesn't mean that because some black people said it, the white people who say it are somehow immunized from the charge of racism.
Bullshit.

The British invented concentration camps.

And Gaza meets most of the criteria for being a concentration camp. The people incarcerated in it havent had a trial, they lack free movement, the ingress and egress of goods are controlled...

I mean if we want to be more accurate we could call it a ghetto but I'm guessing that would trigger you as well.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Not whataboutism, it's directly related to why Israel gets condemned so much. Israel keeps committing the same acts over and over because the US has blocked consequences for those repeated acts over and over. The 2 issues live in a symbiotic relationship.

I do not agree entirely with that assessment, but even assuming I did, this does not excuse member nations using this international body to simultaneously attack their geopolitical enemies while concealing their own abuses. That is unacceptable because, among other things, it suggests that an organization like the UN is fatally flawed because it can't free itself from the political self-interest of its member states. It casts doubt on the entire concept of the UN. But the UN in my opinion is important for us to keep around, and it's also something we must improve over time. Whatever you believe about the conduct of Israel and the US, it can't possibly excuse this sort of barely concealed corruption of a UN organization intended above all to oppose immoral behavior. The HRC is broken and it needs to be fixed.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,806
126
I do not agree entirely with that assessment, but even assuming I did, this does not excuse member nations using this international body to simultaneously attack their geopolitical enemies while concealing their own abuses. That is unacceptable because, among other things, it suggests that an organization like the UN is fatally flawed because it can't free itself from the political self-interest of its member states. It casts doubt on the entire concept of the UN. But the UN in my opinion is important for us to keep around, and it's also something we must improve over time. Whatever you believe about the conduct of Israel and the US, it can't possibly excuse this sort of barely concealed corruption of a UN organization intended above all to oppose immoral behavior. The HRC is broken and it needs to be fixed.

I'll agree with that.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
Two things have been called "concentration camps" that I'm aware of. The Nazis camps, and Gaza. The camps we put the Japanese in have always been called "internment camps." Perhaps there is an occasional analogy made elsewhere, but calling a swath of territory which is not a camp of any sort a "concentration camp" where the very loose analogy could have been made countless times in other situations but has not, isn't a coincidence. Someone is trying to suggest that the Jews are just like their Nazi oppressors, and they say this knowing it is going to upset Jews. There is no other explanation since Gaza is not a camp of any sort. This is a figurative analogy. Any other analogy could be used, or no analogy at all. One could simply describe the conditions there without the Nazi comparison being made.

Oh yeah, to your point, namely: look, I found a Jew who also says it's a concentration camp. Therefore, it isn't Jew baiting. I've heard this many times before. Jews are an ideologically diverse group of people. Of course you are going to find some who will agree with...basically anything.

There are also black conservatives who argue that black people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop whining about non-existent racism. Doesn't mean we have to agree with them, and it certainly doesn't mean that because some black people said it, the white people who say it are somehow immunized from the charge of racism.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
Remember when we were straight up kicked out?
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human/

GOP doesn't like
1. People pointing out our actions in the middle east over the past couple of decades.
2. We don't give a shit about human rights if money is involved and those people aren't potential voters in US elections.
3. Anyone saying stuff about the Republicans life partner in their biblical end of days scenario, Israel.

I'd mention Trump but he doesn't understand this sort of thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136

In common parlance, who uses "concentration camp" to refer to anything but the Nazis or Gaza? More importantly, who doesn't immediately think "Nazi" when that phrase is used? In this world, that is the connotation of the phrase. Everyone knows what is being suggested when Gaza is referred to as a "concentration camp." There is a reason such a loose and literally inaccurate analogy is used in reference to Gaza.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
In common parlance, who uses "concentration camp" to refer to anything but the Nazis or Gaza? More importantly, who doesn't immediately think "Nazi" when that phrase is used? In this world, that is the connotation of the phrase. Everyone knows what is being suggested when Gaza is referred to as a "concentration camp." There is a reason such a loose and literally inaccurate analogy is used in reference to Gaza.

Yes, of course the purpose is to evoke Nazism in order to attract attention to the situation. While there is certainly not even a remote moral equivalence to what is going on in Gaza and the Nazis, Gaza is a place where a disfavored ethnic group is confined and subject to major human rights abuses. As victims of one of the greatest human rights crimes in history I find it sad that Israelis are not more compassionate in this regard.

I honestly don’t think Israel cares anymore though so really does it matter what people call it? The US has clearly indicated we will shield them from accountability while they render a future Palestinian state nonviable.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,280
5,721
146
You are an idiot. You are trying to frame it as me saying concentration camps are not so bad. What I said is Gaza is not a concentration camp.



I'm assuming you mean the internment camps that many Americans that had Japanese ancestry were subjected to. Yes, not all were death camps. Had your dumbass followed, you would have seen the context that my comment was placed in.



Nope, because that is not needed.

And the crux of your claim is to try and claim the situation is not so bad.

No, I fully understood your idiotic context, and in fact that's my fucking point, your context is deliberately ignoring the aspects that show it to be wrong (which is a common problem for your posts on here, with you typically then trying to argue very specific "well this is the true original meaning of the phrase, look that's how they used it 400 years ago!"). If you weren't so intent on arguing despicable viewpoints and constantly trying desperately to distort things to act like you aren't, then people wouldn't constantly point out your idiotic arguments and methods. But the reason why people are so harsh toward you is because they can see the inherent disgusting nature of your arguments, and that you regularly try to defend such using insipid claims, so as to try and get people to stop addressing the horrible shit you're actually defending or supporting.

Internment camps are concentration camps. Those weren't the only concentration camps we used either (yes, concentration camps are a very common method for housing opposing military prisoners).

Like I said, go talk to Native American tribes if you think "technically not exactly a concentration camp" policies aren't so bad. They had experience directly with full on exactly concentration camps as well. I have a hunch they'd probably say that the specific differences don't matter, as it was the same policies and general hatred that was the cause of both, and that was and still is the real problem. There are plenty of other similar situations that you could go ask the people about how they should be grateful for not having been put in concentration camps, despite having experienced the same things that give concentration camps such a negative connotation.

Your argument actually is pedantic though. Because you're arguing about details big and small. Its not a literal camp built to house them by their oppressors, but also because Israel isn't treating Gaza the same as Nazis treated the Jews. It doesn't matter, the same mentality is behind them, and that's what people are really arguing against. Its just that concentration camps are a very tangible thing to point to (and isn't it odd how often those crop up when certain people making claims about groups of people being to blame for problems?). People are quite aware of the differences. They can see that yes, obviously there are differences between where they're putting the separated immigrant children now, or what ISIS was doing, or POW camps, or Nazi concentration camps, but the mentality driving every single one of those situations is the same. People can see the nuances between them, but still be appalled about their general mentality (hate of some other group), and how that tends to manifest itself into them putting those groups in some form of isolated containment.

In common parlance, who uses "concentration camp" to refer to anything but the Nazis or Gaza? More importantly, who doesn't immediately think "Nazi" when that phrase is used? In this world, that is the connotation of the phrase. Everyone knows what is being suggested when Gaza is referred to as a "concentration camp." There is a reason such a loose and literally inaccurate analogy is used in reference to Gaza.

I know a lot of people that call the Japanese-American internment camps as concentration camps. Because that's what they were. In fact, I know far more that call a multitude of other situations as concentration camps and until quite recently almost no one that called Gaza such (partly because Israel has ratcheted up their actions more recently, and partly because they actively worked to control the narrative for so long because they knew exactly how that looks and that people wouldn't be ok with that), so I don't even get your argument that these are the only two situations referred to as such, as that's not my experience at all. People refer to the Russian Gulags in that manner because its more practical and more menacing. It also is more specific. Its why people often talk about the Holocaust, or the specific camps when talking about the Nazis (although it too is by far the most associated with the phrase concentration camps, that absolutely is not the only situation). And for America, they talk about the Trail of Tears and the reservation policies.

Its all the same shit though. No, not the exact same, which everybody understands so there's no reason to even be pedantic about that aspect; the point being the general behavior is the same, and the reason that general behavior is so alarming because we have lots of evidence of where that leads. The reasons why people are making comparisons between just about any similar situation, is because that's how it often starts. If you tolerate such at almost any level, there's a very good chance that things will escalate. And we've seen just about every way those situations can evolve. Some are very slowly over an extended period of time, and others it one day goes from general disdain to full blown genocide, and just about everything in between.

Bullshit.

The British invented concentration camps.

And Gaza meets most of the criteria for being a concentration camp. The people incarcerated in it havent had a trial, they lack free movement, the ingress and egress of goods are controlled...

I mean if we want to be more accurate we could call it a ghetto but I'm guessing that would trigger you as well.

For the modern method, America actually was ahead of the Brits (we did that to some of the native tribes in the 1830s), although, that's just being stupidly pedantic, as humans have been pulling some similar shit for probably about as long as we've been around). Arguing about what technically is a concentration camp or not is just ignoring the broader issue, and it certainly should not be a contest for who can be "the best" at doing concentration camps. They have been a far too common and horrible aspect of humankind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WelshBloke

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
And the crux of your claim is to try and claim the situation is not so bad.

No, I fully understood your idiotic context, and in fact that's my fucking point, your context is deliberately ignoring the aspects that show it to be wrong (which is a common problem for your posts on here, with you typically then trying to argue very specific "well this is the true original meaning of the phrase, look that's how they used it 400 years ago!"). If you weren't so intent on arguing despicable viewpoints and constantly trying desperately to distort things to act like you aren't, then people wouldn't constantly point out your idiotic arguments and methods. But the reason why people are so harsh toward you is because they can see the inherent disgusting nature of your arguments, and that you regularly try to defend such using insipid claims, so as to try and get people to stop addressing the horrible shit you're actually defending or supporting.

Internment camps are concentration camps. Those weren't the only concentration camps we used either (yes, concentration camps are a very common method for housing opposing military prisoners).

Like I said, go talk to Native American tribes if you think "technically not exactly a concentration camp" policies aren't so bad. They had experience directly with full on exactly concentration camps as well. I have a hunch they'd probably say that the specific differences don't matter, as it was the same policies and general hatred that was the cause of both, and that was and still is the real problem. There are plenty of other similar situations that you could go ask the people about how they should be grateful for not having been put in concentration camps, despite having experienced the same things that give concentration camps such a negative connotation.

Your argument actually is pedantic though. Because you're arguing about details big and small. Its not a literal camp built to house them by their oppressors, but also because Israel isn't treating Gaza the same as Nazis treated the Jews. It doesn't matter, the same mentality is behind them, and that's what people are really arguing against. Its just that concentration camps are a very tangible thing to point to (and isn't it odd how often those crop up when certain people making claims about groups of people being to blame for problems?). People are quite aware of the differences. They can see that yes, obviously there are differences between where they're putting the separated immigrant children now, or what ISIS was doing, or POW camps, or Nazi concentration camps, but the mentality driving every single one of those situations is the same. People can see the nuances between them, but still be appalled about their general mentality (hate of some other group), and how that tends to manifest itself into them putting those groups in some form of isolated containment.



I know a lot of people that call the Japanese-American internment camps as concentration camps. Because that's what they were. In fact, I know far more that call a multitude of other situations as concentration camps and until quite recently almost no one that called Gaza such (partly because Israel has ratcheted up their actions more recently, and partly because they actively worked to control the narrative for so long because they knew exactly how that looks and that people wouldn't be ok with that), so I don't even get your argument that these are the only two situations referred to as such, as that's not my experience at all. People refer to the Russian Gulags in that manner because its more practical and more menacing. It also is more specific. Its why people often talk about the Holocaust, or the specific camps when talking about the Nazis (although it too is by far the most associated with the phrase concentration camps, that absolutely is not the only situation). And for America, they talk about the Trail of Tears and the reservation policies.

Its all the same shit though. No, not the exact same, which everybody understands so there's no reason to even be pedantic about that aspect; the point being the general behavior is the same, and the reason that general behavior is so alarming because we have lots of evidence of where that leads. The reasons why people are making comparisons between just about any similar situation, is because that's how it often starts. If you tolerate such at almost any level, there's a very good chance that things will escalate. And we've seen just about every way those situations can evolve. Some are very slowly over an extended period of time, and others it one day goes from general disdain to full blown genocide, and just about everything in between.



For the modern method, America actually was ahead of the Brits (we did that to some of the native tribes in the 1830s), although, that's just being stupidly pedantic, as humans have been pulling some similar shit for probably about as long as we've been around). Arguing about what technically is a concentration camp or not is just ignoring the broader issue, and it certainly should not be a contest for who can be "the best" at doing concentration camps. They have been a far too common and horrible aspect of humankind.

Jesus that wall of text. Well, to put it simply, no I do not believe they were not bad, and I don't think the situation right now is not bad. The shit you had to make up in your head...