Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:


shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 13, 2023, 08:04:53 pm »

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: February 11, 2023, 08:16:20 pm »

As I keep repeating, aid is virtually useless. Emigration is the solution. 3.5 million more refugees should migrate to the EU. It is literally that simple.
Posted by: guest78
« on: January 19, 2023, 02:39:37 am »

'Hateful Russophobic...': Putin govt's deadly deterrent to Ukraine at UN amid ferocious fusillade
Russia's Vladimir Putin administration issues a dangerous warning to Kyiv. Moscow warns it "won't tolerate Ukraine becoming a hateful Russophobic dictatorship." Scathing statements were made at a special session of the UN Security Council. This special session of the United Nations Security Council was initiated by Russia to discuss human rights in Ukraine. Russia has issued this deterrent amid an all-out operation in Ukraine. Non-stop artillery action is underway in Kharkiv region's Kupyansk. Watch this report for more.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 31, 2022, 09:17:51 pm »

They are saying it explicitly:

Is the UN paying attention? We do not need more resolutions against Israel, we need WMDs.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 25, 2022, 08:50:09 pm »

It will not:

The only thing that will help is accepting climate refugees. Any other apparent action is actually even worse than openly doing nothing, because at least if the victims know you are doing nothing, more might decide to emigrate sooner, but if the victims see you pretend to be doing something, more might decide to stay put to wait for 'help' that is useless in practice.
Posted by: guest78
« on: November 20, 2022, 02:35:23 am »

Historic compensation deal approved at COP27
Negotiators early Sunday approved a historic deal that would create a fund for compensating poor nations that are victims of extreme weather worsened by rich countries' carbon pollution, but an overall larger agreement still was up in the air because of a fight over emission reduction efforts. (Nov. 20)

See also:

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 10, 2022, 03:43:27 pm »

What I have been saying:

“Money doesn’t matter because we’re not going to have anywhere to live,” said Aniva Clarke, a 17-year old activist from Samoa. “And that’s probably the biggest issue that a lot of world leaders aren’t really focusing on.”
And there's little doubt about who young activists think needs to foot the bill in the fight against climate change: wealthy, industrialized nations that historically have emitted more greenhouse gases than poorer ones.

The only way for them to truly foot the bill is for them to accept climate refugees without limit.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 04, 2022, 12:31:35 pm »

Loss and damage: Who is responsible when climate change harms the world's poorest countries, and what does compensation look like?

Western civilization. Unrestricted relocation of climate refugees into Western countries.

You may be hearing the phrase “loss and damage” in the coming weeks as government leaders meet in Egypt for the 2022 U.N. Climate Change Conference.

It refers to the costs, both economic and physical, that developing countries are facing from climate change impacts. Many of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries have done little to cause climate change, yet they are experiencing extreme heat waves, floods and other climate-related disasters. They want wealthier nations – historically the biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions – to pay for the harm.

A powerful example is Pakistan, where extreme rainfall on the heels of a glacier-melting heat wave flooded nearly one-third of the country in the summer of 2022.

The flooding turned Pakistan’s farm fields into miles-wide lakes that stranded communities for weeks. More than 1,700 people died, millions lost their homes and livelihoods, and more than 4 million acres of crops and orchards, as well as livestock, drowned or were damaged. This was followed by a surge in malaria cases as mosquitoes bred in the stagnant water.

Pakistan contributes only about 1% of the global greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change. But greenhouse gases don’t stay within national borders – emissions anywhere affect the global climate. A warming climate intensifies rainfall, and studies suggest climate change may have increased Pakistan’s rainfall intensity by as much as 50%.
With Egypt hosting this year’s U.N. climate conference, it’s not surprising that loss and damage will take center stage.

Countries in Africa have some of the lowest national greenhouse gas emissions, and yet the continent is home to many of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries.
The conversation on loss and damage is inherently about equity. It evokes the question: Why should countries that have done little to cause global warming be responsible for the damage resulting from the emissions of wealthy countries?

They should not be.

That also makes it contentious. Negotiators know that the idea of payments for loss and damage has the potential to lead to further discussions about financial compensation for historical injustices, such as slavery in the United States or colonial exploitation by European powers.

All of this should be raised, except it should not be about financial compensation, but instead demographic compensation.

Two elements of developed countries’ reluctance to formalize a loss and damage mechanism involve how to determine which countries or communities are eligible for compensation and what the limitations of such a mechanism would be.

What would a threshold for loss and damage eligibility look like? Limiting countries or communities from receiving compensation for loss and damage based on their current emissions or gross domestic product could become a problematic and complicated process. Most experts recommend determining eligibility based on climate vulnerability, but this can also prove difficult.

Which is why it shouldn't be thought of in financial terms in the first place. Just let all climate refugees migrate without restriction and at no cost to themselves! At the same time, heavily limit births in the destination countries. The real resources (most obviously housing) freed up from the reduced birth rate can then be used by the climate refugees instead.

Over a decade ago, developed countries committed to provide US$100 billion per year to fund adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. But they have been slow to meet that commitment, and it does not cover the damages from the climate impacts the world is already seeing today.

What good is sending money to places that will eventually become uninhabitable anyway? As always, the correct answer is to move the people to where the money is, not the other way round.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 04, 2022, 04:19:10 pm »

Our message has reached the UN:

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned Monday that the world is in “a life-or-death struggle” for survival as “ climate chaos gallops ahead” and accused the world’s 20 wealthiest countries of failing to do enough to stop the planet from overheating.

The U.N. chief said emissions of global-warming greenhouse gases are at an all-time high and rising, and it’s time for “a quantum level compromise” between rich developed countries that emitted most of the heat-trapping gases and emerging economies that often feel its worst effects.

Of course they are still getting the solution wrong:

Guterres has amped up a push for climate’s version of asking polluters pay for what they’ve done, usually called “loss and damage,” and he said Monday that people need action now.

“Failure to act on loss and damage will lead to more loss of trust and more climate damage. This is a moral imperative that cannot be ignored.”

Money will not help when the lands themselves (where the money would be sent to) are becoming uninhabitable from global warming. The action we need is unconditional and unlimited acceptance of climate refugees.

Rich countries, especially the United States, have emitted far more than their share of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, data shows. Poor nations like Pakistan and Cuba have been hurt far more than their share of global carbon emissions.

Loss and damage has been talked about for years, but richer nations have often balked at negotiating details about paying for past climate disasters, like Pakistan’s flooding this summer.

The issue is fundamental for the world's developing countries and Guterres is reminding rich nations “that they cannot try and brush it under the carpet ... G20 nations have to take responsibility for the great need their actions have caused,” said Mohamed Adow of Power Shift Africa, which tries to mobilize climate action in Africa.
Richer countries may find a way around the issue without paying for direct damage by paying poorer nations more to adapt to lessen future disasters, but even then developed nations will have to pay out money, not just make promises as they have in the past, he said.
Guterres’ remarks “highlight what small islands and least developed countries have been arguing for decades — that loss and damage is irrefutable and already disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable countries and communities,” said Adelle Thomas, a climate scientist from the Bahamas.

Let me simplify it for you. My neighbours have set fire to my house, and what I need is help climbing over from my roof to their roof before I burn to death. But what they are doing instead is throwing banknotes into the inferno, which being made of paper immediately catch fire also, adding fuel to the inferno in the process. This is what is happening right now on an enlarged scale.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: October 03, 2022, 01:59:47 pm »

What we already knew:

Switzerland has 'systemic' racism issues, UN experts say

GENEVA (Reuters) - Switzerland has a serious systemic problem with racism against people of African descent, according to a report presented to the U.N. Human Rights Council on Monday, giving a broad range of examples from police brutality to a children's game.

The U.N.-appointed working group noted positive measures taken by Switzerland but still voiced concerns about the prevalence of racial discrimination and highlighted several incidents following a visit to the country this year.

"The ubiquity and impunity of this misconduct indicates a serious systemic problem exists," it said.
its banks, traders and municipalities invested heavily and benefited from the transatlantic triangular trade, the report said.

It noted efforts to raise public awareness about aspects of Swiss history, such as a petition and debate around the removal of the statue of a banker whose fortune relied on exploitation of enslaved Africans, in the canton of Neuchatel.

However, others remained valorised such as Louis Agassiz, an advocate of scientific racism, who has an Alpine peak named after him.

Swiss playground games persist such as "Who is afraid of the Black man?", which have a racially discriminatory effect, the experts said.

The report also noted "shocking" police brutality, noting the deaths of several Black men in the Vaud canton.


In a meeting held with Fascist Italy's leader, Benito Mussolini, and foreign minister, Galeazzo Ciano, in June 1941, Hitler stated his opinion on Switzerland quite plainly:

    "Switzerland possesses the most disgusting and miserable people and political system. The Swiss are the mortal enemies of the new Germany."[2]
After the armistice with France, Hitler demanded to see plans for the invasion of Switzerland. Franz Halder, the head of the Oberkommando des Heeres (OKH), recalled: "I was constantly hearing of outbursts of Hitler's fury against Switzerland, which, given his mentality, might have led at any minute to military activities for the army."[18] Captain Otto-Wilhelm Kurt von Menges in OKH submitted a draft plan for the invasion. Generaloberst Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb's Heeresgruppe 'C (HGr. C), led by Generalleutnant Wilhelm List and the 12th Army would conduct the attack. Leeb himself personally reconnoitered the terrain, studying the most promising invasion routes and paths of least resistance.[19]

Posted by: Zhang Caizhi
« on: October 01, 2022, 10:48:50 am »

UN Security Council fails to adopt resolution 'condemning' referendums in 4 Ukrainian regions

The United Nations Security Council on Friday failed to adopt a draft resolution, which "condemns" the referendums held in four Ukrainian regions "under Russian control" from September 23 to 27.

Titled "Illegal So-Called Referenda in Ukraine," the draft resolution was prepared by Albania and the U.S. and was vetoed by Russia, one of the five permanent members of the council.

Of the 15-nation council, 10 nations, including the U.S., France and Britain, voted in favor of the draft, while China, Gabon, India and Brazil abstained from voting.

A ceremony was held on Friday for the signing of treaties to incorporate Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson into the Russian Federation.

Russian President Vladimir Putin participated in the event, which took place in the Kremlin.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 24, 2022, 06:04:16 pm »

This is a good idea, at least:

Russia should lose its place on the UN Security Council due to its invasion of Ukraine, the Taoiseach has said.
And he was scathing of Russia's use of the veto to block a measure co-sponsored by Ireland and Niger to enhance UN efforts to combat insecurity caused by climate change. 113 other states supported the measure.

"113 countries - 113 of the members of this assembly - supported us in our efforts. One country - Russia - vetoed these efforts."
"Combined with the impact of climate change, and of conflict, severe drought and other extreme weather events, we face a crisis that needs urgent action."

Which country should replace Russia? From our perspective, only a country which does not recognize Israel should be considered. It should also be noted that all permanent members of the UN Security Council are nuclear-armed states. Of the countries which do not recognize Israel, only Pakistan and North Korea are nuclear-armed. I would give it to Pakistan.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: September 13, 2022, 04:26:20 pm »

UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi has claimed that governments enacting strong border controls to prevent illegal immigrants from entering their countries are doing so due to racism.

Grandi spoke at an event in Italy, stating that he was shocked at the difference in European countries’ attitudes toward those fleeing the conflict in Ukraine and migrants coming to Europe from different parts of the world.
According to Grandi, countries that want to be tougher on illegal immigration are motivated by racism, saying that “for the others, the response is restrictive legislation, barbed wire, naval blockades and pushbacks. This is racism. We have the legal and moral duty to welcome [migrants].

“The lesson of Ukraine is useful to understand how to respond to the movement of those who have nothing. In only a few weeks some seven million Ukrainians arrived in Europe, not just a few boats,” he said.

I agree. So what should be done to racists? What should be done to those who ignore legal and moral duty? This is what the entire conversation looks like at the moment:

False Left: "You are wrong."
Right: "I don't care."
False Left: (*confused about what to do next*)

To prevent more refugees dying, the conversation needs to look like:

False Left: "You are wrong."
Right: "I don't care."
True Left:

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 03, 2022, 08:25:26 pm »

27 refugees were killed. 27 missiles should be fired at Spain by the US. See how fast they stop killing refugees if that were done.

"Inquiries", in contrast, will achieve nothing.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: July 28, 2022, 10:11:20 pm »

More of the same:

Miloon Kothari was quoted in the media as questioning Israel’s right to be a U.N. member state and alluding to a “Jewish lobby.” The comments stoked longtime accusations by Israel, the U.S. and others that the rights body is biased against Israel.

Kothari, from India, is one of three members of the Commission of Inquiry on occupied Palestinian territory, created by the U.N.-backed Human Rights Council last year. The commission quickly countered that his comments had been deliberately misquoted.

The commission, headed by former U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay, was set up after the 11-day war last year between Israel and the militant Hamas group in Gaza. The fighting killed at least 261 people in Gaza and 14 people in Israel, according to the U.N. rights office.

Israel’s policies in the Palestinian territories have long faced international scrutiny. Last year, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court launched an investigation into alleged Israeli crimes there, focusing on Israel’s repeated military operations in Gaza and the expansion of Jewish settlements in east Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank.

The commission is the first to have an open-ended mandate from the U.N. rights body, and critics say such permanent scrutiny shows anti-Israel bias in the 47-member-state council. Proponents support the commission as a way to keep tabs on injustices faced by Palestinians under decades of Israeli rule.

In an interview published Monday by Mondoweiss, an online publication critical of Israel’s policies toward Palestinians, Kothari spoke about the commission’s work and mandate. He cited a lack of cooperation from Israel’s government.

Asked about criticism by some governments, including that of Canada, he replied that he was “very disheartened by the social media that is controlled largely by — whether it’s the Jewish lobby or it’s specific NGOs — a lot of money is being thrown into trying to discredit us.”

The commission's role, Kothari said, was to look into humanitarian law, human rights law, and criminal law. “On all three counts, Israel is in systematic violation of all the legislation,” he said.

“I would go as far as to raise the question as why are they even a member of the United Nations, because they don’t respect — the Israeli government does not respect — its own obligations as a U.N. member state,” he added.

None of the above should even be controversial. Certainly none of it is nothing that is not already common knowledge. But of course the reaction:

Keren Hajioff, a spokeswoman for Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid, said the international community should be “outraged” over Kothari's comments.

“His racist remarks about ‘the Jewish Lobby’ that controls the media and his questioning Israel’s right to exist as a member of the family of nations echo the darkest days of antisemitism,” she said.

Criticizing Jewish racism is anti-racism. Not criticizing Jewish racism (and thus approving its continuation) is what would be racist.

In a statement, the U.S. ambassador to the rights council, Michele Taylor, and the State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, Deborah Lipstadt, called antisemitism and anti-Israel bias a “poisonous venom” that has affected international discourse for too long — including at U.N. institutions.

They said Kothari’s comments were “outrageous, inappropriate, and corrosive" and echoed “age-old antisemitic tropes."

Taylor is Jewish
She serves as a board member, governance chair, and the guest programming Co-Chair of the Atlanta Jewish Film Society, which hosts the Atlanta Jewish Film Festival where she has introduced films.[11]

Lipstadt was born in New York City to a Jewish family
she also wrote a monthly column for The Jewish Spectator. Lipstadt then received a research fellowship from the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism at Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Lipstadt received the 1994 National Jewish Book Award.

Why should non-Jews let Jews tell us how much criticism of Jews is acceptable? That would be as flawed as "non-whites" letting "whites" tell us how much criticism of "whites" is acceptable!

Thankfully many more commenters get it now:

Jewish lobby?  AIPAC, at whose annual meeting, the politicians from both U.S. parties line up to speak and bow down. Israel is an apartheid state that allows the brutalization of Palestinian people and the destruction of their land. Israel is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and has been for years.

Do not deny the facts. Enough is enough Mr. Kothari is all right how long USA and other countries try to hide the tyrinny and cruilty of Israiel. It is the digital world now everything can easily be seen and judged.

Kothari is 100% correct. Israel has violated every law of humanity and if you call Jews out on their crimes, among the worst in human history, they scream antisemitic.  Israel is a war criminal and is now officially charged.

If anyone tells the truth regarding the crimes and atrocities that Israel commits every single day, they are accused of being anti-Semitic.

Playing the Anti-Semite Card NO longer works!
AIPAC has BRIBED most US politicians to condone genocide committed by the Israeli Regime!

The Russian and Ukrainian Jews who have no connection to the land whatsoever and are not Semite's are kiIIng and stealing land from the indigenous Palestinians people who are Semite's.

The Palestinian people are Semites, so in the strictest sense, the not infrequent
Israeli slaughter of Palestinian women and children is Israeli anti-Semitism. Also, both
Israelis and Jews very often make use of the concept of anti-Semitism NOT as a shield, but as a weapon to discourage legitimate criticism and engender self-censorship.