rottingleaf

There are much more Muslims living in India than just those in Kashmir. They also have regions where Muslims treat Christians that way. India is big. That said, yes, it sucks, but Kashmir is a situation where "both sides" can be used honestly. It's just that somehow Europeans and Americans like to consider Muslims the oppressed group number one. Usually they are the oppressors.

That small proportion of situations is those where it was simply impossible to live oppressed, because there only were options to fight or die. A much larger proportion of people in this world live oppressed.

As compared to beheading them for their ethnicity, yes. So until Azerbaijan is sanctioned and put to its place, please shut up. We all care more about things closer to us, but one is worse than the other.

I just repeat my 'yes' and grunts and 'I see' in triples. Aha, aha, aha, yes, yes, yes, no, no, no, ok, ok, ok, click there, click there, click there, no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, NO-NO-NO HIGHER yes-yes-yes, okay sigh.

You got it ass-backwards. The point of the UN as opposed to LoN was that it can enforce shit. And do that very heavily. The only problem was that the chosen group of wise and powerful to decide this now includes Russia as the heir of the USSR (why the hell) and China (which is not the China that got the place initially) and UK (which is collecting cannibals to suck off all over the globe) and USA (which just arbitrarily invaded Iraq and didn't even apologize) and France (seems kinda normal, but CFA etc were not nice) and the situation really sucks.

or anybody else: the whole point of the place is as a diplomatic talking shop for everybody

Except Artsakh and Tigray and Rojava and ... Cause UN membership has been coerced to be used as some "proof of sovereignty" while it's not even in UN's own founding documents. So a non-UN member state won't get accepted to UN (cause everybody voting likes their elevated status through such a situation) and additionally can be militarily attacked, even wiped out, and everybody acts as if that were normal, while, again, even in the UN charter it's not.

I'd argue the harm from that is bigger than the purpose you named. After all, diplomats can already talk wherever they want and they do.

Iran, if compared to most big countries except maybe India, Egypt and Latin American ones, is a paragon of humanism. They are at war with so many other countries because they behave like they are supposed to, while those others behave like Israel right now.

Of course murder, torture and rape of protesters is not something I'd sign under. It's just that some things come down to numbers and make Iran better.

And then we can do US

Which is keep the current world order of countries doing such dominating?

And nobody will obey that decision.

ICJ has made some rulings about Artsakh too. Should have been not so hard to sanction the beheading savages out of occupying a small country and expelling its residents. By the way, in the UN charter a "country" does not only refer to UN members, that distinction is intentionally made clear in a few places.

UN is less useful than Holy Roman Empire.

Telegram is not private. That makes the comparison to be infinity in favor of DeltaChat.