Most of us can't get away from it, these vague claims and accusations that X country is guilty of Y crime, thus calling you to boycott, sanction or even give your life for their wars.

Let's take the most recent example; Afghanistan and the Taliban. If you haven't read this detailed article on Afghanistan have a look, it will help explain a lot https://www.publish0x.com/geo-political-economical-developments/while-the-western-world-is-talking-afghanistan-and-wondering-xmmyyrd

Boycotting sports events

So, the Taliban is taking Afghanistan over yet again. You know from which place their key and leading figures are returning from? Pakistan and Qatar.

"Head of the US Central Command, negotiated the evacuation protocol with senior Taliban leaders at Doha, Qatar, on Sunday, and he flew secretly into Kabul on Tuesday to oversee it, according to press reports." https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/08/19/afgh-a19.html

Yes, Qatar. The country where the bloodiest World Cup is about to be held next year. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/revealed-migrant-worker-deaths-qatar-fifa-world-cup-2022

Did you know the United States and their FBI are to this very day investigating if Russia did something that would justify cancelling the 2018 World Cup? Here are some examples of "humanitarian concerned" people who want your attention to boycott the Olympic games in Beijing next year but never once stated anything remotely regarding the upcoming World Cup. Totally not political and totally human rights focused ;)

Why is this important? Because real human right truly is. People are being taken advantage of, used as slaves or even tortured to death daily. These are actual humanitarian concerns which should be centre and focused on by anyone who claims to be a human rights warrior whether they are taking place in a country that has a GDP of just a few million, or a country that has billions in natural resources alone. These neanderthals who abuse the term "human rights" for their own disgustingly egocentric political goals are **the absolute lowest of the lowest**. They are the cause people don't take human rights violations seriously anymore, confused whether it is a real or another political show put on which turns out to be a farce later on.

Bias "news" reporting

Here are 4 edited versions of 1 BBC article, clearly displaying their bias reporting regarding the Syrian army and Assad. Turkey is a Nato ally and keeping millions of refugees out of the EU, though a wobbling ally, but no need to overkill this humanitarian thingy on them just yet.

Keep in mind that the Syrian army is bombing isis/daesh and their "moderate" versions dubbed Al-Nusra, Jaysh Al-Islam etc. while Turkey is bombing the Kurdish YPG.

Anyone remember this child?

The original story was that "Assad" attacked him and dozens others with chemical weapons. After he was found and given an opportunity to explain exactly what happened that day, here's what he had to say: https://21stcenturywire.com/2018/04/20/syrian-boy-featured-in-douma-chemical-attack-video-tells-his-story/

Want to know how freedom media interpreted this?

"Depending on who you believe, 11-year-old Hassan Diab is the victim of a chemical gas attack ordered by Bashar al-Assad's brutal regime, or: he's an unwitting pawn in a fabrication by rebel forces who deliberately staged the attack as a provocation". https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-28/hassan-becomes-face-of-information-war-surrounding-syria-douma/9705538

Yes, it all depends if you believe what we reported for you instantly after the event which fits our narrative of 'Assad the bad guy', or what the key person involved says afterwards himself. Who do you believe? Us or your lying ears?

Dishonorable mentions

Can't forget to mention these "humanitarian" foundations that don't need to pay taxes and ask for your donations, ramping up their activities when disaster strikes. Though some are legit and forward most of the donations to the places in need, some are actually just capitalizing on their misery. This happens all too often but the most memorable case to me was Philippines 2013.

There was a disaster in the Philippines a few years ago and many countries' foundations started campaigns to raise money to send to the victims of the deadliest storm the country had ever witnessed, some hired "influencers" and their national celebrities to "raise more awareness" and thus of course raise more money. What happened afterwards gave us a glimpse in the scummy world of marketing in foundations and so called "influencers". It later turned out that that vast majority of the money collected, was used to pay the so called celebrities for their effort. I have been searching for hours trying to find an article from back then to see some more exact figures, but they've been made extremely difficult to find. Bottom line as I recall was that well over 60%, closer even to 70% did not actually get sent to the Philippines, but used as payment to these "humanitarian artists" who helped gain more awareness. The logic behind this practice is that without their names and image, the foundation would raise far less money and so even with sending only 30% to 40% of the total sum, it is still more than sending 100% of the total sum they would have raised without the use of celebrities. Though this particular example is somewhat more debatable and less obviously disgusting as the above mentioned examples, it still raises the question; Is it acceptable to profit from other people's misery? Even if you claim that with your noble effort, they were eventually helped more, ultimately, you still primarily helped yourself and just like other examples still helped to kill the people's trust when it comes to sincere and honest collections and donations for those in dire need.