Malala Yousafzai recieves Nobel Prize

Watch
yo radical one
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30411049

Today she collected her prize, I thought it was really incredible how she jointly received it along with an Indian child rights campaigner, perhaps a sign of a more peaceful coexistence between India and Pakistan in the future

Great scenes
0
reply
jaffacake111
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I was thrilled for her - what a hero! She should have got it last year.

Am currently reading her book ("I Am Malala"), thoroughly recommend
1
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
Great news. The only people who can change that part of the world are locals.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
It's interesting just what it takes to win the Nobel peace prize, over the last decade a lot of winners have had little to do with peace. From Wikipedia: "Since 1901, it has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"."

Now let's look at recent recipients:
2014: Malala and some Indian woman- for advocating education for all-nothing to do with the quote above
2013: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons- Tbh, they shouldn't even be necessary, but they exist purely to try to uphold the law
2012: The EU "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe"-But what have they actually done to these ends during that time?
2011: Two Liberians and a Yemeni woman
"for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace-building work"- so they got it for being non violent in their methods?
2010: A Chinese man "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China"-see above
2009: Barack Obama
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."-Read: "Because he's the first black president"
2008: Martti Ahtisaari
"for his efforts on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts"-Finally, somebody who seems to meet the criteria
2007: One of my personal favorites, Al Gore and Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"- Seriously...what?

I could go on, but the next one that actually seems to fit the bill is, judging purely by the description given, is 2002 Jimmy Carter (not without controversy), then 2001 TO THE ****ING UN FOR DOING THEIR ****ING JOB. Then things seem to get much more reasonable. There are still some interesting ones such as:
1988: UN peace keepers FOR DOING THEIR ****ING JOB
1986:
"Chairman of "The President's Commission on the Holocaust""
1965: UNICEF for some reason
1944, 1917, 1963: Red cross (and associated red things)
1968: President of the ECHR
1994: Arafat, Rabin and Peres; I suppose they're justified in receiving the award, but at the same time the fact that the peace process seems as stagnant now as then makes it slightly amusing.

1
reply
HollowFaux
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
Noble peace prizes remind me of those Hollywood award shows.Lol EU receiving a peace prize look at what they're doing in Ukraine at the beck and call of America's ruling Zionist elite.
0
reply
Zargabaath
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It's interesting just what it takes to win the Nobel peace prize, over the last decade a lot of winners have had little to do with peace. From Wikipedia: "Since 1901, it has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"."

Now let's look at recent recipients:
2014: Malala and some Indian woman- for advocating education for all-nothing to do with the quote above
2013: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons- Tbh, they shouldn't even be necessary, but they exist purely to try to uphold the law
2012: The EU "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe"-But what have they actually done to these ends during that time?
2011: Two Liberians and a Yemeni woman
"for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace-building work"- so they got it for being non violent in their methods?
2010: A Chinese man "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China"-see above
2009: Barack Obama
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."-Read: "Because he's the first black president"
2008: Martti Ahtisaari
"for his efforts on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts"-Finally, somebody who seems to meet the criteria
2007: One of my personal favorites, Al Gore and Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"- Seriously...what?

I could go on, but the next one that actually seems to fit the bill is, judging purely by the description given, is 2002 Jimmy Carter (not without controversy), then 2001 TO THE ****ING UN FOR DOING THEIR ****ING JOB. Then things seem to get much more reasonable. There are still some interesting ones such as:
1988: UN peace keepers FOR DOING THEIR ****ING JOB
1986:
"Chairman of "The President's Commission on the Holocaust""
1965: UNICEF for some reason
1944, 1917, 1963: Red cross (and associated red things)
1968: President of the ECHR
1994: Arafat, Rabin and Peres; I suppose they're justified in receiving the award, but at the same time the fact that the peace process seems as stagnant now as then makes it slightly amusing.

I agree with you, awards like this are essentially on par with other popular circlejerks such as the BRITS or the Grammy's. It's an excuse for leaders to get together and stroke their own egos under the guise of pretending to care. It's all too political for me.

That said, some of the acts themselves are commendable, even if they aren't what the prize is for
0
reply
Ggmu!
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by yo radical one)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-30411049

Today she collected her prize, I thought it was really incredible how she jointly received it along with an Indian child rights campaigner, perhaps a sign of a more peaceful coexistence between India and Pakistan in the future

Great scenes
It will have absolutely no effect on any type of relationship between India and Pakistan but it brings light to causes that are plagues in both countries.

Edit: it has no effect because the rift between the countries is far deeper than whatever these two could do to close it.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
bittr n swt
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
As ggmu said, no effect will occur

Nobel prizes have lost their meaning now
0
reply
Ggmu!
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It's interesting just what it takes to win the Nobel peace prize, over the last decade a lot of winners have had little to do with peace. From Wikipedia: "Since 1901, it has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"."

Now let's look at recent recipients:
2014: Malala and some Indian woman- for advocating education for all-nothing to do with the quote above
2013: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons- Tbh, they shouldn't even be necessary, but they exist purely to try to uphold the law
2012: The EU "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe"-But what have they actually done to these ends during that time?
2011: Two Liberians and a Yemeni woman
"for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace-building work"- so they got it for being non violent in their methods?
2010: A Chinese man "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China"-see above
2009: Barack Obama
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."-Read: "Because he's the first black president"
2008: Martti Ahtisaari
"for his efforts on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts"-Finally, somebody who seems to meet the criteria
2007: One of my personal favorites, Al Gore and Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"- Seriously...what?

I could go on, but the next one that actually seems to fit the bill is, judging purely by the description given, is 2002 Jimmy Carter (not without controversy), then 2001 TO THE ****ING UN FOR DOING THEIR ****ING JOB. Then things seem to get much more reasonable. There are still some interesting ones such as:
1988: UN peace keepers FOR DOING THEIR ****ING JOB
1986:
"Chairman of "The President's Commission on the Holocaust""
1965: UNICEF for some reason
1944, 1917, 1963: Red cross (and associated red things)
1968: President of the ECHR
1994: Arafat, Rabin and Peres; I suppose they're justified in receiving the award, but at the same time the fact that the peace process seems as stagnant now as then makes it slightly amusing.

He is a male, his name is Kailash Satyarthi.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
I think it's great. I wonder what they'll do with the prize money.
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It's interesting just what it takes to win the Nobel peace prize, over the last decade a lot of winners have had little to do with peace. From Wikipedia: "Since 1901, it has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"."

Now let's look at recent recipients:
2014: Malala and some Indian woman- for advocating education for all-nothing to do with the quote above
2013: Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons- Tbh, they shouldn't even be necessary, but they exist purely to try to uphold the law
2012: The EU "for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe"-But what have they actually done to these ends during that time?
2011: Two Liberians and a Yemeni woman
"for their non-violent struggle for the safety of women and for women's rights to full participation in peace-building work"- so they got it for being non violent in their methods?
2010: A Chinese man "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China"-see above
2009: Barack Obama
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."-Read: "Because he's the first black president"
2008: Martti Ahtisaari
"for his efforts on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts"-Finally, somebody who seems to meet the criteria
2007: One of my personal favorites, Al Gore and Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"- Seriously...what?

I could go on, but the next one that actually seems to fit the bill is, judging purely by the description given, is 2002 Jimmy Carter (not without controversy), then 2001 TO THE ****ING UN FOR DOING THEIR ****ING JOB. Then things seem to get much more reasonable. There are still some interesting ones such as:
1988: UN peace keepers FOR DOING THEIR ****ING JOB
1986:
"Chairman of "The President's Commission on the Holocaust""
1965: UNICEF for some reason
1944, 1917, 1963: Red cross (and associated red things)
1968: President of the ECHR
1994: Arafat, Rabin and Peres; I suppose they're justified in receiving the award, but at the same time the fact that the peace process seems as stagnant now as then makes it slightly amusing.

Could be worse:

Image
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by The Socktor)
Could be worse:

Image
I fail to see what the problem is with Hitler being on the front of Time magazine, after all, if you squint a little bit you will see it's "The Weekly Newsmagazine", it's actually relevant for him to be on the cover.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (22)
17.19%
I'm not sure (3)
2.34%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (42)
32.81%
I have already dropped out (3)
2.34%
I'm not a current university student (58)
45.31%

Watched Threads

View All