I am a bit dazed. the whole usia election thing is going on with strong undertones as ever. Suggestive voices whisper through every channel, people that before seemed to want moderate exchange, suddenly turned rabiatly convinced conservatives.. etc.
probably a racist card. The dumbest on that one was.. if Obama looses it proofs we don't discriminate. Well *that* exactly it don't proof to me.(1)
Obama is a much greater guy then you would even need to change the world there,
come on mcCain.., it is true, Obama is really a smart and enlightened person with great care and policy.. how does mcCain have a vision when his party only comes up with negative portrayal of the other?
Obama's nomination speech is perfect. Every option is open, and the policy of change outspoken. the world goes for that deal. Exactly these republicans the ones in power, should want usia to stop becoming the pariah of the international community,
often even regarded a mere tool of israel (sozocaust(2)).
However these guys in charge are rich, whatever happens to the populace they will be fine.
A depression i only endure cus i countered it the first of january.
The receipe is to make one voice (there), to stand up as one nation.
And you should, every nation in the world should be able to make a great 4 years with a great man like Obama, one would try to help him wouldn't we all?
So thats a rather revolutionairy change from the POV of the ones in power, becus they know that their 1 percent holding 90% in the income in the west and 80(china,russia)-90 elsewhere(3) will have to start contributing, no more great oil profits to get away with for example..
neway, that is with ambition. And it's nice. Thumbs up usian brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, we only have to remember to be as dilluted, shout we won all the time, to be convincing, because many more voices will shout we won, then there were to say the opposite.
Obama is the next president. Fine, i am out to visit an african friend now.
2009.
hehe feel like writing on justice, care i check him there:p
byez!
(1) even obama winning proofs we *know* we (our systems) are still racist and have to work at that.
(2)sozocaust when you have to say sorry a lot, cus you are not really allowed to say it.
(3) interesting calculation here, the dutch situation is about the general western one, 1 percent of the people own 90% of the income, 10% own 95% of the income, 95% of ppl own 5% of the income.
In china it is different. 10% of ppl own 90% of the income, that means 1% owns about 80. 95% of the people then own around 17% of the income wich is over thrice as fair.
In russia it is not obvious, i would think the nr are better, the top 10% would have it at least 11 times better then the poor, wich would make it still 13 times better then here, meaning the 95% of the people get 65% of the income there and the 5% still 35.
lets be safe, 60-40. wooooow thats *good*!? follows 'russias oilwealth' is not yet so exagerated, or the people 'd be richer.(viva cuba)
(4) find a new name for that nation. jew SOA just doesnt hit the mark, does it?
it's got a remarkable relevance for aids(HIV) and that is all. It's all the old,"... but words are slaves to the truth" story again.
A-bomma or Fusia might be better;) defusia? or just sth. natural, Mixico? Danada?
Terra Rico for my part or Exdomingo, Piety, Braggica, United-Ex-Americans (UEA), Thina?, Maffia?, newJerusalem even. Erika? Highety:P? Byraq, Hatenam? Clashia?
no that wouldn't help. well like it is now they might as well call it Penisoala or alQuaida. Rapland, Jazzica?
I like Maffia, 'maf' is jidish for funny, they would be Maffians. Thats good against crime. turns them into Maffins slowly. Usians, i stick to usians for now.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
warcrimes
before i start an article called wo3 i feel inspired to write about war crimes.
In some ways i have been thinking over it already for a long time, and now the situation we face a court procedure between russia and georgia serves as an example.
Not in the last place because the scale is handsome, comprehendable. An example as Irak where different bombing campaigns immediatly killed over a million ppl. (an estimate but not an irrealist one) ofcourse is more sensitive. Do you, like many usians, perceive the fake WMD as *the* excuse, then the guilty ones walk completely free, and are still occupying the iraki nation. So the example may be better, but harder to explain and validate.
I do not choose the georgian problem because it is of the bigger i can think of, only because the determination russia shows for justice in the case , may proof me still right later, wich is a thing you could not expect eg. maliki or karzai hold the greatest interests in.
So i choose the subject of georgia because i think it has the same relevance to the russians, an action for transparance, good international relations worldwide, and about the responsibility of *all* nations to abide to similar laws.
Ofcourse Russia could that way show her system of democracy is not necessarilly less effective or representative then the european or usian. That is sth. i am rili curious after myself. Altho i am quite aware the socalled "democracy's" actually don't hold up to direct representation. (it could be hard to do worse)
however this will not be the subject of the procedures, the subject will be measure and proof of warcrimes.
measure and proof of warcrimes.
Basically the definition of warcrimes has two objectives, the first is to prosecute great "evil": inhumane deeds, events. Examples are: torture, ethnic violence in a context of armed conflict, elimination of people and groups of people, the targetting of civilians, neglicence towards victims, etc. etc. It is almost easier to think of a new warcrime then to sum it up.(the elimination of whole army's of defenceless enemy's i think is also one the nato can be blamed for)
Prevailing brutality and violence, is the second objective. That means single incidents can comprise warcrimes, it would be brutal if torture was okay if you did it to one or two people only.
A result is the use of the term warcrimes is still complicated, and perhaps that is why the different party's have been so eager to grossly implicate another so often.
The answer to all this is integrity. The use of singular and identic measure to crime. That is not always precisely the same as identical punishment perhaps, it is about keeping things in a context, having a future possibillity to compare, and doing justice to victims.
This integrity will not exist without transparance, openess, unbiased reporting, plain and fair numbers, and equally thorough checks on all party's involved.
It is simply so that each participant taking part in censoring is indicated, and lost all credibility to judge or accuse. There should be no ground for censoring if there is no implications of guilt of the censor.
As such, all major party's in these kinds of procedures are suspect(1), it appears to always be the nato, europe or usa that get's their enemy's filed for warcrimes and crimes against humanity. Meanwhile each of these applies censorship, in every form.
That means the nations and alliances have no credibility, even a nation as russia with a better record of mutuality in the accusations, can for the performace of justice only be labelled as partial. (ie. it will underestimate it's lethality and may overestimate the impropriateness of the reaction)
To be straight one will always have to keep comparing with the other, georgia and her accomplices (if any, but there is: the nato is a military partner that has eg. been arming georgia with more lethal weaponry ).
in this case the nato shows to have no credibility at all. The media are and have been stricly censored to show an anti russian picture that does no right to the situation and leaves us wondering what else happens evrywhere else in the world.
However fortunately there is a theoretical solution to this, the independence and power of justice.
Paralel there are theoretical solutions to the violent models that are now implemented. Usia even manages to be proud to be a "counterinsurgent" army.
"counter insurgent" means it targets a population or at least a significant part of it persee. A warcrime, and action that will provocate many smaller or bigger warcrimes. in this example usia provocates them, and in many cases the basic principle of justice dedicates that the reaction bears an element of selfdefence.
Provocation does not need to be violent, it can come in ways of discrimination, and (quite common) arming up, or tightening repressive measures, and probably in many more. However in terms of justice, and terms of warcrimes, crimes against humanity and the likes, ofcourse no provocation at all exists in wich the element of violence is not represented.
See what we are getting at is that a term that doesn't directly connotate to "warcrimes" namely the term violence, has absolute implications. Then justice can only be done when violence is measured accordingly.
There must be a great degree of certainty and objectivity , that is mutuality , transparance, a horrible, nearly undoable task. From that it follows the measures should be quite high, bombs on a town eg. that is inhabited, like tshikivalli or baghdad immediatly are a degree of 'warcriminal violence' , that would justify the other party so much atrocity and represaille in legal terms of selfdefence, that a definition of warcrime cannot come without a direct verdict against such incidents.
Only if these cases are solved, these matters settled, what follows could be considered a warcrime of the kind that can be complained about by the other party, or anyone. (besides ofcourse on humanist, humane ground) (2)
do you understand me?
warcrimes yet (possibly) perpetrated through, in and about georgia
in the practical case of georgia, from my meagre informations i can't judge evrything, but i can give examples. Ofcourse they will be contrive.(complicated,dense and interactive)
one should start with the beginning. For me it is guesswork, perhaps for example agreements from CIS or elsewhere must be counted. When these have military implications, or implications for the status wich of ethnic groups (ossetians, abchazians), wich ofcourse there are it must be taken in account in terms of being a incident with "violent ("war"criminal) implications.
long story short, let's weigh this apropriatly, that is proportionally, to measures of mutuality and reasonability (not to mention human rights).
human rights however need fixes to. The "democracy" pretence of freedom eg. should not be the measure, becus it is actually a very desinformed and biased project.
like warcrimes cannot be fixed without transparance, questions and accusations of human rights can not.
dr.Rice 's statements that russia used disproportional violence for example are a warcrime. There is no transparance, no evidence, no objectivity, not even free media,
her statement is then a very violent one, a usual judge would punish a perpetrator that accuses the victim harder.
To her luck i must add, she is not the only one. Bush for example had no better to offer. I just don't think bush is a relevant person. Heh, miss Rice has everything,
including an amazingly valuable psotion as "most succesfull cuddle negroe in the world" a possible all times champion. I certainly allow her the honour.
Another detail here is that i don't know how she is used or abused in that position,
there might be elements of racism etc. that she can't check and compromise her role beyond herself. champion cuddle negroe not for no reason.
Obama is not a cuddle negroe, he is a horde runner on a track that is better for your legs then the sport itself.
cheers O.! sorry i can't endure Condi's escalations.
k so these are only examples. diplomatical and political abuse of the unclarity about what consists provocation, intimidation, escalation, witnessing set aside, we could still clinically sum up the directly to the ground related events that give real reason for thought.
there is the long history of georgian interference with abchazia and ossetia, the peaceforces, some russian interests in containing georgia, saaksvillis persona,
saaksviile is for one thing indicated because he uses a populist rhetoric.
He is also indicated since he didn't manage to give any relativation in any case to a russian behaviour that was modest, untill he was regarded for all his lies.
That's why from the very start saaksvilli is suspect. What he does to the georgians compares to what the taliban wants, to what the serbians stand accused of, to what the croatians did, (make it a do usually, when they got away with it), it relates to what saddam held up to his people, its the way usa and iran control their populace,
pakistani politics suffers heavily from the phenomenon, sarkozy used it, it is something that has an impact on less developed nations (but not so much the most marginal people) very strongly often, it's what hitler did:
Nationalism.
on a sidenote russia labels his digressions from humane as on par with H. and stalin.
No smoke without a fire? in the very least there must be something against him they hold don't you think?
in the first phases of the war the georgian offensive was genocidal and ethnic clensing, the target was to drive as many south ossetians as possible into russia, and eliminate any resistance, the means where the ones of the nato offensive against baghdad probably more modern, albeit probably supplemented by older material.
the (nationalist) georgian army has a sinister history of operations against civilians , an element of nationalism is that it prohibits the development of moderate views on surrounding not completely advantegeous ethnic groups.
as such it apparently didn't improve, the methods were genocidal because completely disproportionate violence was applied (miss Rice?), because civil concentrations were targeted, 10 villages completely ruined, the main city bombarded over at least a week, the occupation of that city prolonged, (the russian were very quick with telling georgia to pull back), and after that there was no real cooperation to the ceasefire for about a week from the georgian political side, (sorry if we tried to save soldiers lifes), still now saaksvilli routinely falls back into acquisations.
I think what should be clear is that this is the incident, and that these complaints should have taken seriously in the nato=world. Not in the media, and not by the political representatives. Obviously the media are handed several kinds of restrictions and requirements, very possibly there is a permanent censoring going on,
the care with what journalists express what they still can suggests this.
seriously in terms of warcrimes and genocide. The only point that could be made from the nato side was a discussion about proportion.
when is something a genocide? does 2000 people and complete ethnic cleansing of 100000 people suffice, didn't abchazia suffice?
do military victims count somehow?
apparently these questions of proportion are the ones the nato does not want to hold up in the eyes of the world..
not so strange, arming nations, blasting them back to the stone age, causing every afghan and large parts of pakistan to flee, the relevance of modern arms and the development of bases around russia (and other nations) in fact over the whole world,
wouldn't stand the light of truth.
Nothing russia can be accused of the nato hasn't done, and over plenty things that georgia did the nato did punish or prosecute, serbians, russia or iraki's with international courts.
So i think the russians are out to hand the world a chance for peace again, if the world listens up we can start to get some definition and definite agreement on the
what's and whatsnot's of warcrimes and escalation.
(finally seriously start to disarm the world)
(1) also the courts of justice
(2) unless proportion would level the victim would remain justified to a much greater extend in any action then the agressor wich in the case of the usa has not happened since their own civil war. russia what is now and as an inheritant of the soviet unions moral ground can either just be considered (self) defensive or a relative ground for blame, relative to georgia here, but also relative to accepting a unipolair world through her history. Like i said these measures would become very contrive.
Conclusion:
With the current methods and practice it is impossible to objectively apply value to warcrimes, they should be thoroughly revaluated and appreciated in their diplomatical and political contexts , because there lays much of the responsability.
The dilligent system , the delegate justice that deals an unipolair quality, must be objectified, that can only happen through transparance, including a historic perspective, a freedom of press (in the sense of reporting, not misrepresenting),
an unfreedom of media to misrepresent even. Wich is "free" media's juridical definition: the duty to report every truth, not just some or something else.
to allow extrajuridical exposes there must be transparant and reciprocal proof.
The courts need to become objective, a working model could be to involve judges and jurists from exactly these involved matches, a touchy subject for justice itself.
It's very relevant that not only the constitution but also the proceedings and procedure of the courts need to apply transparance and reciprocity.
There will be so many guilty partys and persons, states might consider to stop armsraces and wars. The usa/nato and her closer allies, must reconsider their status in terms of warcrime. As a result of that their validity in a discussion of geopolitical determination like georgia's appears moot.
In some ways i have been thinking over it already for a long time, and now the situation we face a court procedure between russia and georgia serves as an example.
Not in the last place because the scale is handsome, comprehendable. An example as Irak where different bombing campaigns immediatly killed over a million ppl. (an estimate but not an irrealist one) ofcourse is more sensitive. Do you, like many usians, perceive the fake WMD as *the* excuse, then the guilty ones walk completely free, and are still occupying the iraki nation. So the example may be better, but harder to explain and validate.
I do not choose the georgian problem because it is of the bigger i can think of, only because the determination russia shows for justice in the case , may proof me still right later, wich is a thing you could not expect eg. maliki or karzai hold the greatest interests in.
So i choose the subject of georgia because i think it has the same relevance to the russians, an action for transparance, good international relations worldwide, and about the responsibility of *all* nations to abide to similar laws.
Ofcourse Russia could that way show her system of democracy is not necessarilly less effective or representative then the european or usian. That is sth. i am rili curious after myself. Altho i am quite aware the socalled "democracy's" actually don't hold up to direct representation. (it could be hard to do worse)
however this will not be the subject of the procedures, the subject will be measure and proof of warcrimes.
measure and proof of warcrimes.
Basically the definition of warcrimes has two objectives, the first is to prosecute great "evil": inhumane deeds, events. Examples are: torture, ethnic violence in a context of armed conflict, elimination of people and groups of people, the targetting of civilians, neglicence towards victims, etc. etc. It is almost easier to think of a new warcrime then to sum it up.(the elimination of whole army's of defenceless enemy's i think is also one the nato can be blamed for)
Prevailing brutality and violence, is the second objective. That means single incidents can comprise warcrimes, it would be brutal if torture was okay if you did it to one or two people only.
A result is the use of the term warcrimes is still complicated, and perhaps that is why the different party's have been so eager to grossly implicate another so often.
The answer to all this is integrity. The use of singular and identic measure to crime. That is not always precisely the same as identical punishment perhaps, it is about keeping things in a context, having a future possibillity to compare, and doing justice to victims.
This integrity will not exist without transparance, openess, unbiased reporting, plain and fair numbers, and equally thorough checks on all party's involved.
It is simply so that each participant taking part in censoring is indicated, and lost all credibility to judge or accuse. There should be no ground for censoring if there is no implications of guilt of the censor.
As such, all major party's in these kinds of procedures are suspect(1), it appears to always be the nato, europe or usa that get's their enemy's filed for warcrimes and crimes against humanity. Meanwhile each of these applies censorship, in every form.
That means the nations and alliances have no credibility, even a nation as russia with a better record of mutuality in the accusations, can for the performace of justice only be labelled as partial. (ie. it will underestimate it's lethality and may overestimate the impropriateness of the reaction)
To be straight one will always have to keep comparing with the other, georgia and her accomplices (if any, but there is: the nato is a military partner that has eg. been arming georgia with more lethal weaponry ).
in this case the nato shows to have no credibility at all. The media are and have been stricly censored to show an anti russian picture that does no right to the situation and leaves us wondering what else happens evrywhere else in the world.
However fortunately there is a theoretical solution to this, the independence and power of justice.
Paralel there are theoretical solutions to the violent models that are now implemented. Usia even manages to be proud to be a "counterinsurgent" army.
"counter insurgent" means it targets a population or at least a significant part of it persee. A warcrime, and action that will provocate many smaller or bigger warcrimes. in this example usia provocates them, and in many cases the basic principle of justice dedicates that the reaction bears an element of selfdefence.
Provocation does not need to be violent, it can come in ways of discrimination, and (quite common) arming up, or tightening repressive measures, and probably in many more. However in terms of justice, and terms of warcrimes, crimes against humanity and the likes, ofcourse no provocation at all exists in wich the element of violence is not represented.
See what we are getting at is that a term that doesn't directly connotate to "warcrimes" namely the term violence, has absolute implications. Then justice can only be done when violence is measured accordingly.
There must be a great degree of certainty and objectivity , that is mutuality , transparance, a horrible, nearly undoable task. From that it follows the measures should be quite high, bombs on a town eg. that is inhabited, like tshikivalli or baghdad immediatly are a degree of 'warcriminal violence' , that would justify the other party so much atrocity and represaille in legal terms of selfdefence, that a definition of warcrime cannot come without a direct verdict against such incidents.
Only if these cases are solved, these matters settled, what follows could be considered a warcrime of the kind that can be complained about by the other party, or anyone. (besides ofcourse on humanist, humane ground) (2)
do you understand me?
warcrimes yet (possibly) perpetrated through, in and about georgia
in the practical case of georgia, from my meagre informations i can't judge evrything, but i can give examples. Ofcourse they will be contrive.(complicated,dense and interactive)
one should start with the beginning. For me it is guesswork, perhaps for example agreements from CIS or elsewhere must be counted. When these have military implications, or implications for the status wich of ethnic groups (ossetians, abchazians), wich ofcourse there are it must be taken in account in terms of being a incident with "violent ("war"criminal) implications.
long story short, let's weigh this apropriatly, that is proportionally, to measures of mutuality and reasonability (not to mention human rights).
human rights however need fixes to. The "democracy" pretence of freedom eg. should not be the measure, becus it is actually a very desinformed and biased project.
like warcrimes cannot be fixed without transparance, questions and accusations of human rights can not.
dr.Rice 's statements that russia used disproportional violence for example are a warcrime. There is no transparance, no evidence, no objectivity, not even free media,
her statement is then a very violent one, a usual judge would punish a perpetrator that accuses the victim harder.
To her luck i must add, she is not the only one. Bush for example had no better to offer. I just don't think bush is a relevant person. Heh, miss Rice has everything,
including an amazingly valuable psotion as "most succesfull cuddle negroe in the world" a possible all times champion. I certainly allow her the honour.
Another detail here is that i don't know how she is used or abused in that position,
there might be elements of racism etc. that she can't check and compromise her role beyond herself. champion cuddle negroe not for no reason.
Obama is not a cuddle negroe, he is a horde runner on a track that is better for your legs then the sport itself.
cheers O.! sorry i can't endure Condi's escalations.
k so these are only examples. diplomatical and political abuse of the unclarity about what consists provocation, intimidation, escalation, witnessing set aside, we could still clinically sum up the directly to the ground related events that give real reason for thought.
there is the long history of georgian interference with abchazia and ossetia, the peaceforces, some russian interests in containing georgia, saaksvillis persona,
saaksviile is for one thing indicated because he uses a populist rhetoric.
He is also indicated since he didn't manage to give any relativation in any case to a russian behaviour that was modest, untill he was regarded for all his lies.
That's why from the very start saaksvilli is suspect. What he does to the georgians compares to what the taliban wants, to what the serbians stand accused of, to what the croatians did, (make it a do usually, when they got away with it), it relates to what saddam held up to his people, its the way usa and iran control their populace,
pakistani politics suffers heavily from the phenomenon, sarkozy used it, it is something that has an impact on less developed nations (but not so much the most marginal people) very strongly often, it's what hitler did:
Nationalism.
on a sidenote russia labels his digressions from humane as on par with H. and stalin.
No smoke without a fire? in the very least there must be something against him they hold don't you think?
in the first phases of the war the georgian offensive was genocidal and ethnic clensing, the target was to drive as many south ossetians as possible into russia, and eliminate any resistance, the means where the ones of the nato offensive against baghdad probably more modern, albeit probably supplemented by older material.
the (nationalist) georgian army has a sinister history of operations against civilians , an element of nationalism is that it prohibits the development of moderate views on surrounding not completely advantegeous ethnic groups.
as such it apparently didn't improve, the methods were genocidal because completely disproportionate violence was applied (miss Rice?), because civil concentrations were targeted, 10 villages completely ruined, the main city bombarded over at least a week, the occupation of that city prolonged, (the russian were very quick with telling georgia to pull back), and after that there was no real cooperation to the ceasefire for about a week from the georgian political side, (sorry if we tried to save soldiers lifes), still now saaksvilli routinely falls back into acquisations.
I think what should be clear is that this is the incident, and that these complaints should have taken seriously in the nato=world. Not in the media, and not by the political representatives. Obviously the media are handed several kinds of restrictions and requirements, very possibly there is a permanent censoring going on,
the care with what journalists express what they still can suggests this.
seriously in terms of warcrimes and genocide. The only point that could be made from the nato side was a discussion about proportion.
when is something a genocide? does 2000 people and complete ethnic cleansing of 100000 people suffice, didn't abchazia suffice?
do military victims count somehow?
apparently these questions of proportion are the ones the nato does not want to hold up in the eyes of the world..
not so strange, arming nations, blasting them back to the stone age, causing every afghan and large parts of pakistan to flee, the relevance of modern arms and the development of bases around russia (and other nations) in fact over the whole world,
wouldn't stand the light of truth.
Nothing russia can be accused of the nato hasn't done, and over plenty things that georgia did the nato did punish or prosecute, serbians, russia or iraki's with international courts.
So i think the russians are out to hand the world a chance for peace again, if the world listens up we can start to get some definition and definite agreement on the
what's and whatsnot's of warcrimes and escalation.
(finally seriously start to disarm the world)
(1) also the courts of justice
(2) unless proportion would level the victim would remain justified to a much greater extend in any action then the agressor wich in the case of the usa has not happened since their own civil war. russia what is now and as an inheritant of the soviet unions moral ground can either just be considered (self) defensive or a relative ground for blame, relative to georgia here, but also relative to accepting a unipolair world through her history. Like i said these measures would become very contrive.
Conclusion:
With the current methods and practice it is impossible to objectively apply value to warcrimes, they should be thoroughly revaluated and appreciated in their diplomatical and political contexts , because there lays much of the responsability.
The dilligent system , the delegate justice that deals an unipolair quality, must be objectified, that can only happen through transparance, including a historic perspective, a freedom of press (in the sense of reporting, not misrepresenting),
an unfreedom of media to misrepresent even. Wich is "free" media's juridical definition: the duty to report every truth, not just some or something else.
to allow extrajuridical exposes there must be transparant and reciprocal proof.
The courts need to become objective, a working model could be to involve judges and jurists from exactly these involved matches, a touchy subject for justice itself.
It's very relevant that not only the constitution but also the proceedings and procedure of the courts need to apply transparance and reciprocity.
There will be so many guilty partys and persons, states might consider to stop armsraces and wars. The usa/nato and her closer allies, must reconsider their status in terms of warcrime. As a result of that their validity in a discussion of geopolitical determination like georgia's appears moot.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
wow, is that so?
russia will no longer be forced to deal with the usual business of the nato?
mh, i guess not wha:t nato not going to continue bussiness as usual with the russians means.
People i admire the russians, they have stated now that an anti russian propaganda offensive in the world would surely not help the nato's case in georgia.
Thats brave and clear. It's also sth. that the bourgeois will deny in all chords.
It seems russia is not intend on leaving georgia at the speed nato envisioned.
Thats a very inaccurate statement btw. From here it is hard to judge in how far russia doesnt already (with gori a few kilometres from the conflict zone, much closer then the ever as close lauded tblisi), show her intends to commit to peace.
So despite the russians could have overrun most of the country they are now in a few rather fixed positions. They still dig, ofcourse digging is a required daily routine in any operational army of some name, yet it is somewhat telling.
In a few places and georgia the russians are digging in, Gori, another military town and the military georgian hub near abchazia.
(all guesswork but it follows the descriptions of the situation).
perhaps still somewhere else, the highway near gori has been mentioned.
Poti has seen a few russian patrols, but the sole need to underline former "raids",
(no, also the navy is not going to bother us), shows there was no military activity.
this in turn proofs that even a journalistically scoring alJazeera is probably limited in what they are allowed to express.
Russian-english tv seems to have somewhat disappeared from youtube. Who knows what journalism they perform..
I would bet great. her last shows a week ago that i found on youtube were impressive, well phrased, well agumented, well underbuild.
(in terms of camerawork and shots)
alJ counters with their usual subtlety, an incredibly honorous shot (for me then) of what represents HRW in georgia made my day, i still feel jolly when i think about that one. There is also am appreciable trend to bring some face value news, and to confirm through different alJ reporters. Much like with me many rather big revelations get in between the lines and are made only once.
Since i focus on human rights issues, (military) protocol and accurate information on especially military "ground" level, it will be clear i would have liked a little more consistency in even their apreciation of the topic.
Especially the ground level informations appear a bit lost in the whole nato war of words and worlds, but also matters of protocol appear to have escaped public notice.
military protocol basically is , what and when you shoot and what not, and on that line how to protect your army's interesses.
For example i have not seen an analyses of that aspect of the russian action at all,
not a single incident explains why the russians are digging somewhere, or speculates on it even, what else is gori but saaksvillis todays favourit topic of conversation?
That means there is a newsblock on anything that could explain some of the russian action to us, and the responsabiliy to do that falls on people like me.
Well Gori is symbolic and military strongly related with the whole south osseta operations of georgia, besides that it appeared to be an effective stop on georgian comfort to control Gori, from wich the russians have not convincingly or greatly advanced at all since they captured it a week ago.
otoh it is obviously also true that the current positions russia holds in georgia actually deny georgia , and i think saaksvilli, much control, but could also serve as a base for future actions.
Proably one reason the russians are in no hurry to leave all positions, is they don't feel secure about the nato.
The moment they leave georgia nato might bring in troops, to escalate it into a multinational war, nato might start making the weirdest promises and wickiest commitments.
If they are in georgia, it will be more easy to see for the world, and easier for the russians to prevent, counterfeit or moderate, all sufficient to stop this war from becoming bigger.
So russia is in a position were it might be an option to prevent georgia from becoming all that (a nato fortress or base), and this is of strategic concern for the russian international politics at the moment.
it is not so hard to explain and the west would appear more in her right (stronger) if they at least showed they understood the russians.
it seems not, the anger of the russians about the western media has to do with for example western media repeating the russian forces will draw back into russia, or south ossetian territory, when actually the bufferzone is extended, Gori might even fall well into it (i remember i wanted it (gori) a week ago so perhaps thats a russian sneak then;)
so altho the russian intend (atm) is to only leave the reinforced peacekeepers, there should be no confusion about the actual area of operation they now have negotiated. that besides obviously russia is looking for diplomatical signs of "detente" a thing nato and esp. georgia as it gets represented in nato influence sphere (the media in the most of the world) completely fail to deliver so far.
well i think even a politician could understand this, so gl with it.
mh, i guess not wha:t nato not going to continue bussiness as usual with the russians means.
People i admire the russians, they have stated now that an anti russian propaganda offensive in the world would surely not help the nato's case in georgia.
Thats brave and clear. It's also sth. that the bourgeois will deny in all chords.
It seems russia is not intend on leaving georgia at the speed nato envisioned.
Thats a very inaccurate statement btw. From here it is hard to judge in how far russia doesnt already (with gori a few kilometres from the conflict zone, much closer then the ever as close lauded tblisi), show her intends to commit to peace.
So despite the russians could have overrun most of the country they are now in a few rather fixed positions. They still dig, ofcourse digging is a required daily routine in any operational army of some name, yet it is somewhat telling.
In a few places and georgia the russians are digging in, Gori, another military town and the military georgian hub near abchazia.
(all guesswork but it follows the descriptions of the situation).
perhaps still somewhere else, the highway near gori has been mentioned.
Poti has seen a few russian patrols, but the sole need to underline former "raids",
(no, also the navy is not going to bother us), shows there was no military activity.
this in turn proofs that even a journalistically scoring alJazeera is probably limited in what they are allowed to express.
Russian-english tv seems to have somewhat disappeared from youtube. Who knows what journalism they perform..
I would bet great. her last shows a week ago that i found on youtube were impressive, well phrased, well agumented, well underbuild.
(in terms of camerawork and shots)
alJ counters with their usual subtlety, an incredibly honorous shot (for me then) of what represents HRW in georgia made my day, i still feel jolly when i think about that one. There is also am appreciable trend to bring some face value news, and to confirm through different alJ reporters. Much like with me many rather big revelations get in between the lines and are made only once.
Since i focus on human rights issues, (military) protocol and accurate information on especially military "ground" level, it will be clear i would have liked a little more consistency in even their apreciation of the topic.
Especially the ground level informations appear a bit lost in the whole nato war of words and worlds, but also matters of protocol appear to have escaped public notice.
military protocol basically is , what and when you shoot and what not, and on that line how to protect your army's interesses.
For example i have not seen an analyses of that aspect of the russian action at all,
not a single incident explains why the russians are digging somewhere, or speculates on it even, what else is gori but saaksvillis todays favourit topic of conversation?
That means there is a newsblock on anything that could explain some of the russian action to us, and the responsabiliy to do that falls on people like me.
Well Gori is symbolic and military strongly related with the whole south osseta operations of georgia, besides that it appeared to be an effective stop on georgian comfort to control Gori, from wich the russians have not convincingly or greatly advanced at all since they captured it a week ago.
otoh it is obviously also true that the current positions russia holds in georgia actually deny georgia , and i think saaksvilli, much control, but could also serve as a base for future actions.
Proably one reason the russians are in no hurry to leave all positions, is they don't feel secure about the nato.
The moment they leave georgia nato might bring in troops, to escalate it into a multinational war, nato might start making the weirdest promises and wickiest commitments.
If they are in georgia, it will be more easy to see for the world, and easier for the russians to prevent, counterfeit or moderate, all sufficient to stop this war from becoming bigger.
So russia is in a position were it might be an option to prevent georgia from becoming all that (a nato fortress or base), and this is of strategic concern for the russian international politics at the moment.
it is not so hard to explain and the west would appear more in her right (stronger) if they at least showed they understood the russians.
it seems not, the anger of the russians about the western media has to do with for example western media repeating the russian forces will draw back into russia, or south ossetian territory, when actually the bufferzone is extended, Gori might even fall well into it (i remember i wanted it (gori) a week ago so perhaps thats a russian sneak then;)
so altho the russian intend (atm) is to only leave the reinforced peacekeepers, there should be no confusion about the actual area of operation they now have negotiated. that besides obviously russia is looking for diplomatical signs of "detente" a thing nato and esp. georgia as it gets represented in nato influence sphere (the media in the most of the world) completely fail to deliver so far.
well i think even a politician could understand this, so gl with it.
1991
first this blog:
the sp. errors are piling up with the uncomfortable experience that i had actually checked some, since textdestruction is a tool of the neocon propaganda machines I get a bit pissed, little i can do either, otoh i make some sp. errors myself, but for example teh word actions in teh next article i remember i checked.
Thats why i stopped correcting them after i published the post.
long ago. The sytem used to destroy individuals text and work may show more clearly since i am such a target.
oke 1991
Do we remember 1991? Georgians definetly do. 1991? do you remember how happy we were, how we all thought now finally money would go into development instead of arms?
Yes and actually most of the world started of nice, ok admittedly 1992 and 1993 alredi showed usa was not intend of giving up hegemonic claims, perhaps also in georgia, in principle i myself was ok with how the russians/ sovjet union outlayed the new nations.
Oke i had some bythought at the entree in EG at such speed and with such clear capitalist bias, two at once, a poorer oculd only come if a richer was with it, and a greedy yes when the nations were economically promising and strategically usefull like the baltic states, however with kalinigrad quietly settling i assumed the russians can live with it. That besides, yes it makes sense, russia is a european nation, even if we never consider turning EG in a massive state, they are still a rather european nation, majorly white, blonde even (i was surprised to find them so much lighter then eg. french, esp. in haircolour), and in history, russian despotes always remained close and friendly ties to western-european ones, barring exceptions.
The claim on the baltic states is very doubtfull but the baltic claim for a historical identity stood firm, never since the christian crusades these nations have lived autonomous or in peace(well for a few years), i loved them to get their
identity, and indeed they turned into sweet little countries.
For me culture is a bigger thing then territory, when a people speak a different language i consider them a people for example, not when they own a certain amount of soil, money or (former) states institutions.
So i was happy with it, even like wow there is an armenia, and oh is the ukraine that much different? and georgia, what an ancient name, azerbeidjan and uzbekistan? it shows the russians don't discriminate either, it was a wonderfull sight.
After 1991 however hopes sooner then ayone wanted dwindled, i had suspected a quicker escalation when that became apparent, but the breaking point was the starts of the balkan wars, 1993? way to soon anyhow.
From that moment on it was ultimately clear usia still lived with coldwar rhetorics, and had nothing better to offer rhetorically, worse, many a european nation surfed on teh waves of ignorance and adapted similar hypochondriac (and as the russians justly state, cynical ) positions.
It spoiled the fun, the war for drugs and the one for terror further disturbed the picture and corrupted ideology, from here on we had to deal with megalomaniacs.(hegemonics, monopolists, imperialism)
all in all it wasted the last clear indications of detente, and left the people of the world wondering if they would know peace ever.
Now the russians made a statement, a violent one perhaps, but by far not as violent as the usual usian one, or the georgian attack, and the world is changing once again, will we finish what started in 1991 (mostly only in the former sovjet union),
or will we end on a path of intolerance, misantropy and xenophobia...
who knows, i for me will voice only for peace, screw the nato, and dr.rice hypocrasy.
detente!
teh international comments show ppl evrywhere are getting the picture straight, usia is a monster, a lie and a hypocrasy, georgia is sold out by saaksville, for his personal gains, and the people of georgia are together with their victims and policeman russia the ones to bear the brunt.
thats what perhaps the georgians forgot, war always makes victims, and if you start one yourself, some ppl will think you are the one that deserves the victim status most. I for me only want to give humanitarian aid and none that would allow saaskville to put his tank named georgia back on tracks.
curious, but scared from the nato rhetorics i await further developments.
the sp. errors are piling up with the uncomfortable experience that i had actually checked some, since textdestruction is a tool of the neocon propaganda machines I get a bit pissed, little i can do either, otoh i make some sp. errors myself, but for example teh word actions in teh next article i remember i checked.
Thats why i stopped correcting them after i published the post.
long ago. The sytem used to destroy individuals text and work may show more clearly since i am such a target.
oke 1991
Do we remember 1991? Georgians definetly do. 1991? do you remember how happy we were, how we all thought now finally money would go into development instead of arms?
Yes and actually most of the world started of nice, ok admittedly 1992 and 1993 alredi showed usa was not intend of giving up hegemonic claims, perhaps also in georgia, in principle i myself was ok with how the russians/ sovjet union outlayed the new nations.
Oke i had some bythought at the entree in EG at such speed and with such clear capitalist bias, two at once, a poorer oculd only come if a richer was with it, and a greedy yes when the nations were economically promising and strategically usefull like the baltic states, however with kalinigrad quietly settling i assumed the russians can live with it. That besides, yes it makes sense, russia is a european nation, even if we never consider turning EG in a massive state, they are still a rather european nation, majorly white, blonde even (i was surprised to find them so much lighter then eg. french, esp. in haircolour), and in history, russian despotes always remained close and friendly ties to western-european ones, barring exceptions.
The claim on the baltic states is very doubtfull but the baltic claim for a historical identity stood firm, never since the christian crusades these nations have lived autonomous or in peace(well for a few years), i loved them to get their
identity, and indeed they turned into sweet little countries.
For me culture is a bigger thing then territory, when a people speak a different language i consider them a people for example, not when they own a certain amount of soil, money or (former) states institutions.
So i was happy with it, even like wow there is an armenia, and oh is the ukraine that much different? and georgia, what an ancient name, azerbeidjan and uzbekistan? it shows the russians don't discriminate either, it was a wonderfull sight.
After 1991 however hopes sooner then ayone wanted dwindled, i had suspected a quicker escalation when that became apparent, but the breaking point was the starts of the balkan wars, 1993? way to soon anyhow.
From that moment on it was ultimately clear usia still lived with coldwar rhetorics, and had nothing better to offer rhetorically, worse, many a european nation surfed on teh waves of ignorance and adapted similar hypochondriac (and as the russians justly state, cynical ) positions.
It spoiled the fun, the war for drugs and the one for terror further disturbed the picture and corrupted ideology, from here on we had to deal with megalomaniacs.(hegemonics, monopolists, imperialism)
all in all it wasted the last clear indications of detente, and left the people of the world wondering if they would know peace ever.
Now the russians made a statement, a violent one perhaps, but by far not as violent as the usual usian one, or the georgian attack, and the world is changing once again, will we finish what started in 1991 (mostly only in the former sovjet union),
or will we end on a path of intolerance, misantropy and xenophobia...
who knows, i for me will voice only for peace, screw the nato, and dr.rice hypocrasy.
detente!
teh international comments show ppl evrywhere are getting the picture straight, usia is a monster, a lie and a hypocrasy, georgia is sold out by saaksville, for his personal gains, and the people of georgia are together with their victims and policeman russia the ones to bear the brunt.
thats what perhaps the georgians forgot, war always makes victims, and if you start one yourself, some ppl will think you are the one that deserves the victim status most. I for me only want to give humanitarian aid and none that would allow saaskville to put his tank named georgia back on tracks.
curious, but scared from the nato rhetorics i await further developments.
Monday, August 18, 2008
kaukasus
one problem with important events is that they fade to fast in the memory of many.
i really think for a future of mutuality in this world the current situation in the caucasus is the most significant event.
Gen(ret.) musharrafs resign is ofcourse a thing worth mentioning and discussing,
however if u take note of my posts or the subject you may understand i am not so sure this is a good thing to happen to pakistan.
It sure has not the looks yet, but if we can trust the pakistani radio...(noone else said so) the pakistani taliban has offered an unrestricted truce.
I don't if i think that is true, it is quite possible there are hopes a different situation can now be negotiated. ACtually i don't think it will, because my impression is the current government mostly falls back in the methods musharaf applied.
wich then they do both less mercifull and more brutal, with no musharaf to blame over it, that will show quite often.
that is because musharaf has always held a strict line in the negotiations, with no fake promises or disastrous consequences, blindly applying his methods a bit more generous or brutal won't be a great help. My guess is it is a bit late already but will take a few weeks to be realised.
otoh i think there is a rather united effort to help the refugees, and a great wish of the people to have it better then under musharaf. The ideals behind it are great, in the people, the mindset seems illogical. For the symbolic value people are most enthused and quite optimist, and i must say i have seen more dignity then i am used to in netherlands.
So lets hope i am wrong, however i have been thinking that there could be a connection between the recent interventions in pakistan and the general unrest that is felt in kashmir. So as in 'things are not quite as calm as they were'.
Karzai again blamed musharaf over the ISI. and said (i think somewhat rhetorically) he had not liked musharafs policys (his cooperation with usa) in the nation,
however he like i said mixed it with ISI allegations.
Well that ISI is and has been active in afghanistan has little doubt, the ISI allegations are less credible from my pov. it would be a strange modus operandi,
it is not quite along musharafs interests, altho perhaps according to the opinions of quite a lot of pakistani. Then again, blaming things on sympathisers from the next nation, is both a very common allegation, and a somewhat rarer case.
It can be that isi acted against some elements that would be considered really harmfull for the pakistani situation themselves and surely that karzai felt the pressure, that it tried to distract teh afghani armed resistance from pakistani opportunity's, and many other things, or none at all, a karzai hurt in his interests, seeking blame for an invader, unsure of the real connection but sure it was not afghan even.
It is said karzai is the kind of person to make ad hoc decissions on the phone, that basically means nato would still support him in rather outlandish statements.
(apparently karzai has a good memory)
you may ask what does this have to do with kaukasus,in so far it does that it also represent a nato occuparion and domination of a nation in the region.
several in fact, if not for the war for terror, pakistan had been a completely different place.
soo.. back to the subject.
the situation is complicated and painfull, russia has been complaining about georgia's military provocations time and again in the past 10 days, no attention is given in the media.
Condi rice is represented on her usual war path in the media, denying the obvious and claiming the unmatchable, so it is somewhat ahrd to be very positive.
Yet the russian intervention is considered a great succes by medvedev, who said that it met the standards that were, and are set for limited violence.
There have eben a few cluster grenades used, at least that their were not rili many bombs on gori so it probably were grenades, however the western media keeps talking about bombs, it is not sure wich side even threw them. HRW just blamed russia, then again it used what i would think a georgian accent. It is also not unthinkable a few cluster munitions have been used, for example jokingly, like: you can cluster-bomb most of lebanon unpunished, can we pls clusterbomb a tiny bit of gori when the georgians left. Things are getting obscure here.
There are certain and defintie complaints about human rights and other violations by the georgians, no nato nation however has mentioned these during the negotiations procedure publicly, this manipulation is not acceptable to me, and perhaps not to the russians.
Without that the nato can no longer cheat the population over her intends, and peace might come.
The "allies" are playing good weather, but they are ot playing fair. Russia also seems to be fed up with teh hypocrasy pressure and intimidation, and is not quite happy with a nato that swept the arguments of humane warfare and the lifes of civilians aside.
To me it seems the russians are saying, (they have been complaining about provocations today) saaksville should make a real peace. and at teh evry very least hold up to the current results.
Then again i dont get evrything the russians are doing, there is a certain amount of force or result needed before the georgian population will decide for peace and good relations. Perhaps it is hard to understand, but such an action (redraw) would have no use at all if it leads to ongoing provocations.
It is hard for georgia(or so they think), but it would be good for the world if these 2 nations opted for a durable peace, better for georgia then not doing it also.
The strange thing is i feel like getting a bit scared for the mighty russia, however so far it did live up to expectations of restraint, carefullness, and compared to most wars, great respect for civilian life.
I think it will always continue to live up to that, because it is not a very monster, neither is putin, in 1991 russia was at the ground, it is now considered a wealthy nation in the caucasus. The stability and selfconfidence putin provided keep it strong in a world where moral is often far to seek.
Ofcourse putin is a monster to my peculiar dutch standards, but russia is not netherlands, and quick transitions into foreign hands etc. are very distastefull ways of putting populaces into slaves.
There is one politician i came to trust in netherlands, wijnand duyvendak, he has recently been symbolically burned on the pyre of intolerance.
It was an awfull affront, a disgusting soap, as well.
Maybe even for his part, oh well you don't get a position for daring to have the most outspoken opinions do you? Still..
him daring to have opinions is what necked him over something everyone knew.
(at least i did and i heard it more often, he even was at tv with it in the 1970s or so)
the bourgeois values appear to be the ones prefered in the censoring of ideologys.
it turns my people into charicatures.
i want to disallow them that grotesk derailment. Like so many others before.
make him pm instead, he will have the sp problem, how to fill unlimited seats with limited candidates, but it would be so much worth to see it.
uhm thats also not about the caucasus, but it is a similarly deep link between problems and elite, between incredibility and superficousness, the propaganda there would turn into a same one, one of intolerance.
the many many many nations of the kaukasus (kurdistan, not yet kurdistan, and occupied kurdistan and all teh other kurdish people would also rather see an united kaukasus that lives in peace and loves russia with reason.
heh that makes me think lets disturb georgia somewhat more so that perhaps the caucasus people will ever have a chance in states that live with another with similar relations as the yurpeans.
thought of a joke on that. there's asians (plenty), usians, (on the ancestral ground of the native americans), and esians (europeans or yurpeans but esians would be short and comprehensive)
guess its not that funny.
le usa has nothing to be for in tibet but massmurder and warcrime, nato shoudl opt to stay away from georgia and start friendly relations with russia. It's anyhow hard to understand that is so difficult for them, russia is not far from europe in anything. Russian are very clear people with very outspoken and clear intentions,
a bit "free" they like livelyness and some noise, speaking, talk.
Russia plans to turn her state into a more decent example of "growth" economy then the nato, what integer reasons are there not to go that road together.
Just plotting a new enemy or embracing old fears is the last thing that will bring good in the kaukasus or anywhere in the world.
what goes for russia also much goes for china, neither of them would allow the excesses of capitalism, privateering, multinationalism and globalism to take root in their soils. They will love to cooperate but judge our acions with care.
So what, why can't we live with that?
that will invoke a haze of prop.. glad i forgot what, for now.
oh yeah democracy, well thats : on with obama
democracy exists.. maybe, it is called obama.
perhaps i disagree with obama but i swear i like him more then bush or mccain, and democrazy is his second name. If obama becomes president, perhaps democracy will once exist. The strange thing for me is if i dont keep stressing that obamas position is undermined faster and way more easily then i can understand,
i dont think of that as a democratical process, but as racist structures.
ofcourse obama will do better then anyone else did. isn't that obvious?
It's rather obvious.
if russia and other nations are not the great enemys of humanity they are so often insulted for (wich they are not) obama could make the change, if they are such great enemys obama could give them the hints on how to change that, because they really don't want to be enemys. Certainly not russia and china are as stupid not to realise good relations with europe and usia are essential for peace in the world either.
Nato should not be a tool in the kaukasus, it's a military organnisation that aims to create wars and tensions to sell arms, and promote some unfair form of western dominance.
It only helps them in so far they get the means to try to get new arms that are even more dominant and lethal.
It is about time to try to get peace not through fighting.
on the funny side 97% of the dutch populace now thinks polticians are only out for their own profit.
That btw. may not be all true, a major flaw of many politicians that could have good intends is actually they are to prejudiced, to aquare, to conservative in manners and opinions, to some extend politicians try to be "good" at it, although they are so hypocrit usually they might well not dare to call it social.
i guess thats why they are not suit then, not really understanding the political reality. dutch, western politicians think fooling people is the best tool to rule them. It puts them on a psychological disadvantage fortunately.
It comes with the bourgeois mentality to, the oh uh boh puh boys, machiavelli rules mentality. Dumb arrogant superficious semi intellectuality. In that sense.. soemtimes i don't know if the pretention of politics that they would be suit is such a good one. It's hardest to see your own flaws, i guess. But in promoting that mentality in netherlands, they betrayed us all. And they are bloody authistical! they will make such artificial wriggles to consider themselves over this stigma..
yet ppl, you dont really take over the ball do you?
where is wijnand duyvendak now? where are the hearts and minds of the people?
i really think for a future of mutuality in this world the current situation in the caucasus is the most significant event.
Gen(ret.) musharrafs resign is ofcourse a thing worth mentioning and discussing,
however if u take note of my posts or the subject you may understand i am not so sure this is a good thing to happen to pakistan.
It sure has not the looks yet, but if we can trust the pakistani radio...(noone else said so) the pakistani taliban has offered an unrestricted truce.
I don't if i think that is true, it is quite possible there are hopes a different situation can now be negotiated. ACtually i don't think it will, because my impression is the current government mostly falls back in the methods musharaf applied.
wich then they do both less mercifull and more brutal, with no musharaf to blame over it, that will show quite often.
that is because musharaf has always held a strict line in the negotiations, with no fake promises or disastrous consequences, blindly applying his methods a bit more generous or brutal won't be a great help. My guess is it is a bit late already but will take a few weeks to be realised.
otoh i think there is a rather united effort to help the refugees, and a great wish of the people to have it better then under musharaf. The ideals behind it are great, in the people, the mindset seems illogical. For the symbolic value people are most enthused and quite optimist, and i must say i have seen more dignity then i am used to in netherlands.
So lets hope i am wrong, however i have been thinking that there could be a connection between the recent interventions in pakistan and the general unrest that is felt in kashmir. So as in 'things are not quite as calm as they were'.
Karzai again blamed musharaf over the ISI. and said (i think somewhat rhetorically) he had not liked musharafs policys (his cooperation with usa) in the nation,
however he like i said mixed it with ISI allegations.
Well that ISI is and has been active in afghanistan has little doubt, the ISI allegations are less credible from my pov. it would be a strange modus operandi,
it is not quite along musharafs interests, altho perhaps according to the opinions of quite a lot of pakistani. Then again, blaming things on sympathisers from the next nation, is both a very common allegation, and a somewhat rarer case.
It can be that isi acted against some elements that would be considered really harmfull for the pakistani situation themselves and surely that karzai felt the pressure, that it tried to distract teh afghani armed resistance from pakistani opportunity's, and many other things, or none at all, a karzai hurt in his interests, seeking blame for an invader, unsure of the real connection but sure it was not afghan even.
It is said karzai is the kind of person to make ad hoc decissions on the phone, that basically means nato would still support him in rather outlandish statements.
(apparently karzai has a good memory)
you may ask what does this have to do with kaukasus,in so far it does that it also represent a nato occuparion and domination of a nation in the region.
several in fact, if not for the war for terror, pakistan had been a completely different place.
soo.. back to the subject.
the situation is complicated and painfull, russia has been complaining about georgia's military provocations time and again in the past 10 days, no attention is given in the media.
Condi rice is represented on her usual war path in the media, denying the obvious and claiming the unmatchable, so it is somewhat ahrd to be very positive.
Yet the russian intervention is considered a great succes by medvedev, who said that it met the standards that were, and are set for limited violence.
There have eben a few cluster grenades used, at least that their were not rili many bombs on gori so it probably were grenades, however the western media keeps talking about bombs, it is not sure wich side even threw them. HRW just blamed russia, then again it used what i would think a georgian accent. It is also not unthinkable a few cluster munitions have been used, for example jokingly, like: you can cluster-bomb most of lebanon unpunished, can we pls clusterbomb a tiny bit of gori when the georgians left. Things are getting obscure here.
There are certain and defintie complaints about human rights and other violations by the georgians, no nato nation however has mentioned these during the negotiations procedure publicly, this manipulation is not acceptable to me, and perhaps not to the russians.
Without that the nato can no longer cheat the population over her intends, and peace might come.
The "allies" are playing good weather, but they are ot playing fair. Russia also seems to be fed up with teh hypocrasy pressure and intimidation, and is not quite happy with a nato that swept the arguments of humane warfare and the lifes of civilians aside.
To me it seems the russians are saying, (they have been complaining about provocations today) saaksville should make a real peace. and at teh evry very least hold up to the current results.
Then again i dont get evrything the russians are doing, there is a certain amount of force or result needed before the georgian population will decide for peace and good relations. Perhaps it is hard to understand, but such an action (redraw) would have no use at all if it leads to ongoing provocations.
It is hard for georgia(or so they think), but it would be good for the world if these 2 nations opted for a durable peace, better for georgia then not doing it also.
The strange thing is i feel like getting a bit scared for the mighty russia, however so far it did live up to expectations of restraint, carefullness, and compared to most wars, great respect for civilian life.
I think it will always continue to live up to that, because it is not a very monster, neither is putin, in 1991 russia was at the ground, it is now considered a wealthy nation in the caucasus. The stability and selfconfidence putin provided keep it strong in a world where moral is often far to seek.
Ofcourse putin is a monster to my peculiar dutch standards, but russia is not netherlands, and quick transitions into foreign hands etc. are very distastefull ways of putting populaces into slaves.
There is one politician i came to trust in netherlands, wijnand duyvendak, he has recently been symbolically burned on the pyre of intolerance.
It was an awfull affront, a disgusting soap, as well.
Maybe even for his part, oh well you don't get a position for daring to have the most outspoken opinions do you? Still..
him daring to have opinions is what necked him over something everyone knew.
(at least i did and i heard it more often, he even was at tv with it in the 1970s or so)
the bourgeois values appear to be the ones prefered in the censoring of ideologys.
it turns my people into charicatures.
i want to disallow them that grotesk derailment. Like so many others before.
make him pm instead, he will have the sp problem, how to fill unlimited seats with limited candidates, but it would be so much worth to see it.
uhm thats also not about the caucasus, but it is a similarly deep link between problems and elite, between incredibility and superficousness, the propaganda there would turn into a same one, one of intolerance.
the many many many nations of the kaukasus (kurdistan, not yet kurdistan, and occupied kurdistan and all teh other kurdish people would also rather see an united kaukasus that lives in peace and loves russia with reason.
heh that makes me think lets disturb georgia somewhat more so that perhaps the caucasus people will ever have a chance in states that live with another with similar relations as the yurpeans.
thought of a joke on that. there's asians (plenty), usians, (on the ancestral ground of the native americans), and esians (europeans or yurpeans but esians would be short and comprehensive)
guess its not that funny.
le usa has nothing to be for in tibet but massmurder and warcrime, nato shoudl opt to stay away from georgia and start friendly relations with russia. It's anyhow hard to understand that is so difficult for them, russia is not far from europe in anything. Russian are very clear people with very outspoken and clear intentions,
a bit "free" they like livelyness and some noise, speaking, talk.
Russia plans to turn her state into a more decent example of "growth" economy then the nato, what integer reasons are there not to go that road together.
Just plotting a new enemy or embracing old fears is the last thing that will bring good in the kaukasus or anywhere in the world.
what goes for russia also much goes for china, neither of them would allow the excesses of capitalism, privateering, multinationalism and globalism to take root in their soils. They will love to cooperate but judge our acions with care.
So what, why can't we live with that?
that will invoke a haze of prop.. glad i forgot what, for now.
oh yeah democracy, well thats : on with obama
democracy exists.. maybe, it is called obama.
perhaps i disagree with obama but i swear i like him more then bush or mccain, and democrazy is his second name. If obama becomes president, perhaps democracy will once exist. The strange thing for me is if i dont keep stressing that obamas position is undermined faster and way more easily then i can understand,
i dont think of that as a democratical process, but as racist structures.
ofcourse obama will do better then anyone else did. isn't that obvious?
It's rather obvious.
if russia and other nations are not the great enemys of humanity they are so often insulted for (wich they are not) obama could make the change, if they are such great enemys obama could give them the hints on how to change that, because they really don't want to be enemys. Certainly not russia and china are as stupid not to realise good relations with europe and usia are essential for peace in the world either.
Nato should not be a tool in the kaukasus, it's a military organnisation that aims to create wars and tensions to sell arms, and promote some unfair form of western dominance.
It only helps them in so far they get the means to try to get new arms that are even more dominant and lethal.
It is about time to try to get peace not through fighting.
on the funny side 97% of the dutch populace now thinks polticians are only out for their own profit.
That btw. may not be all true, a major flaw of many politicians that could have good intends is actually they are to prejudiced, to aquare, to conservative in manners and opinions, to some extend politicians try to be "good" at it, although they are so hypocrit usually they might well not dare to call it social.
i guess thats why they are not suit then, not really understanding the political reality. dutch, western politicians think fooling people is the best tool to rule them. It puts them on a psychological disadvantage fortunately.
It comes with the bourgeois mentality to, the oh uh boh puh boys, machiavelli rules mentality. Dumb arrogant superficious semi intellectuality. In that sense.. soemtimes i don't know if the pretention of politics that they would be suit is such a good one. It's hardest to see your own flaws, i guess. But in promoting that mentality in netherlands, they betrayed us all. And they are bloody authistical! they will make such artificial wriggles to consider themselves over this stigma..
yet ppl, you dont really take over the ball do you?
where is wijnand duyvendak now? where are the hearts and minds of the people?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Stalini
hard for the voice of reason to have to answer the same remarks over and over again in the face of significant events.
(i am talking about forum trash, spam that is dedicated to lead back the ideas of readers of a forum to prejudices that are hard to negate, yet mere lies and repetitions of dirty insults, a way the propaganda of the media gets professionally stressed and underlined by media, internet media more then any.)
as an example all the dutch newspapers published an article about the former railways
saying there is no chipcard reader that cannot apply a calculation on the distance travelled like the one we always used.
Now it is sad they want the people to pay twice more for every time the price is raised, it is ridiculous i live in a nation where everyone believes that crap.
very near everyone.
I guess thats where my sympathy for ppl like musharaf and stalin comes from.
Stalin is to some extend my ideal, a proactive revolutionairy, some that killed butchery through blood. He may have been a fool and a monster, yet he was one that fought monsters.
Ofcourse like all of us i am told he is one big horror of horror of horrors and (oh horror) one could (oh horror) never , in eternal time (oh horror) think of something good to say (oh horror) over anything (get the creeps).
That i understood so i am not out for any discussion when i entrust on you i think stalin might have realised what crap about the " private" railways was..
private railway.. guess were we are heading..
People when ur all locked in cages and the "privates" can run in their private railways, don't say i didn't warn you.
this is so pukeprovoking i don't even feel like writing poetry about stalin anymore.
(i am talking about forum trash, spam that is dedicated to lead back the ideas of readers of a forum to prejudices that are hard to negate, yet mere lies and repetitions of dirty insults, a way the propaganda of the media gets professionally stressed and underlined by media, internet media more then any.)
as an example all the dutch newspapers published an article about the former railways
saying there is no chipcard reader that cannot apply a calculation on the distance travelled like the one we always used.
Now it is sad they want the people to pay twice more for every time the price is raised, it is ridiculous i live in a nation where everyone believes that crap.
very near everyone.
I guess thats where my sympathy for ppl like musharaf and stalin comes from.
Stalin is to some extend my ideal, a proactive revolutionairy, some that killed butchery through blood. He may have been a fool and a monster, yet he was one that fought monsters.
Ofcourse like all of us i am told he is one big horror of horror of horrors and (oh horror) one could (oh horror) never , in eternal time (oh horror) think of something good to say (oh horror) over anything (get the creeps).
That i understood so i am not out for any discussion when i entrust on you i think stalin might have realised what crap about the " private" railways was..
private railway.. guess were we are heading..
People when ur all locked in cages and the "privates" can run in their private railways, don't say i didn't warn you.
this is so pukeprovoking i don't even feel like writing poetry about stalin anymore.
the future
every day in the big world and the small (netherlands) things happen that destine the future. I don't want to say your future or our future, but also that is true.
Usually you would want things to have only a positive influence on the future, for some reason i think of that of others more then my own, the future of animals and plants for example.
But basically like my political theatre turned to be the international over the national, future got related with future of humans strongly. And all these humans they live in one or more future states, and apply some future rights. If anything at all.
So everything that is decided now, has an impact on these futures, and everything that is said can have a result for that future.
Basically even if i say nothing things will be said and done, "decided" that will force the future into a shape.
This makes the subject to wide however, i might as well say something because the future will anyhow have a shape.
At least i know it will, every day i am painfully aware that things said, (mine eg.),
positions taken (merkels eg.) or "decissions" made (wijnand duyvendak) have an impact on the future and i want to be pretty clear about it.
Basically for miss merkel i have this, i don't know what she is at, but the geopolitical ordre of peace and stability has considered the following things considering georgia of wich she gave no sign of noticing: (It's a long list)
the cold war is over. That is hard to cope , deal with and understand for anyone,
but from the humanist point a war that is over need not be rekindled.
If Merkel wants to fight russia over something, she could use the words and structures of the current days to fight it.
We don't fight Merkel over h. so she as a proper human would not need to fight russia over it's past. However if this is not her fear and mistake, miss merkel, she is a very different camp, we must then consider her a strawwoman then, ready to be hired for escalation.
Then considering georgia. The Nato didnt win a war , russia did, it won the war of georgians against south ossetians and probably abchazians to. As a result russia was and still is in a position to degrade georgias military capacities, a thing that concerning saaksvillis methods seems like something of a preventive measure, and considering his ambitions slightly more so. (Nato membership) well people may be a member of anything except an organisation that uses criminal eg. violent methods.(like the nato btw)There are absolutely strong signals nato is doing her best to achieve a offensive position against russia.
Not only against russia, obviously many other nations are considered potential spheres of influence, but in this case that is not the subject.
The human and economical costs that come with military action of that kind (interventions, occupations, invasions) is one that should be reduced to an absolute minimum.
A thing russia tried and to a great extend achieved if you compare the georgian situation to the usual " invasion or occupation" (saaskvilles words).
There is absolutely no doubt that the current "World ordre" much characterised by deceipt and lie, intimidation and military violence, will not be the one to bring the nations together for peeace.
To bring the world together we need a thing often called justice. justice and military alliances, intimidation and mutilated news don't go together.
not with the justice we need. (as opposed to the one there is)
Practically it means russia is left little option in the negotiations, but to somehow continue a preventive military action on georgia, that future nato state that can do anything, just because it is not with the russians, called slaves by other europeans.
The agreement for a redrawal includes an agreement that the georgians return to their bases and occupy themselves with peacetasks, it is very brutal and insane to try to apply that as a diplomatic victory over russia from nato.
It means merkel, the west, has no objections to russia killing georgians as they will only use it as the excuse they were looking for.
That is not the way russia wishes, or the world should wish to run these negotiations. For me merkel lost any inspiration, i really think she is like the dutch government, and in the case less constructive in practice then even condoleeza rice (that might have been better then the dutch "news" showed as it appeared an awkward cut, she actually really achieved that russia will try to negotiate for a situation of complete military disengagement (with georgian forces preventively, because they are preoccupied with occupying south ossetia and abchazia still.)
Merkel one of "that" side, the side of repression and intolerance, the side that with sneaky decissions not only encrouches on russia , but is also having daily repercussions on our daily european life, encrouches on us. An insignificant one it seems. Yet a dangerous tool.
That, is the matter of authority, the usual system tries to moderate society through authority (not through justice aka sense) teh rsult of that is that every of their strategys contributes to the actual state of repression,
The whole internal dutch , and ofcourse also the european policy, is much dedicated to that strong and superior position of the rule, the state , over people, one result of that is that the external policy is also authoritarian, as such it fails to improve on the world in a similar way as it fails to secure social improvement on a structural scale most anywhere.
I don't want to go into details.
we live in a ridiculous world, ruled through a sad bunch of people, that vow for blood instead of looking for a future.
Usually you would want things to have only a positive influence on the future, for some reason i think of that of others more then my own, the future of animals and plants for example.
But basically like my political theatre turned to be the international over the national, future got related with future of humans strongly. And all these humans they live in one or more future states, and apply some future rights. If anything at all.
So everything that is decided now, has an impact on these futures, and everything that is said can have a result for that future.
Basically even if i say nothing things will be said and done, "decided" that will force the future into a shape.
This makes the subject to wide however, i might as well say something because the future will anyhow have a shape.
At least i know it will, every day i am painfully aware that things said, (mine eg.),
positions taken (merkels eg.) or "decissions" made (wijnand duyvendak) have an impact on the future and i want to be pretty clear about it.
Basically for miss merkel i have this, i don't know what she is at, but the geopolitical ordre of peace and stability has considered the following things considering georgia of wich she gave no sign of noticing: (It's a long list)
the cold war is over. That is hard to cope , deal with and understand for anyone,
but from the humanist point a war that is over need not be rekindled.
If Merkel wants to fight russia over something, she could use the words and structures of the current days to fight it.
We don't fight Merkel over h. so she as a proper human would not need to fight russia over it's past. However if this is not her fear and mistake, miss merkel, she is a very different camp, we must then consider her a strawwoman then, ready to be hired for escalation.
Then considering georgia. The Nato didnt win a war , russia did, it won the war of georgians against south ossetians and probably abchazians to. As a result russia was and still is in a position to degrade georgias military capacities, a thing that concerning saaksvillis methods seems like something of a preventive measure, and considering his ambitions slightly more so. (Nato membership) well people may be a member of anything except an organisation that uses criminal eg. violent methods.(like the nato btw)There are absolutely strong signals nato is doing her best to achieve a offensive position against russia.
Not only against russia, obviously many other nations are considered potential spheres of influence, but in this case that is not the subject.
The human and economical costs that come with military action of that kind (interventions, occupations, invasions) is one that should be reduced to an absolute minimum.
A thing russia tried and to a great extend achieved if you compare the georgian situation to the usual " invasion or occupation" (saaskvilles words).
There is absolutely no doubt that the current "World ordre" much characterised by deceipt and lie, intimidation and military violence, will not be the one to bring the nations together for peeace.
To bring the world together we need a thing often called justice. justice and military alliances, intimidation and mutilated news don't go together.
not with the justice we need. (as opposed to the one there is)
Practically it means russia is left little option in the negotiations, but to somehow continue a preventive military action on georgia, that future nato state that can do anything, just because it is not with the russians, called slaves by other europeans.
The agreement for a redrawal includes an agreement that the georgians return to their bases and occupy themselves with peacetasks, it is very brutal and insane to try to apply that as a diplomatic victory over russia from nato.
It means merkel, the west, has no objections to russia killing georgians as they will only use it as the excuse they were looking for.
That is not the way russia wishes, or the world should wish to run these negotiations. For me merkel lost any inspiration, i really think she is like the dutch government, and in the case less constructive in practice then even condoleeza rice (that might have been better then the dutch "news" showed as it appeared an awkward cut, she actually really achieved that russia will try to negotiate for a situation of complete military disengagement (with georgian forces preventively, because they are preoccupied with occupying south ossetia and abchazia still.)
Merkel one of "that" side, the side of repression and intolerance, the side that with sneaky decissions not only encrouches on russia , but is also having daily repercussions on our daily european life, encrouches on us. An insignificant one it seems. Yet a dangerous tool.
That, is the matter of authority, the usual system tries to moderate society through authority (not through justice aka sense) teh rsult of that is that every of their strategys contributes to the actual state of repression,
The whole internal dutch , and ofcourse also the european policy, is much dedicated to that strong and superior position of the rule, the state , over people, one result of that is that the external policy is also authoritarian, as such it fails to improve on the world in a similar way as it fails to secure social improvement on a structural scale most anywhere.
I don't want to go into details.
we live in a ridiculous world, ruled through a sad bunch of people, that vow for blood instead of looking for a future.
Friday, August 15, 2008
china
there was an interview with a chinese activist in a dutch paper, a somewhat sad story perhaps, yet, the activist complained about two things that made me smile,
the funniest was he said the chinese lacked individuality, well, so do 99% of westerners. Thus that is funny, the second thing was he wasnt allowed to publish negatively about olympics.
i guess his position must be lousier then mine (his income sure seemed better and international), but i am also hardly allowed (remain unpublished), to write a negative thing about olympics, worse, even if i write positive things about olympics, i still dont get the acces..
this is for him, like i say, perhaps its worse there, but to me it seems the same.
PS. he is not rili an activist, the real activists are poor and victimised, often dead. People like him with a secure position actually have the profit from these sufferings. This is everywhere not only in china, even me you can consider a profiteer in that sense, evrywhere on the planet ppl are locked up and worse, and despite i rule my mouth, they are the greater victim.
This wole context has not much attention in he world, that is because locking opponetnts up under suspicious grounds (activism, psychiatrics, criminal charges)
is the most common thing in all nations. At some point in time methods will be needed to evaluate the aspect since you can't get a decent analyses of the human rights situation without such analyses. Itis a thing of the future because most people (same 99%) understand this kind of repression only outside their own nation, power-block and context.
the funniest was he said the chinese lacked individuality, well, so do 99% of westerners. Thus that is funny, the second thing was he wasnt allowed to publish negatively about olympics.
i guess his position must be lousier then mine (his income sure seemed better and international), but i am also hardly allowed (remain unpublished), to write a negative thing about olympics, worse, even if i write positive things about olympics, i still dont get the acces..
this is for him, like i say, perhaps its worse there, but to me it seems the same.
PS. he is not rili an activist, the real activists are poor and victimised, often dead. People like him with a secure position actually have the profit from these sufferings. This is everywhere not only in china, even me you can consider a profiteer in that sense, evrywhere on the planet ppl are locked up and worse, and despite i rule my mouth, they are the greater victim.
This wole context has not much attention in he world, that is because locking opponetnts up under suspicious grounds (activism, psychiatrics, criminal charges)
is the most common thing in all nations. At some point in time methods will be needed to evaluate the aspect since you can't get a decent analyses of the human rights situation without such analyses. Itis a thing of the future because most people (same 99%) understand this kind of repression only outside their own nation, power-block and context.
errata HRW
I made a few mistakes in my analyses of the past days, (at least 1) that i want to correct.
Firstly in my posting on zimbabwe, i confused arthur mutambaro(?), with the presidential candidate that represented the younger faction of ZANU. Or the press confused his political alliance at the time of the elections.(with the 2 both named arthur it is what i actually think.)
Heh, i am glad i settled that. It is also possible that western media outlets prefer renegade mdc over renegade zanu, and even that his agreeing to zanu was related with me confusing his allegiance. However tsvangirai again walked out..
And mugabe still limiting his moves. So its not a process with a great pace.
I must say i understand tsvangirai position is harder then mugabes. Mugabe has a win win situation on hand. Either a constructive agreement with mdc can be made, wich would bear great guarantee for zimbabwe military and political independence, or the result is negative for MDC and he will continue his own (power conservative) policys.
great win, or no change from the current situation then for him.
Tsvangirai otoh is confronted with consessions. He is not rili allowed to become president, sth that both personally (a bit weird that) as politically bothers him, he wants "the position of mugabe" esp. the power connected. We have to forgive him that because he does indeed have the political ambitions to make big changes, from his perspective he could only do so from the position mugabe is in.
A bit shortsighted perhaps but in the eye of compromise still understandable, he does want to make sure he is in a position to make changes politically.
From several sources it seems however tsvangirai will not be ready for concessions, his international backers have a wishlist, thats one, the concessions asked from him are (i pressume) partly political ones, (having to do with foreign influence/interests and investment)These may well contradict the foreign wishlist, and also he himself is in a mood "not to wait another 4 years". Wich you might call the domestic aspect.
Personally i support mugabes policy to find political guarantee for the former colony. In that sense i disagree with the western powers that practically want their hands free to cheat in an uncontrollable fashion. Administration and burocratic reports are uncontrollable to the public.
Wich brings me to the next subject.. Human rights watch....
Firstly i strongly support independend rights organisations, amnesty having failed the barr of independence, now human rights watch is the first to attack russia..
so far so good. human rights are the ebst thing we have and the attention is of great importance. BUT!
human rights watch did check georgian villages to find proof of destruction, (?) called attrocious by usa(..) did report on inhumane crimes perpetrated tehre (backed down to destruction now tho(?). However they didnt check anything the georgians did, or report on georgia n actions. That they did not.
so thats the next human rights organisation to disappear to the dustbin of history.
I dont want anyone to claim over human rigths and still be biased.
These organisations that do that are among the guilty ones behind the massmurder and massmurder through military means. Not georgia, no bosnia, irak, afghanistan vietnam, in each case they have been abusing human rights to apply more violence.
Done with human rights watch thus. Its just a replacement for amnesty with standard nato block desinformation and possibly lies. (the thought georgia or its partners murdered its own civilians to blame russia occured to me easily (..)
That besides there is no sign of objectivity, it is a gross shame the world is like this at this point in time.
Also perhaps i failed to clear up that the situation is not over, can't be over as long as western governments are spreading lies and desinforming their public.
The west and nato have encrouched on russia unabatedly ever since 1991, it makes no sense to wait for future agression, further encrouchment and more preparations for a war that would no doubt be attrocious and inhumane, teh one against russia.
Russia is not dealing with independent nations, it is dealing with an agressive imperialist pact. that has shown no mercy when killing millions. To just wait and wait untill you are the ideal target, is not an option.
Only a make over, and swipe, of international policys and its purposes will really bring an end to the situation, and perhaps by being annoyingly apparent in georgia russia is making that point.
A destabilised planet should be ready to watch its history, in that sense the kossovo case and the russian complaints about that should have been (and still be) headed more attention.
Its very hard to draw the line between humanitarian intervention and agression in georgia, however considering usia feat of kossovo eg. support should be with russia.
This is a clash of ideologys, the ideology of truth (russia) and the oen of lies and desinformation (western capitalist block). I dont think russia will let it be solved to no consequences.
Practically georgian guarantees could fill that need, after all a restabilised caucasus and a safe side in the south would be enough gains for russia to settle.
For this it appears imperative the government of georgia changes. Saaksavilli has been consistently lieing about what went of in georgia and trying to rally his people back to violence on nationalistic grounds. Nazis dont easily let go their grip on power. people that have their power base in populist nationalist sentiments will always be willing to apply violent and racist methods.
Plus he is bought, he is in a camp, the camp that wants human rights to be an excuse for violence, no matter that both sides do equally bad or they are worse themselves.
Sorry for him, sorry for georgia, sorry for all of us even more, but that is how things are, and what will decide our future.
Firstly in my posting on zimbabwe, i confused arthur mutambaro(?), with the presidential candidate that represented the younger faction of ZANU. Or the press confused his political alliance at the time of the elections.(with the 2 both named arthur it is what i actually think.)
Heh, i am glad i settled that. It is also possible that western media outlets prefer renegade mdc over renegade zanu, and even that his agreeing to zanu was related with me confusing his allegiance. However tsvangirai again walked out..
And mugabe still limiting his moves. So its not a process with a great pace.
I must say i understand tsvangirai position is harder then mugabes. Mugabe has a win win situation on hand. Either a constructive agreement with mdc can be made, wich would bear great guarantee for zimbabwe military and political independence, or the result is negative for MDC and he will continue his own (power conservative) policys.
great win, or no change from the current situation then for him.
Tsvangirai otoh is confronted with consessions. He is not rili allowed to become president, sth that both personally (a bit weird that) as politically bothers him, he wants "the position of mugabe" esp. the power connected. We have to forgive him that because he does indeed have the political ambitions to make big changes, from his perspective he could only do so from the position mugabe is in.
A bit shortsighted perhaps but in the eye of compromise still understandable, he does want to make sure he is in a position to make changes politically.
From several sources it seems however tsvangirai will not be ready for concessions, his international backers have a wishlist, thats one, the concessions asked from him are (i pressume) partly political ones, (having to do with foreign influence/interests and investment)These may well contradict the foreign wishlist, and also he himself is in a mood "not to wait another 4 years". Wich you might call the domestic aspect.
Personally i support mugabes policy to find political guarantee for the former colony. In that sense i disagree with the western powers that practically want their hands free to cheat in an uncontrollable fashion. Administration and burocratic reports are uncontrollable to the public.
Wich brings me to the next subject.. Human rights watch....
Firstly i strongly support independend rights organisations, amnesty having failed the barr of independence, now human rights watch is the first to attack russia..
so far so good. human rights are the ebst thing we have and the attention is of great importance. BUT!
human rights watch did check georgian villages to find proof of destruction, (?) called attrocious by usa(..) did report on inhumane crimes perpetrated tehre (backed down to destruction now tho(?). However they didnt check anything the georgians did, or report on georgia n actions. That they did not.
so thats the next human rights organisation to disappear to the dustbin of history.
I dont want anyone to claim over human rigths and still be biased.
These organisations that do that are among the guilty ones behind the massmurder and massmurder through military means. Not georgia, no bosnia, irak, afghanistan vietnam, in each case they have been abusing human rights to apply more violence.
Done with human rights watch thus. Its just a replacement for amnesty with standard nato block desinformation and possibly lies. (the thought georgia or its partners murdered its own civilians to blame russia occured to me easily (..)
That besides there is no sign of objectivity, it is a gross shame the world is like this at this point in time.
Also perhaps i failed to clear up that the situation is not over, can't be over as long as western governments are spreading lies and desinforming their public.
The west and nato have encrouched on russia unabatedly ever since 1991, it makes no sense to wait for future agression, further encrouchment and more preparations for a war that would no doubt be attrocious and inhumane, teh one against russia.
Russia is not dealing with independent nations, it is dealing with an agressive imperialist pact. that has shown no mercy when killing millions. To just wait and wait untill you are the ideal target, is not an option.
Only a make over, and swipe, of international policys and its purposes will really bring an end to the situation, and perhaps by being annoyingly apparent in georgia russia is making that point.
A destabilised planet should be ready to watch its history, in that sense the kossovo case and the russian complaints about that should have been (and still be) headed more attention.
Its very hard to draw the line between humanitarian intervention and agression in georgia, however considering usia feat of kossovo eg. support should be with russia.
This is a clash of ideologys, the ideology of truth (russia) and the oen of lies and desinformation (western capitalist block). I dont think russia will let it be solved to no consequences.
Practically georgian guarantees could fill that need, after all a restabilised caucasus and a safe side in the south would be enough gains for russia to settle.
For this it appears imperative the government of georgia changes. Saaksavilli has been consistently lieing about what went of in georgia and trying to rally his people back to violence on nationalistic grounds. Nazis dont easily let go their grip on power. people that have their power base in populist nationalist sentiments will always be willing to apply violent and racist methods.
Plus he is bought, he is in a camp, the camp that wants human rights to be an excuse for violence, no matter that both sides do equally bad or they are worse themselves.
Sorry for him, sorry for georgia, sorry for all of us even more, but that is how things are, and what will decide our future.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
georgians
in a situation like this u need an analysis of evrything, so i was thinking with condi on the road, how are georgians. Digging in my memory i recovered this, they are the most russian people i ever met. Nowadyas russians look a bit different, more mixed perhaps, but georgians looked like russians ever did. If there should be one nations people who are absolutely indistinct from russians it's georgians, except perhaps east ukrainians. They don't look like white russians or the asian types, not like the kaukasians even, perhaps a bit like rumanians tho, for the rest they hace incredibly russian looks. Show me a georgian i tell you a russian.
You may say either the georgians are the most russian kurds i ever met, or the russians are the most northern kurdish, but georgia and russia should not be fighting.
There is this whole planet of very different people, and of all these the georgish fight the ones that looks the most alike them, claiming big differences.
To make it worse the much huger and very similar partner has to protect minoritys in a nation that should be her pride, she has to protect russians from people that look like russians. Admittedly they behave like thoroughbred capitalists, targetting a small but least crucial minority for an overwhelming offensive of splendid new military toy.
It may be genocidal what georgia does. Russia said so. and the brutality of the initial georgian attack appears to warrant that, not genocide on the hugest scale with only 100k south ossetians existing and displaced. genocide on the scale that it hits south ossetians.
control and power in the world should be matters of responsability. The capability to answer humane requirements, a western block that denies the obvious, and does not want to apply limit and measure to violence consequently must be considered an instable element in matters of the preservation of planet earth and worldpeace.
So just like the russians the georgians don't always know how to make friends best.
they are the same, would saaksville be in the kremlin the exact same events would take place, would medvedev have ruled georgia bush would have thought him an amateur.
that foreign nations occupy hirelings without any restriction or consent shan't be a surprise in capitalism. Them georgians aren't stupid.
Except perhaps for asking new radarparts, strangely the russians had an opinion of that joke. Don't ask me why, the russians themselfes were at some point willing to receive a brand new radar, didn't get them ofcourse.
nah its simple, i bet it is the thing tends to make the russians bleed.
so if you think things over even a little obscured information can give somewhat precise impressions of what is going on. But for me it doesn't suffice.
we need observations on the ground, how can you belief the storys if evrything saaksvilli said was untrue and not evrything the russians said can be true.
It's a mess, a small one, perhaps, but still. Army's apparently can't massively maintain a protocol. against a lying opponent you will not fight fair, etc. the public opinion offesive in the west is ongoing, they are not ready to positively word anything over russia. For example the media keep writing sarkizy brokered a deal, when in fact it went in before medvedev met sarkozy.
there is almost certainly a lot and mostly truth behind that georgia resurged into offenisve operations all the past days, so what is going on now still, is also in the mist. obviously not all operations have seized completely, now and then the russian army is active in or around gori for example. That is then turned into all kinds of alarming informations, when i read a next one. i have my doubts.
every night a shaker in the headlines? usual stuf? plain fog of warrish desinformation? perhaps really sth.? The longer this lasts the less russia will be able to claim in terms of honour maybe, the only thing that would answer that would be if we can independedly verify that, that we are not decently briefed in these matters shows there is sth wrong. with us.
You may say either the georgians are the most russian kurds i ever met, or the russians are the most northern kurdish, but georgia and russia should not be fighting.
There is this whole planet of very different people, and of all these the georgish fight the ones that looks the most alike them, claiming big differences.
To make it worse the much huger and very similar partner has to protect minoritys in a nation that should be her pride, she has to protect russians from people that look like russians. Admittedly they behave like thoroughbred capitalists, targetting a small but least crucial minority for an overwhelming offensive of splendid new military toy.
It may be genocidal what georgia does. Russia said so. and the brutality of the initial georgian attack appears to warrant that, not genocide on the hugest scale with only 100k south ossetians existing and displaced. genocide on the scale that it hits south ossetians.
control and power in the world should be matters of responsability. The capability to answer humane requirements, a western block that denies the obvious, and does not want to apply limit and measure to violence consequently must be considered an instable element in matters of the preservation of planet earth and worldpeace.
So just like the russians the georgians don't always know how to make friends best.
they are the same, would saaksville be in the kremlin the exact same events would take place, would medvedev have ruled georgia bush would have thought him an amateur.
that foreign nations occupy hirelings without any restriction or consent shan't be a surprise in capitalism. Them georgians aren't stupid.
Except perhaps for asking new radarparts, strangely the russians had an opinion of that joke. Don't ask me why, the russians themselfes were at some point willing to receive a brand new radar, didn't get them ofcourse.
nah its simple, i bet it is the thing tends to make the russians bleed.
so if you think things over even a little obscured information can give somewhat precise impressions of what is going on. But for me it doesn't suffice.
we need observations on the ground, how can you belief the storys if evrything saaksvilli said was untrue and not evrything the russians said can be true.
It's a mess, a small one, perhaps, but still. Army's apparently can't massively maintain a protocol. against a lying opponent you will not fight fair, etc. the public opinion offesive in the west is ongoing, they are not ready to positively word anything over russia. For example the media keep writing sarkizy brokered a deal, when in fact it went in before medvedev met sarkozy.
there is almost certainly a lot and mostly truth behind that georgia resurged into offenisve operations all the past days, so what is going on now still, is also in the mist. obviously not all operations have seized completely, now and then the russian army is active in or around gori for example. That is then turned into all kinds of alarming informations, when i read a next one. i have my doubts.
every night a shaker in the headlines? usual stuf? plain fog of warrish desinformation? perhaps really sth.? The longer this lasts the less russia will be able to claim in terms of honour maybe, the only thing that would answer that would be if we can independedly verify that, that we are not decently briefed in these matters shows there is sth wrong. with us.
musharaf
musharaf looked pretty embarrassed recently, he knows i have a hell of an impression of him, and ofcourse next to his other worrys its not easy to get the extra ethical and emotional show going to show every such quality to everyone.
ANd then he is under severe fire. AlJ dont really liked my comments on the case,
wich must be because i have a strong admiration for the mans political (not so much diplomatical) skills. He is not a fortunate man for politics, because his skills are unevenly distributed, if he had a quarter of the charisma that he has compassion he would probably be fine, but he only has like a fifth. he is a military and civil organiser of high quality and great conscience, yet he is said to display quite some repression, (i didnt witness it so much, when i was more into pakistan, there was rili no indications of files of disappeared persons in pakistan, some repression must be expected in the destabilised region, i liked that they bombed the red mosque in a show, like i like russia made a deliberate win over georgia if u do it, do it fine and if u do it and do it fine, do it good, matter of being fair about things. Plays a role i distinctly disliked his 'young martyrs' and (perhaps naive, considering the general malreporting of the media his speeches, also the fact a big city and governmental stability was in play, (security issues) played a role.
nuf said, probs was me who cooked it up, not sure, usia agreed, mush was not left much choice, guess he had the fun as well. Great, fair. we are the killers, we have all the arms, but the right of the person on the person goes over everything.
even the right on freedom of belief.
A belief is not free when the person is not free, so that is just plain and logical.
The pakistani army has behaved up to every expectation, if musharaf needs and wants i think he can count on it. Not to forfill his ordres, but to save pakistan or his skin. The impulse to apply this compliment to russia concerning the methods and scales applied against georgia is strong, but let's say there is still alot of smoke over the battlefield to go that far. i think it is a great compliment although i am not always as happy with their deployment.
Musharaf is really a fascinating person. his military genius is more tactical and political then strategical tho, he's rather a strategic failure i think. But he well knows after a few mistakes, and also in the geopolitical respect he has been showing a lot of reason the past few years. His tactical and political military quality itself again is quite huge. i would trust him a mobile position over an offensive or perhaps even defensive. So even musharaf is a man of limited capacitys, when it is about pakistan, the region, or matters of more general international importance he can be trusted, when it is about the greatests of geopolitical questionmarks, indias position, nucleair capacity and probably about his actual methods of control but i am not sure, to some extend sharif and zardari already did everything else noone ever wanted, fire up the war in the north, i might prefer anyone else.
then again like i said he seems to have left militairy roads in huge geopolitical questions wich is the sensible thing to do.
For him more so because he can operate on the level he is best at.
Basically saving the pakistani nations. It's where the english analysts got now,
sheet he saved teh poor blokes past decade, and what else could keep sharif or zardari in check.. very outspokenly so, mh.. could have sth to do with some major bookkeeping of mine, fun that. thumbs up blokes that's pretty great.
Quite a feat really.
Perhaps i think it is an hallucination tho. Whatever, and they check on musharaf? well it makes sense, what else then an institute that can moderate military measures,
and prevent abuse of law could check such a situation, altho i doubt sharif or zardari should be considered for such great dignification.
That besides, and then? who of them will become president? Sharif knows his cards are well, he is identified with the muslim aspect. well perhaps musharaf doesnt rili have that ambition, and even perhaps sharif is not unsuit in that role, personally i think musharaf a better representant of the wahabi kind of moderate modern islam i like most. (i like the synthetic one) i also admit i dont rili care much about religion, but i insist i admire inspiration.
Zardari for his part would bet he wins because the international backers would have no options left, it means sharif would win because if the international backers weighted into the pakistani scales firstly westerners would have a very much fascinated and probably negative opinion about the lawyers, not just cheer because they protest musharaf over formalitys when so much is happening, it's a bit weaker perhaps because musharaf at some point claimed state of national emergency, wich constitutes to much of a wrinkle in the surface of procedure, untill that point the developments should have been evaluated, and it is hard to understand not all the world got interested ,(see there the reason btw. for the idiotic reporting and lack of fantasy)
so that old pakistani grudge at least has been solved..
its not for no reason i am so anti islam in this post, i almost included some dedicated declaration of non-islamism in this post, but there is no need, atheism and secularism should suffice.
i am as dedicated anti christian as china, probably more. And chinese are not supposed to waste food on dead people either.
Don't you think bush is a hypocrit?
You think you can be a "christian" in the 20th century? when ur the sun of a president???
i don't, yeah maybe in malaysia or Jemen, not in the usa. What bush thinks about the saakasvilli, is almost directly related to what i consider his perceptions of religion, he thinks: you would think , if you think it is mad what he is doing, it is the same kind of things in him that in me you think are mad i am doing. Well he's got some pretences, but as mad as he is doing over religion and indeed nationalist fears etc. , is exactly mad enough. The problem is despite i always disliked bush policy's, i always refused to consider him an outright madman, for the dumb reason that sometimes when i made sense it made sense to him. So what i think maddest at him is his war speeches etc. the idiotic comparisons, axes of evil, etc. allies..
and terrorists, being like that, always expressing a hypocrit picture of pittyfullness and hurt interests, and declaring the rest of the world is a collection of mediocre bastards, that i think maddest.
so he is mad, limited even, but to some extend he makes sense, i dont give a damn to bomb ppl that lock themselves up anyway and turn their kids into medieval persona, makes some sense. I don't give a damn about tribal and burocratic positions would have been nice to, but the west is a bit dumb, and thinks like : a servant is a servant and then it will be ok.
so despite he is not in ordre he's been trying to make some starts, he himself has probably been a greater levy on taxmoney then individual freedoms in usa, for his symbolic value.
He can be rather funny too, he is not very narrowminded like many people.
war on drugs..
hilarious
war on terror is plain sad from my pov.
mordor
we are the only ones allowed to terrorise...
insane
all the drugs are ours...
yeah some get that
that's with bush, sometimes you still agree, he would be as lousy a president for georgia as saakasvilli.
ANd then he is under severe fire. AlJ dont really liked my comments on the case,
wich must be because i have a strong admiration for the mans political (not so much diplomatical) skills. He is not a fortunate man for politics, because his skills are unevenly distributed, if he had a quarter of the charisma that he has compassion he would probably be fine, but he only has like a fifth. he is a military and civil organiser of high quality and great conscience, yet he is said to display quite some repression, (i didnt witness it so much, when i was more into pakistan, there was rili no indications of files of disappeared persons in pakistan, some repression must be expected in the destabilised region, i liked that they bombed the red mosque in a show, like i like russia made a deliberate win over georgia if u do it, do it fine and if u do it and do it fine, do it good, matter of being fair about things. Plays a role i distinctly disliked his 'young martyrs' and (perhaps naive, considering the general malreporting of the media his speeches, also the fact a big city and governmental stability was in play, (security issues) played a role.
nuf said, probs was me who cooked it up, not sure, usia agreed, mush was not left much choice, guess he had the fun as well. Great, fair. we are the killers, we have all the arms, but the right of the person on the person goes over everything.
even the right on freedom of belief.
A belief is not free when the person is not free, so that is just plain and logical.
The pakistani army has behaved up to every expectation, if musharaf needs and wants i think he can count on it. Not to forfill his ordres, but to save pakistan or his skin. The impulse to apply this compliment to russia concerning the methods and scales applied against georgia is strong, but let's say there is still alot of smoke over the battlefield to go that far. i think it is a great compliment although i am not always as happy with their deployment.
Musharaf is really a fascinating person. his military genius is more tactical and political then strategical tho, he's rather a strategic failure i think. But he well knows after a few mistakes, and also in the geopolitical respect he has been showing a lot of reason the past few years. His tactical and political military quality itself again is quite huge. i would trust him a mobile position over an offensive or perhaps even defensive. So even musharaf is a man of limited capacitys, when it is about pakistan, the region, or matters of more general international importance he can be trusted, when it is about the greatests of geopolitical questionmarks, indias position, nucleair capacity and probably about his actual methods of control but i am not sure, to some extend sharif and zardari already did everything else noone ever wanted, fire up the war in the north, i might prefer anyone else.
then again like i said he seems to have left militairy roads in huge geopolitical questions wich is the sensible thing to do.
For him more so because he can operate on the level he is best at.
Basically saving the pakistani nations. It's where the english analysts got now,
sheet he saved teh poor blokes past decade, and what else could keep sharif or zardari in check.. very outspokenly so, mh.. could have sth to do with some major bookkeeping of mine, fun that. thumbs up blokes that's pretty great.
Quite a feat really.
Perhaps i think it is an hallucination tho. Whatever, and they check on musharaf? well it makes sense, what else then an institute that can moderate military measures,
and prevent abuse of law could check such a situation, altho i doubt sharif or zardari should be considered for such great dignification.
That besides, and then? who of them will become president? Sharif knows his cards are well, he is identified with the muslim aspect. well perhaps musharaf doesnt rili have that ambition, and even perhaps sharif is not unsuit in that role, personally i think musharaf a better representant of the wahabi kind of moderate modern islam i like most. (i like the synthetic one) i also admit i dont rili care much about religion, but i insist i admire inspiration.
Zardari for his part would bet he wins because the international backers would have no options left, it means sharif would win because if the international backers weighted into the pakistani scales firstly westerners would have a very much fascinated and probably negative opinion about the lawyers, not just cheer because they protest musharaf over formalitys when so much is happening, it's a bit weaker perhaps because musharaf at some point claimed state of national emergency, wich constitutes to much of a wrinkle in the surface of procedure, untill that point the developments should have been evaluated, and it is hard to understand not all the world got interested ,(see there the reason btw. for the idiotic reporting and lack of fantasy)
so that old pakistani grudge at least has been solved..
its not for no reason i am so anti islam in this post, i almost included some dedicated declaration of non-islamism in this post, but there is no need, atheism and secularism should suffice.
i am as dedicated anti christian as china, probably more. And chinese are not supposed to waste food on dead people either.
Don't you think bush is a hypocrit?
You think you can be a "christian" in the 20th century? when ur the sun of a president???
i don't, yeah maybe in malaysia or Jemen, not in the usa. What bush thinks about the saakasvilli, is almost directly related to what i consider his perceptions of religion, he thinks: you would think , if you think it is mad what he is doing, it is the same kind of things in him that in me you think are mad i am doing. Well he's got some pretences, but as mad as he is doing over religion and indeed nationalist fears etc. , is exactly mad enough. The problem is despite i always disliked bush policy's, i always refused to consider him an outright madman, for the dumb reason that sometimes when i made sense it made sense to him. So what i think maddest at him is his war speeches etc. the idiotic comparisons, axes of evil, etc. allies..
and terrorists, being like that, always expressing a hypocrit picture of pittyfullness and hurt interests, and declaring the rest of the world is a collection of mediocre bastards, that i think maddest.
so he is mad, limited even, but to some extend he makes sense, i dont give a damn to bomb ppl that lock themselves up anyway and turn their kids into medieval persona, makes some sense. I don't give a damn about tribal and burocratic positions would have been nice to, but the west is a bit dumb, and thinks like : a servant is a servant and then it will be ok.
so despite he is not in ordre he's been trying to make some starts, he himself has probably been a greater levy on taxmoney then individual freedoms in usa, for his symbolic value.
He can be rather funny too, he is not very narrowminded like many people.
war on drugs..
hilarious
war on terror is plain sad from my pov.
mordor
we are the only ones allowed to terrorise...
insane
all the drugs are ours...
yeah some get that
that's with bush, sometimes you still agree, he would be as lousy a president for georgia as saakasvilli.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Censory daily bussiness
As usually i not only get censored but i also try to find out why and where i am censored. Its confusing. I send a test message at alJ on a subject that i had definetly been disallowed to post to them to. (by whom ofcourse you can't be all sure) One would say that if alJ moderation works so swift, a "test" message would not get a confirmation, (i send them to junk since if anything i check them between 4days), well teh ridculous and hard to understand text message..
test
(PR typo lviv)
alJ spam by subject,
a pun on their systems, did get through.... hesitatingly,
so thats suspect it is perhaps not alJ that is censoring so much of my opinions.
As a rule ofcourse i am under the impression the disappearing texts do still get used by the powers in question, and by media some. So it must be they are actually interesting. General subjects on wich my media acces seemed mangled were many,
especially political actuality is censored, wether that is olhmerts next PR stunt,
georgia, or musharaf, exceptionally positive comments appear to come through more often and there is a point in that the usual post that disappears would contain a few opinions about the democratical functionality of officials.
let me just, after telling what i can tell other ways, tell you what i have been thinking over these affairs.
Georgia. I support Russia over georgia. Thats more a matter of a non aggressive geopolitical reality i have an ambition for then the specific thing. Luckily now medvedev made the surprising move to put a straight hold on actions, I think that is diplomatically or in terms of PR the best decission. Some operational requirements needed to be met but with a georgia in panic and disarray (like the south ossetians a lot of them moved about against their wishees) reasonable negotiatians with the georgian side seem to be again more possible. I hope they will apreciate the russian gestures.
To my surprise nato (and israel, and even usian foreign advisors etc.) showed no direct interest to greatly escalate the situation.
I take it as a hopefull sign, it is a change, it is so the media reported the whole affair, here in netherlands, with a huge anti russian bias. But this unreal perception of reality is for once not the modus operandi of the diplomatical world, keeping it that way would make a big change, and i think the change the world needs.
The details against ossetians are pretty disgusting, to me it seems russia otoh has maintained a very limited and military operation, somewhat succesfully evading civil casualtys. The only thing against that is the scale, then again, actually did not do so much inside georgia, and the area of south ossetia must be considered another case for many reasons. That one of russias arguments to support such tiny nations may be they don't feel all secure against US and the Nato that keeps building bases around them is exactly the geopolitical matter that makes me side with them.
That means i can easily imagine this is a very scary event for the russians as well,
It would be a possible start to clear up much of the misplaced animositys of the world, much like the olympics could be a place where differences can be evaluated instead of accentuated.
In that sense the "usual persons psychology" for me is hard to understand, the mere spectacle, and location are supposed to have unmeasurable PR value for china, and indeed people are more interested in china then before.
The most annoying thing about bush lately was his talking about 2000? political prisoners in china, i think us has 15000 ppl in guatanamos only worldwide, then again i would again like to have an idea of what is a fair impression these days,
for me it is obvious poorer less developed nations have their rights issues.
If china somehow manages such problems on her giant scales i think it is a proof of it's governments good intentions.
There remains a lot to wish for also in china, but there are so many nations a lot remains to be wished for and pressfreedom and freedom of expression are a farce at bush side as well.
mh next subject, whats olympics got to do with it?
Musharaf,
now what in pakistan, a clownesque situation, different accusations have been made against musharaf, however also plays a more official motion of distrust, that i suppose is the kind of measure that should dispose him. However how can you take that serious if the involved partys have locked another up in almost every way over corruption and seem to be out for no less then musharafs skin, using of all things, the war on afghanistan's finances. So that means like this there is no compromise or respect left for musharaf. I think it is a pitty because the man represented a progressive and even somewhat tolerant set of values, ofcourse that is only an impression but i hope pakistan with her current unrest won't return to the kind of underdeveloped and marginal state it used to be under musharafs opponents rule.
Zimbabwe, well about zimbabwe i wrote that if it hadn't been for all the international attention mugabe would have had less of carte blanche of many ppl on the world. In a situation were noone trusts any, you end up trusting what you had.
That there now are negotiations, for me, implies tsvangirai is getting ready to agree to mugabe on the matters of zimbabwe souvereignety (in the wider sense of economic politics etc. as well) and african unity, wether or not to allow political economical development that undermine the african unity and prosperity, very exciting and tense, a strange detail is to some extend with the 'brutal oppressor' picture in mind, mugabe must have always tolerated tsvangirai. That is not so exceptional, but it may tell something about minds or personality's. Mugabe might know rather precisely how he wants tsvangirai to guarantee certain developments. But also mugabe may have been 'not very afraid' of morgan, i must say when i compare the two and the few direct impressions they left on me, mugabe generally appeals to me more, and i think like that is perhaps one of those reasons. It may also be one of the reasons the other zanu faction is represented, don't worry a newer and still progressive africa then mugabe's also exists, and arthur could represent it.
So that are surprising developments to me, about the zimbabwe situation i get rather optimistic, about Pakistan i am not quite sure, but if the world will not eternally and deeply blame russia over something they hardly had a hand in, (and that appears like a premeditated nato PR trick with the Nato sponsored georgian army featuring as a sad excuse:-0), my sun will start shining. Perhaps its obama's good influences.
As a matter of factual also there was a russian not only de facto but UN mandated peace mission in the territory. Russia has done evrything i wished for to manage the situation, evacuate the civilians, degrade some of the toys, put a great statement, withheld from really compromising georgian territorial integrity, and the nr of victims even in both armys have remained somewhat limited, i think during all the operation great care has been maintained, considering that in a story about the eviction of gori, 7 wounded soldiers in a military convoy 15 miles away were worth mentioning.
i might have to add something to this.
test
(PR typo lviv)
alJ spam by subject,
a pun on their systems, did get through.... hesitatingly,
so thats suspect it is perhaps not alJ that is censoring so much of my opinions.
As a rule ofcourse i am under the impression the disappearing texts do still get used by the powers in question, and by media some. So it must be they are actually interesting. General subjects on wich my media acces seemed mangled were many,
especially political actuality is censored, wether that is olhmerts next PR stunt,
georgia, or musharaf, exceptionally positive comments appear to come through more often and there is a point in that the usual post that disappears would contain a few opinions about the democratical functionality of officials.
let me just, after telling what i can tell other ways, tell you what i have been thinking over these affairs.
Georgia. I support Russia over georgia. Thats more a matter of a non aggressive geopolitical reality i have an ambition for then the specific thing. Luckily now medvedev made the surprising move to put a straight hold on actions, I think that is diplomatically or in terms of PR the best decission. Some operational requirements needed to be met but with a georgia in panic and disarray (like the south ossetians a lot of them moved about against their wishees) reasonable negotiatians with the georgian side seem to be again more possible. I hope they will apreciate the russian gestures.
To my surprise nato (and israel, and even usian foreign advisors etc.) showed no direct interest to greatly escalate the situation.
I take it as a hopefull sign, it is a change, it is so the media reported the whole affair, here in netherlands, with a huge anti russian bias. But this unreal perception of reality is for once not the modus operandi of the diplomatical world, keeping it that way would make a big change, and i think the change the world needs.
The details against ossetians are pretty disgusting, to me it seems russia otoh has maintained a very limited and military operation, somewhat succesfully evading civil casualtys. The only thing against that is the scale, then again, actually did not do so much inside georgia, and the area of south ossetia must be considered another case for many reasons. That one of russias arguments to support such tiny nations may be they don't feel all secure against US and the Nato that keeps building bases around them is exactly the geopolitical matter that makes me side with them.
That means i can easily imagine this is a very scary event for the russians as well,
It would be a possible start to clear up much of the misplaced animositys of the world, much like the olympics could be a place where differences can be evaluated instead of accentuated.
In that sense the "usual persons psychology" for me is hard to understand, the mere spectacle, and location are supposed to have unmeasurable PR value for china, and indeed people are more interested in china then before.
The most annoying thing about bush lately was his talking about 2000? political prisoners in china, i think us has 15000 ppl in guatanamos only worldwide, then again i would again like to have an idea of what is a fair impression these days,
for me it is obvious poorer less developed nations have their rights issues.
If china somehow manages such problems on her giant scales i think it is a proof of it's governments good intentions.
There remains a lot to wish for also in china, but there are so many nations a lot remains to be wished for and pressfreedom and freedom of expression are a farce at bush side as well.
mh next subject, whats olympics got to do with it?
Musharaf,
now what in pakistan, a clownesque situation, different accusations have been made against musharaf, however also plays a more official motion of distrust, that i suppose is the kind of measure that should dispose him. However how can you take that serious if the involved partys have locked another up in almost every way over corruption and seem to be out for no less then musharafs skin, using of all things, the war on afghanistan's finances. So that means like this there is no compromise or respect left for musharaf. I think it is a pitty because the man represented a progressive and even somewhat tolerant set of values, ofcourse that is only an impression but i hope pakistan with her current unrest won't return to the kind of underdeveloped and marginal state it used to be under musharafs opponents rule.
Zimbabwe, well about zimbabwe i wrote that if it hadn't been for all the international attention mugabe would have had less of carte blanche of many ppl on the world. In a situation were noone trusts any, you end up trusting what you had.
That there now are negotiations, for me, implies tsvangirai is getting ready to agree to mugabe on the matters of zimbabwe souvereignety (in the wider sense of economic politics etc. as well) and african unity, wether or not to allow political economical development that undermine the african unity and prosperity, very exciting and tense, a strange detail is to some extend with the 'brutal oppressor' picture in mind, mugabe must have always tolerated tsvangirai. That is not so exceptional, but it may tell something about minds or personality's. Mugabe might know rather precisely how he wants tsvangirai to guarantee certain developments. But also mugabe may have been 'not very afraid' of morgan, i must say when i compare the two and the few direct impressions they left on me, mugabe generally appeals to me more, and i think like that is perhaps one of those reasons. It may also be one of the reasons the other zanu faction is represented, don't worry a newer and still progressive africa then mugabe's also exists, and arthur could represent it.
So that are surprising developments to me, about the zimbabwe situation i get rather optimistic, about Pakistan i am not quite sure, but if the world will not eternally and deeply blame russia over something they hardly had a hand in, (and that appears like a premeditated nato PR trick with the Nato sponsored georgian army featuring as a sad excuse:-0), my sun will start shining. Perhaps its obama's good influences.
As a matter of factual also there was a russian not only de facto but UN mandated peace mission in the territory. Russia has done evrything i wished for to manage the situation, evacuate the civilians, degrade some of the toys, put a great statement, withheld from really compromising georgian territorial integrity, and the nr of victims even in both armys have remained somewhat limited, i think during all the operation great care has been maintained, considering that in a story about the eviction of gori, 7 wounded soldiers in a military convoy 15 miles away were worth mentioning.
i might have to add something to this.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
only the right to exist
Ofcourse my contributions on israel remain unposted, or the one on olympics, despite of that the facts of the post are used for new reporting..
So i guess that the utterings that are acceptable in the forum, and really when it becomes personal, don't ask me why.. could also be influenced by my unpublished comments, it wud not be a first.. well what does it say??
zionism is only believing in the right of israel to exist.
That is strange, fascism in germany believed only germany had a right on more territory then it had, great excuse then. That beside it is not true, zionism is like other kinds of nationalism, and very old, excisting before palestine was cleansed, and inherently discriminating. ALso, when zionisms interests correlate with
neoconservative interests about china eg., about certain statements about human rights, and generally about destabilising the israeli neighbours or ME region, it rises over such a nationalist pretention.
So whatever is their clue, (it is capitalism), zionism has much more impact then what they pretend in the above statements.
zionism means to me: money over ppl except jews, because jews always have the right to judge other people, and call them holocaust deniers. Turning them into non persons for international justice. Well they use these mechanisms against me, and basically in the hope i say something they can judge. Meanwhile they are being mischieveous, and looking for problems were they never were.
Enough about it, if it didnt have so much impact on world politics and freedom of expression, i wouldnt pay more attention to the whole shit then to Belize.
And i don't care, there have been so many holocausts, that i consider most people deniers of holocausts daily. However that is well allowed. As long it doesnt contrast these zionist interests.
So rili i don't give a damn, israeli patriotism may or may not exist outside the discriminating jewish religion. A funny remark on that one was, can hezbollah remain armed? israel has 100000's of reservists allowed to hold and carry arms..
The comment that said that said: what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Funny.
On with china. Because the big campaugn against china shall *not* be spoiled by... me. Does china have the right to exist? I think so, do i like olympics? not at all, do i like the way china is organised? i just dont know. Thing is , i still know some about china, and it often contrasts with the things her critics say. Actually i already spoiled the attacks on china by supporting her over Tibet before.
From my standpoint, i am not at all interested in tensions with china, in antagonism or animosity, however the attacks on china obviously show there is a mainstream political trend that doesnt care about all this, and megalomaniacally thinks it can organise china better. Apparently another hot point of media politics atm.
time for another some warning.
Personally i dont equate zionism to anti-china-ism but i bet that zionism will think differently. china is a market. Politics will shout about human rights, but it is actually about money. Zionism considers money the basic requirement for the emancipation of jews(1), and maybe like pretended for the existence of the state of israel.
perhaps the idea is that china is so big that with a stigma of human rights the whole gaza situation pales.
(1) or so i think.
So i guess that the utterings that are acceptable in the forum, and really when it becomes personal, don't ask me why.. could also be influenced by my unpublished comments, it wud not be a first.. well what does it say??
zionism is only believing in the right of israel to exist.
That is strange, fascism in germany believed only germany had a right on more territory then it had, great excuse then. That beside it is not true, zionism is like other kinds of nationalism, and very old, excisting before palestine was cleansed, and inherently discriminating. ALso, when zionisms interests correlate with
neoconservative interests about china eg., about certain statements about human rights, and generally about destabilising the israeli neighbours or ME region, it rises over such a nationalist pretention.
So whatever is their clue, (it is capitalism), zionism has much more impact then what they pretend in the above statements.
zionism means to me: money over ppl except jews, because jews always have the right to judge other people, and call them holocaust deniers. Turning them into non persons for international justice. Well they use these mechanisms against me, and basically in the hope i say something they can judge. Meanwhile they are being mischieveous, and looking for problems were they never were.
Enough about it, if it didnt have so much impact on world politics and freedom of expression, i wouldnt pay more attention to the whole shit then to Belize.
And i don't care, there have been so many holocausts, that i consider most people deniers of holocausts daily. However that is well allowed. As long it doesnt contrast these zionist interests.
So rili i don't give a damn, israeli patriotism may or may not exist outside the discriminating jewish religion. A funny remark on that one was, can hezbollah remain armed? israel has 100000's of reservists allowed to hold and carry arms..
The comment that said that said: what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Funny.
On with china. Because the big campaugn against china shall *not* be spoiled by... me. Does china have the right to exist? I think so, do i like olympics? not at all, do i like the way china is organised? i just dont know. Thing is , i still know some about china, and it often contrasts with the things her critics say. Actually i already spoiled the attacks on china by supporting her over Tibet before.
From my standpoint, i am not at all interested in tensions with china, in antagonism or animosity, however the attacks on china obviously show there is a mainstream political trend that doesnt care about all this, and megalomaniacally thinks it can organise china better. Apparently another hot point of media politics atm.
time for another some warning.
Personally i dont equate zionism to anti-china-ism but i bet that zionism will think differently. china is a market. Politics will shout about human rights, but it is actually about money. Zionism considers money the basic requirement for the emancipation of jews(1), and maybe like pretended for the existence of the state of israel.
perhaps the idea is that china is so big that with a stigma of human rights the whole gaza situation pales.
(1) or so i think.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
zionism reason of censoring
For me it is nothing new, i must admit, often when i turned anti israeli in a post somewhere suddenly the thoughts police appeared apparent , and my posts got manipulated or just remained unposted. i was wondering what was behind with alJ. apparently i am not allowed to publish in threads about israel.
Well apparently the israeli manipulation is bussy once again making the world population believe a couple of lies. I don't think their activitys are more deplorable then the usian or dutch, altho they are so on a large scale and sometimes quite different level.
Anyhowe be warned, my instinct puts it for preparation of a war to iran (something big), but it may also be a heightening of palestines repression that is their first most important interesse. I must add my posts get marked and unpublished even if i say no of the above things, and just neutrally and objectively describe what i see happening. (because predictably the whole distastefull list of accusations will be made against me, like antisemite, prejudiced, etc., well the only thing that got clear from that is that zionist and neocon are also the same)
Tactically it may still be usefull to consider it means israeli politics will basically not change under anyone else then olmert, like it didn't under him.
They will keep on blaming 'the other' palestine, lebanese, arab, shia. or iranian (atm.)
Well apparently the israeli manipulation is bussy once again making the world population believe a couple of lies. I don't think their activitys are more deplorable then the usian or dutch, altho they are so on a large scale and sometimes quite different level.
Anyhowe be warned, my instinct puts it for preparation of a war to iran (something big), but it may also be a heightening of palestines repression that is their first most important interesse. I must add my posts get marked and unpublished even if i say no of the above things, and just neutrally and objectively describe what i see happening. (because predictably the whole distastefull list of accusations will be made against me, like antisemite, prejudiced, etc., well the only thing that got clear from that is that zionist and neocon are also the same)
Tactically it may still be usefull to consider it means israeli politics will basically not change under anyone else then olmert, like it didn't under him.
They will keep on blaming 'the other' palestine, lebanese, arab, shia. or iranian (atm.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
wanted terrorist: name silencer aka stealotron
Through lies and fraud this one is managed to rob 1000000s of the fruits of their work and their voice