terrorism

Jay! 100th post .. congratulations Barak this one is for you..

I witnessed today how barak for the second time to my knowing, used the word terrorist adverbial, 'terrorist groups' it was about iran.

From the iran point of view these people may be "freedom fighters", as *opposed* to terrorist groups.

Now this has to do with credibility fo iran, but let me explain.

In rwanda the us supports basically the tutsi's, these killed a load of hutus in recent years, mostly outside rwanda. Now the government there has a name for their victims..

Usia uses the same word (there).. terrorists.

terrorist don't exist, only in the american dream, and when you talk about a thing that doesn't exist to much, you make it true for yourself,
can we have a president that doesnt want terrorists for once?

cheers!

Historical day

thanks!

thanks for having a historical day,
nothing compares

gorbatjov tho,
he, the people and his duma besides,(1)

i worked at that to,
for me this is more emotional.

Jesse Jackson ! cheers! You deserved it well,
a brave man to. Whoopy! I always trusted you.

I think Bill Clinton performed! Man i am enthusiast,
i even admire hillarys dedication now , perhaps it was the best thing after all.

all the people of the world have been working this,
the children, and sometimes the animals even..

i am glad i didnt go that deep into it!

wow people (..)
animal kiss.

Good luck with it all,

we have to hold our promise.
Congratulated Barack, it would be great to meet you i am sure.
I have never said that of anyone 'important'.

so take it as a compliment, you remind me of a friend, 'Frits', you must be smarter though, maybe you can do with a lesser appeal of fame.(2)


personally, i hope your secret service 'annoying policies' will be a bit moderate.

Maybe i should say something about reagan, (uh bush..) it's always a bit personal,

you know bush is a bad guy, rather a bad one, but, in one thing and it is a thing many 'bad' people are not of the worst, he has been respectable.

he respected sillyness, people being human, really.., i guess zardari is like him,
and occasionally that could be a compliment, a bad guy , out for cash, but not without the idea to make a better world, otherways this couldn't have happened.

It couldn't for Jesse, chances are we have to forgive bush ..

Good luck world:P
we are there.

historical day!
hugs for all.

(1) salt accords could have been and done better and more easy from guess what side ..)
(2) to much to do with motivation ..

traffic

I have not been writing a lot recently, perhaps its the overdose, i write and think about inetrnational matters, and then after a while i don't want to think about it..
perhaps becus i fear to fall into repetition, , tiredness or a general fear things will take turns for the worse if i insist on turns for the good.

Perhaps its just the old depression i get when i to much focus on one or a few subjects, i remember when i last posted the word NATO kept coming to my mind in a most unpleasant way. I am now in a game, it also cheats the poor,but i am used to games online doing so. so i enjoy. The game is really absorbing, altho my first fit of fanatism is slowly fading.

Internationally a lot of things are happening, i am very impressed to see how the arab nations and muslim people struggle for a change for the better. Sometimes futile, and not rarely shocking, many of the events are understood better in that context.

The usia circus is also still distracting, the thing is not i don't care, it is i doubt if it matters that i and a majority of people care.

today and even the day before yesterday however i found a solution to that whole usian
spectacle.
the solution is called whoopy goldberg.

whoopy goldberg for president and i will trust the usa like never before.
even if she is not a president it is still a comfort a great person like her can live in a nation that exhibits such compulsive traits regularly.

In that sense usa is indeed like netherlands, in both nations u can refuse to drive a car and be the most fun aspect of the whole life threatening traffic event.

somehow the fate you, the safer person, are still the one running all the risk is acceptable, this whole society is build to repress the defenseless.

Its unpretty but it feels familiar. It's how it should be, all these people that dont care about plants , animals, environment and human life drive like madman in their tanks producing permanent danger to the innocent is like real allegory for this world.

whoopy goldberg for president!

amen

double dutch exposed

ahead of me the unpleasant task to try to describe the current mediapolitical climate in the netherlands.

Do the media do well? well honestly ? the media i know off, no.
they do about 4% well, and about 99% badly. I got into the habit of not spending much time on it tho, certain comments sections on teh internet do offer a consequent countervoice, when people really dedicate to it. However you might say tehre is such an urge in people with less usefull opinions to shout them out , always replying on such becomes rather a headache. That besides teh arguments aren't always even worth making, it is not said such conservative repetitions are real or even a produce of humans, it might as well be scripts, just out to convince the masses of the existance of a dumber mass. Perhaps also really dumb opiniated people are stimulated in voicing them loudly and prefered over a more moderate and negotiating comment.

Often to look for sth positive well placed and a true observation you'd have to spit through 7, 8 pages of doubtfull news of doubtfull integrity, and worse, obviously ill willing intend. in the free newspapers taht are distributed to the workers in the mornings i end up reading teh football news, cus at least that is about nothing, and so it doesn't hurt so much that it may be lies.

I dont want to get into its generality's but push right through what is the politics behind it. Basically i think, netherlands used to have tolerant value's, we grew used to rather some freedom, in the process and for many years we have been wel proud for what we achieved, the lifestandard and social standards we (often) met.

that lasted so from 1955 to 1980, and before that, perhaps even in the colonial area dutch have felt modern, and tolerant, not all dutch and not always, but definetly it has been an aspect of our people's personality to try progressive thought. In teh old christian days it failed miserably, the renewing movements seemed to be ugglier then what they did away with, but it had some elan, there was an attempt towards justice.

In the late industrial era, but not untill the very start of the digital era, dutch value's overall qualified nicely. Human rights, police government, freedom of expression, bipartisanship, were value's often well practiced and not uncommonly researched by many elements of the media. It didn't always go well, but those were times of great social advances still.

Even before europe became a fact, and before the digital era started, there was a trend however towards the opposite. interest-groups had to be turned into ngo's in that period to through payed management make them dependent and negotiable. In every case for example teh government made a point of having a public discussion, wich they did pretend a few times, teh publ;ic took care to get some of the facts on the table.

Really in the sense of juicy research, thorough rationalisation, analyses, those were great days.
As i say it was pre digitally, and yet in the late industrial , modern, era copy machines, printers, stencil, each of tehse media had contributed to sets of alternative magazines that filled the gaps in information now more commonly accesible (but not quite as structurally applied) through internet.

One of these magazines was "BLUF!". it lighted out many juridical absues and malperceptions, corruption even, it was extremely critical towards tyranny anywhere, evry cultural, and abiding and promoting to every human right.

You understand teh people that did teh work, the research and are the inspiration were pretty dedicated and worked hard for hardly any pay. Becus more free then that? no, we haven't had.

he magazine had a tendency to publish very very strong articles that were the condensation of much more documeted and wider research of other magazines, and some ideological recoinaisance's. It also published press statements of action groups, soemtimes of foreign pressure groups, or illegal party's, teh iraki resistance, the kurds the irish teh basques, it had a somewhat european focus, but that was more because practically the information-exchange often was limited mostly to the european circuit without internet.

among many other things it also covered the housing rights of netherlands, more specifically also squatting. It happened to be that he cultural squatting movement was also the humanitarian active group. Especially renewing efforts found their roots there. For excample the effect in clothing worldwide, hairdress, but also theatre, decor, lightshows, music, alternative music, surrealist, nihilist and even geometric influences hahe much to do with the cultural movement of the 60s, 70s early 80s
why do i need to tell you all this?????

well it happened in these days that some(..) we now call them "the neocons" decided tehy wanted a society thatw as far more blunt, far more stratified, far more unfair,
far more plain, far more dumb in other words: more capitalist.

To that end a lot changed, step by step, sometimes sth. good, but usually sth. bad.
It hit housing rights, incomes, healthcare, it send people to prison, it generally hit the atmosphere hard, it hit the credibility and worst of all it managed to intrude the minds of the people, setting them back, prejudicing them and creating a lot of fear between people. It also obstructed justice, by just not abiding teh dutch law sth. treated as precedents are created, but actually it means nto even agreements have value, just because they label people they deny them basic rights of justice.

This however didn't happen on the level of huge direct violence, well it did, but it escaped the eye of the many, the terror, the measure of direct repression wasn't enormous always, not often teh secret police beat someone up , it happened a lot when sth was going on tho, and completely out of any proportion usually (i have witnessed many times) that (secret) police used excessive violence, what i mean is thatnot many a [political one, an activist was beaten up in their houses or at night on teh streets, although the circumstances have their creepy aspects..
i know i have an incorrect dossier wich briefs the police eg. so when i meet them they are more dangerous to me then they should, wich not rarely results in a scary confrontation if tehy seek any.

so its scary and dangerous, but not openly or outright violence in the daily life.
After some trial and error the atetmpts to get you to work for them also loose the direct and indignant initial character.

"They" the police, the secret services, (can) know me better then even i myself, they can tehrefore lie about me better then i even myself could, they certainly have their powers, and with the justice system being proven unidirectional biased, and elitarist, reknownedly nepotist, what have you to count on.

So some stress they standardly deliver. otoh with somewhat more usual affairs, they donlt necessarilly misbehave(although then they are not as informed about ur identity, and unless real danger for themselves is thinkable, you can also count on them somewhat. (they are not rili objective tho, i figure there are a lot of people who think they tend to anyhow draw the wrong straw). Sometimes they are quite smart and social, othertimes they are really stupid not uncommonly so biased they find argument in even reasonable speach,( a lot of ppl who know that start out rough), rather like the usual schooled professional that wants to think they know how to treat their business.

When you start out a bit rough and things can get constructive usually you know you met someone who can stand a small creep to suffer less of a shivver.

Man if u r rili a criminal? hwo can you talk to the police? what about? that too is an element in the policy of teh netherlands, turning it into a policestate.

It's amazing, perplexing flabbergasting, and awfull, yet it's all to true, teh distance and authority of police is accentuated, despite a policy that claims to be a friend of all these people that are so scared they are rather an insult to a sane human.
scared for me, friends, or other people or reasons that need no fear, well not the kind they tend to imagine at least.

The ironic of it it alienates a lot of principally rather good people. This underlying fear.. taht sth odd or awfull could happen, ofcourse always existed.These days however it is exagerated. People are scared on a daily bases by millions, for even things that happen 3 times a year to at most 2.

it is not a way to solve a problem, but it is much more dangerous then teh fear that was teh bases. It legitimises measures of fear. Those for some reason shape into patterns of nationalism xenophobism , alienation etc. etc. teh negative psychological effects of teh modern times..

So we see a fear that creates terror and repression, but is actually very minor compared to teh danger of not polluting the environment.(cycling).

over and over this legitimisation is recycled as legitimisation for still more repression. nwo we did that oh they won't notice we do a bit more.
and actually they get away with it. people can be scared with nothing once? they can be scared with it again. you can imagine the sheer perversness of with what teh media and politics occupy the mind is of ridiculous proportion. Moreso becus it is uncompromisedly fraudulent. Integrity and transparance, there is not.

back to the ancient magazine 'bluf!'.
BLUF used to be the strongest protagonist of freedom of speech in print, well actually not by far, but the one with some reach, it came under for of procedures, police harrasment etc., and it had an advertisement action in wich a statement strongly for the freedom of expression , speech and reporting, was phrased.

so far so good, some bobo's signed, usual dutch adds like that in the period went with bobo's, and the add was printed.
i don't remember if it was considered a succes, in the end bluf had to resign the struggle, perhaps due to the repression, or more because newer media were taking over peoples spending of time. To some extend the sheer nr of musics, video's, nets games etc. even before internet became some intellectual distraction.

The follow ups to bluf, can be found @ ravage.nl if i am correct.

The paper featured a cartoon of an old grey minister burning her old (seriously grasroot intellectual) blufs.

Thats because there is a witchhunt going on in dutch politics. every day in day out we see prognoses the rednecks are growing, when actually these signs are rare even if you exagerate, specific rednecks, people never ever talk about , are called very popular by dutch media.

And i deal with the kind of people that even have the destute attitude to judge harshly and unwittingly. All of these, and the whole dutch population are joining in the constructive and progressive thoughtsprocesses, so where the hell do they get teh story extreme rightwing patriotism and nitwitzism are gaining in popularity.

also the wilders guy noone ever mentioned to me and get's free seats in parliament, like if they are 2 euro gardens chairs, is not a political phenomenon in the worlds i meet in netherlands, and no, these are not only classy and intellectual.

meanwhile these same people are the excuse to raise security to a level public expenditure would be essentially better off if these people actually emigrated.

and ofcourse all these blatant freedom obstructing notions in teh paliament find their loyal support. One big fake, and people that stopped believing in the news, have much turned away from thinking about politics ()not so strange with so little fact to go by) , or got so confused they stick to just believing the complete nonsense offered. Not that they vote right wing then, just that they are annoying to talk with. right wing votes and the propagation of that you mostly exclusively find among the ultrarich, the top 5% , and less, not their wives eg. some 18 years old that have no clue, and a few that never find a clue either, i did meet one or 2 in my life.

I'd doubt if they think the same because they were still young. some young guys think: i want to be ultrarich so i have to vote as capitalist as i can, (they call themselves the liberals here), ofcourse for a few of them it worx, but not often.

and now theres the witchhunt, what is the premise? what is the intend?
repression and securing a singularly nato minded elite. eliminating every incent for change, the intend is evry negative and involves raising the general level of intolerance, repression, the distance between poor and rich, and the complete disempowerment of the masses, practically, psychologically, and attemptedly politically, the thing that justice is the exact wrong word for.

in this complex political ploy international pressure and planning plays a big role, models of repressive ideas , control, arbitrary legal value, they are applied internationally, netherlands is sometimes even considered a "guidenation" for that, but the opposite , usian and english models(1) that are implemented here happens as often, and without notice.

(1) models of desempowerment , hierarchy, nationalism and most often misleading and propaganda.it's just a personal note that actually many of these models focus around misleading and desinforming people, unfortunately not withour some scary succeses.

those were the days

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.

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.

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.