Imagine you are in Lafayette Park, across from the White House, setting up tents and loudspeakers without a permit to occupy the park with a group of several thousand protesters, guzzling beer and vodka. How long do you think it would be before the Secret Service or other uniformed local and federal officers moved in to disburse you? Five minutes?
Yet when less than one percent of the 500,000 Belarusians who voted for the political opposition were recently disbursed from October Square, one block from the presidential residence, the United States and the European Union (where member country France had been engaged in brutally beating youth protesting for more job security) announced a new round of sanctions against the country.
Aside from this absurd double standard is the fact that democracy itself is subverted in this new, revolutionary method of changing governments – all in the name of democracy, of course. Somehow in the new world of color-coded revolutions, a public display of only one percent of those who voted for the opposition – not of all voters, mind you, but just of those who voted for the opposition – is enough for the West to conclude that they represent the true will of the people. It is a new Bolshevism of the West in which a tiny minority is said to in fact be the majority. The media plays into this deception, with its breathless but highly selective reporting of such incidents. The Western media makes no effort to gain actual facts, preferring to rely on salacious but unverified tales of beatings and mass arrests made available in copious quantities by those who stand to benefit most by their dissemination.
Before going into the reasons for Alexander Lukashenko's victory, I should add a word on the outrageous lies told by the Western press before, during, and after the presidential elections in Belarus. How do I know? I was there. I was there standing in October Square on Wednesday afternoon watching the 150 or so protesters while the BBC reported "thousands." I took pictures of the beer bottles and coffee cups that littered the square as the foreign media reported that the police were not allowing any food or drink to the protesters.
On Wednesday, the Frankfurter Allgemeine reported that "they flew flags of denim" when there was not a single denim flag on the square. There were plenty of Georgian flags, however, which is strange considering the abysmal state of the "reformed" Georgian economy, where electricity and water are about as available as in Iraq. Lukashenko entered his press conference "drunk with victory," the German paper reported. I saw no such thing, but rather a politician who is not afraid to shoot back rhetorically at attacks from the U.S. administration. Accused by President Bush of selling weapons to other countries, Lukashenko retorted, "Coming from a man who has profited so much from war and oil, it is an accusation that doesn't deserve a response."
Heavy police presence, the press reported. We saw far fewer police than you would have seen at any gathering in the U.S. or any Western capitol. In fact, before authorities finally moved yesterday to disburse the makeshift tent city from the square, there was hardly a police officer to be seen. The list goes on.
Read more...
Friday, August 25, 2006
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Again on democracy
What really surprised me about comments on my previous post was that pro-democracy commentators were so emotional. It was like “How dare you! Democracy brings only peace and prosperity”. Actually the idea that democracy is a hopelessly flawed model of government is not original. The fact that conflict and confrontation is embedded in Western democratic model is not mine. Actually John Locke – the ideological father of American Constitution – was the first to describe it. His system of checks and balances is a proposed method to soften the confrontational nature of democracy.
Did you sleep when you had “Anti-democracy theories” class at school? Ah, I forgot. You never study anti-democracy theories at school. In the best case you heard about some “evil” theorists who deny democracy. In the West democracy became a totalitarian dogma the same way as Marxism in the Soviet Union. The difference is that at school you study democratic vision of history and politics but in the Soviet Union I studied the same subject from the Marxist point of view. You believe that the only alternative to democracy is tyranny but I was taught that the only alternative to the Soviet-type socialism is oppressive imperialism. The difference between us: you believe in myths about democracy but I didn’t believe in myths about communism.
I still cannot understand how a rational person can believe that a purely technical model of government can be a moral ideal to struggle for? From the ethical point of view democracy is neutral but “democratization” is evil. Democracy can be a working model only under very specific conditions and the most important among them is – ultra-high level of homogeneity in ethical values, culture, religion, distribution of income. The society is ready for democracy when it is very, very average. This way the tyranny of majority is not regarded as oppressive. When there’s little homogeneity democracy provokes and encourages secessionism, segregation, discrimination of minorities and ultimately civil wars. A country needs several hundred years of applying different kinds of checks and balances, development of civil society, recognition of minorities’ rights, suffrage, etc. They are all measures to push a fundamentally flawed model into a stable condition. There is also another way to make democracy work – occupy the country and kill all “anti-democrats” but still even under such conditions homogeneity is a must. Lack of homogeneity can kill even a very stable democracy. What will become to France when Muslims make 51% of voters?
Let us make a mental experiment. Imagine that the modern day American government with the help of a time machine got access to America at the beginning of the 19th century. After shaking hands with the Founding Fathers what would be the next thing for George Bush and his Marines to do? Of course, democratizing the young US by installing a modern day American model of democracy, including equal rights for women and black slaves and freedom of speech (with pornography). Would we get a civil war at this point?
For those interested in serious anti-democracy theories and alternatives to democracy I recommend “Democracy: the God that Failed” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Did you sleep when you had “Anti-democracy theories” class at school? Ah, I forgot. You never study anti-democracy theories at school. In the best case you heard about some “evil” theorists who deny democracy. In the West democracy became a totalitarian dogma the same way as Marxism in the Soviet Union. The difference is that at school you study democratic vision of history and politics but in the Soviet Union I studied the same subject from the Marxist point of view. You believe that the only alternative to democracy is tyranny but I was taught that the only alternative to the Soviet-type socialism is oppressive imperialism. The difference between us: you believe in myths about democracy but I didn’t believe in myths about communism.
I still cannot understand how a rational person can believe that a purely technical model of government can be a moral ideal to struggle for? From the ethical point of view democracy is neutral but “democratization” is evil. Democracy can be a working model only under very specific conditions and the most important among them is – ultra-high level of homogeneity in ethical values, culture, religion, distribution of income. The society is ready for democracy when it is very, very average. This way the tyranny of majority is not regarded as oppressive. When there’s little homogeneity democracy provokes and encourages secessionism, segregation, discrimination of minorities and ultimately civil wars. A country needs several hundred years of applying different kinds of checks and balances, development of civil society, recognition of minorities’ rights, suffrage, etc. They are all measures to push a fundamentally flawed model into a stable condition. There is also another way to make democracy work – occupy the country and kill all “anti-democrats” but still even under such conditions homogeneity is a must. Lack of homogeneity can kill even a very stable democracy. What will become to France when Muslims make 51% of voters?
Let us make a mental experiment. Imagine that the modern day American government with the help of a time machine got access to America at the beginning of the 19th century. After shaking hands with the Founding Fathers what would be the next thing for George Bush and his Marines to do? Of course, democratizing the young US by installing a modern day American model of democracy, including equal rights for women and black slaves and freedom of speech (with pornography). Would we get a civil war at this point?
For those interested in serious anti-democracy theories and alternatives to democracy I recommend “Democracy: the God that Failed” by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Democracy and war
Western mainstream media comments extensively on Yanukovich becoming a new PM in the Ukraine. Some commentators experience cognitive shock, “How comes? Everything was so democratic but then “the enemy of democracy” becomes a new Ukrainian PM? Is it a blow on democracy or not?” Acting in the interests of the major Western powers and being democratic has become synonymous but in reality there are almost no connections.
By democracy we mean nothing but a technical model of government that is copied from Western standards and has several variations. There’s no doubt that for citizens of the Western countries this model works perfectly. So perfectly that 99% of them sincerely believe that this model should also bring peace, prosperity and happiness to every country in the world once implemented. Cause is taken for effect here, I believe.
Theoretically Western-type democracy model looks ideal but after its evident failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Ukraine an open minded person should ask a simple question, “Maybe something is wrong not with the people of these countries but with the model itself?”
It is not hard to see that at the heart of the model of democracy lies confrontation. Conflict and conflict based competition is the essence of democracy. Elections, multi-party system, checks and balances, free press, civil society – they are all about competing, warring, struggling for power, dividing people into winners and losers, fighting for minorities rights. It all works in aggressive cultures where people prefer competition over harmony, criticism over consensus, and change over stability. How comes people of democratic cultures did not annihilate each other so far? I think it’s a result of several factors.
First, the ability to keep aggression "pacified" is a result of a thousand years of never ending wars in Europe between dozens of countries varying is size. The sheer instinct of survival “civilized” European nations and by the time first concepts of democracy were tried European wars were so “civilized” that citizens of some Crapenburg Principality didn’t even know if today they belong to France or to Prussia although the quantity of wars and conflicts never really decreased. Millennium of European never ending wars also brought up a new type of man – a person who is friendly or neutral towards occupying troops, who is ready to compromise, who values above all the life of an individual but doesn’t care much about the fate of his Crapenburg Motherland. But the most important - Europeans learnt to treat conflicts and even wars more like a game that should be kept within “civilized” rules forged over centuries. Fortunately, it all ended with an invention of weapons of mass destruction.
In countries where wars were very rare and where people could enjoy at least a hundred years of peace another type culture was molded. We are talking about India, China, Japan, and Russia. In these cultures conflicts were frowned upon, harmony was more important than competition, unity more important winning, where individual interests were less important then interests of a family, group, nation or country. In such cultures conflicts were subdued, competition highly regulated, team spirit encouraged and individualists ostracized.
Now what happens when an aggressive democratic model is installed in such countries? Let’s have a look. In Saddam times Sunni and Shia lived together in peace, marriages between Sunni and Shia were common, people didn’t even know if their neighbors are Shia or Sunni. Of course, there were small groups of radicals but they were underground. Then “democracy” comes. It was all but natural that major political parties and organizations competing for votes start profiteering on the most evident topic – religious differences. Conflict that was almost invisible before is blown out of proportion. At the same time, unlike Westerners, people in Iraq are not used to treat conflicts as a “game”. They take it very seriously. A country is divided by implacable differences – you belong either to a Sunni party or to a Shia party. What’s more – the so-called system of checks and balances leaves no hopes to resolve the conflict peacefully. We get a civil war but what is the real reason of the civil war – religious differences or a model of democracy that encourages confrontation? More then that – countries that achieved some harmony are strongly criticized by democracy pundits for lack of conflicts and fights.
There are hundreds of examples when a Western type model of democracy gave rise to civil wars. American model was probably the worst although Americans try really hard to implement it all around the globe. Take Latin America, for example. In the 19th century it took only a year or two for a Latin American country to adopt American type “democracy” and a new civil war between “Democrats” and “Republicans” started.
People in your country live in peace and harmony? Then we need to finance some NGO’s that will teach you democracy. “Orange revolution” in the Ukraine is a good example. Wonder why only 15 years ago conflict between Ukrainian-speaking citizens of Ukraine and Russian-speaking Ukrainian was almost non-existent? Why differences between Northern and Southern clans in Kirgizia were so meager?
PS. “Democracy” in countries like India or Japan is very far away from the Western model. Japan managed to live fifty years with a one-party parliament, symbolic checks and balances system, incredible lack of any political dissent on TV and in newspapers. Things are not better in India.
By democracy we mean nothing but a technical model of government that is copied from Western standards and has several variations. There’s no doubt that for citizens of the Western countries this model works perfectly. So perfectly that 99% of them sincerely believe that this model should also bring peace, prosperity and happiness to every country in the world once implemented. Cause is taken for effect here, I believe.
Theoretically Western-type democracy model looks ideal but after its evident failures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Ukraine an open minded person should ask a simple question, “Maybe something is wrong not with the people of these countries but with the model itself?”
It is not hard to see that at the heart of the model of democracy lies confrontation. Conflict and conflict based competition is the essence of democracy. Elections, multi-party system, checks and balances, free press, civil society – they are all about competing, warring, struggling for power, dividing people into winners and losers, fighting for minorities rights. It all works in aggressive cultures where people prefer competition over harmony, criticism over consensus, and change over stability. How comes people of democratic cultures did not annihilate each other so far? I think it’s a result of several factors.
First, the ability to keep aggression "pacified" is a result of a thousand years of never ending wars in Europe between dozens of countries varying is size. The sheer instinct of survival “civilized” European nations and by the time first concepts of democracy were tried European wars were so “civilized” that citizens of some Crapenburg Principality didn’t even know if today they belong to France or to Prussia although the quantity of wars and conflicts never really decreased. Millennium of European never ending wars also brought up a new type of man – a person who is friendly or neutral towards occupying troops, who is ready to compromise, who values above all the life of an individual but doesn’t care much about the fate of his Crapenburg Motherland. But the most important - Europeans learnt to treat conflicts and even wars more like a game that should be kept within “civilized” rules forged over centuries. Fortunately, it all ended with an invention of weapons of mass destruction.
In countries where wars were very rare and where people could enjoy at least a hundred years of peace another type culture was molded. We are talking about India, China, Japan, and Russia. In these cultures conflicts were frowned upon, harmony was more important than competition, unity more important winning, where individual interests were less important then interests of a family, group, nation or country. In such cultures conflicts were subdued, competition highly regulated, team spirit encouraged and individualists ostracized.
Now what happens when an aggressive democratic model is installed in such countries? Let’s have a look. In Saddam times Sunni and Shia lived together in peace, marriages between Sunni and Shia were common, people didn’t even know if their neighbors are Shia or Sunni. Of course, there were small groups of radicals but they were underground. Then “democracy” comes. It was all but natural that major political parties and organizations competing for votes start profiteering on the most evident topic – religious differences. Conflict that was almost invisible before is blown out of proportion. At the same time, unlike Westerners, people in Iraq are not used to treat conflicts as a “game”. They take it very seriously. A country is divided by implacable differences – you belong either to a Sunni party or to a Shia party. What’s more – the so-called system of checks and balances leaves no hopes to resolve the conflict peacefully. We get a civil war but what is the real reason of the civil war – religious differences or a model of democracy that encourages confrontation? More then that – countries that achieved some harmony are strongly criticized by democracy pundits for lack of conflicts and fights.
There are hundreds of examples when a Western type model of democracy gave rise to civil wars. American model was probably the worst although Americans try really hard to implement it all around the globe. Take Latin America, for example. In the 19th century it took only a year or two for a Latin American country to adopt American type “democracy” and a new civil war between “Democrats” and “Republicans” started.
People in your country live in peace and harmony? Then we need to finance some NGO’s that will teach you democracy. “Orange revolution” in the Ukraine is a good example. Wonder why only 15 years ago conflict between Ukrainian-speaking citizens of Ukraine and Russian-speaking Ukrainian was almost non-existent? Why differences between Northern and Southern clans in Kirgizia were so meager?
PS. “Democracy” in countries like India or Japan is very far away from the Western model. Japan managed to live fifty years with a one-party parliament, symbolic checks and balances system, incredible lack of any political dissent on TV and in newspapers. Things are not better in India.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Tolstoy and Qana
Leo Tolstoy’s religious and political beliefs he adopted at the end of his life are often simply dismissed or viewed as wacky. Old man went gaga. But then when I read again and again about justification of war in Lebanon or about the viciousness of Qana bombing, I believe we need to recall who Tolstoy said about war and morality.
Morality is something that belongs to an individual alone. An individual has an immortal soul and should seek salvation. Any group or nation cannot be moral or immoral. Such terms are simply not applicable. Groups or nations are not led by moral values but individuals do. What we see today in Lebanon is sheer fight for survival. According to Tolstoy no violence could be justifiable for an individual. The pilot who dropped a bomb on Qana lost his immortal soul immediately as it killed children. Or condemned himself to burn in hell. Or chose the destiny to become a roach in his next life. I prefer the latter option for purely aesthetical reasons. To put it short – he sacrificed his soul in order to save his tribe. Exactly what all animals do. If species A endangers the existence of species B, species A is “justified” to start the war, especially when it is stronger, has bigger fangs and better support from other animals. Survival of biological species belongs to the realm of instincts not morality and values.
The pilot who dropped bombs on Qana would probably be given many shiny medals, money, respect, etc. but he is doomed. When he dies the greatest praise for him would be then his widow would tell his kids, “Don’t step on this roach. It’s possibly our dad who saved our country from enemies”.
Click here to read Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You” on Wikisource.
"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."--MATT. x. 28.
Morality is something that belongs to an individual alone. An individual has an immortal soul and should seek salvation. Any group or nation cannot be moral or immoral. Such terms are simply not applicable. Groups or nations are not led by moral values but individuals do. What we see today in Lebanon is sheer fight for survival. According to Tolstoy no violence could be justifiable for an individual. The pilot who dropped a bomb on Qana lost his immortal soul immediately as it killed children. Or condemned himself to burn in hell. Or chose the destiny to become a roach in his next life. I prefer the latter option for purely aesthetical reasons. To put it short – he sacrificed his soul in order to save his tribe. Exactly what all animals do. If species A endangers the existence of species B, species A is “justified” to start the war, especially when it is stronger, has bigger fangs and better support from other animals. Survival of biological species belongs to the realm of instincts not morality and values.
The pilot who dropped bombs on Qana would probably be given many shiny medals, money, respect, etc. but he is doomed. When he dies the greatest praise for him would be then his widow would tell his kids, “Don’t step on this roach. It’s possibly our dad who saved our country from enemies”.
Click here to read Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You” on Wikisource.
"Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."--MATT. x. 28.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Руссофобиха жжот
La Russophobe, being even more indefatigable and prolific then ever, took a great liking to my blog. Here's one of her comments that I found especially amusing:
My blog contains hundreds of comments and has had thousands of visits in its short existence, making it one of the most trafficked Russia speciality blogs in the world. You are a classic Russophile piece of dirt, telling outrageous lies totally detached from the facts. Lies like yours are exactly what has brought Russia to its knees. I suggest you check the lead post on the blog, top ten reasons to hate Russia, which contains more than three dozen comments. To read it, CLICK HEREInstead of dealing with my comments in this post, you make a personal attack upon me. Typical attitude of a failed, dishonest Neo-Soviet propagandist, and clear proof of just how good my blog is. You can't handle the important facts it uniquely reports, so you launch a pathetic personal attack.What's more, you obviously haven't read my blog at all, since it clearly states that its purpose is NOT to attract comments but to DOCUMENT the rise of the Neo-Soviet Union. Unlike this blog, only people who are members of BLOGGER can write on La Russophobe. There's a quote at the top of my blog that you ought to read: Vincent Van Gogh sold only one painting in his whole life. I guess to a disgusting little toad like you, that makes him a failure. La Russophobe doesn't think so, nor does the world.For you information (as if you cared about facts) my article about racism in Russia recently appeared on Publius Pundit CLICK HERE TO READ IT where it also generated a large number of comments. My blog is widely linked and generates more than 10,000 Google hits.
Sitemeter at the LR blog registered 6300 visitors in four months. What happened to 3700 Google hits? Did they miss the target?
Seems like I'm not the only one who thinks that Kim F. needs some serious medical help. Here's a comment from Anonymous:
You might not really help LR (and us) further by reacting the way you did to her. She just craves for attention, or rather reaction, as you noticed, like some kids use provocation and wait to get a punishment from their parents to get their love and attention. LR only needs some medical help, and some comforting words from us: "Now, now, we understand your point, and you are right in all of your comments. Some people might not show you how much they appreciate you, but they are just fools. Everything is alright. Do not worry, we will always agree with you. You are very important to all of us."
Can anyone tell me - does a typical American insurance covers costs of Prozac?
My blog contains hundreds of comments and has had thousands of visits in its short existence, making it one of the most trafficked Russia speciality blogs in the world. You are a classic Russophile piece of dirt, telling outrageous lies totally detached from the facts. Lies like yours are exactly what has brought Russia to its knees. I suggest you check the lead post on the blog, top ten reasons to hate Russia, which contains more than three dozen comments. To read it, CLICK HEREInstead of dealing with my comments in this post, you make a personal attack upon me. Typical attitude of a failed, dishonest Neo-Soviet propagandist, and clear proof of just how good my blog is. You can't handle the important facts it uniquely reports, so you launch a pathetic personal attack.What's more, you obviously haven't read my blog at all, since it clearly states that its purpose is NOT to attract comments but to DOCUMENT the rise of the Neo-Soviet Union. Unlike this blog, only people who are members of BLOGGER can write on La Russophobe. There's a quote at the top of my blog that you ought to read: Vincent Van Gogh sold only one painting in his whole life. I guess to a disgusting little toad like you, that makes him a failure. La Russophobe doesn't think so, nor does the world.For you information (as if you cared about facts) my article about racism in Russia recently appeared on Publius Pundit CLICK HERE TO READ IT where it also generated a large number of comments. My blog is widely linked and generates more than 10,000 Google hits.
Sitemeter at the LR blog registered 6300 visitors in four months. What happened to 3700 Google hits? Did they miss the target?
Seems like I'm not the only one who thinks that Kim F. needs some serious medical help. Here's a comment from Anonymous:
You might not really help LR (and us) further by reacting the way you did to her. She just craves for attention, or rather reaction, as you noticed, like some kids use provocation and wait to get a punishment from their parents to get their love and attention. LR only needs some medical help, and some comforting words from us: "Now, now, we understand your point, and you are right in all of your comments. Some people might not show you how much they appreciate you, but they are just fools. Everything is alright. Do not worry, we will always agree with you. You are very important to all of us."
Can anyone tell me - does a typical American insurance covers costs of Prozac?
Friday, July 28, 2006
A Liberal Guide to Better Understanding Freedom Fighters
My previous post "Excusable Terrorism" generated some comment. Pietari posted a real masterpiece. I think it shouldn't be wasted in the comments section so I re-post it here.
A Liberal Guide to Better Understanding Freedom Fighters
At this very moment it is too early to know the precise number of hostage takers killed or captured. In any case, it is important to keep some simple liberal rules in mind just in case one or more freedom fighters survived the attacks by the Russian police and were taken into custody:
1. We may not condone their killings - if there were any at all -, but we have to look for the root causes for a better understanding of their behavior. Were they inconvenienced in practicing their religion? Delays during rush hour in Chechnya? Election losses? Only if we know exactly what drove these young men and women to their somewhat regrettable actions can we make a final judgment.
2. Avoid the term "terrorists" for the hostage takers by all means. They have families with mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and it would be a great disservice for them to have their relatives labeled with derogative terms.
3. The hostage takers have full rights for proper legal procedure. They should be assigned the best lawyers available, preferably from France or Germany. Both countries have a proud tradition of setting proven terrorists free, either as a result of faulty court hearings or by giving in to blackmail.
4. It must be investigated in full detail if Putin is behind the hostage taking. He has every interest in the world to appear as a hardliner, and he desperately needed another victory over Chechnyan freedom fighters. While this is only a non-confirmed hypothesis so far, we have not heard any rejection of it from official Russian government sources - which is quite telling in itself, of course.
5. There can be no - repeat: NO - capital punishment for the hostage takers. Capital punishment is a cruel and inhuman act that violates the human rights of the accused.
6. We request that an internationally reputable organization such as the Red Cross be permitted to monitor conditions and report cases of abuse and torture in the prison where the hostage takers are held.
7. Free flow of information between the imprisoned hostage takers and their peers from Al Qaida must be permitted at all times. Access to telecommunications and the internet must be guaranteed.
The search for a political solution of the conflict is imperative. Meetings between representatives of the Russian government and the hostage takers, under the supervision of the United Nations, are the only way out of the crisis.
The cycle of violence has got to stop! We will keep you posted on any human rights violations by the Russian government. The hostage takers deserve a fair and transparent legal procedure.
You may throw up now...
A Liberal Guide to Better Understanding Freedom Fighters
At this very moment it is too early to know the precise number of hostage takers killed or captured. In any case, it is important to keep some simple liberal rules in mind just in case one or more freedom fighters survived the attacks by the Russian police and were taken into custody:
1. We may not condone their killings - if there were any at all -, but we have to look for the root causes for a better understanding of their behavior. Were they inconvenienced in practicing their religion? Delays during rush hour in Chechnya? Election losses? Only if we know exactly what drove these young men and women to their somewhat regrettable actions can we make a final judgment.
2. Avoid the term "terrorists" for the hostage takers by all means. They have families with mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and it would be a great disservice for them to have their relatives labeled with derogative terms.
3. The hostage takers have full rights for proper legal procedure. They should be assigned the best lawyers available, preferably from France or Germany. Both countries have a proud tradition of setting proven terrorists free, either as a result of faulty court hearings or by giving in to blackmail.
4. It must be investigated in full detail if Putin is behind the hostage taking. He has every interest in the world to appear as a hardliner, and he desperately needed another victory over Chechnyan freedom fighters. While this is only a non-confirmed hypothesis so far, we have not heard any rejection of it from official Russian government sources - which is quite telling in itself, of course.
5. There can be no - repeat: NO - capital punishment for the hostage takers. Capital punishment is a cruel and inhuman act that violates the human rights of the accused.
6. We request that an internationally reputable organization such as the Red Cross be permitted to monitor conditions and report cases of abuse and torture in the prison where the hostage takers are held.
7. Free flow of information between the imprisoned hostage takers and their peers from Al Qaida must be permitted at all times. Access to telecommunications and the internet must be guaranteed.
The search for a political solution of the conflict is imperative. Meetings between representatives of the Russian government and the hostage takers, under the supervision of the United Nations, are the only way out of the crisis.
The cycle of violence has got to stop! We will keep you posted on any human rights violations by the Russian government. The hostage takers deserve a fair and transparent legal procedure.
You may throw up now...
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Excusable terrorism
I found this editorial from Boston Globe only yesterday. On July, 11, 2006 the editor of the newspaper commented on the death of Shamil Basayev. I think it’s a good example of how lies, distortions and double standards come together. After Beslan it became really difficult for mainstream newspapers to write about Basayev and other freedom fighters in Chechnya. The BG editor wriggles but still the point is evident – there are bad terrorists and there are excusable terrorists depending on whom they fight. One line from the editorial:
There can be no excuse and no justification for Basayev's targeting of innocent civilians. But Putin's re conquest of Chechnya has been no less vicious to innocent civilians.
That’s right. There can be no excuses and also no justifications for “buts”. When you use “buts” you mean that the previous sentence is simply a ritual. If there were less “buts” in helping bin Laden fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan there would’ve been less surprises why this “friend of America” hates America so much. For people like Basayev or bin Laden there could be no friends among infidels – only idiots who support them politically, with money, or with weapons and who are spared for the time being.
The Boston Globe editorial tells the usual Chechnya story – Basayev was a good freedom fighter but then Russians were so bad that he had no choice but to become a terrorist and start killing Osetian schoolchildren.
Here’s a phrase about the first Chechnya war:
In that war, Basayev took part in the defense of the Chechen capital, Grozny. Journalists saw no traces of the remorseless savagery or the Islamist fanaticism that were to characterize his behavior in later years.
The editor forgot about Budenovsk that happened in 1995 when Basayev took a hundred pregnant women hostages but the editor is not lying. In fact “journalists saw no traces of the remorseless savagery” in Budenovsk. In 1995 I saw live report from Budenovsk on CNN. Then I, like most of Russians, believed that Western journalists are unbiased. What I saw was a shameless show of hypocrisy. An anorexic blonde about 25 years old is reporting live, “We see women in windows of the hospital, Chechen gunmen are shooting, Russian soldiers taking positions. I only hope that Russians don’t start shooting at women but Russians are known for their savagery”. I gasped. Basayev’s gunmen are using pregnant women as human shields but the blonde is worrying about Russian savagery. She goes on, “Kremlin calls this a terrorist attack but let’s listen to the other side.” Then goes a long interview with Basayev. Then an interview with a hostage – the woman tries to smile and says, “Chechens are very friendly, they give us food and water, they told us about their fight and now I truly believe that they only want freedom and all of us – there are about hundred Russian women here – support Chechnya independence and ask the government to stop the war”. And the blonde again, “What looks like a terrorist attack was actually a desperate act of Chechen rebels to gain freedom and now even Russians support them.” Probably even the CNN editors thought that the blonde’s report was a bit over the top because I never saw her again reporting from Chechnya.
Now back to the editorial:
He (Basayev) was a Chechen nationalist then and, like most Chechens, practiced a temperate, traditional form of Islam. He even ran in Chechnya's 1996 presidential election, losing to the moderate Aslan Maskhadov, whom he then served as prime minister for six months. That was a tragically brief era of independence, moderation, and democracy for Chechnya.
During this “tragically brief era of moderation” Chechnya was run by cave-age Sharia laws, there were at least two open slave markets, trading hostages became the biggest Chechnya industry, the country was ruled by warlords and Islamists. In fact the “moderation” was so high that every human rights organization or NGO left Chechnya for security reasons. They all came back in 1999 when the second war started. Under protection of Russian arms human rights defenders started doing what? Right – documenting Russian soldiers’ crimes that protected them from freedom-loving Chechnya gunmen. Not a single Western NGO in Chechnya did publish a single report on slave trading or hostage taking.
By 1999, when Basayev led a disastrous raid into neighboring Dagestan -- which Russia seized upon as the rationale for its second invasion of Chechnya -- Basayev had grown a long beard, come under the influence of the rabid Arab Islamist known as Ibn al-Khattab, and plunged into the terrorist maelstrom of beheadings, kidnappings, and hostage-taking.
The Boston Globe editor lies here – Basayev invaded Dagestan already with Khattab, already with a long beard and “the maelstrom of beheadings, kidnappings, and hostage-taking” started long before the invasion. When we cannot tell what is the cause and what is the effect, we would hardly understand the bin Laden syndrome.
There can be no excuse and no justification for Basayev's targeting of innocent civilians. But Putin's re conquest of Chechnya has been no less vicious to innocent civilians.
That’s right. There can be no excuses and also no justifications for “buts”. When you use “buts” you mean that the previous sentence is simply a ritual. If there were less “buts” in helping bin Laden fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan there would’ve been less surprises why this “friend of America” hates America so much. For people like Basayev or bin Laden there could be no friends among infidels – only idiots who support them politically, with money, or with weapons and who are spared for the time being.
The Boston Globe editorial tells the usual Chechnya story – Basayev was a good freedom fighter but then Russians were so bad that he had no choice but to become a terrorist and start killing Osetian schoolchildren.
Here’s a phrase about the first Chechnya war:
In that war, Basayev took part in the defense of the Chechen capital, Grozny. Journalists saw no traces of the remorseless savagery or the Islamist fanaticism that were to characterize his behavior in later years.
The editor forgot about Budenovsk that happened in 1995 when Basayev took a hundred pregnant women hostages but the editor is not lying. In fact “journalists saw no traces of the remorseless savagery” in Budenovsk. In 1995 I saw live report from Budenovsk on CNN. Then I, like most of Russians, believed that Western journalists are unbiased. What I saw was a shameless show of hypocrisy. An anorexic blonde about 25 years old is reporting live, “We see women in windows of the hospital, Chechen gunmen are shooting, Russian soldiers taking positions. I only hope that Russians don’t start shooting at women but Russians are known for their savagery”. I gasped. Basayev’s gunmen are using pregnant women as human shields but the blonde is worrying about Russian savagery. She goes on, “Kremlin calls this a terrorist attack but let’s listen to the other side.” Then goes a long interview with Basayev. Then an interview with a hostage – the woman tries to smile and says, “Chechens are very friendly, they give us food and water, they told us about their fight and now I truly believe that they only want freedom and all of us – there are about hundred Russian women here – support Chechnya independence and ask the government to stop the war”. And the blonde again, “What looks like a terrorist attack was actually a desperate act of Chechen rebels to gain freedom and now even Russians support them.” Probably even the CNN editors thought that the blonde’s report was a bit over the top because I never saw her again reporting from Chechnya.
Now back to the editorial:
He (Basayev) was a Chechen nationalist then and, like most Chechens, practiced a temperate, traditional form of Islam. He even ran in Chechnya's 1996 presidential election, losing to the moderate Aslan Maskhadov, whom he then served as prime minister for six months. That was a tragically brief era of independence, moderation, and democracy for Chechnya.
During this “tragically brief era of moderation” Chechnya was run by cave-age Sharia laws, there were at least two open slave markets, trading hostages became the biggest Chechnya industry, the country was ruled by warlords and Islamists. In fact the “moderation” was so high that every human rights organization or NGO left Chechnya for security reasons. They all came back in 1999 when the second war started. Under protection of Russian arms human rights defenders started doing what? Right – documenting Russian soldiers’ crimes that protected them from freedom-loving Chechnya gunmen. Not a single Western NGO in Chechnya did publish a single report on slave trading or hostage taking.
By 1999, when Basayev led a disastrous raid into neighboring Dagestan -- which Russia seized upon as the rationale for its second invasion of Chechnya -- Basayev had grown a long beard, come under the influence of the rabid Arab Islamist known as Ibn al-Khattab, and plunged into the terrorist maelstrom of beheadings, kidnappings, and hostage-taking.
The Boston Globe editor lies here – Basayev invaded Dagestan already with Khattab, already with a long beard and “the maelstrom of beheadings, kidnappings, and hostage-taking” started long before the invasion. When we cannot tell what is the cause and what is the effect, we would hardly understand the bin Laden syndrome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
