02012013
The politics of aggressive war
When is it acceptable for a country to engage in an act of aggressive war? Can
it be justified to engage in an act that has been recognized by the world
community and laid down in international law as a crime against humanity? Not
just my humanity but all humanity?
These are questions the world community should have been asking itself everyday
for approximately the past two decades, but it has not. For it was approximately
that long ago that one of the world’s superpowers began engaging in acts of
aggression wherever it saw fit in order to show its strength, military might and
terrorize the world into bending to its will.
Suppose for a minute you and I are that power. We are righteous, rich and
powerful and control much of the planet through our economic manipulations and
massive media and political know how. We also have bombs and weapons all over
the planet ready to wipe out any adversary and the adversaries of our friends.
We are righteous, our God is the proper god and our people are beautiful, fairly
well educated and created in our god’s image.
We have more of a right to exist on earth and consume the world’s resources than
any of the other nations, because we are the chosen, the beautiful and the
strong. They are weak, poor, envious of our power, and worth almost nothing
compared to us. What is more their god is the wrong god and they are not as
beautiful and tall and proud as we are. The world is ours, we own it and
everyone else has to bow down before us. We take what we want, from where we
want, when we want.
Above all else is our moral superiority, we have been victimized in the past and
the world must side with us and allow us to seek revenge on our enemies who want
to destroy us because we are powerful, beautiful, free and our god is better and
more righteous than their god. Our word must be good enough for everyone. If we
say someone wants to destroy us, that is the way it is. We do not need to
provide proof or receive permission from anyone to destroy whoever we decide is
our enemy.
We know that one of us is worth thousands of them because we are the chosen and
live in God’s land, a land given to us by our God. A land we cleansed of the
savages and animals that had claimed it was theirs. We also know we are worth
more than them because we were persecuted for our God and our god has chosen us
over other false gods.
Since we are the chosen, if we have the idea that you are not worthy of life and
are a useless eater, we can kill you, we can bomb you and we can take your
lands. After all you are less worthy than us, we are the beautiful and strong
and we were created in our god’s image.
So if we have “intelligence” that your country is arming my enemies we can, at
our discretion and when we please, enter any country’s territory, including
yours, and murder the people and destroy their facilities. Sure we can. After
all we are the righteous and you are a bad guy in the eyes of me and my friends.
And what is more we control the international courts and all of the
international bodies that you could use to complain against us.
What is more if we decide we don’t like your ruler we will replace him,
assassinate him or publically execute him before your eyes.
But you will never complain or do anything against us because what is more we
control you, and if we decide you are a threat we will come to you, and destroy
you. Or cripple you, or torture you, or take you to a secret prison and make you
disappear forever. We can even kill you without leaving our own bunker on the
other side of the world.
Do you doubt our power? We have satellites, internet, cameras and even tracking
devices set up in your cell phone. We know where you are every minute. We record
your every move, we know what you watch and what you buy at the shop and we know
where your children are and we can kill them if you get out of line. For you are
nothing. You are the mud people and we are your masters.
Did you imagine you and I were that power? Did you feel the righteousness and
superiority? Do you understand who we are dealing with? If you feel a little
uneasy, queasy or even nauseous that is okay. It means you are still human and
there is still hope, if you feel rage and feel you are being mocked it is time
you took off your blinders and imagined you were the “lesser” people and your
lands were being taken and your women and children were being murdered before
your eyes and there was nothing you could do about it.
Wake up!
02022013
Israeli attack on Syria was an unprovoked act of aggression
The recent attack by Israel on Syria has escalated the situation in the Middle
East and has now pulled even more players into the conflict which was and has
been from the very beginning an internal Syria conflict. Syria has been torn
apart by internal strife fueled by outside terrorists and mercenaries and to
attempt to paint a picture that in its embattled state it poses a military
threat to its neighbors is both disingenuous and moreover an outright
fabrication.
The United States of America has geopolitical plans for the entire Middle East
and pre-determined objectives for all countries in the region. The simplest and
most obvious objective is the bringing about the conditions needed to assure
stable and permanent access to the resources in the region, namely oil, which
the U.S. cannot exist without. The others motivations include everything from
societal manipulation, access to markets, the opening of resource transit
corridors and even religious based domination.
Experts, observers, diplomats and almost anyone who has followed the Syrian
situation would agree that it is a given that the U.S. plans for Syria include
first and foremost the removal from power of elected President Bashar al-Assad.
What the real nefarious reasons the U.S. has for its desire to remove Assad may
never be known but it is crystal clear that the aim to remove him and even go so
far as assassinate him regardless of whether he leaves office.
No matter what happens in the region or within Syria itself the mission is the
same and has not changed since day one. Just as the goal in Yugoslavia was to
get Serbia and the facts were constructed around that goa, the goal in Syria is
to get Assad, remove the Alawites and replace them with a pliable western puppet
regime.
The initial script was organizing public unrest, destabilizing the country,
blaming the authorities for civilian deaths and for the ensuing predictable
crackdown, and the demonizing of Assad either until the people themselves
removed him or until he could be removed by outside forces and “tried” in an
international court.
The problem for the U.S. from the beginning has been that cannot just go in
openly and assassinate Assad or invade Syria. There has to be a pretext, a
credible pretext that the international community and the world will support and
believe. The problem for the U.S. is that the pretexts is has tried to create
have not panned out.
The first pretext to allow for intervention and the removal of Assad was to have
been the deaths of civilians but that did not work out. In reality the civilians
being killed in the country are a secondary problem and are of no real concern
for the West, again their deaths were to be the reason for the removal of Assad
as had been initially planned.
The next major pretext was the shooting down of a Turkish warplane which had
violated Syrian airspace, but as we saw for several reasons that also did not go
the way the West wanted.
After that came the chemical weapons claim, from the tired old Iraqi script, but
once again the West failed to convince the world community of the threat posed
by Assad and the supposed chemical weapons he was said to have amassed.
Now we have a new pretext being tested out by the West, not exactly a new one
but an old one with yet another actor. Last summer we saw Turkey being pulled in
as the world was supposed to be convinced that Syria was a threat to Turkey, now
the country under threat is Israel.
In an interview with the Voice of Russia Rick Rozoff said: “To believe for a
moment that the Syrian Government was arming Hezbollah fighters with weaponry
for use against Israel when the Government of Syria itself is under siege from
foreign supported insurgents, including terrorists, defies one’s credibility.”
Further: “… but I think also what needs to be seen here, is the fact that Israel
has now exposed itself as being on the very same side as extremist elements,
that is Wahhabi and Salafi elements, backed by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and other Persian Gulf monarchies in their attack against the Government in
Damascus, against the Syrian Government.” And finally: “… it is the aggressor
who is claiming they are being threatened and have to launch “so called”
preventive attacks, it is a complete inversion of the truth.”
Yes the new invasion scenario and the reason to remove the Assad “regime” is
that Syria is now a threat to Israel and warrants a preventive invasion.
The problem is once again indicative of a disease that has hit the United
States, one where intelligence is not used to determine policy but where
intelligence is manufactured to support and make policies possible.
As we have seen time and time again and objective is pre-determined and a goal
is set, then the facts are fabricated to make that goal possible. So the script
changes, the reasons change, but the goal remains the same.
Israel is the perfect surrogate for beginning a military operation against
Syria. Israel is a country surrounded by Islamic countries, supported by the
United States at every level, and is almost untouchable politically in most of
the world, as it has been since World War II.
A policy of preventive war was evident in Israel’s attack on Syria, an
unprovoked aggressive military attack carried out to guarantee their own
security.
Preventive war was first initially practiced by the Nazis at the beginning of
WWII. A preventive war is nothing more than an aggressive war under the pretext
of guaranteeing the aggressors own security.
The Russian Federation has officially condemned the Israeli attack(s) and called
them what they were; “… an unprovoked attack against a sovereign state and a
gross violation of the United Nations Charter and unacceptable, whatever the
motives are."
Israel must answer for this act of aggression; no matter how “bad” the Western propaganda machine says the target of their attack may be and hopefully Syria will be wise enough and exercise restraint and not launch a counter attack in response to the provocation, something which they are justified in doing, but which is what the architects want in order start an operation involving an all out invasion of Syria so their ultimate goal may be attained: the removal of Bashar al-Assad.
02062013
Nobel-peace-prize-winning “Assassination Incorporated”: White Paper justifies
the killings of US citizens
A US Department of Justice white paper, justifying the killing US citizens is
currently in the spotlight worldwide. However the paper does more, it gives
“high-level officials” the right to order the killing of anyone, anywhere and
under any circumstances and frees them of any responsibility as long as they
have determined the person assassinated posed an imminent threat. Meaning the US
can now kill anyone, if they think they “might” do something, and it will be in
justifiable “self-defense”.
Normally self defense, especially when lethal force is applied, requires an
imminent and real physical threat. If you throw a punch I have the right to
punch you back or if you point a gun at me, I have the right to shoot you. The
US has now decided if an official “thinks” you are “planning” to throw a punch,
they can kill you, in self-defense, before you even make a fist.
It is therefore a stretch of logic to say that an imminent threat exists when
there is no real or tangible physical evidence to back that threat up. According
to the US Department of Justice, any person deemed to be a “senior leader” of
al-Qaeda or an “associated organization” is constantly planning to attack
America and is a target, but soon, if this is allowed to stand, anyone deemed to
be in any way connected to al-Qaeda, or an associate, will be deemed an
“imminent threat” and subject to extra-judicial execution.
So basically, on a personal level, if you follow their logic: if you merely
“believe” someone is planning to commit an act of violence against you or is an
imminent threat to your safety, you can kill them and it’s okay.
The first paragraph of the DOJ white paper attempts to convince the reader that
the scope of the findings and the paper itself only applies to “senior
operational leaders of al-Qaeda or an associated force”. It also lays out the
three conditions which must be met to consider the assassination of an American
legal, “in a foreign country, outside the area of active hostilities”.
The attempt to explain that the paper relates to only senior leaders is
obviously a distraction from the fact that such a finding can and will be easily
updated and expanded to include other categories once such conditions are
adopted and legalized.
The use of the words “associated force” is troubling because possibilities for
interpreting that term are many and so far reaching that it could, if one wanted
to, include almost anyone. For example: a journalist sympathetic to al-Qaeda, a
banker who inadvertently transferred al-Qaeda funds or even a doctor who treated
a supposed al-Qaeda operative. The DOJ attempts to define that term as
co-belligerents under the laws of war.
In practice it would be more likely that any US citizen associated with any
group anywhere in the world that the US does not like and that the US brands as
“al-Qaeda associated” will be targeted for assassination. The language and
conditions are so broad that almost anyone could be deemed to meet the criteria.
The three criteria that must be met for the US to carry out what is no more than
an extra-judicial execution of an American citizen are as follows: 1. An
informed high-level official must make the determination, 2. Capture is
infeasible but the US continues to monitor whether it becomes feasible 3. The
operation is carried out under applicable law of war principles.
Again problems, first of all an “informed high-level official” could be anyone
from the Attorney General to the president. This is also a problem because it
grants single individuals the right to issue assassination orders as opposed to
a court or another body. The term “capture is infeasible” can be, again, used so
broadly that almost any circumstance could fall within that category and
defining such is subjective. The last is telling and troubling, troubling
because there has never been a formal declaration of war against al-Qaeda and
telling because the authors know the “rules or laws of war” do not apply, so
they use the word “principles”.
Lastly the term “… outside the area of active hostilities” makes it legal to
target Americans anywhere in the world, including in the U.S.
Paragraph 2 states the President has the authority to defend the country and
that there exists an armed conflict “with” al-Qaeda under international law.
Therefore they argue the assassination of a US citizen who has joined al-Qaeda
is “not unlawful”. The DOJ states that such an operation would be “consistent
with international legal principles of sovereignty and neutrality” with the host
nation’s consent or after “a determination that the host nation is unable or
unwilling to suppress the threat…”
Again the DOJ does not use the word “war” to describe its al-Qaeda-based “War on
Terror” and they give the President complete authority to kill whoever he deems
is a threat. The DOJ says assassinating a US citizen is “not unlawful” again
avoiding the word “legal” because in reality such an act of extra judicial
execution is illegal.
The DOJ stating “consistent with international legal principles” again is
disingenuous and eschews the use of the term “international law”. Stating that
with the consent or without if the host nation does not want to allow it,
basically allows the US to now “legally” violate the sovereignty of any country
(something they are already doing) in order to assassinate anyone they view as a
threat.
Paragraph 3 states that citizenship and due process are not factors when they
are “balanced against the United States’ interest in forestalling the threat of
violence and death to other Amerticans… That arises from an individual… who is
plotting against the United States.
Basically if the government says you are a threat, even if you are a citizen,
they can kill you and there is nothing you can do about it. The next paragraph
continues along the same vein stating that the killing of US citizens who are
“senior operational leaders” is neither illegal under laws barring the killing
of US citizens abroad nor a war crime.
Section I, paragraph 5 starts out by repeating “… the US is in an armed conflict
with al-Qaeda and its associated forces” again the words “at war” are not used
and as throughout the document the term: “The US is in an armed conflict “WITH”
al-Qaeda and its associated forces” is repeated. In a cursory reading the use of
the word “with” instead of, for example: “against”, might not seem important,
but when one dwells on the fact that the US has been “secretly” working “with”
and funding al-Qaeda in places such as Libya and Syria, as they did in
Afghanistan against the Soviet Union when the USSR was asked to assist the
government of Afghanistan, the term is indeed important. 9-11 is of course
mentioned.
Paragraph 6 attempts to classify someone who is connected to al-Qaeda as a “part
of enemy forces” and thus is subject to death.
Paragraph 7 is interesting because it seems to contradict paragraph 2 and say
the US is a “non-international conflict with al-Qaeda”. Paragraph two said: “the
conflict exists under international law”. But as we see it is not an
international conflict. The reason for this is because the US is supposedly at
war with a “transnational non-state actor”, the whole basis for the “Global War
on Terror”, which means the US can attack and strike in any country where there
exists the threat of al-Qaeda.
Paragraphs 8 to 10 justify the US launching attacks in any country being used as
a base by al-Qaeda, which by the way, means “The Base”.
Section II Part A, paragraphs 12 to 14 give justification why assassination
targets do not have the right to due process and state that if the government
determines a threat and the three criteria that are stated in the beginning are
met, then killing Americans is okay.
Paragraph 15 repeats the events 9-11 in detail and further seeks to justify the
endless and worldwide nature of the “War on Terror” and pre-emptive
assassinations by stating that terrorists plan and move and it is impossible to
predict when an attack will occur. So according to the US Department of Justice,
it is okay to kill them before they commit their “crime” as it is to kill
Americans, “who may pose an imminent threat”.
Paragraph 16 claims al-Qaeda is “constantly planning attacks” thus they are
always fair game.
Paragraph 17 says if al-Qaeda is a threat then any associate or member is a
threat.
Paragraph 19 justifies the use of drones and smart bombs by saying there are no
rules against them.
Part B, Paragraph 21 gives the justification for assassination when someone is
attempting to escape, in short, allowing the US to shoot you in the back.
Part C Paragraph 23 states that there is no proper judicial forum to evaluate
the considerations. In other words there is nowhere for the people to redress
the government.
Section III, Parts A, B and C, Paragraphs 24 to 34 are sickening to read as they
attempt to provide the legal justification for the government and officials to
commit murder and assassinations under any circumstances when they deem
necessary. The way the Department of Justice has twisted the act of cold-blooded
unprovoked murder into something lawful and in self-defense is chilling and
completely and totally morally reprehensible.
The conclusion of section III is that under the “public authority doctrine” and
if the murder is committed “in a manner consistent with the fundamental law of
war principles” such murders are “not unlawful” and do not “violate the
assassination ban” and that if the person is deemed a “threat” even if they have
not actually done anything “yet” then killing them is in “self-defense” and the
murder is a “lawful killing” and does “not violate the assassination ban.”
The paper also concludes that even if someone is not in active combat or has
removed themselves from operations but is still considered a “senior operational
leader” they can be assumed to be actively planning and thus are subject to
being killed, and even in this case the murder cannot be called illegal or fall
under the category of assassination.
In conclusion the paper allows the United States of America to murder anyone they want, anywhere they want, whenever they want, under any circumstances, and whether the person is guilty of aggression or not. And no one who takes part in the murder will be guilty of a crime, provided of course that they deemed those murdered, to be a threat.
02062013
Heightened tensions in the DPRK as war of words escalates: Pyongyang to respond
aggressively
Surrounded by enemy forces, besieged by sanctions, demonized by the Western
propaganda machine, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea says it will fight
back and that anyone who encroaches upon its dignity and sovereignty with any
form of "sanctions" will not be able to avoid deadly retaliation. The media is
rife with speculation as to what that retaliation may be but one thing is
certain, unless pushed into a corner, the DPRK will never launch a first strike.
That would be literal suicide.
In response to new sanctions and more threats from the West North Korea has said
that they would be forced to take more serious measures than a simple nuclear
test. Although there was no exact description what those measures would be, the
West has ramped up the anti-Korean propaganda to new levels, forcing the North
to issue numerous responses.
The Russian Federation has urged North Korea to show restraint despite the
heightened level of confrontation evident in the latest escalation of tensions
between North Korea and South Korea, the United States and their allies.
North Korea continues to be pushed into a corner with dozens of statements being
released by various officials and committees of the People’s Republic of North
Korea. The Secretariat of the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea
(CPRK) issued a press release on the second of February full of extremely strong
language against the South and the United States.
The language of the CPRK’s statement titled, “DPRK Will Retaliate against
Provokers: CPRK Secretariat” was unusually strong. In the statement they called
Chon Yong U, chief of Diplomacy and Security in Chongwadae, Ryu U Ik, the
Minister of Unification, confrontation maniacs of South Korea who along with
others had said that "the north should choose one, either survival or nuclear
weapons" and "stronger sanctions that the north can hardly hold off have to be
imposed".
The almost open threat by the South to destroy the DPRK was a sign of the
increasing assertiveness of the South, something that has been stoked by the US
Forces in the region and the new sanctions that have been imposed on North Korea
by the United Nations.
With regards to the statements made by Official Seoul the CPRK stated the
following: “The U.S. and the south Korean regime do not hesitate to make such
outbursts as calling for not ruling out even military ‘sanctions’. Warmongers
are inciting war fever while touring units in the forefront areas.”
The CPRK called intensified confrontation a “racket on the part of the U.S., the
Lee group and other hostile forces” and that, “… the UN "resolution on
sanctions" against the DPRK is a product of the deliberate and planned intrigues
to escalate the hostile steps against it to bar it from building an economic
giant, and to isolate and stifle it. But they are seriously mistaken.”
In equally threatening language the CPRK echoed calls made by other official
representatives for unspecified moves in response to what it sees as deliberate
actions to destroy the DPRK and a hint at just how bad the new sanctions may be
affecting the North Korean people: “The "sanctions" of the enemies further
hardened the will and strength of all service personnel and people of the DPRK
to defend their just cause and build the most powerful nation, a
highly-civilized socialist nation under the banner of justice.”
“The DPRK is fully ready for both economic and military "sanctions", and anyone
who encroaches upon its dignity and sovereignty even a bit with any form of
"sanctions" will not be able to avoid deadly retaliation.”
Again what that retaliation is, is not clear.
According to South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency, citing media reports from the
DPRK: “North Korea will "ruthlessly strike" back if the United States launches
preemptive attacks on its nuclear facilities.”
Yonhap quoted the Minju Chosun, a newspaper published by the North's Cabinet and
the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) as saying: "If the United States and
warmongers attack and try to weaken us, such expectations will be a huge
miscalculation…” and “…if North Korea is attacked, its military and people will
rise up and mercilessly repel the perpetrators and start a victorious war of
national unification."
Meanwhile amid reports that a third North Korean nuclear test is soon to take
place Sky News reported that a strange video appeared on You Tube, showing a
North Korean dreaming of an attack on the United States of America. According to
Sky News “The video was released via a website linked to the North Korean state
news agency.”
The official DPRK news agency KCNA issued a statement which read: "The DPRK has
drawn a final conclusion that it will have to take a measure stronger than a
nuclear test to cope with the hostile forces' nuclear war moves that have become
ever more undisguised."
The South has reported that the DPRK may stage a double nuclear test but has not
provided details to support the claim and the South Korean Ambassador to the
United Nations said a North Korean nuclear test "seems to be imminent."
North Korea which is struggling under intense sanctions and whose people are
paying the price for, the “sanctions” imposed on the country, sees the
development of its nuclear program as a right and a necessity. A right, the same
as any country has, to develop cheap and efficient nuclear power, and a
necessity, to protect its sovereignty and its territory from attack and invasion
by the South and the United States, two countries who continually hound and
provoke it.
North Korea knows that one of the few things stopping the West and the South
from launching a full scale invasion is the fact that they are afraid that the
DPRK may in fact have a nuclear weapon which it may use to defend itself. After
the disarming or Iraq, Libya and other countries which were then invaded, the
DPRK knows that it cannot afford to stop its nuclear program, it is the main
deterrent they have.
The DPRK also knows and has been very careful in not making initial provocative
statements but continues to respond aggressively to threats from the South, it
is also aware that any first strike would be suicide as it has seen the US
building up its forces all over the region.
In the latest scandal the West is following the same old script we have seen
time and time again, namely: while provoking and carrying out aggressive
in-your-face- policies, imposing sanctions and building up military forces near
a country’s borders, this time the DPRK, the West claims the DPRK is the
aggressor and must be dealt with.
North Korea is wise enough and mature enough to refrain from any act of
aggression against the South and the West, but it must walk a fine line between
showing it has might and can defend itself and making sure it does nothing that
can provoke an open military confrontation, hence the aggressive statements in
its own defense.
While South Korea enjoys a relatively prosperous existence and is comfortable
that it has the United States to defend it, the North sees itself as more and
more being pushed into the corner and the people as well as the sate are ready
to fight to the end in what for them is a do or die situation. Sanctions are not
softening the resolve of the DPRK, but the opposite is quite true. The DPRK is
growing harder as South Korea is growing softer.
With the United States attempting to consolidate its power and bring the entire
region under its sphere of military and economic influence, the DPRK is country
that they believe has to go. As does any country that follows independent and
robust foreign and internal polices and as with any communist country.
The DPRK has the right to defend itself and to defend its sovereignty, but it is complete nonsense to believe that they would launch any kind of a first strike.
02082013
Want to be a US diplomat? Got a million dollars? Call Obama
If it happened in Russia or any other country the U.S. Government and the
western mass media would be screaming corruption, foul, nepotism, cronyism,
bribes, and transparency! What I am talking about is the “selling” of top
diplomatic posts by none other than the U.S. president. Although the U.S. does
not “sell” such postings openly, “wink-wink,” two respected researches at the
University of Pennsylvania have very carefully compiled a “price list” for
diplomatic postings.
In their report titled: “What Price the Court of St. James’s? Political
Influences on Ambassadorial Postings of the United States of America” the
authors of the study, Johannes W. Fedderke and Dennis C. Jett, looked into the
issues surrounding the appointment of career diplomats as opposed to political
appointees to ambassadorial positions worldwide. Their conclusion is that the
price for obtaining the juiciest postings, such as London U.K. or “The Court of
St. James,” in terms of political “campaign” contributions is between a whopping
$650,000 and a staggering $2.3 million.
Other than the facts that selling diplomatic positions is an obvious act of
cronyism and bribery is supposed to be illegal, the main problem here is that
for the over 30% of such diplomatic postings held by current and past political
appointees chosen in this manner, no experience was, nor is, necessary. That’s
right. You don’t have to have had one day of diplomatic training to be the head
of a US mission abroad, as long as you are a “political” appointee chosen by the
president: which might explain a lot about people who are in such posts
worldwide, including here.
The American mass media has reported on the findings of the reports but are
reporting it as if it just another normal occurrence and par-for-the-course
rather than expressing outrage and calling for an investigation. According to
most US mass media, this is pretty much normal and has been done by all “modern
presidents before Obama”, this said the New York Times.
In the report the authors state that they did not have access to all US
Presidential Campaign contributions, but, and this is an important “but,” they
did have access to the campaign contributions of all political appointees to
diplomatic posts. It was on this data that they formed the basis for their
findings. The authors stated that they could not formulate figures on over all
correlations between contributions and postings, something which is worthy of
further research due to this lack of “all” data.
The researchers hypothesize that political campaign contributors and those who
contribute “political” capital, in exchange for their support, demand a return
on their investment. I think we can agree with them that it would be foolish to
believe otherwise. For the individual, one such reward might be a diplomatic
posting whereas for corporations for example, it might be legislation.
The authors suggest the US State Department carry out oversight on the
qualifications and training of such appointees, however this is unlikely to take
place. As we also know many of these overseas posts are not only filled by
political appointees but by CIA undercover operatives and the like as well.
Something that career Foreign Service employees must find insulting and
demeaning as well.
According to the authors of the report the most sought after posts are in
Western Europe and in the Caribbean and most of these are filled by presidential
appointees. We could then assume that other postings, in countries of strategic
or military interest, or “hot spots” if you will (such as Russia), are filled by
CIA or other intelligence or military specialists, leaving those qualified,
dedicated, trained and experienced foreign service personnel, who have worked
most of their lives to obtain high level positions, to bake in places in
Sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia or any other God-forsaken-hell-hole no one else
would want to be posted in. Not to say certain places on Earth are hell holes,
every place is wonderful in its own way, but there are places one might prefer
over others.
The authors argue that “standard models of rational institutional design posit
that appointments to public administrative office should be on the basis of
merit related to the deliverables associated with the post,” something that I am
sure the American taxpayer would want as well, especially in places such as
Moscow, where people have been posted who have had “no” diplomatic experience or
training whatsoever. However Russia is not a location the authors would consider
attractive.
The report is very well laid out and the rationale behind the conclusion is very
well thought out, researched and backed up with solid data and analysis. In
conclusion the authors state that “… political appointees are more likely to
obtain posts in high- income countries that are members of The Organization for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), that popular tourist destinations,
are located in Western Europe, and that carry lower hardship allowances, than
are career diplomats. We have also shown that the greater t he personal or
bundled campaign contributions to a presidential campaign, the more lucrative
the posting the contributor can expect in terms of per capita GDP, tourist
volumes, hardship allowances, and the more likely the posting will be in Western
Europe, and the less likely it will be in Central and South Asia or Sub- Saharan
Africa. Finally, we have established an implicit price list for a range of
ambassadorial postings. The price for the Court of St. James appears to lie
between $650,000 and $2.3 million.”
If this were to be said of any other country in the world the international outrage would be profound, but in America, hypocrisy is par-for-the-course and every office, including that of the President is for sale, if the price is right.
02122013
Cashing in on Osama: SEAL who killed Osama complains to the media
A Navy SEAL who claims to have been the one who killed Osama Bin Laden has told
the press that he has been forgotten by the U.S. Government, however there are
so many holes in his story that it is hard to believe. Has he been forgotten, or
is he just trying to cash in on the killing of an unarmed Osama Bin Laden.
Whatever the case may be, the world’s press is all abuzz with speculation, and
the Armed Forces are none to happy for the unjustified bad publicity.
In an article for Esquire magazine a supposed Navy SEAL Team 6 member who claims
to have been the one who shot Bin Laden three times in the forehead, once as he
was already dead, states that he is forgotten and has been treated unfairly by
the military after his voluntary retirement.
Among the allegations of the SEAL, who Esquire calls “The Shooter”, are that he
will not receive his pension, that he and his family have no healthcare and that
the government has offered him no protection.
The problem is that all of his allegations are not true and judging from the
article the ex-Seal is disgruntled because he cannot cash in on his “service” to
America.
The claim that he has no healthcare has been refuted and proven to be false:
according to Stars and Stripes: “All combat veterans, including the SEAL, are
eligible for five years of free health care through the Department of Veterans
Affairs. And no service member who does less than 20 years gets a pension,
unless he or she has to medically retire.”
According to the Center for Investigative Reporting: “…in an interview, Col. Tim
Nye, spokesman for the U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Fla., said that
the Shooter was treated according to military regulations. He did not deserve a
pension, Nye said, because he served for 16 years, not the required 20. Those
are the rules that are in place, and he was well aware of those.”
The article also states that “Shooter” has a disability claim that has been
slightly slowed down by a backlog of claims at the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
Stars and Stripes says; “… the story’s claims are getting a lot of buzz… …
disconcerting veteran advocates like Brandon Friedman, who served as an Army
infantry officer in Iraq and Afghanistan and used to be a VA public affairs
officer. “Misinformation like this doesn’t help veterans,” he said. “When one
veteran hears in a high-profile story that another veteran was denied care, it
makes him or her less likely to enroll in the VA system.’”
According to the author of the article we are supposed to believe that
“Shooter”, after serving 16 in the U.S. Military and taking part in “Secret”
operations, was not aware that he had benefits.
As for protection, while “Shooter” claims none was offered, in particular he
wanted free fortifications done on his home, the government did offer to place
him in a witness protection program which apparently did not meet the standards
of “Shooter” who told Esquire: “The best he was offered was a witness-protection
program similar to that provided for Mafia snitches – he could be given a new
identity driving a beer truck in Milwaukee.” Apparently “driving a beer truck”
is not good enough.
Nye, the spokesman for U.S. Special Operation’s Command, said that if the
Shooter was concerned for his safety, he should have not spoken to the media.
“He’s made himself a public figure,” Nye said. “That doesn’t track that well.”
The noise generated by the article surrounding the claims that he is forgotten
are overshadowing the fact that according to quotes by “Shooter” himself, the
Seals trained to kill Osama, and not capture him, and that Osama was unarmed
when shot in the head. However these facts are being ignored by the western
media. Human rights defenders made a point of this right after the execution,
when it was clear that no contingency had been made for capturing Osama.
The “Shooter” stated in the article: “For me, it was a snapshot of a target ID,
definitely him. Even in our kill houses where we train, there are targets with
his face on them. This was repetition and muscle memory. That's him, boom,
done.”
“I'm just looking at him from right here [he moves his hand out from his face
about ten inches]. He's got a gun on a shelf right there, the short AK he's
famous for. And he's moving forward. I don't know if she's got a vest and she's
being pushed to martyr them both. He's got a gun within reach. He's a threat. I
need to get a head shot so he won't have a chance to clack himself off [blow
himself up].”
“Shooter” did not dispute another account which stated that two more SEALS
entered the third-floor room after bin Laden was already dead, and “continued to
fire shots into the al-Qaida leader until his body was torn apart.”
Despite the fact that his granting an interview with Esquire violates his
disclosure agreements, as all of those involved in the “operation” were sworn to
secrecy, Esquire quite openly published details concerning the entire operation.
A fact in and of itself that might question the credibility of the story and the
motivations of the “Shooter” who is obviously in need of finances, although
Esquire says he was not paid anything for the story.
Whether the whole thing is a ploy organized to support the official version of
the Obama/Osama extra-judicial execution and to take away credibility from those
who say Osama died at a location very far from away from Abbottabad a long time
before, is yet to be seen.
As for “Shooter” being mistreated, all I can say is that the US Armed Forces are
probably the best paid and have the most benefits of any in the world. For
soldiers worldwide who live hard while serving their countries and who know this
fact, it seems ludicrous for “Shooter” to be complaining.
Unlike most countries where soldiers are required to serve, the US Army pays and
aims to make the lives of soldiers comfortable, they state: “… we offer money
for education, comprehensive health care, generous vacation time, family
services and support groups, special pay for special duties and cash allowances
to cover the cost of living.”
However that is not all, they do not say that soldiers do not pay taxes, have
access to credit programs at low rates and are given food and other allowances
which allow a soldier to live and not spend a dime of their salary.
If “Shooter” claims he cannot find a job, according to the Guardian, this is
disputed by “Zach Iscol, a former marine captain who runs Hire Purpose, a group
that matches military veterans with civilian companies, and who said the
department of defense had made strides in recent years in improving its help for
veterans. Iscol predicted that the Shooter's doubts about his ability to find a
meaningful role in civvy street would prove to be unfounded. As an operator in
the Navy Seals he has incredibly marketable leadership skills that countless
companies would be delighted to benefit from."
If this were a court of law then “Shooter’s” credibility may have just been compromised, so much so that perhaps we can doubt the rest of the “story”. Or is it that he just wants to cash in on the “Execution of the Century” and become a star? Rather than being like everybody else who quietly serves their respective countries.
02142013
Ugly Gorilla and Chinese Unit 61398 to replace Osama and
Al-Qaeda as the new global threat, or “How do we sell our overpriced product?”
A company selling network security services has issued an
extremely detailed report on how the Chinese Army is relentlessly attacking
Western computer networks and companies. With the war on terror not really
producing enough terrorists to justify the hyper security state of America, they
need a new focus to justify cracking down on the last bit of freedom Americans
have, namely the Internet. The threat to the world is now from the Chinese Army
and the evil hacker UglyGorilla, and they will get you. Really! Run for the
hills!
When a message is being delivered by a messenger whose self
interests are served by the message, one must always be wary.
A cyber security firm named Mandiant, based in Alexandria,
Virginia, 26 minutes from the unincorporated community of Langley (the metonym
for the CIA) in McLean, Virginia, has come out with a much publicized and
self-serving report detailing the evil and dangerous threat posed by relentless
Chinese hackers.
The report claims that advanced threat “actors”, or the
more ominous sounding “Advanced Persistent Threat” (APT), operating in China and
with the blessing of the Chinese Government, have been conducting, quote: “… a
cyber espionage campaign against a wide range of victims since 2006” unquote.
The experts at Mandiant have no doubt done a huge amount of
hacking themselves because they have, according to their own claims,
“discovered” a mountain of information about that these evil Chinese “hackers”
who are a part of the 2nd Bureau of the People’s Liberation Army, General Staff
Department Unit 61398. Mandiant claims their information is from “open source
observations” yet they make many claims that, if they are true, point to a
concentrated attack on a very well defined location and the accessing of
information that for China would be considered secret.
The hackers at Mandiant, or as the West would call them
“cybersecurity personnel”, (U.K. Guardian calls Western hackers who attack China
“cybersecurity forces”), have apparently discovered that Unit 61398 is involved
in work that for China is a “state secret” and that they are involved in
“harmful Computer Network Operations”.
The spying that the hackers at Mandiant have done on China
does not stop there, they have named the exact building where Unit 61398 is
apparently located, its physical address, the layout of the compound and the
buildings, its square footage, when it was built, how many people work there,
the kind of wiring and infrastructure at the facility, the training requirements
of the personnel, how many networks they use, the exact data they have “stolen”,
the tools the Chinese supposedly use, the exact length of time they have
accessed a “victims” network (example 1,764 days), the number of victims,
exactly how many terabytes of data were stolen and even three individuals who
are guilty of “following orders”.
Mandiant’s hacking is superb, (Oh I am sorry when they do
it, it is called “cyber security”), and they even give names to these evil
Chinese “hackers”: UglyGorilla, DOTA and SuperHard! (Very Chinese sounding names
of course) They even claim to have: “… videos showing actual attacker sessions
and their intrusion activities”! They state this on page 5 of their report,
right above a paragraph detailing their “security” products and which ones you
can buy.
On page 6 Mandiant does say they are: quite possibly,
perhaps a little, maybe a wee bit: mistaken, and the operations may be taking
place not in the headquarters of Unit 61398 itself but quote: “… right outside
of Unit 61398’s gates.”
The rest of the 74 page report gives details about the
structure of the Communist Party of China and includes many pages detailing how
the information was obtained, what the threats are and how you can purchase
their products.
According to Mandiant’s website the threat is dire and the
only one who can save you is Mandiant. Their site says, quote: “Mandiant is the
ONLY information security company that can both: A) TELL A COMPANY WHEN IT HAS
BEEN COMPROMISED AND B) TELL WHAT THE MATERIAL IMPACT OF THE BREECH WAS!!!
They call this an “extraordinary statement” but personally
I would go with a company that could STOP THE THREAT BEFORE IT HAPPENED! Not
tell me about it afterwards.
Some examples: “makes us the go-to company for
organizations that are looking to protect their most valuable assets”, “advanced
persistent threat (APT) and other targeted attackers that are attempting to
compromise your most valuable assets”, “known nefarious domains to perform
malicious activity”, “persistent attackers execute a series of activities to
entrench themselves and compromise your systems. If you manage to kick them out,
rest assured they will be back”, “Skilled, determined attackers can break, enter
and succeed within minutes. Other times, they spend days plotting, establishing
backdoors and fortifying their positions inside your company” and “There is no
such thing as perfect security. Attackers get smarter and change tactics all of
the time.” But with all this they will help you, for a price of course.
According to SC Magazine “Mandiant Intelligent Response”,
the only thing to protect you from the Chinese super hackers will only cost you
a mere $86,000.00. Yes that’s right ONLY $86,000.00. (Mandiant was too modest to
post pricing anywhere on their site hence SC’s price quote and no other prices
were found).
The Guardian seems to agree and so does Obama, the threat
is real and you are a target and China is everywhere, just like Al-Qaeda: behind
every tree.
$86,000.00. No problem. OR if you only have $80,000 and
can’t seem to find that other $6,000 measly bucks, I will give you John’s
security advice for free, two simple and cheap things any organization handling
sensitive information knows: NEVER connect a sensitive and/or secure network to
the Internet and ALWAYS hire people you know you can trust.
As for China, I think they might have grounds to file a
complaint as it seems that they have been hacked. Or then again, maybe Obama
needs to target UglyGorilla with a drone.
Imminent threats! Evil plots and relentless Communist attack! That is what has made (Langley) Virginia great and the profiteers rich! Is that UglyGorrila in your server?
02212013
New York Times promotion of tired old cold war clichés
In an “Op-Docs” video the New York Times published, a “KGB Agent” endorses and
congratulates the stripping away of Americans’ rights and freedoms, the
authorization to kill Americans and the out of control spread of drones in the
United States. The use of Russia and the KGB to somehow imply any connection
between the hyper-security state paradigm that exists in America is an affront
to Russia.
The New York Times recently published a very odd and provocative video on its
web-site which seriously brings into question, once again, the editorial
policies of the publication, its journalistic ethics, its independence and the
hidden motivations behind its editorial decisions.
Who the New York Times truly serves has been a matter for debate for a very long
time with an almost endless list of scandals ranging from outing CIA agents to
charges of fabrication and plagiarism to libeling the Premier of China Wen
Jiabao.
Do they serve the right-wing, the US Government, commercial interests or as some
Americans call it, the “liberal” mass media establishment? Perhaps all of the
above, but more likely than not, at the end of the day the true masters of the
New York Times are extremely powerful right-wing hawks with deep pockets and
with an agenda, which does not include the betterment of the American people,
world peace or respect for the international community but which does include
the advancement of their own goals: those being global domination, continued
militarization and aggression and the economic takeover of the entire globe. You
can call them neo-conservatives or members of America’s “black” government or
what have you, that is not of primary import.
What is important is that these individuals and those who serve them, in regard
to Russia, are continuously maintaining the old tired cliché’s of the “evil
Soviet Union” and “Reds under the bed” and perpetually demonizing the Russian
Federation, President Vladimir Putin, the Russian people in general, and any
parties who promote Russian interests or strive to rid the world of these old
stereo types, which were fabricated to begin with, but that is another story.
Sometimes the New York Times’ bias towards Russia and anything Russian is not so
easy to spot and sometimes you might miss it unless you are looking for it and
know the key words, just like American racism, but it has been the subject of my
work in the past and a continuous affront to myself, my colleagues and many
other Russians in all spheres including those in diplomatic and commercial
circles, and those who are trying to build relations and end the tired old
stereotypical “profiling” and bias that the West continues to hold and promote.
This time the biased promotion of outdated cold war thinking by the New York
Times is so blatant and patently fabricated that it demands an answer. Under the
“Op-Docs” video the author, Drew Christie, writes: “When I began thinking of
this animated Op-Docs video, I had two things in mind. The first was the
adoption of drones by the Seattle Police Department. (The program has since been
scuttled.) The second was Yevgeny Zamyatin’s 1924 novel ‘We,’ which was a
forerunner to dystopian novels including George Orwell’s ‘1984,’ Aldous Huxley’s
‘Brave New World’ and Kurt Vonnegut’s ‘Player Piano.’” Fair enough I suppose.
The problem that we have with it, and by we I mean my humble self most of the
Russian people, my colleagues and fair thinking reasonably intelligent people
everywhere, is the fact that Mr. Christie chose to portray a KGB General as one
applauding the U.S. obsession with drones and the hyper-security state.
First off I would like to underline this fact for the entire planet to read, in
particular those who do not know this at the New York Times, and please, if you
need to repeat it three times to make sure it sets in your memory do so: “THE
KGB NO LONGER EXISTS.”
The portrayal by Mr. Christie and the New York Times of a KGB General, that is
if we are to assume his uniform is pre 1974 since his epaulettes had four stars,
is disingenuous and offense on many levels and in many ways. The most obvious I
mentioned above. The next is that it attempts to portray Russia, Russian
Intelligence and the Russian people by proxy as somehow being behind or
supporting the stripping away of the rights and freedoms of Americans by their
own government.
In all fairness if the New York Times had wanted to make a statement on the
stripping away of the civil rights, liberties and freedoms of the American
people, they could and should have portrayed the Director of the CIA, a “Black
Operations” General, Obama, Petraeus, Bush, Cheney, Bin-Laden or any of the
other architects of the entire hyper-security state paradigm that has existed in
the US and brought suffering to the entire planet since 9-11.
If you are a regular reader or listener of the Voice of Russia, then you know
that we, my colleagues and I, do not personally, nor as an Official State
Broadcaster, support the paradigm that has come into existence in the United
States since the tragic events of 9-11 and the Neo-Conservative takeover over a
decade ago. If I dare to speak for all of “us”, my colleagues, myself, Russian
Officials, Russian Diplomats, Russia’s business professionals, Academics, and so
on down the line, and even Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, for decades “we”
have done nothing but attempt to improve relations between our two countries,
improve economic and diplomatic cooperation, end cold war stereo types and the
unnecessary heightened militarization between our countries and fight for the
rule of law and liberty and justice.
The Voice of Russia and I personally have been and continue to document and
report on the illegality of drones (the subject of the video) and the close to
5,000 human beings they have eradicated, the stripping away of Americans’ rights
and the continuation of cold war stereo types by the West and in no way do we
support or endorse the American Government’s unregulated use of drones, or their
illegal use to assassinate or further commit activities that further unjustly
cause harm to the American people or take away their liberties, wherever they
may be.
Fortunately, the Russian people are intelligent and mature enough to take this and every other previous affront, with a grain of salt and not to go out and burn embassies and such and we will continue to work to better understand each other so that we may all live in peace.
02252013
Freedom House crackdown
Bringing the problem to center stage again is a U.S. taxpayer funded NGO called
Freedom House, which has gathered an all star cast of U.S. backed and funded
Russian “opposition” members, U.S. Congressmen, NGO representatives from the
United States and Russia as well as European Officials for an upcoming forum
titled: “New Approach or Business As Usual? US-EU-Russia Relations After Putin's
Crackdown.”
The United States of America does not even try to hide the fact anymore that it
is actively attempting to subvert the Russian Government and funding and
supporting those within the Russian Federation who would attempt to do so for
their own selfish gains.
American backed Russian Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and their American
colleagues continue to push for “tougher measures” against the Russian
Federation, many even calling for the U.S. and the West to implement a policy of
“containment,” something Washington did during Soviet times to “stop the spread
of Communism.”
One has to wonder as to the real motivations of these organizations and
individuals as they are on the U.S. payroll and are funded by U.S. taxpayer
monies routed to them by hawkish mainly right-wing organizations and individuals
who seek to propagate out-dated cold war clichés and Russo-phobic hysteria.
Their reasoning is also to question: contain what? Some sort of undefined “evil”
ideology or some non-existent military expansionism? Utterly ludicrous.
The continuing activities of most of these bodies, many of whom only exist for
the sole reason of subverting (in this case) the Russian Government, weakening
the Russian Federation internationally on all fronts and giving reason and
justification to U.S. expansionism, military buildup, meddling and interference
in the internal and external affairs of the Russian Federation have proven the
wisdom and the necessity for the recently passed Russian legislation requiring
all members of foreign funded NGOs to register with the government as foreign
agents.
Bringing the problem to center stage again is a U.S. taxpayer funded NGO called
Freedom House, which has gathered an all star cast of U.S. backed and funded
Russian “opposition” members, U.S. Congressmen, NGO representatives from the
United States and Russia as well as European Officials for an upcoming forum
titled: “New Approach or Business As Usual? US-EU-Russia Relations After Putin's
Crackdown."
I am still wondering what “crackdown” they are talking about, but I would
suppose they are referring to the recent law mentioned above and perhaps to the
recently adopted Dima Yakovlev law which protects Russian children, or perhaps
the expulsion of USAID for their questionable activities throughout the country.
The real reason I believe is that Russia is strengthening ties and increasing
trade with Europe, especially in the energy sector, and this has not pleased
Washington who sees Europe as their subordinate.
The adeptness with which the U.S. continues to demonize Russia is daunting due
to the level and the massive scale it has attained, as well as increasingly more
obvious, this time the more so, especially in light of the fact that the two
above mentioned laws were enacted because there were and continue to be clear
and present threats against the sovereignty of Russia and against the Russia
people.
We know the following is true for the United States: Russia must be kept weak
politically, militarily, economically and socially. This is for the sole reason
that Russia must be brought under the control of the United States of America
and that control must permanent and complete.
A strong Democracy and civil society are bad for the U.S. because a well off and
satisfied citizenry are not as pliable and less subject to go against the state.
Hence the funding of NGOs and the Russian opposition to sow discontent and
strife with false flag arguments, straw man evils and phantom wrongs and
injustices.
Just ask any member of the so called “opposition:” what would you change, give
me an example of what is wrong with Russia? Like brainwashed hypnotized people
just waking from a sleep they will probably answer something to the effect:
“Putin bad. America good!” I oversimplify but that is basically what it boils
down too. America does not want a strong leader in Russia, they need someone
they can manipulate. The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin,
unfortunately for the U.S., is not that man.
Keeping a country economically weak is also good for the U.S. as a country that
is weak economically is easy to manipulate, its markets are easier to access for
the dumping of goods and for exploitation, its workforce is easier to exploit,
its citizens are easier to manipulate and direct against the state, and its
officials are easier to bribe and buy.
Any country, such as Russia, which has an assertive and independent foreign
policy is also bad for the obvious reason that it is not under the control of
the U.S. This is particularly bad when such countries form alliances, groupings,
organizations, treaties and cooperate independently and without the control of
the U.S. or the cow-towing to Washington.
The script being used by the NGO mentioned above is old as are most of
Washington’s attempts at forming color revolutions, usurping power, overthrowing
governments, getting rid of leaders and giving justification to their own
expansionist policies. We have seen the script in use over and over again, and
in fact, quite frankly, it has gotten old. Demonize, repeat key words over and
over until the world accepts them as truth and then move in with “humanitarian”
sanctions or missiles. In this case the key words “Putin and crackdown.”
What we are seeing with Freedom House is a clue as to where things are going,
especially after the banning of USAID and their activities on the territory of
the Russian Federation. The US Government will now attempt to use those inside
Russia more and more to usurp the Russian State. This will include politicians,
the “opposition,” members of NGOs, academics and even the man in the street. Not
to mention the members of the U.S. Diplomatic Corps who are now increasingly
being tasked with what could be called subversive activities. Anyone who can
spread discontent and destabilize the country will be fair game.
In a recent analysis for the Voice of Russia Edward Lozansky, President of the
American University in Moscow gave some insights into Freedom House. According
to Mr. Lozansky Freedom House is damaging the national interests of the United
States while being paid for by taxpayers. He said: “This organization has
already wasted enormous amounts of taxpayers' money on supporting the color
revolutions in the post-Soviet space, which ended in total fiascoes… Now they
want America not only to "stand in solidarity with Russian activists… but also
to "challenge the various authoritarian groupings in which Russia plays a
prominent role, such as the Eurasian Union, the Collective Security Treaty
Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO)."
Calling these groups “authoritarian” I am sure was a tongue-in-cheek stab at the
ridiculousness of the classification.
He continued: “one item on that agenda is particularly laughable: the call to
challenge the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where China plays a key role.
In other words, Freedom House expects China, a top foreign U.S. lender, to
provide more funds to the U.S. Treasury to finance the challenge against
itself.”
As for the Russian division of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
he says: “… one of its senior associates, (a U.S. paid Russian) finds the
Freedom House challenge approach too modest; she calls for a "new way to contain
Russia," no more and no less.”
Of course we are all used to U.S. hypocrisy but they are growing bolder and
bolder with every passing day. If the shoe were on the other foot, as I love to
point out, things would be entirely different.
Were a group of American politicians and civic “leaders” to appear before the
Federation Council or the Federal Duma and plea to the Russian Government to
expand sanctions, implement harsher measures against the elected government of
the U.S. and continue to isolate and “contain” the United States of America,
those involved would surely be charged with treason and put in front of a firing
squad. But when it comes to Russia, this is supposed to be okay and any move
against these individuals, whose sole aim is to assist an increasingly hostile
foreign power to harm their own country, should be called a “crackdown.”
As for the shoe being on the other foot, Russia would have far more justifiable
and legitimate reasons to take such actions as I detailed above. Russia would
have the moral high ground in areas such as droning, the unbelievable numbers of
civilians killed in the war on terror, the meddling into the affairs of
countries worldwide, the expansion of NATO and the U.S. military presence all
over the planet and even in the deaths of so many Russian orphans. Yet as always
it is the kettle calling…
For the members of the Russian “opposition” who are attending the event, one last thought, if there were in fact such a “crackdown” here in Russia, as the organization claims, then these individuals would be thinking twice about engaging in such activities or in trying to usurp the state and recreate it in Washington’s image from the outside, such activities used to be called treason, and such individuals used to be shot. Meaning by their own presence they are negating their very argument of totalitarianism and authoritarianism.