World Politics

[ferryman]

Re:

God I'm hoping for a Brexit, so that we can get rid of these eternal fence-sitters that still think they are part of a global empire. And then let's see what that does with the Scots independence struggle.

i recon, if the negotiations fail,the uk may exit and imo cause the beginning of the eu's end...

To the contrary I believe. The British have been playing the mole in the EU for a very long time now - a game that they have played many times before in European politics the past century. The EU should be for the willing, not for those that want to have it totally à la carte (which is a 'contradictio in terminis' of such a union, of course). This also goes for countries like Poland, that have received 100 billion euros EU support the past 7 years, but now give the middle finger when asked to house a minimal number of refugees, and some more middle fingers by voting new laws in contradiction with the core values of the EU. The EU has been far too soft for far too long.

The SNP have been very clear on this for a number of years. The SNP are pro EU and want to stay in and I would expect most of our supporters to vote as such. As I would also expect most Labour voters in Scotland to do the same. So fully expect a fairly resounding stay in vote from Scotland.

If England/Wales/NI vote otherwise, which will win the vote, expect another Scottish independence campaign, which will probably be successful this time. That said, I really doubt the overall vote will be that close. The UK will still part of the EU come July.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

God I'm hoping for a Brexit, so that we can get rid of these eternal fence-sitters that still think they are part of a global empire. And then let's see what that does with the Scots independence struggle.

i recon, if the negotiations fail,the uk may exit and imo cause the beginning of the eu's end...

To the contrary I believe. The British have been playing the mole in the EU for a very long time now - a game that they have played many times before in European politics the past century. The EU should be for the willing, not for those that want to have it totally à la carte (which is a 'contradictio in terminis' of such a union, of course). This also goes for countries like Poland, that have received 100 billion euros EU support the past 7 years, but now give the middle finger when asked to house a minimal number of refugees, and some more middle fingers by voting new laws in contradiction with the core values of the EU. The EU has been far too soft for far too long.

The SNP have been very clear on this for a number of years. The SNP are pro EU and want to stay in and I would expect most of our supporters to vote as such. As I would also expect most Labour voters in Scotland to do the same. So fully expect a fairly resounding stay in vote from Scotland.

If England/Wales/NI vote otherwise, which will win the vote, expect another Scottish independence campaign, which will probably be successful this time. That said, I really doubt the overall vote will be that close. The UK will still part of the EU come July.

Yeah, I would think the promise of a new referendum in Scotland and its almost certain exit from the UK would be reason enough to persuade the Torys - and everyone else - to drop the idea of an EU exit.

 

[Merckx index]

Stanley Johnson, father of Boris, definitely disagrees with his son's advocacy of BREXIT. In a CNN interview, he made the comment that it's better to be a somewhat smaller fish in a much larger pond.

That remark made me realize why so many Americans, particularly Trump supporters, take this us vs. the rest of the world approach. It isn't that they necessarily agree with the smaller fish in a larger pond view, it's that they view the pond beyond America as not that much larger than America itself. When you have an inflated view of America's actual or potential power/role in the world, then any cooperation with other countries is viewed with the suspicion that it will inevitably weaken the Land of Exceptionalism.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Stanley Johnson, father of Boris, definitely disagrees with his son's advocacy of BREXIT. In a CNN interview, he made the comment that it's better to be a somewhat smaller fish in a much larger pond.

That remark made me realize why so many Americans, particularly Trump supporters, take this us vs. the rest of the world approach. It isn't that they necessarily agree with the smaller fish in a larger pond view, it's that they view the pond beyond America as not that much larger than America itself. When you have an inflated view of America's actual or potential power/role in the world, then any cooperation with other countries is viewed with the suspicion that it will inevitably weaken the Land of Exceptionalism.

I'd say that sounds about right. But as far as Stanley, father of Boris, goes, I think he is probably hedging the bets of his son, who has been accused of not really wanting Brexit (in that he's advocated a vote for Brexit and then a new referendum for entry under more favorable circumstances).

Stanley Johnson is to Boris as Joseph Kennedy was to John: raised and groomed his son from an early age to lead the country, and will do whatever he can to make it happen. (Which is not to take anything away from Boris, or John, both of whom I esteem.)

 

[Echoes]

Just gotta love all these left-wing advocates of the EU. They are such real hypos. They claim to be representative of the poor, the working class, the underprivileged. But they also support the big shaggy mastodon that the EU is. Hypos! Just because it's the right-wing that supports Brexit in Britain ...

In supporting the EU they support all the euro treaties. In the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, you've got article 63:

Article 63 (ex Article 56 TEC) reads 1. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.

It means that those same Left-wingers who claim to defend the poorer people of these countries also have on their conscience all the relocation of our industry overseas because they believe no authorities can control the movement of capital between Member states and third countries. Hypos! They claim they are social while they are the biggest libertarians of them all. There's not a single zone in the world which is more free-tradist than the EU! Of course they never will address art 63 of the TFEU because they are cowards. If the Qataris have been able to build an ugly tower in London, that's because of the EU. If our industries has been moved to low cost countries, that's because of the EU. Hypos!

Besides, it's just also what François Asselineau discovered. Those left-wing Europeists claim to be "open" to the rest of the world. They are teaching moral lessons on xenophobia and racism. But when they realise that their ideal does not match other people's interests, they become mad. If you tell them that Britain has no interest in remaining in the EU, they say Brits are bast*rds. If you tell them that Greenland has already stepped out of the EU, they become arrogant and would tell you that Greenland does not matter, it's just a few acres of snow. If you tell them that San Marino has strictly refused to join the Eurozone, they'd tell you that San Marino does not matter because it's a small thing (a small country that seems to do very well without the euro by the way). If you tell them that the Czechs wants out, they start hating the Czechs. If you tell them that Swedes did very well after they rejected the Euro by referendum, they start hating the Swedes.

And most of all, if you asked them why a 1984-like continental bloc (actually Atlanto-continental bloc because the EU is meant to be a Euro-Atlantic Union; remember the TAFTA, all these leftists support the TAFTA, obviously!) is needed, they would tell you that it's the only way to compete against developing countries such as China, India or Brazil. So that means that truly become xenophobic. The proof of this is the clip produced by the European Union to sell itself. This clip is definitely racist and full of stereotypes against Brazilians, Chinese and Indians. It's the evidence that the European Union is a world-scale apartheid that gathers 28 countries whose population is white-skinned in their majority and alienates us from the rest of the world. The French have a lot more cultural ties with Algeria than with Estonia. The Portuguese have a lot more cultural ties with Angola than with Finland. The Dutch have a lot more cultural ties with Surinam than with Cyprus, Belgians have a lot more cultural ties with the Congo than with Slovenia, etc. Why should we share our destiny with European countries and not with African countries? Because they are poor? &#128528

 

[Maxiton]

Just gotta love all these left-wing advocates of the EU. They are such real hypos. They claim to be representative of the poor, the working class, the underprivileged. But they also support the big shaggy mastodon that the EU is. Hypos! Just because it's the right-wing that supports Brexit in Britain ...

In supporting the EU they support all the euro treaties. In the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, you've got article 63:

Article 63 (ex Article 56 TEC) reads 1. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.

It means that those same Left-wingers who claim to defend the poorer people of these countries also have on their conscience all the relocation of our industry overseas because they believe no authorities can control the movement of capital between Member states and third countries. Hypos! They claim they are social while they are the biggest libertarians of them all. There's not a single zone in the world which is more free-tradist than the EU! Of course they never will address art 63 of the TFEU because they are cowards. If the Qataris have been able to build an ugly tower in London, that's because of the EU. If our industries has been moved to low cost countries, that's because of the EU. Hypos!

Besides, it's just also what François Asselineau discovered. Those left-wing Europeists claim to be "open" to the rest of the world. They are teaching moral lessons on xenophobia and racism. But when they realise that their ideal does not match other people's interests, they become mad. If you tell them that Britain has no interest in remaining in the EU, they say Brits are bast*rds. If you tell them that Greenland has already stepped out of the EU, they become arrogant and would tell you that Greenland does not matter, it's just a few acres of snow. If you tell them that San Marino has strictly refused to join the Eurozone, they'd tell you that San Marino does not matter because it's a small thing (a small country that seems to do very well without the euro by the way). If you tell them that the Czechs wants out, they start hating the Czechs. If you tell them that Swedes did very well after they rejected the Euro by referendum, they start hating the Swedes.

And most of all, if you asked them why a 1984-like continental bloc (actually Atlanto-continental bloc because the EU is meant to be a Euro-Atlantic Union; remember the TAFTA, all these leftists support the TAFTA, obviously!) is needed, they would tell you that it's the only way to compete against developing countries such as China, India or Brazil. So that means that truly become xenophobic. The proof of this is the clip produced by the European Union to sell itself. This clip is definitely racist and full of stereotypes against Brazilians, Chinese and Indians. It's the evidence that the European Union is a world-scale apartheid that gathers 28 countries whose population is white-skinned in their majority and alienates us from the rest of the world. The French have a lot more cultural ties with Algeria than with Estonia. The Portuguese have a lot more cultural ties with Angola than with Finland. The Dutch have a lot more cultural ties with Surinam than with Cyprus, Belgians have a lot more cultural ties with the Congo than with Slovenia, etc. Why should we share our destiny with European countries and not with African countries? Because they are poor? &#128528

Good post. And I've no doubt there's much truth in what you say. There's just one problem with it.

The EU countries are contiguous mostly. They have a shared history, which mostly includes a history of warfare among each other. They also face competition for resources, power, and influence, from the behemoth that is China on the one hand and the United States on the other. The rationale for the EU is to leverage its members mostly contiguous territories and shared history by coming together to preclude further wars between them, and to better compete in the world against the two previously mentioned behemoths.

These EU countries share something else in their history and that is colonialism. This colonialism is what accounts for their cultural ties with these poor African countries. The African countries don't want to be colonies anymore. If their former colonial masters tried to join with their erstwhile colonies in union, it would absolutely be seen by the latter, and the world, as neocolonialism. And they won't be having that, or hope not to.

 

[blutto]

....re: recent Syria , uhhhh, "ceasefire" (?)....

What Russia Agreed to in Syria Is Not a Ceasefire

The Joint US-Russian Statement on Syria is not a declaration of a ceasefire. It is an attempt by the Russians to split the Free Syrian Army - and its US backers - from the jihadi terrorists Russia is bombing.

....and....

The US-Russian Joint Statement on Syria is attracting a lot of attention. Its text - as provided by the US Statement Department - is set out below.

The Statement is being misinterpreted as a declaration of a ceasefire.

It is nothing of the sort and the term “ceasefire” does not appear in it, though it is used in one or two places in the Annex.

A ceasefire require a complete end to all hostilities.

The Statement not only does not require this, but on the contrary it specifically authorises military action by the Russian and Syrian armed forces against armed jihadi groups operating in Syria which are classified as terrorist groups by the UN Security Council.

Quite obviously there cannot be a ceasefire when military action is continuing, which is why the Statement does not use the term “ceasefire” but refers instead to a “cessation of hostilities”.

....I guess my point is that there seems to be a disconnect between the narrative the MSM is peddling and the above....

....the question is what does this mean ?.....have the US officials been hoodwinked by evil chess master Putin ?...are they tacitly letting Putin do what really should be done ( get rid of an idea now running way out of control...those moderates that are now the worse kind of jihadi lunatics...) ? and doing so under cover of the false MSM narrative...

Cheers

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

....re: recent Syria , uhhhh, "ceasefire" (?)....

What Russia Agreed to in Syria Is Not a Ceasefire

The Joint US-Russian Statement on Syria is not a declaration of a ceasefire. It is an attempt by the Russians to split the Free Syrian Army - and its US backers - from the jihadi terrorists Russia is bombing.

....and....

The US-Russian Joint Statement on Syria is attracting a lot of attention. Its text - as provided by the US Statement Department - is set out below.

The Statement is being misinterpreted as a declaration of a ceasefire.

It is nothing of the sort and the term “ceasefire” does not appear in it, though it is used in one or two places in the Annex.

A ceasefire require a complete end to all hostilities.

The Statement not only does not require this, but on the contrary it specifically authorises military action by the Russian and Syrian armed forces against armed jihadi groups operating in Syria which are classified as terrorist groups by the UN Security Council.

Quite obviously there cannot be a ceasefire when military action is continuing, which is why the Statement does not use the term “ceasefire” but refers instead to a “cessation of hostilities”.

....I guess my point is that there seems to be a disconnect between the narrative the MSM is peddling and the above....

....the question is what does this mean ?.....have the US officials been hoodwinked by evil chess master Putin ?...are they tacitly letting Putin do what really should be done ( get rid of an idea now running way out of control...those moderates that are now the worse kind of jihadi lunatics...) ? and doing so under cover of the false MSM narrative...

Cheers

Where did the above quotes come from? I thought the Russians are bombing the Syrian Free Army, and that's what the US wants them to stop doing?

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

....re: recent Syria , uhhhh, "ceasefire" (?)....

What Russia Agreed to in Syria Is Not a Ceasefire

The Joint US-Russian Statement on Syria is not a declaration of a ceasefire. It is an attempt by the Russians to split the Free Syrian Army - and its US backers - from the jihadi terrorists Russia is bombing.

....and....

The US-Russian Joint Statement on Syria is attracting a lot of attention. Its text - as provided by the US Statement Department - is set out below.

The Statement is being misinterpreted as a declaration of a ceasefire.

It is nothing of the sort and the term “ceasefire” does not appear in it, though it is used in one or two places in the Annex.

A ceasefire require a complete end to all hostilities.

The Statement not only does not require this, but on the contrary it specifically authorises military action by the Russian and Syrian armed forces against armed jihadi groups operating in Syria which are classified as terrorist groups by the UN Security Council.

Quite obviously there cannot be a ceasefire when military action is continuing, which is why the Statement does not use the term “ceasefire” but refers instead to a “cessation of hostilities”.

....I guess my point is that there seems to be a disconnect between the narrative the MSM is peddling and the above....

....the question is what does this mean ?.....have the US officials been hoodwinked by evil chess master Putin ?...are they tacitly letting Putin do what really should be done ( get rid of an idea now running way out of control...those moderates that are now the worse kind of jihadi lunatics...) ? and doing so under cover of the false MSM narrative...

Cheers

Where did the above quotes come from? I thought the Russians are bombing the Syrian Free Army, and that's what the US wants them to stop doing?

....whoops....

http://russia-insider.com/en/military/russia-did-not-agree-ceasefire-syria/ri13012

Cheers

 

[Brullnux]

Just gotta love all these left-wing advocates of the EU. They are such real hypos. They claim to be representative of the poor, the working class, the underprivileged. But they also support the big shaggy mastodon that the EU is. Hypos! Just because it's the right-wing that supports Brexit in Britain ...

In supporting the EU they support all the euro treaties. In the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, you've got article 63:

Article 63 (ex Article 56 TEC) reads 1. Within the framework of the provisions set out in this Chapter, all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited.

It means that those same Left-wingers who claim to defend the poorer people of these countries also have on their conscience all the relocation of our industry overseas because they believe no authorities can control the movement of capital between Member states and third countries. Hypos! They claim they are social while they are the biggest libertarians of them all. There's not a single zone in the world which is more free-tradist than the EU! Of course they never will address art 63 of the TFEU because they are cowards. If the Qataris have been able to build an ugly tower in London, that's because of the EU. If our industries has been moved to low cost countries, that's because of the EU. Hypos!

Besides, it's just also what François Asselineau discovered. Those left-wing Europeists claim to be "open" to the rest of the world. They are teaching moral lessons on xenophobia and racism. But when they realise that their ideal does not match other people's interests, they become mad. If you tell them that Britain has no interest in remaining in the EU, they say Brits are bast*rds. If you tell them that Greenland has already stepped out of the EU, they become arrogant and would tell you that Greenland does not matter, it's just a few acres of snow. If you tell them that San Marino has strictly refused to join the Eurozone, they'd tell you that San Marino does not matter because it's a small thing (a small country that seems to do very well without the euro by the way). If you tell them that the Czechs wants out, they start hating the Czechs. If you tell them that Swedes did very well after they rejected the Euro by referendum, they start hating the Swedes.

And most of all, if you asked them why a 1984-like continental bloc (actually Atlanto-continental bloc because the EU is meant to be a Euro-Atlantic Union; remember the TAFTA, all these leftists support the TAFTA, obviously!) is needed, they would tell you that it's the only way to compete against developing countries such as China, India or Brazil. So that means that truly become xenophobic. The proof of this is the clip produced by the European Union to sell itself. This clip is definitely racist and full of stereotypes against Brazilians, Chinese and Indians. It's the evidence that the European Union is a world-scale apartheid that gathers 28 countries whose population is white-skinned in their majority and alienates us from the rest of the world. The French have a lot more cultural ties with Algeria than with Estonia. The Portuguese have a lot more cultural ties with Angola than with Finland. The Dutch have a lot more cultural ties with Surinam than with Cyprus, Belgians have a lot more cultural ties with the Congo than with Slovenia, etc. Why should we share our destiny with European countries and not with African countries? Because they are poor? &#128528

I agree with a lot of what you say, but the european Union brings in regulations to my country (Uk) that are completely necassary to prtect workers/environment that the Tories would never bring in. Furthermore, so many jobs now depend on it that just one country leaving it would be a disaster for the workers and poorer people of that country. If everyone leaves it then it won't be, but that is not happening any time soon. I'm being pragmatic.

I'm not that much of a protectionist, really. Free trade amiong countries is fine, especially as it is among the state and not private, which is often up for explotation. Protecionism =/= being left wing.

 

[Brullnux]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/25/david-cameron-brilliant-uk-arms-exports-saudi-arabia-bae

See what I mean? UK was giving money and arms, proudly, to a nation which has an abysmal record on human rights and is bombarding hospitals and schools in yemen. But the EU here did the right thing and blocked it. Mogherini, IMO is a good foreign minister.

 

[Brullnux]

Talking about Italy, they have only just now passed a same-sex civil unions law, a good 27 years after Denmark, or 15 years after The Netherlands approved of same-sex marriage. Italy has to be the most socially-backward country in Western Europe (I say this being half-Italian). I guess having the Church in your country ends up having this effect.

The adoption part of the bill didn't pass, by the way.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/25/italy-passes-watered-down-bill-recognising-same-sex-civil-unions

http://www.repubblica.it/politica/2016/02/25/news/unioni_civili_fiducia_senato_su_maxiemendamento-134197267/?ref=HREA-1 (In Italian)

 

[blutto]

House Chairman: Military Files, Emails Deleted Amid ISIS Intel Assessment Probe





Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

By Deb Riechmann, The Associated Press 4 p.m. EST February 25, 2016

WASHINGTON — Personnel at U.S. Central Command have deleted files and emails amid allegations that intelligence assessments were altered to exaggerate progress against Islamic State militants, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Thursday.

"We have been made aware that both files and emails have been deleted by personnel at CENTCOM and we expect that the Department of Defense will provide these and all other relevant documents to the committee," Rep. Devin Nunes said at a hearing on worldwide threats facing the United States. Central Command oversees U.S. military activities in the Middle East.

A whistleblower told the committee that material was deleted, according to a committee staff member who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly disclose the information.

Nunes, R-Calif., also said the Office of the Director of National Intelligence briefed the committee on a survey indicating that more than 40 percent of Central Command analysts believe there are problems with the integrity of the intelligence analyses and process.

Read more: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2016/02/25/house-chairman-military-files-emails-deleted-amid-isis-intel-assessment-probe/80933942

Cheers

 

[gooner]

Election day here.

Polls suggest a hung parliament and the nightmare scenario of a possible Fine Gael/Fianna Fail coalition. It's the only way the numbers can be added to get a majority. Depending on the size of it, they might get a small number of independents to ring fence it more. If this arises, I think we are in for one of the most unstable governments since the 80's and it wouldn't surprise me to see another election withing another year of now.

Sinn Fein might want to abolish the property tax and the recently introduced water charges, but I agree with Vincent Browne that they are more interested in joining the establishment parties of Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and Labour.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/vincent-browne-do-not-worry-about-gerry-adams-and-sinn-f%C3%A9in-1.2545703?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Look at them up in the North. They were in agreement on welfare reform and cuts and then backed out of it as a looming election wasn't far off in the South and it would look bad politically. Westminster had to come in and enforce it and Sinn Fein played the card that they weren't a part of it. They'll have around 25 seats or so and increase their vote and replace Labour as the third party who are practically facing a near wipe out. They would be lucky to even get a near 10 seats. Burton mightn't even save her seat and Alan Kelly could be the new leader when the next Dail sits. They'll be irrelevant.

I normally vote but I'm abstaining from this one. Some of the other independents appeal to me like Shane Ross, Mattie McGrath, or Catherine Murphy and Stephen Donnelly of the newly formed Social Democrats but then they are in another constituency to me.

 

[rhubroma]

And most of all, if you asked them why a 1984-like continental bloc (actually Atlanto-continental bloc because the EU is meant to be a Euro-Atlantic Union; remember the TAFTA, all these leftists support the TAFTA, obviously!) is needed, they would tell you that it's the only way to compete against developing countries such as China, India or Brazil. So that means that truly become xenophobic. The proof of this is the clip produced by the European Union to sell itself. This clip is definitely racist and full of stereotypes against Brazilians, Chinese and Indians. It's the evidence that the European Union is a world-scale apartheid that gathers 28 countries whose population is white-skinned in their majority and alienates us from the rest of the world. The French have a lot more cultural ties with Algeria than with Estonia. The Portuguese have a lot more cultural ties with Angola than with Finland. The Dutch have a lot more cultural ties with Surinam than with Cyprus, Belgians have a lot more cultural ties with the Congo than with Slovenia, etc. Why should we share our destiny with European countries and not with African countries? Because they are poor? &#128528

The initial observations of your post, which I deleted, are the results of an economic hegemon that centrist politics has turned into Gospel in the "post-ideologica" age. Where the extreme right and left coincide is in their shared disdain for the anti-social results produced, as we can see in Black Block infiltrations of the No-Global protests. However, the rampant racism and xenophobia movements stand on the right, as the Victor Orbàn regime attests, or in the right wing parties of Le Pen, Matteo Savini, Golden Dawn, etc.

Whereas your reference to France, Belgium and Dutch ties with their former colonies is merely laughable.

 

[blutto]

....file this under lest we forget....and lets have done in bright neon with a battery of Super Troupers on it so it don't get missed.....even in the world of real ugly this is truly exceptional, even by exceptional standards...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Secret documents found in the Australian National Archives provide a glimpse of how one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century was executed and covered up. They also help us understand how and for whom the world is run.

The documents refer to East Timor, now known as Timor-Leste, and were written by diplomats in the Australian embassy in Jakarta. The date was November 1976, less than a year after the Indonesian dictator General Suharto seized the then Portuguese colony on the island of Timor.

The terror that followed has few parallels; not even Pol Pot succeeded in killing, proportionally, as many Cambodians as Suharto and his fellow generals killed in East Timor. Out of a population of almost a million, up to a third were extinguished.

This was the second holocaust for which Suharto was responsible. A decade earlier, in 1965, Suharto wrested power in Indonesia in a bloodbath that took more than a million lives. The CIA reported: “In terms of numbers killed, the massacres rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

was greeted in the Western press as “a gleam of light in Asia” (Time).The BBC’s correspondent in South East Asia, Roland Challis, later described the cover-up of the massacres as a triumph of media complicity and silence; the “official line” was that Suharto had “saved” Indonesia from a communist takeover.

“Of course my British sources knew what the American plan was,” he told me. “There were bodies being washed up on the lawns of the British consulate in Surabaya, and British warships escorted a ship full of Indonesian troops, so that they could take part in this terrible holocaust. It was only much later that we learned that the American embassy was supplying [Suharto with] names and ticking them off as they were killed. There was a deal, you see. In establishing the Suharto regime, the involvement of the [US-dominated] International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were part of it. That was the deal.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Evans, Australia’s then prime minister, Paul Keating — who regarded Suharto as a father figure — and a gang that ran Australia’s foreign policy establishment, Australia distinguished itself as the only western country formally to recognise Suharto’s genocidal conquest. The prize, said Evans, was “zillions” of dollars.

Members of this gang reappeared the other day in documents found in the National Archives by two researchers from Monash University in Melbourne, Sara Niner and Kim McGrath. In their own handwriting, senior officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs mock reports of the rape, torture and execution of East Timorese by Indonesian troops. In scribbled annotations on a memorandum that refers to atrocities in a concentration camp, one diplomat wrote: “sounds like fun”. Another wrote: “sounds like the population are in raptures.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/26/the-rape-of-east-timor-sounds-like-fun/

....and yeah the title does not refer to a misprint....and not to make too fine a point of this, the guy doing the massacre was our good ally/buddy doing what had to be done to help keep the world exceptional.....

The Rape of East Timor: “Sounds Like Fun”

by John Pilger


Cheers

 

[python]

...in about 8 hours syria is supposed to enter a state which most syrians hoped for years. as the cessation of hostilities dead line, imposed jointly by the us and russia, is supposed to arrive.

i've been trying to follow the events since the strange bilateral agreement, which apparently did not involve those it is being was imposed on, was announced...

will it work ?

i doubt anyone, including the most informed insiders, know. if you listen to al jazeera, which is often peddling the saudi views, they continuously showing skeptical rebels. the presstv and rt, conversely, show interviews with the rebels that already stopped hostilities.

what's the true situation ? if my reading of the diverse and, as shown above, often contradictory sources could be summarized, it appears that most rebel groups have ok'ed the cessation either with the russians or the americans.

the most important group that signed up 'for 2 weeks' and that would seem to hold the sway (among the so called 'moderate' rebels) is the saudi-based alliance. what's curious about the saudi proxies now is that only few days ago in geneva their bar was waaay higher - they demanded the govt stop shooting and lift all sieges as preconditions to them merely showing up in geneva clearly it was idiotic to expect that someone (the govt) with a military advantage would just voluntarily give away its advantage w/o a give-and-take process.

i understand that the free syrian army (fsa) has split. a small group allied with al nusra and the bigger will stop the shooting. the biggest challenge for the process will be where the 'good' and 'bad' rebels are too close or where they chose to hide/fake their identity to avoid being targeted...

it will be interesting if the kurds will try to take advantage of 'it's kosher to fight the isis' and move against isis holding the 90 km border strip separting the 2 kurdish regions. then, turks are bound to respond at wich point i think the russians may strike them being one of the 'peace enforces' and likely having the nod from the us ?

 

[blutto]

.....oh look who just arrived at the party....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Chinese aircraft carrier docks at Tartus, Syria to support Russian-Iranian military buildup

Sep 30, 2015 by admin in MIDDLE EAST & WORLD

As US President Barack Obama welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to the White House on Friday, Sept. 25, and spoke of the friendship between the two countries, the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning-CV-16 docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, accompanied by a guided missile cruiser. This is revealed exclusively byDEBKAfile.
[/

Cheers

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

.....oh look who just arrived at the party....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Chinese aircraft carrier docks at Tartus, Syria to support Russian-Iranian military buildup

Sep 30, 2015 by admin in MIDDLE EAST & WORLD

As US President Barack Obama welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to the White House on Friday, Sept. 25, and spoke of the friendship between the two countries, the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning-CV-16 docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, accompanied by a guided missile cruiser. This is revealed exclusively byDEBKAfile.
[/

Cheers

It is interesting that the Chinese sent their aircraft carrier to Syria - very interesting, in fact. But this is the only aircraft carrier the Chinese have, and it's a relatively small, primitive thing because it's an old Soviet carrier the Chinese bought from the Russians a few years ago and refurbished themselves. (The Chinese are now, apparently, in the process of designing and building their own from scratch.)

The Chinese have been under pressure, I think I remember reading, from the Obama administration to help out in Syria. Despite their long standing aversion to interfering in other countries' affairs (with certain, limited exceptions for countries along their own border), the Chinese last year took the decision to relent. So it's probably no coincidence that Xi Jinping's white house visit happened just as the Liaoning-CV-16 was docking in Syria. Given the capabilities and size of the carrier, and Chinese reticence in the matter, its appearance in Syria was probably more symbolic than substantive.

 

[python]

^^check the date of that chinese carrier 'news' - a half a year ago...plus,whatever debkafile reports 'exclusively' is more often than not needs a sack of salt...

doesn't mean they did not sail by tartus or don't sympathize vlad and assad (they do - just look at their voting record in the unsc), but taking part in the action (the debkafile also 'predicted' att) they had no intention to. nor did it ever happen, thought, the 'exclusive sources' insisted they will.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

^^check the date of that chinese carrier 'news' - a half a year ago...plus,whatever debkafile reports 'exclusively' is more often than not needs a sack of salt...

doesn't mean they did not sail by tartus or don't sympathize vlad and assad (they do - just look at their voting record in the unsc), but taking part in the action (the debkafile also 'predicted' att) they had no intention to. nor did it ever happen, thought, the 'exclusive sources' insisted they will.

Clearly. And if the Chinese did dock, or sail by, it was clearly at the behest of the US, rather than to aid the Russians and Assad. I don't know what "debkafile" is, but it appears they were 180 degrees of the mark.

 

[Bustedknuckle]

Re: Re:

^^check the date of that chinese carrier 'news' - a half a year ago...plus,whatever debkafile reports 'exclusively' is more often than not needs a sack of salt...

doesn't mean they did not sail by tartus or don't sympathize vlad and assad (they do - just look at their voting record in the unsc), but taking part in the action (the debkafile also 'predicted' att) they had no intention to. nor did it ever happen, thought, the 'exclusive sources' insisted they will.

Clearly. And if the Chinese did dock, or sail by, it was clearly at the behest of the US, rather than to aid the Russians and Assad. I don't know what "debkafile" is, but it appears they were 180 degrees of the mark.

'Navy day' type exercise. The Chinese carrier is primitive by comparison to even the Brit and French CVs..The Chnese have a long way to go before they are all weather, day and NIGHT time ops. The russians are doing all their bombing during the day..if it were more risky, they would do it at night, and then their shortcomings would be seen. The next big conflict will happen between sunset and sunrise.

 

[blutto]

....a couple of good articles on Syria....hope folks have the time to read them.....

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n05/patrick-cockburn/end-times-for-the-caliphate

https://almasdarnews.com/article/30011/

Foreign policy is an incredibly important part of any administration; while the Democratic primary has been focused mostly on domestic issues, there are pressing global issues unfolding. Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, has been touting her diplomatic expertise as a former Secretary of State to bolster her resume as she introduces her vision to the American people. Clinton has been boasting about her support for the Syrian opposition in the past, her visceral hatred for President Assad, and promoting a no-fly zone. However, this very same chain of events happened in both Libya and Iraq (both of which Clinton supported) with total disasters following. Her policies are not too different from the neo-conservatives she claims to oppose.

In 2011, the year that the Syrian revolution had shifted into a full-scale war, Joseph Massad, Associate Professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University, wrote to Al-Jazeera “it was the United States that destroyed Syrian democracy in 1949 when the CIA sponsored the first coup d’état in the country ending democratic rule. It is again the United States that has destroyed the possibility of a democratic outcome of the current popular uprising. My deep condolences to the Syrian people.” Irene Gendzier stated that “CIA agents Miles Copeland and Stephen Meade . . . were directly involved in the coup.”

This was a claim that Copeland admitted was true during a BBC interview in 1967; a fact that is now well-established. Copeland noted that at this time the State Department was aware of clandestine activity.

 

[Merckx index]

Anyone following the story of several Hong Kong booksellers who disappeared a while back? They were selling books highly critical of the Chinese leaders, and it was thought they had been kidnapped. Now one has surfaced in mainland China, saying he went there voluntarily to assist the Chinese in their investigation, and is renouncing his British citizenship. This is such a transparently obvious case of a forced false confession that one wonders how naive the Chinese leaders are that they can believe anyone in his senses would believe it.

Four other booksellers have said they were detained in mainland China for illegal book trading. The implication is that they tried to sneak their books into China to sell them. A slightly more plausible story, but only slightly.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-booksellers-britain-idUKKCN0W337D

The Chinese leadership doesn't give f-all about transparency or how it may be percieved in Western media.

Well, obviously they do care what the West perceives, or they just would have announced that they had indeed kidnapped the booksellers.

 

[rhubroma]

The Chinese leadership doesn't give f-all about transparency or how it may be percieved in Western media. Meanwhile the Western leadership looks upon China with only business as ususal in mind.