Supposed Killers and a Just Plain Crook

The guy’s name is “Alcapone”?

it could be part of a wider attempt to foment a coup against Putin.

Of course. This is how we all imagine coups to work.

Step 1) Murder a liberal reporter
Step 2) Topple government
Step 3) Enjoy! Serves 144 million.

Hmmm … somehow those dots just don’t connect into a picture I recognize.

Excellent point that Chaika didn’t mention Berzovsky by name – just alluded to the mysterious “other”, something outside that wishes the Russian government harm.

Seems like a bad idea to me, in the long run. Doesn’t it raise the possibility that the Russian government isn’t secure and someone might be able to topple the Kremlin?

Would the White House have ever given that much credit to someone like … Timothy McVeigh? In fact, U.S. tendency seems to be the opposite – minimize the extent to which there could be a conspiracy, don’t acknowledge the possibility of a coup.

I suppose both tactics permit politicians to manipulate the message, but seems blaming outsiders points towards a vulnerable nation, capable of being toppled or controlled by outsiders.

Yes, Alcapone does seem like a joke, doesn’t it? Al Capone?

That’s an interesting comparison of who we’re more comfortable to put the blame on, depending on if we’re US or Russian. God knows that Bush/Cheney has done everything in his power to convince us that the Islamo-fascist, Al Quada, anti-democratic, hating-our-way-life terrorists will “win” if we don’t [fill in the blank with any of his policies from tax cuts to the surge]. And this fear-mongering has worked to a certain extent.

But if Bush were accused of being associated with the murder of a liberal journalist, and he tried to defend himself by saying that Al Quada killed the journalist to try and make him look bad… I don’t know man. Even Rush Limbaugh might find that hard to swallow.

But if Bush were accused of being associated with the murder of a liberal journalist, and he tried to defend himself by saying that Al Quada killed the journalist to try and make him look bad… I don’t know man. Even Rush Limbaugh might find that hard to swallow.

Who legitimately is accusing Putin? Is there any real tangible evidence? It is just speculation, that for some reason, Western citizens give credence.

Hell, there are books and websites devoted to “accusing” Bush and his cronies of staging 9/11, but that doesn’t mean he is ACCUSED of it. Should we believe that stuff? We generally consider the people who spin such theories loons.

But somehow we are perfectly willing to believe that the elected President of the Russian Federation ordered the killing of a not very well-known journalist. And we in the West, instead of treating such theories as lunacy, talk about it as if it is the truth, until evidence is to the contrary. Even then we somehow suspect it is a lie and Putin is still involved. Guilty until proven innocent, even though there is absolutely no logical reason for it to be the case. It is just accepted as the truth, to the point where the Kremlin has to address it, has to counter it, with just as crazy counter-theories.

I suppose there are people who think the Clinton’s bumped off Vince Foster too.

Personally, I think Putin is to “blame” only in the sense that corruption and crime are still very much a part of life in Russia. His government didn’t do enough to condemn the murder quickly and to investigate and find the killers. 10 months to find someone who killed in another on the street in broad daylight? And then what you find is evidence that FSB and police forces conspire with criminals to murder citizens?

That is a very black mark against his leadership, in my book.

“His government didn’t do enough to condemn the murder quickly and to investigate and find the killers. 10 months to find someone who killed in another on the street in broad daylight?”

Nah. Contract killings are very hard to solve. If they weren’t, no one would be a professional killer. They’re done by pros who know what they are doing. I don’t have any data to back this up, but I would suspect the solve rate of contract killings is extremely low in all countries.

“Of course. This is how we all imagine coups to work.

Step 1) Murder a liberal reporter
Step 2) Topple government
Step 3) Enjoy! Serves 144 million.”

The thinking is this: BAB counts on Western support to topple the government, given that his support inside Russia is zero. Thus, he engages in actions that make the Russian government look bad in order to whip up outrage in the West against it. This may not be realistic, but BAB is someone with delusions of grandeur and the awesomeness of his own BAB-ness. (Does the guy remind you of Lex Luthor or what?)

Also, and maybe more importantly, it makes it more difficult for BAB to be extradited. Note that Litvinenko was poisoned precisely when there was a Russian deligation in London discussing BAB’s extradition with the British government. (Or so I am told.)

“Personally, I think Putin is to “blame” only in the sense that corruption and crime are still very much a part of life in Russia. His government didn’t do enough to condemn the murder quickly and to investigate and find the killers. 10 months to find someone who killed in another on the street in broad daylight? And then what you find is evidence that FSB and police forces conspire with criminals to murder citizens?

That is a very black mark against his leadership, in my book.”

BTW, how would Putin go about cleaning up this corruption without resorting to those dreaded authoritarian measures that supposedly mean that he’s a dictator??

BTW, how would Putin go about cleaning up this corruption without resorting to those dreaded authoritarian measures that supposedly mean that he’s a dictator??

How is crime stopped anywhere in any country? You have to have police that are active, interested, and not corrupt (remember the Untouchables? The movies are fiction, but Eliot Ness certainly was not.)

Having police who actually aid and abet crime certainly doesn’t help the problem.

You have to mobilize the will of the citizens to stand up to organized crime and corruption. I read and hear Putin talking about many things, but corruption within government and organized crime don’t seem to be high on his list. Enriching the right oligarchs, weapons deals, and bringing Olympics to his favorite ski area in Krasnaya Polyana seem much higher on the agenda.

I don’t buy that contract killings are hard to stop at all. If that were the case, the U.S. would have many more contract killings. There were undoubtedly witnesses, there was video of the murder, and there was a known weapon. They become increasingly harder to solve as time progresses.

But don’t tell me they are almost impossible to solve, because there is no proliferation of professional killers in countries with adequate law enforcement. In fact, the opposite is true, murder rates are in decline in most of the civilized world. And it doesn’t take authoritarian measures to do that.

I mean, if you really want details of how to investigate contract murders, I’ll get my younger brother to contribute some words. He’s a Fort Worth, Texas police sergeant who has a degree in Russian (and Chemistry) from the University of Texas.

“But don’t tell me they are almost impossible to solve, because there is no proliferation of professional killers in countries with adequate law enforcement. In fact, the opposite is true, murder rates are in decline in most of the civilized world. And it doesn’t take authoritarian measures to do that.”

You make some good points. (I wonder how many contract killings there are in Western countries, and of what sorts. I get the feeling a lot of them are people calling hits on their spouses, but what do I know.) However, Putin inherited an atmosphere of complete lawlessness (and by all accounts contract killings are far rarer than they were say a decade ago). The question is how does one handle such an atmosphere. How does one “mobilize the citizens”?

“I mean, if you really want details of how to investigate contract murders, I’ll get my younger brother to contribute some words. ”

PLEASE DO! If he doesn’t mind. I fear my understanding may be overly informed by watching The Fall Guy in junior high school.

I’ll definitely ask him. Might be this weekend before I give him a call. I actually always enjoy his police stories, so this gives me an excuse to get some information out of him.

I was thinking about this a little bit more, the crime and corruption and how you fight that in an open society.

It seems that if it is top-down fight of crime and corruption, you have the authoritarian model that you propose.

But if it is a bottom-up (grass roots, I suppose) fight, is it the people demanding their government take crime and corruption seriously. It seems to me that most Russians are first interested in economic stability and crime and corruption are further down the list. Perhaps that is a general model for societies and governments anyway, first provide a viable economic situation, and then the quality of life issues are addressed.

I find it ironic that Pavel Ryaguzov, the FSB agent, is accused of conduction surveillance of Politkovskaya. Wouldn’t that be stereotypically what many people imagine the FSB does anyway? Spy on Russian citizens?

For example, while I doubt Bush could get much out of the above, many Americans are willing to swallow the equally ridiculous notion that Al-Qaeda hates us for our “freedoms.”

When put like that it might seem ridiculous; but I think it would be equally ridiculous to dismiss that Al-Qaeda is strongly motivated by the idea that certain values that underpin the West, e.g. religious equality, sexual equality, separation of church and state, etc. are incompatible with life as prescribed by their version of Islam and as such stand in the way of their oft-stated goal of a return of the Caliphate.

Indeed, having spent a few years living in the Middle East, it becomes quite clear that the US is not hated for its actions alone, as identical actions carried out by others are seemingly immune from criticism; a major complaint seems to be that the US is an immoral society in the eyes of the followers of certain brands of Islam, and thus any actions it takes are to be opposed.

Saying Al-Qaeda hates Americans for its freedoms is a crap way of putting it, but saying Al-Qaeda find the American way of life to be antithesis of how society would look were their ambitions achieved is hardly inaccurate.

If the British had any sense of justice, they would toss him to Putin’s salivating prosecutors.

If the British had any sense of justice, they would put his extradition through a court in which those requesting the extradition would have to prove their case against him. Until such time this is done and the court finds the case for his extradition sound, the British are exercising an impressive sense of justice by not granting the request for his extradition.

“If the British had any sense of justice, they would put his extradition through a court in which those requesting the extradition would have to prove their case against him.”

Have the British proven their case against Lugovoi yet?

Have the British proven their case against Lugovoi yet?

This is irrelevant. Under English law, each court case is considered in isolation and judgement is made on the merits of the case being considered only.

But whilst we’re on the subject, has Britain been given an impartial venue in which to prove a case against Lugovoi?

“has Britain been given an impartial venue in which to prove a case against Lugovoi?”

Does such a place exist?

Does such a place exist?

Probably not in Russia. But it is highly likely that the case of Berezovsky was heard in an impartial court.

Probably not in Britain either…

“Indeed, having spent a few years living in the Middle East, it becomes quite clear that the US is not hated for its actions alone, as identical actions carried out by others are seemingly immune from criticism; ”

BTW Tim, could you mention some examples? I’m curious as to what you’re thinking of.

“I was thinking about this a little bit more, the crime and corruption and how you fight that in an open society.

It seems that if it is top-down fight of crime and corruption, you have the authoritarian model that you propose.”

I think a lot of commentary about Russia and indeed lots of countries kind of either ignores historical and the broader context within which things occur or simplifies it to the point of absurdity (“Russians or Chinese are inherently authoritarian” or somesuch nonsense).

If some leader, let’s call him Puddin, comes into power in a country wracked with problems that need to be urgently addressed, obviously he has to address them using the means at his disposal in the context in which he exists. Puddin cannot magically wave his arms about and, presto!, an open society governed by the rule of law appears. He has to operate using the tools he has. Actually, the “rule of law” may be totally unworkable in the country in whicb Puddin has come to power. If the economy is controlled by criminals, he can either apply the rule of law impartially, which mean prosecuting everybody and probably destroying the economy in the process, or he can put the rule of law on the back burner until such a time as that risk does not exist.

Probably not in Britain either…

So you’re saying that the British courts are not impartial, and that specifically the case of Berezovsky was not heard in an impartial court?

BTW Tim, could you mention some examples? I’m curious as to what you’re thinking of.

1. The complaint that the US supplied Saddam Hussein with arms. The USSR, China, and France provided almost all of Saddam Hussein’s arms, yet escape criticism. The US provided fewer arms (by valuation) to Saddam Hussein than Brazil and Denmark.

2. That the US uses its veto at the UN to protect its own interests in the Middle East and elsewhere. Russia, France, and China doing the same escape criticism.

3. That the US is committing genocide against Muslims in Iraq. The government of Sudan, who is genuinely committing genocide against Muslims in Darfur, escapes criticism.

4. That the US, via its supposed proxy Israel, suppresses Palestinians by keeping them in refugee camps. Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria keep suppress Palestinians by keeping them in refugee camps, yet escape criticism.

Those are off the top of my head, late at night. I could dig through the archives of my own blog and find some more concrete examples, but this is generally what I mean when I say it is not the actions of the US per se which generate the hatred, more what the society behind the government behind the actions represents.

Thanks for your examples.

I think part of the issue with respect to the perceptions of the US in the Middle East may simply be because the US is a very big and obvious player, and so is in the news more often.

I meant that I doubted Lugovoi could get a very trial (whatever that is) in Britain.

Sorry, that should read “fair trial.”

Sorry for the misspell.

How someone else addressed why some American actions are viewed in a certain manner:

http://antiwar.com/bandow/

Israel has legitimate interests which some don’t recognize. On the other hand, the US has had a double standard in supporting the Jewish state in a manner that it doesn’t consider with other nations.

This double standard is especially noticeable among many non-Israelis in the Middle East.

As per an earlier point about Syrian and Israeli treatment of Palestinians:

It’s true that Damascus has had instances of going against Palestinian interests. Like in the middle 19 seventies, when Syria militarily intervened in Lebanaon on the side of those Maronite groups who opposed the PLO. That move by Syria had the tacit support of Israel and the US.

Note that Syria doesn’t occupy Palestinian territory, in addition to having been supportive of the Palestinians on a number of occasions.

Sean

Note how the comparative politics approach has been utilized in this thread. A number of Israelis and supporters of Israel often do go that route when addressing criticism of the Jewish state. Ditto those having noticeable sympathtry with Anglo-American geo-strategic endeavors.

In some circles, this comparative approach becomes “childish” and “imature” when addressing unbalanced/hypocritical criticism of Russia.

Theoretically, there’s nothing wrong with the comparative politics tact, as long as it’s reasonably implemented.

Pardon misspell of Lebanon.

Actually, the “rule of law” may be totally unworkable in the country in whicb Puddin has come to power. If the economy is controlled by criminals, he can either apply the rule of law impartially, which mean prosecuting everybody and probably destroying the economy in the process, or he can put the rule of law on the back burner until such a time as that risk does not exist.

Yes, first things first and undoubtedly that has been the case in Russia’s transition since the end of the Soviet Union. However, there has to be a point sometime in the near future where crime and corruption have to be a focal point. And I have a sense that when that as these issues are seriously addressed in Russia, it likely will conform to more of a top-down model. Adding more laws often seems to be the Russian solution to everything, which in my experience, only unleashes the Russian populations imagination in finding a way around their damnable confusing to nonsensical laws.

Not like in the US (snicker).

Much unlike the US (snicker).

For the benefit of a visiting grammar Nazi.

“They hate us for our freedom” is just a bumper sticker in any case. Newman provides more background for that. Certainly the U.S. actions are viewed through a certain filter or prejudiced bias. Aid to Israel is often cited, when actually the U.S. provides more monetary aid (in total) to the surrounding Muslim nations that oppose Israel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAoHxZAXVkQ

This bit is amusing and the sort of thing that is sure to set Newman off on a total tangent. Perhaps the Brit can explain to us how billions and billions of U.S. tax dollars were all well spent.

The near-infinite pile-up of laws nobody obeys really is amusing, isn’t it?

Yup.

Wally, how about military aid?

“Not like” is perfectly acceptable if not eloquent. You get a B.

Wally, how about military aid

That Daily Show youtube link has Jon Stewart discussing, albeit very briefly and comedically, the billions in military aid we’ve thrown at Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, currently and in the past.

I might be paraphrasing a bit, but my favorite line is: “Oh, billions of dollars! Is there nothing you can’t fix?”

By the way, of all the various, nearly worthless, social networking websites that I’ve encountered – stumbleupon.com seems to be the only one that has a good idea. It is sort of a combination of del.icio.us, myspace, facebook, and blogging – but in a way that allows you to really discover some very interesting websites and people with shared interests.

Why the hell does Saudi Arabia need military aid? They’re loaded.

(And thus the thread does drift.)

“why else would they hate us? We are so good! It must be because we are so good!” “Good” is a metonym for “free” here

Yes, and it is also implied that those who are against us (or even not 100% “with” us – witness France post 9/11) are therefore “BAD” and any aggressive action we take against them is somehow justified.

I think that plays very well with the American population, who generally have very limited experience outside of the U.S.

“Why the hell does Saudi Arabia need military aid? They’re loaded.

(And thus the thread does drift.)”

****

Yes it does on the last point. Doug Henwood might know about John Fisk’s splendidly excellent 1980s show “Digressions” on WBAI. There was also a recent SRB thread discussion on anarchists, which wasn’t so related to the post above it.

Reasoned flexibility and consistency lead to a better product. This point pertains to the incredibly fucked up panel discussion “The Montenegrin Precedent”, which saw Andrei Tsygankov and George Patrick Armstrong provide little (if any) balance to the otherwise very collapseable slant of Janusz Bugajski and Donald Jensen.

Initially, American aid to Saudi Arabia was for the purpose of propping an anti-Communist/anti-Nasser government. Later it was to back the Saudi government’s anti-Saddam/anti-Osama position. The Saudi armed forces never played much of a role in any of the Arab-Israeli wars.

Following up on some points made by Tim and Wally, no Arab country or countries will ever likely attack Israel without Egypt. Camp David was concocted to get the Egyptians away from the USSR and an Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement in exchange for American military aid to Cairo. Aid that was later used as a defense against Saddam and Osama like activity.

To get back to the initial comment — Sean, I don’t get your point. Why is is “sad” that people have attacked the “it’s Berezovsky” accusation and respond forcibly to it?

They do so because Chaika 1) provided nothing in the evidence to show it was BAB in the green room with a hammer; 2) he stated that the murder could only have been in the interests of destablizing society, whereas there are dozens of reasons why Politkovskaya might have been killed; 3) he tied it to Paul Khlebnikov’s murder, whereas the prosecutor’s office has already named a different guy who put out the hit; 4) he tied it to Kozlov’s murder which, according to all the information put out by the prosecutor’s office, is close to solved and totally unrelated to this; and 5) it’s simply ridiculous that everything that goes wrong in the country is done “by someone else from abroad.” It’s ridiculous that the Georgians are bombing themselves. It’s ridiculous that all the demonstrations are paid for (because of course no one in the country has any reason to complain about anything), and it’s ridiculous that every time some official says something outrageous — like we’re thinking of placing nuclear weapons in Belarus — two days later some other official says: You didn’t understand him. You’re distorting what he said. Everything is always “someone else’s fault.” The hazing in the army is the fault of “socity.” Russia pulls out of arms treaties and “we take no responsibility for this — we are forced to do it.”

It’s laughable (except it isn’t). But that’s why everyone jumped on it.

Thanks, Tim, for excellent example of double standards mixed with poor information ))
My comments to your discussion with Chris are in CAPITAl letters (and sorry for my English)

# Tim Newman on August 30, 2007 5:54 am

If the British had any sense of justice, they would toss him to Putin’s salivating prosecutors.

If the British had any sense of justice, they would put his extradition through a court in which those requesting the extradition would have to prove their case against him. Until such time this is done and the court finds the case for his extradition sound, the British are exercising an impressive sense of justice by not granting the request for his extradition.

THEY DID PUT IT THROUGH THE COURT. WITH SAME JUDGE THAT “SOLVED” ZAKAEV’S CASE.
THIS TIME THE JUDGE CLOSED THE CASE BECAUSE …. WHAT A SURPRISE! …BRITISH GOVERNMENT GRANTED POLITICAL ASSILYM TO BAB. SO IT WOULD BE WASTE OF TIME AND TAX PAYERS MONEY EVEN TO LOOK INTO THE CASE AS ANYWAY BRITISH LAW DOESN’T ALLOW EXTRADITIONS OF THOSE THEY GRANTED “PROTECTION” (КРЫША). THIS IS NOT DIRECT WORDS OF JUDGE BUT VERY CLOSE.
FYI. FINAL EXTRADITION DECISION IS MADE BY UK GOVERNMENT ANYWAY. SEE PINOCHET CASE.

# Chrisius Maximus on August 30, 2007 7:03 am

“If the British had any sense of justice, they would put his extradition through a court in which those requesting the extradition would have to prove their case against him.”

Have the British proven their case against Lugovoi yet?
# Tim Newman on August 30, 2007 9:24 am

Have the British proven their case against Lugovoi yet?

This is irrelevant. Under English law, each court case is considered in isolation and judgement is made on the merits of the case being considered only.

IT IS VERY RELEVANT. YOU WANT RUSSIA TO COMPLY WITH BRITISH TRADITIONS BUT RELIEVE BRITS FROM RESPECTING RUSSIAN TRADITIONS (AND LAW) THAT DOESN’T ALLOW EXTRADITION (EUROPEAN TREATY ALSO ALLOWS REJECTING – IN ARTICLE 6)

But whilst we’re on the subject, has Britain been given an impartial venue in which to prove a case against Lugovoi?

POSITIVE. THEY SHOULD SEND LEGAL TEAM WITH THE CASE (AND BETTER – WITH SOME EVIDENCE) TO TRY LUGOVOY IN RUSSIAN COURT. EXACTLY AS RUSSIA DID WITH BAB AND ZAKAEV. OR DO YOU MEAN THAT BRITS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO RESPECT THE LAW OF OTHER COUNTRIES? WELL, WHY SHOULD RUSSIA CARE ABOUT LONDON THEN?

# Chrisius Maximus on August 30, 2007 9:35 am

“has Britain been given an impartial venue in which to prove a case against Lugovoi?”

Does such a place exist?
# Tim Newman on August 30, 2007 10:00 am

Does such a place exist?

Probably not in Russia. But it is highly likely that the case of Berezovsky was heard in an impartial court.

YOU SIMPLY NEVER HEARD THIS IMPARTIAL JUDGE THAT DEALT WITH BAB’s AND ZAKAEV’s CASES.
TO ANSWER YOUR FURTHER QUESTION – BOTH CASES WERE PRESENTED IN THE COURT BY CROWN PROSECUTORS (NOT BY DRUNK STUPID CORRUPTED RUSSIAN MILIZIONER)
# Chrisius Maximus on August 30, 2007 10:04 am

Probably not in Britain either…

ONLY VERY (REALY VERY) NAIVE PERSON CAN THINK THAT BRITISH JUDGES ARE NOT HUMANS AND AS SUCH DON’T READ “INDEPENDENT” PRESS (I CALLED THEM WMD – Weapons of Mass Desinformation):)))

YOU CAN FIND MORE AT ivanov_su LJ

PS. NOTHING PERSONAL. JUST LEGAL BUSINESS.

that former Russian security agents and police possibly collaborated with organized crime to commit this murder.

Yes, if true … that is the real story here.

It is not the question who commited. The question is – who ordered. Who was that Who?

PS. I doubt that the shooter is alive.

Sean — yes and no. I’m judging by the Russian press and what I read on Johnson’s List, and it seems there were plenty of comments about the number of people who could have conceivably wanted to kill Politkovskaya. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to focus on the absurd “it’s BAB” accusation, since this was a particularly ridiculous version of it. I don’t think it gives it greater legitimacy.

It’s interesting that some of you find the real story to be the collaboration of employees of the security services in the crime. Here, at least, that is not really news. People know that’s been going on for a long time — think of all the stories about the ‘bent cops’.

FYI, the day Chaika made his announcement, Ekho Moskvy got Dmitry Muratov, editor of Novaya gazeta, on the phone. He hadn’t heard the statement. At first he talked for a long time about the investigative team — said they were really smart and dedicated, that after years of fighting and disappointment with the prosecutor’s office he felt confidence in them, that they had cooperated with NG, and that the work was not finished, but it was “intellectual” solid work. Then the EM correspondents said: What about the person who ordered the hit being abroad? Silence. Muratov: Well, hm, do you think the chief prosecutor would refer to Chechnya as “abroad?” Then they read the read of the statement, and Muratov said: Oh, got it. He was clearly taken aback that what he perceived as a good investigation was being hijacked by politicians.

“Doug Henwood might know about John Fisk’s splendidly excellent 1980s show “Digressions” on WBAI.”

He might. He was also quite pissed off when a certain person decided to spam him.

Who? Peter Lavelle and his Untimely Thoughts?

Irony and hypocrisy are at play. It’s okay for one analyst to call another “nuts”. On the other hand, critique the former’s work and one might be accused of “abuse”.

Nope. That would be when I apologized to Henwood because you were spamming him. Considering that Peter and Doug know each other and subscribe to each other’s discussion lists, the former couldn’t very spam the latter, now could he?

Another person spammed, another enemy made.

In addition to the once actively mailed UT, the Action Ukraine Report is often initially mailed on an unsolicited basis.

Recipients who like such mailings, stay on them, with others having the option to request off. It comes down to an individual matter of taste.

UT was suddenly mailed out to people en masse without their consent.

It was a computer glitch, Mike.

LOL!

Chris, people who had no knowledge of PL and yourself suddenly received it.

In any event, if DH wants off, he can send a request and it will be honored. UT had the same route.

Doth not contradict my statement.

Stop spamming people, man. Do you have any idea how many people I had to apologize to? Jesus H. Christ. Have some consideration.

Mike, you’ve been in Doug’s killfile since the first time you spammed him.

Irony and hypocrisy highlighted.

UT was “spam” in the way you define it towards my list.

In point of fact, some of the UT admirers appreciate being on my list.

That goes for a good number of non-UT admirers and a greater number of those who never heard of it.

Chris:

Let him communicate those thoughts to me himself.

The spirit of open expression over secret societies.

“Let him communicate those thoughts to me himself.”

****

Let him do whatever the fuck he wants.

Perhaps the secret societies are in part secret because certain people like to send their subscribers spam, forcing their moderators to apologize, which is quite annoying I can tell you.

Bullshit. More like they fear making asses of themselves in the open.

Such a society can easily block the email info.

Nope. It’s the spammin’, ya dirty little spammer, you.

PL and yourself are such HYPOCRITE!

It’s plural. There should be an “s” on the end, ya spammer.

A sign that the grammar Nazi hypocrite “spammer” accomplice has lost again.

Upon reading these exchanges, a number of people can verify (privately and perhaps otherwise) just how full of shit he is.

“Upon reading these exchanges, a number of people can verify (privately and perhaps otherwise) just how full of shit he is.”

That would be Alexander and Andrew Waller? They don’t work for you anymore. As a matter of fact they’re going to be leaving testimonials at my new blog: http://www.sockpuppetsarepeopletoo.blogspot.com/

Not who I’d in mind.

They left on account of dim wipes like yourself utilizing sock puppets.

Note how he drifted to trolldom after being unable to successfully back his hypocritically wacked out claims.

“Not who I’d in mind.”

It sure as hell won’t be Doug Henwood.

Not him, as I haven’t received any word from him.

He could’ve contacted me to request off if that’s what he desires.

The funny thing is that when a few words are changed, this fits the American Christian right quite perfectly.

Yes, I’m aware of this, but am not sure how it is relevant. Although American Christians might share a similar view of the immorality of the world with the followers of Al-Qaeda, the former is not planning and carrying out mass murder of innocent civilians in order to create a world in which their religious views become law on pain of death. I do hope you are not making the suggestion, as is made on a daily basis on crap websites and poor quality newspapers, that American Christians and Al-Qaeda are equally dangerous and morally indistiguishable because their opinions alone have a similar basis.

Whether Bush’s comments about Al Quaeda are true or not means little.

No doubt, but if Bush’s comments about Al-Qaeda are true it is difficult to see why you dismiss them as “a ridiculous notion”. I agree with the a lot of your follow-up explanation as to how this rhetoric is used in public, and I’ve already said that the manner in which it is put is clumsy and crap, but if there is a simple, one-line explanation for Al-Qaeda’s attacks on the US, the statement “They hate us because of who we are and what we stand for” is a far better than the more common statement “They hate us because of our evil foreign policy” or similar, which usually unravels as soon as you take the time to listen to what Al-Qaeda are actually saying at the same time as consulting a decent history book.

Isn’t “They hate us because of who we are and what we stand for” and “They hate us because of our evil foreign policy” the same thing?

Absolutely not.

The former suggests, correctly IMO, that the threat from Al-Qaeda will remain unless and until the West changes its society and institutions to suit Al-Qaeda’s approved method of organising society and government.

The latter suggests that if the US made changes to its foreign policy which falls short of the type of changes I refer to in the above paragraph, the threat from Al-Qaeda will go away.

In effect, the above two statements reflect two schools of thought which encompass most reasonably sensible people in the West. That you ask if the two are not one and the same can only mean that you belong to the latter school, in that you think the threat from Al-Qaeda can be reduced or eliminated by adjusting policy as opposed to complete overhaul of western society. This is by far the most popular view, and is probabaly prevails in over 75% of the population of Europe.

However, I personally think this view, although popular, is mistaken. I believe the only way to deal with the threat from Al-Qaeda is to reduce their ability to do us harm (how that may be achieved is a matter for another post). I think the huge mistake in the alternative school of thought is that it is aimed at reducing Al-Qaeda’s motivation for doing us harm, which in my opinion is impossible. I think that nothing which the US or the West can do short of overhauling its entire society will reduce the motivation Al-Qaeda, and its staggering number of sympathisers, to do us harm.

Most of the world, with half the US as pretty much the only exception, is gambling on Bush being wrong about Al-Qaeda hating us for what we are as opposed to what we do abroad. Having lived in Islamic societies and having witnessed first hand a demonstration over the Danish cartoons, I think history will show – after several decades, perhaps – that Bush has called this one right, even if he has called so much else wrong.

Are all “Islamic societies” (countries) the same?

Look how the West treats Turkey and the Bosnian Muslims. Both have definite fundamentalist aspects within their respective ranks.

While having authoritarian aspects, the former Russian Empire/Soviet “Muslim societies” are pretty secular.

Doug Henwood openly invites emails to his Panix address at this page:

http://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/

So much for the previously stated bullshit.

Mike, LBO is a newsletter. They have contact email. Which is not to be abused as spam. I should no, being a long-time subscriber and acquaintance of Doug.

Trust me, Mike, Doug doesn’t like you, to the extent he knows you exist. Why? Because you spammed him. Ya dirty-little Muggle-born Mudblood spammer.

“In effect, the above two statements reflect two schools of thought which encompass most reasonably sensible people in the West.”
=======================

I thought that people should use their own brains most of the time.

But maybe “reasonably sensible people in the West” don’t have to )) Just two schools …How lucky they are.

PS. What kind of spieces are these “reasonably sensible humans”? Never heard about them before.

Bush has called this one right, even if he has called so much else wrong.

What? WHAT?!? You are saying Bush did something wrong!

The world must truly be coming to an end.

As for your lengthy nonsense about “hatred of US foreign policy” vs. “who we are” – the only way the vast majority of the world, let alone the Muslim world, experiences the United States is through its foreign policies. Foreign policy is what defines US to the world. It isn’t boasts about liberty, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. So your argument falls apart prima facie.

In the case of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the United States FUNDED THE FUCKER for a decade (1979 to 1989) and he was seemed perfectly fine with that arrangement. It wasn’t until foreign troops in Mecca and Medina that he decided to organize war against the U.S.

Of course, you’ll cite some protests or news broadcast you saw in while in the Middle East as evidence to the contrary, that “they hate us for who we are” even though most of these people have never even been to the US or met an American in their life.

Sorry Sean, may want to delete that last one too.

Okay Sean.

I edited this message.–Sean

Irony of ironies, a friend of mine just received an unsolicited email from George Patrick Armstrong entitled “RUSSIA/CIS SITREP”. This friend of mine doesn’t know of him and asked me who he was. Along with Andrei Tsygankov, Armstrong provided a weak alternative view to Janusz Bugajski and Donald Jensen in a UT entitled panel “The Montenegrin Precedent”.

This friend of mine added that he prefers QT over the mentioned mailing he recently received.

Feel free to edit and-or delete.

It’s “and/or,” not “and-or.”

Also, wrong use of the word “entitled.” That’s not what the word means. You want the word “titled,” which means something else.

Not according to Webster’s.

As per your prior claim to the contrary, do you now acknowledge that “there’re” is valid shorthand for “there are”?

Mr Shedd wrote: “the only way the vast majority of the world, let alone the Muslim world, experiences the United States is through its foreign policies.”

Well, yes and no. They know us through what their media tells them about our foreign policies and about the domestic and foreign policies of other countries.

Case in point: Most Russians will tell you that 1) the US bombed Serbs in Kosovo (no mention of NATO), that 2) the Albanians are “occupiers” and 3) they’ve never heard of Srebrenitsa. So they are “responding to US foreign policy” but it is so ill-informed, you couldn’t call it a reasonable judgement.

“Case in point: Most Russians will tell you that 1) the US bombed Serbs in Kosovo (no mention of NATO), that 2) the Albanians are ‘occupiers’ and 3) they’ve never heard of Srebrenitsa. So they are “responding to US foreign policy” but it is so ill-informed, you couldn’t call it a reasonable judgement.”

***

It’s more the other way around.

NATO’s hypocritically flawed aggression against Yugoslavia was very much American led (Clinton administration) in a way greater than the Soviet role in the Warsaw Pact attack on Czechoslovakia in 1969. The former was the more bloody of the two.

As is true in the present: for decades, non-Albanians in Kosovo were terrorized by Albanian nationalists. Furthermore, during that time period, there was a massive illegal migration of Albanians from Albania into Kosovo. Serb manner in addressing these issues was far more tame than how the NATO member American supported Turks replied to the PKK.

Srebrenica involved a massacre of up to 2000 Serb civilians. A Muslim warlord by the name of Fikrat Abdic led that atrocity. This happened BEFORE the more known massacre. As for that latter one, based on the facts, there’s sound reasonable doubt to believe that the figure of 8000 Muslim males being summarily executed is a grossly inflated one. During the entire Bosnian Civil War, it’s quite possible that a total of 8000 died in that part of Bosnia. That figure includes all ethnic groups and the different categories of being killed in combat (collateral damage, summary execution and armed casualty).

They know us through what their media tells them about our foreign policies and about the domestic and foreign policies of other countries.

You seem to presume that only the Western media tells “the truth” and that other news media misinform and spin lies. In this particular case, I have to wonder what news you’ve been watching or reading.

Regarding NATO bombing of Kosovo, I hate to be the one to inform you that the Russian impression is correct – the vast majority of the planes and bombs used were American. Is that really a surprise to anyone? The US by itself accounts for than 50% of the combined military forces of NATO. http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_nato_00-06.pdf

Also, wrong use of the word “entitled.” That’s not what the word means. You want the word “titled,” which means something else.

You can use entitled as Averko did. From Random House Unabridged Dictionary, definition of “entitled”:

2. to call by a particular title or name: What was the book entitled?

… the Warsaw Pact attack on Czechoslovakia in 1969.

1968. Учи матчасть.

No idiot, it was 1968, you moronic troll.

Wally:

Touchdown!

Just what’s that guy’s actual specialty and note that Peter Lavelle used him as an editor?

This is why the Eng. lang. coverage of Russia is so fucked up. A highly promoted/funded individual in David Johnson has way too much influence in propping some comparatively not so great talent

They know us through what their media tells them about our foreign policies and about the domestic and foreign policies of other countries.

As I think about this comment a little more, I would love to see a test on factual details of U.S. foreign policy given to Americans versus people in the Middle East and other regions of the world.

I strongly suspect that Americans know far, far less about U.S. foreign policies than those on the “business end” of such policies.

A classic example of this is U.S. military incursions in Central and South America. Most Americans would struggle to name more than 2 military involvements we’ve had in nations in Central and South America in the past hundred years.

In fact, since 1900 we’ve deployed military forces into Latin America 51 times.

Since the Soviet breakup, Russia hasn’t attacked (as in bombed) any country unlike the US. Yet, some suggest Russia to be the more agressive.

Pardon the misspell.

Michael Averko: … the Warsaw Pact attack on Czechoslovakia in 1969.

Michael Averko: No idiot, it was 1968, you moronic troll.

Mike, you are one confused individual.

Not Fikret Abdic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fikret_Abdic), but Nasir ‘I used to be Milosevic’s former body guard’ Oric. There was a very good profile of Abdic a while back on the defunct webzine ‘Sobaka’…

As for genocide in Sudan, it rather depends on which advocacy groups one wishes to believe (not that there could possibly be any political reasons/benefits for using the ‘G’ word):

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3723/

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n05/mamd01_.html

Genocide is great. No matter how thinly one can manage to slice it, it is always genocide….

Aleks:

I meant Oric.

Abdic was the secular Muslim opposed to Izetbegovic.

“db”

Confused in what way? You don’t know much and play nitpicking games and do so in a manner indicative of a not so talented individual.

All

Violence wise: when compared to the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, the Soviet led intervention in Czechoslovakia more resembled the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicage. BTW, the Vietnam War was bloodier than what the Soviets did in Afghanistan.

All this said to burst that propaganda bubble.

Aleks

I remember Sobaka and met someone who knows its editor Cali Ruchala, a Roma Serb. Someone else I know who wrote for that site said that Ruchala seemed to have packed it in out of disgust.

Mr Shedd — no, there was no comparison intended in my posting. I don’t assume or argue that the American media provides a balanced and nuanced view of world events or US foreign policy. Actually, as far as I can tell, they don’t do a very good job of it and/or people remain uninterested, so they don’t seek the information that’s available.

That doesn’t change my point, which is that when a lot of people around the world criticise US policy, it’s not the policy that you or I might be criticising. It’s that the US sent the Colorado potato beetle to the USSR to starve the nation, that HIV-AIDS programs supported by USAID are meant to get Russian kids hooked on drugs and kill them off, and that all NGOS are front organizations for an orange revolution (just to name a few statements I’ve heard on Russian TV lately, made by gov’t officials).

This is a bad comparison, since it’s not based on research — but I have found Europeans more informed about the US and their criticism to be well-considered and sensible. Well, except for the French:)

mab

Mr. Shedd and yours truly were addressing your very mainstream Anglo-American mass media claims about how wrong the Russians are when it comes to commenting on the wars of the last decade in former Yugoslavia.

We conclusively showed:
- that not to be the case
- how misinformed many on the Anglo-American side are about that matter
Note how you didn’t offer a counter-reply to those points. Instead, bringing up other issues.

We in turn can show other examples of misguided Anglo-American mass media perceptions subconsciously duping many of its targetted audience.

Well, I’m not sure that’s what Mr Shedd had mind, but I can explain why I didn’t respond to your comments. 1) The fact that Croats were guilty of masacres of Serbs does not justify Serb masacres of Croats. Just because “they do it too” doesn’t make it right. 2) I don’t find any “sound, reasonable doubt” in the Srebrenitsa figures. 3) My point is that most Russians don’t know about any involvement of NATO in Kosovo at all — it is presented as “the US bombed Kosovo” as a unilateral decision. 4) Most Russians have never even heard of Srebenitsa. As I wrote, it’s not a matter of them having a different opinion based on facts. They’ve simply never heard of it. In general, they’ve never heard of any of the accusations against the Serbs.

I’m not arguing that Americans have a nuanced and detailed view of their foreign policy. Or that US media does a great job of putting US foreign policy issues, and in fact what used to be called “world events,” at the center of attention. I’m not arguing for US foreign policy (I in fact am deeply ashamed of most of it.) I’m arguing that some — much — of world condemnation of US foreign policy is not based on facts. That is certainly true in Russia. In my experience (limited), it is less true of Europe. I’ve had very interesting discussions with Italians, Romanians and Turks (if you consider them parat of Europe) about US foreign policy. They were very well informed and their judgments were well-considered.

The non-bombing of Turkey for its treatment of Kurds and bombing of Yugoslavia for its actions against Albanians marks a profound and largely unchecked hypocrisy within mainstream Anglo-American circles.

The Srebrenica number of those Muslims who were summarily executed is in point of fact very questionable. In addition: regarding Srebrenica, the large Anglo-American ignorance of the referenced Nasir Oric highlights Anglo-American ignorance of what did happen at Srebrenica.

You original posted comments here on the subject of former Yugoslavia are akin to what you claim of the Russians. Specifically, in your instance, an unawareness of particulars not conforming to the slant of your perceptions that match the biases typically found in English language mass media.

On the whole, Turks aren’t more historically flexible than Russians. Just look at how much of turkey views the Armenian genocide.

Mike, stop attacking people, stop looking for bias everywhere, and stop changing the subject. It’s incredibly annoying and why no wants to play with you.

Why when discussing Serbia must I mention every other atrocity that has taken place on the planet? Why does one atrocity in one place make another atrocity in another place acceptable? Or why is it unacceptable to criticise — express horror, condemn — one atrocity without criticising and condemning every other atrocity committed on the planet from the dawn of time?

And you can write “in point of fact,” but actually you don’t cite any of those facts.

Beside, before you changed the subject, my point was and remains: Most Russians have never heard of Srebrenica. Never heard of it. Don’t know where it is, what is alleged to have happened there, what investigations were done, what questions there are about the invesitgations. Nothing. Their criticism of US policy is not based on knowledge of facts.

“Most Russians have never heard of Srebrenica.”

To be fair, I doubt most Americans have ever heard of Srebrenica.

Hey, it was 4 am and I was on my sixth beer after the bar. I didn’t double-check the dictionary. Go sue me.

“To be fair, I doubt most Americans have ever heard of Srebrenica.”

Don’t know. Could be. Don’t live in the US now.

And if you can still type after six beers at 4 am, who cares if you can spell?

Not only that, I was distracted by my game of Warhammer 40,000 Dark Crusade! I blame the Necrons.

Anyway, I mean, lots of people all over the world don’t know lots of stuff. I’ve met Americans who thought Karl Marx was the inspiration for Hitler, and Uzbeks who didn’t know what the Gulag was. I’ve seen teenagers in Yarslavl who thought the statue of Marx was of Tolstoy (because of the beard).

“Mike, stop attacking people, stop looking for bias everywhere, and stop changing the subject. It’s incredibly annoying and why no wants to play with you.”

****

Bullshit! I play fair as in trying to legitimately critique whatever there’s out there to legitimtately critique. In comparison, others show more of a biased stand. I’m based in the West and keep up to snuff on how the former Yugoslavia and former USSR are covered. I’m also aware of some of the absurdities written by the likes of Yulia Latynina on those subjects. Shedd and yours truly clearly busted your ignorantly stated biases on the subject. Views shared by many other not so critical followers of Eng. lang. mass media.

You made its appear like NATO’s aggression wasn’t so American (Clinton admin.) orchestrated in addition to not knowing much, if anything about Nasir Oric.

You’re confusing “personal attack” with a legitimate critique of questionable views. On the matter of former Yugoslavia, note how you felt it okay to paint a broad picture of ignorant Russians over more knowledgeable Westerners.

When compared to the West, the Russians are generally the more correct on former Yugoslavia.

———————————————-

“Necrons” as in neocons?.

Pardon the period after the qustion mark.

Some media critique on the dubious Western mass media coverage of former Yugoslavia:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=18&region_id=8

My own stated views weren’t meant as personal towards mab.

Just what Georgia needs for being more “truthful”.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20070904/76461299.html

No, the Necrons. The ancient slaves of the C’Tan Star Gods, recently awoken from their tomb worlds to once again rid the galaxy of life and seal it off from the Warp and the Fell Powers that reside within. Jeez! Do I have to explain everything?

(I really have been playing this game far too much.)

“Do I have to explain everything?”

In some instances.

Speaking of computer games, somebody should do an article on the Russian computer-games industry. The shelves seem to be overflowing with Russian-made games, a lot of them dealing with the Great Patriotic War. Unfortunately the Day Watch game seems to require a better graphics card than my laptap is equipped with. *sniffle*

On the matter of knowledge pertaining to former Yugoslavia, how many Americans know that Alija Izetbegovic was a bonafide Islamic fundamentalist (refer to his 1970 written “Islamic Declaration” which he never recanted), who supported the WW II era SS Handschar unit?

Well, this is boring (except for the Necrons, which I find fascinating.)

The thing is, Mike, I DIDN’T compare Russian knowledge of US policy to American knowledge. Those are words and opinions you are putting in my post and then attacking.

Follow-up from last posted comments:

How many Americans know that Serbs were numerically the greatest victims of 1990s ethnic cleansing in former Yugoslavia. The falsely cruel neocon/neolib belief that they deserved it, is what’s grossly ignorant.

“The thing is, Mike, I DIDN’T compare Russian knowledge of US policy to American knowledge. Those are words and opinions you are putting in my post and then attacking.”

***

Of course you did, as it’s a matter of record.

Now, if somone could find some history of Necron involvement in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, that would be awesome. The world needs more skeletal killer robots.

Seriously, why this obsession with what Americans think or what the Anglophone media say? Really, who cares?

“Seriously, why this obsession with what Americans think or what the Anglophone media say? Really, who cares?”

****

That could be thrown at others including PL.

MAB brought up the claim of not so informed Russians. The subject of former Yugoslavia was her example. It wouldn’t be appropriate to let her comments go as posted without addressing them.

Again, nothing personal. Also, it’s high time to show how in general, comparative terms, Americans aren’t more knowledgeable than Russians on a good number of international issues.

On a somewhat related note, here’s an article in need of constructive grammar Nazificiation program:

http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=929

To go along with some cogent points, IMO, he takes the new Cold War issue a bit too, too.

Bully for “PL.” We’re not talking about him. As for me, I just don’t care what somebody writes in the New Onanist or which shamans got invited to the mystic circle in Washington, DC.

“Bully for “PL.” We’re not talking about him. As for me, I just don’t care what somebody writes in the New Onanist or which shamans got invited to the mystic circle in Washington, DC.”

***

The topic was addressed here and followed up on. Like it or not, that DC crowd has clout. They shouldn’t have carte blanche.

That doesn’t change my point, which is that when a lot of people around the world criticise US policy, it’s not the policy that you or I might be criticising. It’s that the US sent the Colorado potato beetle to the USSR to starve the nation, that HIV-AIDS programs supported by USAID are meant to get Russian kids hooked on drugs and kill them off, and that all NGOS are front organizations for an orange revolution (just to name a few statements I’ve heard on Russian TV lately, made by gov’t officials).

This is a bad comparison, since it’s not based on research — but I have found Europeans more informed about the US and their criticism to be well-considered and sensible. Well, except for the French:)

While I doubt the AIDS-HIV/drug-addiction link, there actually IS some historical evidence regarding the potato beetle being introduced to Russia by the United States through food shipments. Considering that France and Germany did use the potato beetle in the late 1930’s against each other’s potato crops, it isn’t such a stretch to imagine the CIA introducing the potato beetle to Russia.

Regarding potato beetle warfare:
http://fas-www.harvard.edu/~hsp/bulletin/cwcb33.pdf

There is pretty strong financial and historical information that indicates NGOs were being used by foreign governments to forment revolution under the guise of peaceful protests, etc. While I wouldn’t suggest this was the case for all NGOs, I don’t begrudge the Russians the right to restrict what foreign governments can and can’t fund within their borders. We certainly do the same, without accusations of “cracking down on freedom”, etc.

So actually, I would say those ARE fair game criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, even if they are of the more covert variety. Even though I was aware of the discussion of the potato beetle accusation and the HIV-AIDS corporate greed/drugs discussion, I likely wouldn’t have cited that as U.S. foreign policy examples. Definitely might have cited the NGOs, however. I likely would have discussed expansion of NATO and changes to the CFE treaty as perceived aggressive acts against Russia as well. Jackson-Vanik is another easy target for such foreign policy discussions (as regards Russia, anyway).

Regarding the French – I once had a French girlfriend. I never argued so much in my life. Not loud arguments – just constant debate on everything. If I were to say the sky is blue, she would have countered that it was light azure or something. It was at once frustrating and strangely intriguing.

Not only DC. NY is the main location for Freedom House, the Open Society Institute, Council on Foreign Relations and “the paper of record”.

Speaking of computer games, somebody should do an article on the Russian computer-games industry.

I actually have some links on this topic at home. I was considering writing a blog post on the topic. In particular I had an interview conducted with several of the bigger names in Russian computer game industry. The discussion centered a bit on how the Russian games differentiate themselves, stylistically, from Western games, etc.

I also used to chat with the sister of the guy who founded GSC Game World. The “Cossacks” game series were his babies. I found it pretty interesting how this young guy ended up providing for his entire family, etc.

You should definetly do a blog post.

You Are Empty looks pretty cool. It’s a first-person shooter set in an alternative 1930s in which an attempt to create Soviet Man goes awry, resulting in hideous mutants instead.

That game does look good.

Really, Russians really can be darkly comedic and self-deprecating. I really appreciate it, as I have a warped sense of humor myself.

However, I’m never sure if this is a cultural strength or if it provides an easy avenue towards individual despair!

Regarding the topic of the Russian computer game industry, I may revisit my bookmarks and check for some additional articles in give that a whirl. I have such a staggeringly vast array of bookmarks on topics that I have never actually put together into coherent blog entries. Usually I end up putting such things on the back-burner until some inspiration comes along. Too often I find myself thinking “who the hell (other than me) gives a shit about such obscure topics?”

Something is always of interest to somebody. A friend of mine actually wrote a bit on the Russian computer industry here: http://www.efn.org/~dredmond/Uplink/Uplink09.html

Mr Shedd:
Well, that’s a nice little sidebar about the potato beetle, but I’m afraid I don’t see why it leads you to think the CIA put the potato beetle in the USSR. Bug nuts have tracked their movement, and they’ve migrated X kilometers per year from Mexico north and east, with no “jumps” that smacked of CIA operatives carrying suitcases filled with bugs.

Actually, you rather supported my point with my example of HIV-AID drug programs. You perceived it to be a discussion of the corporate greed/drugs discussion. But that is the informed criticism about Big Pharmacy (regardless of nation). What I’m citing is the belief among many (don’t have the data with me, but there is a fair bit on attitudes about HIV-AIDS) that the Western programs, especially the harm reduction programs, are designed to turn kids into heroine addicts, get HIV-AIDS and die. This is an instrument of US foreign policy, as are the family planning programs, the goal of which is to kill off the Russian nation. (I should say that this isn’t specific only to Russians; it’s typical of most countries when they are in an HIV-AIDS epidemic.)

On NGOS –My hackles go up when people write about “NGOs being used…” Have you had any dealings with the kind of human rights NGO that gets this financing? I have. They would have something to say about the notion of them being hapless dupes of American imperialism. I know all that supposed financial and historical evidence, but I have also been associated with many of these organizations since the early 90s. I don’t care what the funders thought they were doing, and in many cases I hoot over what they take credit for. But on the ground it’s very different than you seem to imagine. But in any case, the point is not that people have looked at reports, read books, or studied the subject; they simply believe that all NGOS are fronts for British spies or orange revolutions, except for the ones that are designed to ensure the genetic death of the Russian nation (which reminds me of that recent brouhaha over biological material being sent abroad so that the CIA could make Russian-specific biological weapons).

NATO? Well, NATO is at our borders with weapons pointed at us waiting to attack or colonize us. The CFE treaty? Why should we be restrained when the US is threatening us with missiles in Poland? What else… well, the US only intervenes abroad in order to get oil. Kosovo? Well, that was to destroy Serbia, which (depending on the version) might have aligned with Russia to make a pan-Slavic union or was an Orthodox nation (there is a confusing digression about the Pope, Masons and Jews). Kursk? Torpedoed by US ships. 9/11? Carried out by the CIA to give the US an excuse to attack Iraq (and go for the oil). All the murders and terrorism in Russia? Carried out by minions of Berezovsky in concert with the CIA.

I’m delighted when the world lets Bush and Co. know what they think of their appalling, criminal, heinous, constitution-defying, dangerous, mad actions. And of course, Russia is a big place, and there are people with an informed and nuanced view. But I still make a distinction between informed criticism and ill-informed, demonizing criticism. I think the majority of the public here, influenced by a wildly distorting media, is not criticizing the US foreign policy for informed reasons. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you. But it matters to me. A generation of rabid America-haters is potentially dangerous.

“I think the majority of the public here, influenced by a wildly distorting media, is not criticizing the US foreign policy for informed reasons. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you. But it matters to me. A generation of rabid America-haters is potentially dangerous.”

****

The political likes of Nina Khrushcheva and Andrei Zagorski do the reverse for Russia unfriendly interests. Those two aren’t the more objective.

You don’t seem as concerned about the hypocritically warped Russia and Serb bashing out there. Disinformation which doesn’t get much of a critical challenge at high profile Eng. lang. venues.

This blog is called Sean’s Russia Blog. We write about Russia here. There are zillions of other blogs that deal with the US. I’m commenting on Russia on this blog. On other blogs, I comment about the US.

Fine.

I’m commenting on your very Eng. lang. mass media like mis-perception that the Anglo-American audience is generally better informed than their Russian counterparts on such issues as former Yugoslavia.

You initiated the discussion of that topic at this thread. I correctly replied to it.