Weird. The media and the political machine is still raging about how the Syrians and Russians are monsters and war crimes for bombing hospitals, and operating in a heavily populated area against the moderate rebels. (Which is, admittedly, a horrible thing to do. I'm not trying to say that it's all daisies and rainbows; it is a brutal and quite frankly, hard to justify thing to do.)
However... let's see what the very same people say about doing the very same thing when they themselves are doing it. (I've already written about the interesting contrast about Mosul and Aleppo, so let's leave that part out for now.)
Bombing hospitals - Russia vs USA. (Or Saudi Arabia, but they did bomb a school, so it's not the same I guess.) Mind you, bombing hospitals (and their parking lots) is against the law even IF enemy combatants are hiding in it, yet Israel is quite happy to do so; again, no angry accusations of war crimes there. (Even though in this case it is a deliberate action. As is using white phosphorus in built-up areas against humans.) It seems like you cannot avoid making mistakes when fighting in a city; and the Russians hit a hospital by mistake. Still a war crime, I guess, right?
Well...
What happens when the US and its allies kill people?
Well, of course, it's unintentional, so it's not a crime. It's a kind of weird logic, since you normally can't claim this in front of a court, but let's just think about this. The US and its allies conduct operations in a sovereign country against the wishes of its legitimate government, and kills the soldiers of said government. (The US also supports "moderate" rebels fighting said government, let's add hastily.) But it was unintentional, so it's cool. It's also regrettable when they unintentionally drone weddings and innocent people in general, who happen to be in the wrong place (in their own country) at the wrong time. While we KNOW that any collateral damage the Syrians and Russians cause is absolutely intended and should be condemned.
Interesting.
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Sunday, November 20, 2016
Snooper's Charter
So finally, the government has gone through with the mass surveillance bill even the Americans would admire: the so-called Snooper's Charter.
Good job, you. I wonder what would Orwell say, but let's forget about that part.
What I'm really curious about is the muted response from the EU and Western powers. You would expect a general outcry, based on what happens whenever a newspaper goes bust in Hungary (never mind it was seriously in debt), or the government flaunts some shady surveillance bill idea, but no. While these things are obvious signs of dictatorship and totalitarianism in Hungary, clearly it's not the case in the UK. No general condemnation, no fiery speeches about Western values (sorry, Values). So to recap: the UK enacts a bill that would make any Stazi leader wet his pants, and nobody bats an eye. It's fine. Some left-leaning newspapers write some alarmist articles, but in general the political landscape (and the media) does not give a shit. Not one little bit of shit. No calls to impose sanctions for breaching EU's fundamental values, or exclude the UK from the EU (I know, I know, but it is a symbolic gesture, OK? You're not leaving, we're throwing you out because, guess what, you are shitting on the fundamental values we hold dear). This is quite telling about the whole issue of hypocrisy, doesn't it? The tone is similarly muted from the Hungarian Left; somehow there are no hysterical cries of totalitarian take-over of the most admired democracy... they are fine with this; the "West" is still the idol to look up to. Sure. Let's ignore the worrying signs that things are seriously going wrong everywhere. And if you don't think the UK is in danger of losing personal rights and freedoms, think about these issues:
1. Spying on MPs
2. Forward Intelligence Team
3. Special Demonstration Squad
and let's not forget about surveillance of peaceful groups, to the extend of undercover officers having families with the subjects of surveillance. Good job doing this democracy-thingy. And even the Germans are doing it: as usual, they prefer to do it so that they can be seen as clear.
What we see here is a general trend moving towards a totalitarian surveillance state in the Western World, but of course it's only a problem when a shitty little country is trying to emulate the big brothers (the term used in more than one meaning here, in case you miss the reference). Nobody wants to point out that the emperor has no clothes; perhaps the supposedly free press is not so free after all. (Who would have thought? They must be free, since about 70% is owned by one individual...)
Good job, you. I wonder what would Orwell say, but let's forget about that part.
What I'm really curious about is the muted response from the EU and Western powers. You would expect a general outcry, based on what happens whenever a newspaper goes bust in Hungary (never mind it was seriously in debt), or the government flaunts some shady surveillance bill idea, but no. While these things are obvious signs of dictatorship and totalitarianism in Hungary, clearly it's not the case in the UK. No general condemnation, no fiery speeches about Western values (sorry, Values). So to recap: the UK enacts a bill that would make any Stazi leader wet his pants, and nobody bats an eye. It's fine. Some left-leaning newspapers write some alarmist articles, but in general the political landscape (and the media) does not give a shit. Not one little bit of shit. No calls to impose sanctions for breaching EU's fundamental values, or exclude the UK from the EU (I know, I know, but it is a symbolic gesture, OK? You're not leaving, we're throwing you out because, guess what, you are shitting on the fundamental values we hold dear). This is quite telling about the whole issue of hypocrisy, doesn't it? The tone is similarly muted from the Hungarian Left; somehow there are no hysterical cries of totalitarian take-over of the most admired democracy... they are fine with this; the "West" is still the idol to look up to. Sure. Let's ignore the worrying signs that things are seriously going wrong everywhere. And if you don't think the UK is in danger of losing personal rights and freedoms, think about these issues:
1. Spying on MPs
2. Forward Intelligence Team
3. Special Demonstration Squad
and let's not forget about surveillance of peaceful groups, to the extend of undercover officers having families with the subjects of surveillance. Good job doing this democracy-thingy. And even the Germans are doing it: as usual, they prefer to do it so that they can be seen as clear.
What we see here is a general trend moving towards a totalitarian surveillance state in the Western World, but of course it's only a problem when a shitty little country is trying to emulate the big brothers (the term used in more than one meaning here, in case you miss the reference). Nobody wants to point out that the emperor has no clothes; perhaps the supposedly free press is not so free after all. (Who would have thought? They must be free, since about 70% is owned by one individual...)
Friday, November 18, 2016
How Trump is already betraying his voters
So the Independent (among others) is already loud with articles about how Trump is already backtracking on his campaign promises, and betraying his voters. Ha-ha. What an asshole- already betraying everyone.
Can I ask you a question? Would you like him better if he actually meant all the shit he said? Count your blessings, you idiots, that he might not be as crazy as he seemed...
Some people...
Can I ask you a question? Would you like him better if he actually meant all the shit he said? Count your blessings, you idiots, that he might not be as crazy as he seemed...
Some people...
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Terrorism and the Balkan route -perceptions last year and today
So it seems like Abdeslam did use the Balkan route for smuggling terrorists into Europe. So did others.
Let this sink in for a while. Even though it seems like people have a memory of a goldfish (not to mention politicians and journalists, who are entirely possible that not members of the same species as the rest of us), let's just recall a couple of things from last year. Like that infamous cartoon with the rats. (Let's forget that the whole outrage was manufactured since the cartoon did not suggest what the outraged journalists said it did.) Or that the EU's counter terrorism chief said there was unlikely to be a connection between migrants and terrorists. Or ask the UN High Commissioner for refugees. Or the fact that the entire Left in Hungary (and the international press) used this as a political tool against the Hungarian government instead of actually recognising the threat unchecked migration (or worse, if they did, they used it as a weapon against Orban nevertheless. Priorities, I guess.)
Curiously all these people are silent now. The news that terrorists indeed used the Balkan route is quietly dropped and forgotten. No mea culpas, no retrospective analyses how they could been so wrong, how the others who were right were painted as the villains... No; this whole business is best left forgotten, and move on to the next shouting campaign without any lessons learned.
Guess what. This is what gave you Brexit and Trump. This is why the Far Right is getting stronger everywhere. You can't just call everyone you disagree with a racist neckbeard, and you especially can't do that (and keep doing it) when they are right and you are wrong. You might have the bullhorn to shout, but the credibility deficit is growing. You probably should have noticed after the Brexit vote or Trump's victory that things are not so swell outside your bubble, but you apparently have not.
I guess we're all going to suffer for it.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Increasing tensions with a nuclear superpower - smart or not?
Weirdly the narrative of "Evil Russia" is very much alive on both the Left and the Righ. You got the odd Chomsky who actually argues for a bit restraint of provoking the Russians, but in general if you read online comments or listen to NATO chiefs and politicians, you have this feeling of collective insanity.
Everyone seems to have accepted the narrative that "The Russians Must Be Stopped", and that "provocative steps are necessary to ensure peace". It seems like there's a collective amnesia about the history of the last 25 years, and everyone is just happily engaging in their happiest paranoid Cold War mindset.
First of all- the argument that we can't let a country just do whatever it wants- the world has changed.
Really.
Iraq war, anyone? Torture? Cyber attacks against a sovereign country? (An act of war, actually.) Threat of a nuclear strike against a sovereign country? (You know, a war crime in itself.) Mass surveillance even -grasp!- of foreign politicians? Bombing sovereign countries? Supporting "moderate" rebels (aka the merry men of ISIS)? Talking about and executing regime changes? Drone strikes in areas which are outside of a war zone? Assassinations? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Supporting murderous medieval regimes who wage horrible wars in Yemen?
These things are a-OK? If the Russians put a fleet close to US coastal waters every time the Americans exercised their hyper-interventionist policies, we would have all died of a nuclear holocaust by now.
But I digress. Let's not engage in "whataboutery", as these things are labelled whenever they are brought up as an inconvenient counterpoint.
Let's focus on Russia.
Why are the Russians are so damned aggressive, you'd ask. Well, you can ask why a guy in the pub is so darn aggressive once you took his drink and tried kissing his girlfriend.
They are aggressive, because they have been provoked, idiots.
What has the NATO been doing to provoke them, you ask? After all, they're just minding their own business, not doing any hostile moves?
Well, for one, they are expanding east, in direct violation of their promise. And make no mistake: this is an aggressive move against the Russians. The NATO has not ceased its anti-Russian rhetoric since the Cold War. (Ironically this whole Cold War thing seems to be a product of American paranoia; the Soviet Union seemed to have tried to join NATO... although don't quote me on these; and they are tangential points, anyhow.)
The Russians have experienced two devastating wars from the West, and ignoring their history and their attitude (isolationist, pretty defensive and xenophobic) is stupid. They want their buffer states around them, and if you threaten this you threaten them. It's that simple. Ask the Americans about Latin America if you want to see something similar. If you look at Russian interventions they usually were defensive in nature. Even the famous Winter War started because Stalin wanted some buffer between him and the Germans.
Foreign adventures like the war against Georgia is normally brought up at this point. Too bad the narrative is a lie, is it? Funnily the truth isn't the "evil Ruskies against the poor, defenceless Georgians" as it is still touted by the media. Weird in this era of the free press, is it?
Ukraine is being brought up. Consider this: you remove a pro-Russian government with a coup, and install a pro-Western (pretty far right) one instead, threatening their access to their only warm water port. Can I ask you something politely? What the fuck did you think would happen? Seriously. Did you expect them to just accept the fact that their direct neighbour is a pro-NATO country, while you have been putting NATO bases, radars and other "defensive" structures in Central Europe? Have you forgotten what triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Hint: something to do with the nukes in Turkey.) They wanted to keep their bloody port, so they took the Crimea. You did not have to be a genius to see what would happen.
With Syria we see a similar issue. While human rights mean nothing when our dictators are trampling them (see: House of Saud), they mean everything when we can screw the Russians over. Assad might not be a pleasant individual, but he is miles ahead of the US/Saudi supported fundamentalist "moderate" rebels who not only hate Christians, they hate Muslims, too, if they don't subscribe for their own particular sect. And in this case hatred does not mean toilet papering each other's lawn. I have Syrian friends (Christian Arabs), and they all said: Assad is the best alternative. (Even the Syrian expat community in Budapest seems to think so if the window of a Syrian shop is any indication: it has a huge poster of Assad on it.) The civil war was a horrible crime the US and her allies helped to fester. It needs to stop. And the only people willing to put a stop to it is Assad and the Russians. Trump -and it pains me to say so- is right in this. Once the war is over, then the issues can be addressed; but nothing will be gained from supporting rebel fractions whom we think are "moderate". (I wonder what the "moderate" Islamic fundamentalist looks like.) Just look at what happened in Mosul after a little western meddling: the community is completely torn apart by hate.
Pushing the Russians will not help at all. Raising tensions when both sides can essentially destroy all human lives on this planet is just fucking stupid (and I apologise for the word but this is the best description I could find). What you need is de-escalation, mutual respect and a willingness to compromise. The Russians are smart enough for that; the US and her allies so far have been unable to grasp that perhaps they can't always dictate things from the position of absolute power. It works when you're pushing over little dictators you nurtured, but it does not work with a superpower. And like it or not, Russia IS a superpower, even if the Russian GDP is low. There is more to a superpower than GDP, you know. A couple of thousands of nuclear warheads will do the trick.
Everyone seems to have accepted the narrative that "The Russians Must Be Stopped", and that "provocative steps are necessary to ensure peace". It seems like there's a collective amnesia about the history of the last 25 years, and everyone is just happily engaging in their happiest paranoid Cold War mindset.
First of all- the argument that we can't let a country just do whatever it wants- the world has changed.
Really.
Iraq war, anyone? Torture? Cyber attacks against a sovereign country? (An act of war, actually.) Threat of a nuclear strike against a sovereign country? (You know, a war crime in itself.) Mass surveillance even -grasp!- of foreign politicians? Bombing sovereign countries? Supporting "moderate" rebels (aka the merry men of ISIS)? Talking about and executing regime changes? Drone strikes in areas which are outside of a war zone? Assassinations? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Supporting murderous medieval regimes who wage horrible wars in Yemen?
These things are a-OK? If the Russians put a fleet close to US coastal waters every time the Americans exercised their hyper-interventionist policies, we would have all died of a nuclear holocaust by now.
But I digress. Let's not engage in "whataboutery", as these things are labelled whenever they are brought up as an inconvenient counterpoint.
Let's focus on Russia.
Why are the Russians are so damned aggressive, you'd ask. Well, you can ask why a guy in the pub is so darn aggressive once you took his drink and tried kissing his girlfriend.
They are aggressive, because they have been provoked, idiots.
What has the NATO been doing to provoke them, you ask? After all, they're just minding their own business, not doing any hostile moves?
Well, for one, they are expanding east, in direct violation of their promise. And make no mistake: this is an aggressive move against the Russians. The NATO has not ceased its anti-Russian rhetoric since the Cold War. (Ironically this whole Cold War thing seems to be a product of American paranoia; the Soviet Union seemed to have tried to join NATO... although don't quote me on these; and they are tangential points, anyhow.)
The Russians have experienced two devastating wars from the West, and ignoring their history and their attitude (isolationist, pretty defensive and xenophobic) is stupid. They want their buffer states around them, and if you threaten this you threaten them. It's that simple. Ask the Americans about Latin America if you want to see something similar. If you look at Russian interventions they usually were defensive in nature. Even the famous Winter War started because Stalin wanted some buffer between him and the Germans.
Foreign adventures like the war against Georgia is normally brought up at this point. Too bad the narrative is a lie, is it? Funnily the truth isn't the "evil Ruskies against the poor, defenceless Georgians" as it is still touted by the media. Weird in this era of the free press, is it?
Ukraine is being brought up. Consider this: you remove a pro-Russian government with a coup, and install a pro-Western (pretty far right) one instead, threatening their access to their only warm water port. Can I ask you something politely? What the fuck did you think would happen? Seriously. Did you expect them to just accept the fact that their direct neighbour is a pro-NATO country, while you have been putting NATO bases, radars and other "defensive" structures in Central Europe? Have you forgotten what triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Hint: something to do with the nukes in Turkey.) They wanted to keep their bloody port, so they took the Crimea. You did not have to be a genius to see what would happen.
With Syria we see a similar issue. While human rights mean nothing when our dictators are trampling them (see: House of Saud), they mean everything when we can screw the Russians over. Assad might not be a pleasant individual, but he is miles ahead of the US/Saudi supported fundamentalist "moderate" rebels who not only hate Christians, they hate Muslims, too, if they don't subscribe for their own particular sect. And in this case hatred does not mean toilet papering each other's lawn. I have Syrian friends (Christian Arabs), and they all said: Assad is the best alternative. (Even the Syrian expat community in Budapest seems to think so if the window of a Syrian shop is any indication: it has a huge poster of Assad on it.) The civil war was a horrible crime the US and her allies helped to fester. It needs to stop. And the only people willing to put a stop to it is Assad and the Russians. Trump -and it pains me to say so- is right in this. Once the war is over, then the issues can be addressed; but nothing will be gained from supporting rebel fractions whom we think are "moderate". (I wonder what the "moderate" Islamic fundamentalist looks like.) Just look at what happened in Mosul after a little western meddling: the community is completely torn apart by hate.
Pushing the Russians will not help at all. Raising tensions when both sides can essentially destroy all human lives on this planet is just fucking stupid (and I apologise for the word but this is the best description I could find). What you need is de-escalation, mutual respect and a willingness to compromise. The Russians are smart enough for that; the US and her allies so far have been unable to grasp that perhaps they can't always dictate things from the position of absolute power. It works when you're pushing over little dictators you nurtured, but it does not work with a superpower. And like it or not, Russia IS a superpower, even if the Russian GDP is low. There is more to a superpower than GDP, you know. A couple of thousands of nuclear warheads will do the trick.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Mosul's corpse
You remember how the heroic US supported Iraqis are fighting for Mosul? (And how many civilians died as an unfortunate side-effect, and not as a deliberate war-crime, unlike in Aleppo where the exact same thing is happening, only the Ruskies are helping the Syrians against the rebels there?)
Well, unsurprisingly -as it happened again and again at every single US supported coup, intervention or US lead war, somehow the communities they wanted to save against the evil dictator (many times a person they have supported in the past), evil terrorists (whom they supported), etc., etc., were utterly destroyed in the process, leaving only hatred behind. Somehow these interventions are always followed by ethnic and/or religious hatred being unleashed in the communities involved. You can say that the operation was successful but the patient died.
The funny thing is -and I'm not using this word as in "hilarious"- they keep doing it, and people keep reading about it, yet nobody raises an eyebrow about this disastrous track record; it's as if the past has disappeared. It seems like people's memories are about the same as a goldfish's.
And this is why retarded, racist morons get elected for president.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
The difference between war crimes and human shields -how the media and politics see the same thing through different glasses
Weird things you can read in the news.
Siege of Mosul (incredible bloodshed, street fighting and massive civilian causalities) is something that we should look at as the forces of good fighting the forces of evil. (I think ISIS is supposed to be the evil here, but given the fact that the US has been supporting these very same guys in the past makes this distinction a bit murky.)
Anyhow. Mosul is great.
Aleppo, however... at Aleppo we see the evil Ruskies and Assad massacring civilians and attacking helpless rebels who are definitely moderate, and would not chop heads off even if they could. Also: the fact that NATO is putting troops right on Russia's borders is something that will ensure peace. Definitely. How else to make sure you have peace other than provoking a nuclear power? By talking to them? Don't make me laugh. (And let's not forget who those rebels really are.)
So. There is an interesting duality how the media (and politicans) deal with bombs that kill civilians depending on who drop said bombs. We can safely conclude that victims of Western airstrikes are collateral damage only. Also, victims of weapons sold by Western powers to barbaric kingdoms and used on civilians are fine. They don't kill civilians. We're the good guys. (Things can get a bit weird when your allies murder your allies, but what the heck. Let this one slide, I say.)
But victims of Russian bombs, however, are victims of a war crime. And the Ruskies are barbarians. Let's just forget the siege of Fallujah, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians of US forces (not to mention the use of white phosphorus against human targets, which is, you know, a war crime).
It's kind of weird when the two sides do the same thing, but they are not really the same. US (or Israel) hits a hospital: oh well, mistakes are being made, sorry. And the terrorists were hiding there deliberately, anyhow, so it's not a mistake. They were also using human shield, forcing us to kill all those people, while at the same time we hit the hospital by mistake.
Ruskies hit a hospital: WAR CRIMINALS. OMG, THEY ARE TOTALLY EVIL. Poor insurgents who are forced to hide in a city against the superior force! Let's send them more weapons!
Seriously. Do a google search. I can imagine all these people's spirit discussing how one side were murdered by an evil regime, and how the other were just collateral damage. I'm sure the victims of Western bombs take a great solace in the knowledge.
It's astonishing. It's so bad, even the Independent noticed it -after several decades too late.
Monday, November 7, 2016
When are news news?
Weird stuff. Any time something happens in Hungary that can be used to put the country into negative light, the press is all over it. Yet it's absolutely not newsworthy to report about the continuation of mistreatment of Hungarian minorities abroad, and it never has been. You might argue that in Slovakia the situation is much better, but then again an American friend of mine who works there as a businessman asked me a couple of months ago why there is so much hatred against Hungarians in Slovakia, so there's that. It does not point to an improving situation.
Yesterday there was a great demonstration for the autonomy of Transylvania (well, Szekelyfold, which is part of it) within Romania. The ill treatment of Hungarian minorities are pretty well known and still ongoing in neighbouring countries: Slovakia, the Ukraine, Romania, Serbia all have their own ongoing histories of both state level discrimination.
I've only found one non-Hungarian report of this demonstration. It's funny how the fate of a minority in EU countries does not worry anyone, yet everyone is condemning an entire country when it is unable to deal with the influx of 400k people. (Weirdly when others do the same things -tightening borders, building fences, talking about defending European values-, nobody bats an eye.) I would be very curious what the reason is behind the anti-Hungarian attitudes of the Western press; after all, when the Keleti Railway station was full of migrants, the whole world was up in arms against the brutality and indifference of the Hungarian nation in general. After all, what civilized nation would allow such conditions within its own capital, asked these newspapers. Well, yesterday the French police started clearing out similar camps within Paris.
Fair enough. There's one issue here, though. I haven't even read about the existence of these camps beforehand.
I find it very curious. Apparently it's fine when the very same process is happening in France; after all, they cannot possibly as barbarous and xenophobic as the Hungarians, can they? And make no mistake, it is the very same process: a mass of people refuses to register in the country they are in, and instead opt to live under horrible conditions in makeshift camps in the hopes they could go to a more attractive country instead. You might be able to forcibly move them into closed migrant camps until they are properly registered, but that would be akin of the Holocaust. So that's out. There's not much more a state can do. It is well understood with the French or anyone else- but it's apparently not an issue when you condemn the Hungarians.
There's a clear double standard at work here- it's fine when us, enlightened Westerners do something (even when its horrendous), but god forbid something happened we don't approve somewhere else. I would be curious to know the reason.
Yesterday there was a great demonstration for the autonomy of Transylvania (well, Szekelyfold, which is part of it) within Romania. The ill treatment of Hungarian minorities are pretty well known and still ongoing in neighbouring countries: Slovakia, the Ukraine, Romania, Serbia all have their own ongoing histories of both state level discrimination.
I've only found one non-Hungarian report of this demonstration. It's funny how the fate of a minority in EU countries does not worry anyone, yet everyone is condemning an entire country when it is unable to deal with the influx of 400k people. (Weirdly when others do the same things -tightening borders, building fences, talking about defending European values-, nobody bats an eye.) I would be very curious what the reason is behind the anti-Hungarian attitudes of the Western press; after all, when the Keleti Railway station was full of migrants, the whole world was up in arms against the brutality and indifference of the Hungarian nation in general. After all, what civilized nation would allow such conditions within its own capital, asked these newspapers. Well, yesterday the French police started clearing out similar camps within Paris.
Fair enough. There's one issue here, though. I haven't even read about the existence of these camps beforehand.
I find it very curious. Apparently it's fine when the very same process is happening in France; after all, they cannot possibly as barbarous and xenophobic as the Hungarians, can they? And make no mistake, it is the very same process: a mass of people refuses to register in the country they are in, and instead opt to live under horrible conditions in makeshift camps in the hopes they could go to a more attractive country instead. You might be able to forcibly move them into closed migrant camps until they are properly registered, but that would be akin of the Holocaust. So that's out. There's not much more a state can do. It is well understood with the French or anyone else- but it's apparently not an issue when you condemn the Hungarians.
There's a clear double standard at work here- it's fine when us, enlightened Westerners do something (even when its horrendous), but god forbid something happened we don't approve somewhere else. I would be curious to know the reason.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)