babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Georgia formally charges Russia with ethnic cleansing

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Georgia formally charges Russia with ethnic cleansing
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2008 09:02 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yup. That takes a lot of audacity, eh?

quote:
Georgia formally charged Russia at the International Court of Justice with alleged ethnic cleansing, the Georgian National Security Council secretary said....

The court in The Hague, Netherlands, confirmed the filing, in which Georgia requested it to order Russia to comply with an international genocide convention, halt military operations in Georgia, including South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and pull out its troops. On 15 May 2008, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution acknowledging ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia and called for the return of Georgian refugees. Some 300,000 Georgians (sic) fled Abkhazia during a vicious war in the early 1990s that led to the region’s de facto independence.


Here is one conservative commentator's view ...

quote:
... the above is pure propaganda and moonshine. According to the 1989 census, there were only 240,000 Georgians in Abkhazia, some 45 percent of the population. In 2003, there were 46,000 Georgians out of a total population of 216,000, some 21 percent of the population. In short, Georgians never were a majority of the population, and the number of refugees could not exceed 194,000, which is far from 300,000.

She goes to say that "The fact that the Hague tribunal is even entertaining such a fanciful action is proof positive, for even the slow learners, that it is not an objective and unbiased forum." By pressing this action through its Georgian puppet, the US is destroying the credibility of this institution.

That's one way to undermine the Russian case against Georgia, isn't it?

Stay tuned. Should be interesting.

quote:
The Saakashvili junta is known for its brutal repression of dissent and open contempt for civilised behaviour, as the deliberate bombardment of civilian districts in Tskhinvali illustrates abundantly. We are talking of a régime that makes Anastasio Somoza and Alfredo Stroessner look like copy-book exercises in democracy and human rights. This is prima facie evidence that the Hague tribunal does the bidding of neocons in the USA, and that none of its decisions are based in international law or international custom, let alone fairness and justice.

What a crocodile!!

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2008 09:35 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Georgian claims can be found over here.

Here is the docket.

The period covers from 1990 to 2008.

This has been advanced by a regime that so recently slaughtered 1,600 civilians in South Ossetia. And this has been put forward on the day before a National Day of Mourning in Russia for the victims of the Georgian atrocities.

Unbelievable.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 August 2008 10:01 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
She goes to say that "The fact that the Hague tribunal is even entertaining such a fanciful action is proof positive, for even the slow learners, that it is not an objective and unbiased forum."
Any country can go and file a claim at the ICJ. The ICJ isn't "entertaining" anything at the moment, though undoubtedly it will have an opportunity at some point in the future to consider whether the case should be allowed to proceed.

The ICJ may be biased, but allowing Georgia to file a claim doesn't prove that.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2008 10:10 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, thanks for that.

I should probably add that the blogger on whose site I first saw the reference, and whom I've quoted, is a pro-monarchist who lumps together US liberals and neocons as two sides of the same family squabbling with each other and who critiques the latter as not true conservatives. Thing is, her stuff is excellently written.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 13 August 2008 10:20 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
OK, thanks for that.

lumps together US liberals and neocons as two sides of the same family squabbling with each other and who critiques the latter as not true conservatives.


Well, that's accurate enough. The neocons are liberals, just as the liberals are, even though they disagree on some issues.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 August 2008 10:28 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can someone explain why we are supposed to accept the Russian version of events and claims about "atrocities" as the gospel, while any claims by Georgia about Russian atrocities are to be dismissed as a pack of lies?

It's not as if Russia is known for having anything resembling press freedom (Pravda?) and its run by a bunch of ex-KGB agents.

It may be fair to take any propaganda from either Russia or Georgia with a large chunk of salt - but this idea that the Russian version is the absolute truth is absurd.

We certainly know from recent events in Chechnya and also the way in which journalists have a habit of being murdered if they criticize Putin - that the Russian government is perfectly capable of committing atrocities.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2008 10:40 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you going to come in here latecomer, then take those muddy boots off. And you'll have to leave your pet crocodile at the door.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 August 2008 10:41 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess you can't answer my question.

I wasn't aware that it was now part of the "progressive ethos" to be an apologist for Putin and his police state?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 13 August 2008 10:44 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Putin's a Progressive.

I think there is enough blame and guit to apportion to both the Georgins and the Russians.


From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 August 2008 10:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I wasn't aware that it was now part of the "progressive ethos" to be an apologist for Putin and his police state?

"Police state" definition: Any state not currently being propped by the U.S. secret police.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 13 August 2008 10:45 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Can someone explain why we are supposed to accept the Russian version of events and claims about "atrocities" as the gospel...We certainly know from recent events in Chechnya and also the way in which journalists have a habit of being murdered if they criticize Putin - that the Russian government is perfectly capable of committing atrocities.

Can someone explain why we are supposed to accept the American version of events and claims about "atrocities" as the gospel, while any claims by Russia about Georgian/American atrocities are to be dismissed as a pack of lies? After all Georgia is a client state of the USA, and we all know the lies that this American administration is capable of.

It's not as if USA is known for having anything resembling press freedom (CNN FOX?) and they are informed by a bunch of CIA and Home Land Security agents.

It may be fair to take any propaganda from either Russia or Georgia with a large chunk of salt - but this idea that the American version is the absolute truth is absurd.

We certainly know from recent events in Iraq and Palestinian held territories and also the way in which journalists, and otheres, have a habit of being murdered if they criticize - that the Israeli and American governments are perfectly capable of committing atrocities.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2008 10:55 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On the other thread about Georgian atrocities, Stockholm groused about the worthlessness of Ossetian and Russian claims of atrocities. The comments were quite disgusting and I have no problem, again, comparing his remarks to Holocaust deniers.

Now he wonders aloud why Georgian claims aren't treated with the same "respect" as Ossetian and Russian claims of atrocities.

I call hypocrite.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 August 2008 10:59 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I tend to take both Russian and Georgian propaganda about "atrocities" with a grain of salt.

I'd like to know why we ought to accept the Russian version as the gospel when Russia has a long long history of having a massive propaganda machine and has no free press.

...and BTW: I don't believe American propaganda either and i find it pretty pathetic when you imply that either we are a cheering section for Russia or else we must be supporters of Bush.

I for one oppose superpower imperialism and aggression - whether its committed by the US, Russia or China.

I oppose Russia invading Georgia and if the US decided to invade Canada because we elected a government that wasn't pro-American enough - I'd oppose that too.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2008 11:08 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's hard to take you seriously, Stockholm, when you jump around from an anti-Russian fatwa to a bland pablum of cynicism about everyone. Especially when I'm certain that the fatwa will rear its head again in short order.

This thread has been started. There's plenty of time to add good contributions to it. Let's see where the evidence leads.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 13 August 2008 11:11 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I tend to take both Russian and Georgian propaganda about "atrocities" with a grain of salt.

I think most people do.

quote:
I'd like to know why we ought to accept the Russian version as the gospel when Russia has a long long history of having a massive propaganda machine and has no free press.

I don't understand why you mention this. Of what country is this not true? The Americans, in particular, have had the most comprehensive and successful propaganda machine in history.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 August 2008 11:22 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This thread has been started. There's plenty of time to add good contributions to it.

...and you seem to think that any posting in the thread that says anything other than "you are so right Beltov - Russia GOOD, Georgia BAD" is "derailing the thread".

I was under the impression that the point of babble is for people to DEBATE and DISCUSS different points of view.

If you don't want anyone to ever disagree with you, why don't you just start your own blog and censor out any comments that take issue with your views?


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2008 11:28 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You don't hold a single position or point of view long enough to criticize it, Stockholm. At least in foreign policy. You get cornered on your incendiary remarks and then, not much later, you're back to yelling and demanding answers like an interrogator. Maybe you should go into police work.

Why should anyone take you seriously?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 August 2008 11:32 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why should anyone take you seriously when your response to any criticism whatsoever of Russia is to claim that this is an "anti-Russian fatwa"?

People have died as a result of actual "fatwas" issued by Muslim religious authorities - i don't see what that has to do with criticizing Russia's foreign policy and human rights record.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2008 11:37 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I was wondering when you were going to get around to criticizing Muslims. Any excuse will do, eh?
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 August 2008 11:41 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Guess who first decided to use a Muslim religious term like "fatwa" as an insult????

I think you owe the Muslims of the world an apology.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 13 August 2008 11:45 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's Stephen Cohen's term. But you'd have to read him, and his description of this sort of political pathology to get more information. I can't imagine that you'll like that.

By the way, when does this internet behavior on your part become stalking? Shall we ask the moderator?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 13 August 2008 11:45 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Maybe we could leave discussion of "fatwas" as well as Muslims out of this, or this thread will go from bad to worse pretty quick.

Stock, if you have a particular and specific definsible point to make supportive of the Georgian position to make, you could just make it, rather than just bemoaning a percieved one sidedness.

quote:
I tend to take both Russian and Georgian propaganda about "atrocities" with a grain of salt.

Depending on where you set the bar for meeting the ctiteria for such a term, I'm more inclined to believe both sides.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 August 2008 11:49 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I see, so disagreeing with anything "Beltov" says = stalking.

Fine.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 13 August 2008 11:57 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh for chrissake no one said you were stalking.

Yes, the thread has a pro russian slant so far. Further, "a pox on all their houses" will usually be closer to the truth on most threads, though it won't win you many friends around here.

So gird yourself up the wazoo with provable related facts and jump into the fray. Your strength will be as the strength of ten because your heart is pure.

Of course your gonna get killed anyway.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 August 2008 11:59 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oldgoat, just go up a couple of posts to see the following missive from "Beltov"

quote:
By the way, when does this internet behavior on your part become stalking?

From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 13 August 2008 12:08 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quite so, well at least I didn't say it. Speaking to all in general, and no one in particular, I bet there isn't a single poster here who would so quikly default to being snarky if you were all meeting face to face.

One reason why I don't all that often get involved in these things unless I have to moderate.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
A_J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15412

posted 13 August 2008 12:20 PM      Profile for A_J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by oldgoat:
So gird yourself up the wazoo with provable related facts and jump into the fray.

I assume this advice is extend to all forumers? Because the discussion on this topic has sorely lacked any critical treatment of sources - especially in regard to the verbatim acceptance of the Russian government's narrative.

From: * | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 August 2008 12:34 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
...i find it pretty pathetic when you imply that either we are a cheering section for Russia or else we must be supporters of Bush.
...says the pathetic guy who accuses anybody who doubts the official™ US version of events of taking the Russian version "as gospel".
quote:
...if the US decided to invade Canada because we elected a government that wasn't pro-American enough - I'd oppose that too.
That's safe for you to say, because that's very unikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

I've never seen you criticize US foreign policy on anything, let alone oppose their military aggression against anyone.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 13 August 2008 12:39 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess you will just have to look a little harder. i have opposed the invasion of Iraq every step of the way. I oppose sanctions against Cuba and I retrospectively oppose US military actions in Southeast Asia and all interventions in Central America and Chile etc...
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 13 August 2008 12:42 PM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Saying an argument is pathetic is one thing. Saying a person is pathetic is an adhominum. You are probably capable of restraining yourself, so please do so.

BTW, anything that remotely sounds like a recourse to the "he started it" gambit will not be entertained. Lets focus on finishing it.


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 August 2008 01:00 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Your post was entirely predictable, except for the botching of ad hominem.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 August 2008 02:00 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I guess you will just have to look a little harder. i have opposed the invasion of Iraq every step of the way. I oppose sanctions against Cuba and I retrospectively oppose US military actions in Southeast Asia and all interventions in Central America and Chile etc...

There are ultra conservatives criticizing and trying to distance themselves from Bush and the shadow gov's outdated cold war era policies on Cuba etc. So what separates your political points of view from theirs?


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 13 August 2008 03:11 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hesitate to post this, because I hate to give certain parties ammunition for their anti-Russian venom, but it has to be acknowledged that Human Rights Watch has accused Russia of exaggerating the damage done by Georgia in the initial attack:
quote:
Deliberate attempts by the Russian government to exaggerate the number of people killed in the South Ossetia conflict are provoking revenge attacks on Georgian villagers in the breakaway republic, a respected human rights group claimed today.

Anna Neistat of Human Rights Watch (HRW), who is leading a team investigating the humanitarian damage in South Ossetia, told the Guardian that Russian estimates of 2,000 dead in the conflict were "suspicious".

"The figure of 2,000 people killed is very doubtful," she said. "Our findings so far do not in any way confirm the Russian statistics. On the contrary, they suggest the numbers are exaggerated."


Still, I don't doubt that some of the claims of atrocities -- on both sides of the conflict -- are true. I doubt there's ever been a war without them. And needless to say, the Georgians (and, most likely, their American backers) are culpable for invading South Ossetia in the first place. The thing is, though, nobody's innocent here. The best we can hope for is that the fighting doesn't flare up again, or if it does, that it doesn't spread outside the region.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 13 August 2008 06:04 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Agent 204:
I hesitate to post this, because I hate to give certain parties ammunition for their anti-Russian venom, but it has to be acknowledged that Human Rights Watch has accused Russia of exaggerating the damage done by Georgia in the initial attack:

Hijacking Human Rights:

quote:
"...human-rights interventionism became a consensus among the 'foreign policy elite' even before September 11. Human Rights Watch itself is part of that elite, which includes government departments, foundations, NGO's and academics. It is certainly not an association of 'concerned private citizens'. HRW board members include present and past government employees, and overlapping directorates link it to the major foreign policy lobbies in the US."[11]

Indeed, HRW was created in 1978 as the Helsinki Watch (which later became HRW's Europe and Central Asia Advisory Committee) "at the instigation of [ambassador-at-large for President Carter] Arthur Goldberg" with the start-up costs covered by a $400,000 from the Ford Foundation.[12] Furthermore, as Bruce Montgomery (2002) observes their establishment credentials were fortified by Robert L. Bernstein (the founder of HRW) who "began by recruiting the establishment elite to give the cause clout and visibility."[13] Kirsten Sellars (2002) also points out that:

and so on ....


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 13 August 2008 06:12 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Aha, I see. I didn't know that about HRW at all. I'd thought they were similar to Amnesty International, but evidently not.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 13 August 2008 06:26 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Agent 204:
Aha, I see. I didn't know that about HRW at all. I'd thought they were similar to Amnesty International, but evidently not.

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: Agent 204 ]


heh. I have a somewhat negative view of them, too


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 13 August 2008 08:17 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well well,
If ethnic cleansing was truly perpetrated by Russia, then they must be really stupid
Here are the Georgian civilian casualties-
This from the CTV/Associated Press article:
quote:
Humanitarian crisis

Georgia estimates that Russian ground and air attacks have killed 175 Georgians (the country's population was 4.4 million as of 2007). At least 55,000 people have crowded into the capital of Tbilisi to flee the fighting.

"Most of the affected people have fled their homes with only the clothes on their back," David Gazashvili of CARE's emergency humanitarian unit told CTV's Canada AM on Wednesday.



So what we have here is 175 dead on Georgian side. Does that warrant ethnic cleansing charges?

In contrast, South Ossetia has lost 1500 civilians, possibly even more. Nearly all of them killed either by Georgian artillery or at close range.
This makes it a ratio of 8:1
The bullshit Western media doesnt even mention Georgia's fault in the death of these people. A brief BBC report from Tskhinvali showed an entire city in ruins, yet mentioned Georgian assault only in passing. No corpses, or wounded civilians were shown. Only ruins and Russian tanks, somehow implying to the viewers that Russians have caused all of this destruction.
You can judge for yourselves

[ 13 August 2008: Message edited by: BetterRed ]


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 13 August 2008 09:07 PM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A fine article from The Guardian. Kudos to them for not following the rest of Bristish media in their pile-on of Russia.

quote:
This is a tale of US expansion not Russian aggression
Seumas Milne The Guardian, Thursday August 14 2008
Article history
The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered". George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

You'd be hard put to recall after all the fury over Russian aggression that it was actually Georgia that began the war last Thursday with an all-out attack on South Ossetia to "restore constitutional order" - in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nor, amid the outrage at Russian bombardments, have there been much more than the briefest references to the atrocities committed by Georgian forces against citizens it claims as its own in South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali. Several hundred civilians were killed there by Georgian troops last week, along with Russian soldiers operating under a 1990s peace agreement: "I saw a Georgian soldier throw a grenade into a basement full of women and children," one Tskhinvali resident, Saramat Tskhovredov, told reporters on Tuesday.

Might it be because Georgia is what Jim Murphy, Britain's minister for Europe, called a "small beautiful democracy". Well it's certainly small and beautiful, but both the current president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and his predecessor came to power in western-backed coups, the most recent prettified as a "Rose revolution". Saakashvili was then initially rubber-stamped into office with 96% of the vote before establishing what the International Crisis Group recently described as an "increasingly authoritarian" government, violently cracking down on opposition dissent and independent media last November. "Democratic" simply seems to mean "pro-western" in these cases.

The long-running dispute over South Ossetia - as well as Abkhazia, the other contested region of Georgia - is the inevitable consequence of the breakup of the Soviet Union. As in the case of Yugoslavia, minorities who were happy enough to live on either side of an internal boundary that made little difference to their lives feel quite differently when they find themselves on the wrong side of an international state border.

Such problems would be hard enough to settle through negotiation in any circumstances. But add in the tireless US promotion of Georgia as a pro-western, anti-Russian forward base in the region, its efforts to bring Georgia into Nato, the routing of a key Caspian oil pipeline through its territory aimed at weakening Russia's control of energy supplies, and the US-sponsored recognition of the independence of Kosovo - whose status Russia had explicitly linked to that of South Ossetia and Abkhazia - and conflict was only a matter of time.

The CIA has in fact been closely involved in Georgia since the Soviet collapse. But under the Bush administration, Georgia has become a fully fledged US satellite. Georgia's forces are armed and trained by the US and Israel. It has the third-largest military contingent in Iraq - hence the US need to airlift 800 of them back to fight the Russians at the weekend. Saakashvili's links with the neoconservatives in Washington are particularly close: the lobbying firm headed by US Republican candidate John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has been paid nearly $900,000 by the Georgian government since 2004.

But underlying the conflict of the past week has also been the Bush administration's wider, explicit determination to enforce US global hegemony and prevent any regional challenge, particularly from a resurgent Russia. That aim was first spelled out when Cheney was defence secretary under Bush's father, but its full impact has only been felt as Russia has begun to recover from the disintegration of the 1990s.

Over the past decade, Nato's relentless eastward expansion has brought the western military alliance hard up against Russia's borders and deep into former Soviet territory. American military bases have spread across eastern Europe and central Asia, as the US has helped install one anti-Russian client government after another through a series of colour-coded revolutions. Now the Bush administration is preparing to site a missile defence system in eastern Europe transparently targeted at Russia.

By any sensible reckoning, this is not a story of Russian aggression, but of US imperial expansion and ever tighter encirclement of Russia by a potentially hostile power. That a stronger Russia has now used the South Ossetian imbroglio to put a check on that expansion should hardly come as a surprise. What is harder to work out is why Saakashvili launched last week's attack and whether he was given any encouragement by his friends in Washington.

If so, it has spectacularly backfired, at savage human cost. And despite Bush's attempts to talk tough yesterday, the war has also exposed the limits of US power in the region. As long as Georgia proper's independence is respected - best protected by opting for neutrality - that should be no bad thing. Unipolar domination of the world has squeezed the space for genuine self-determination and the return of some counterweight has to be welcome. But the process of adjustment also brings huge dangers. If Georgia had been a member of Nato, this week's conflict would have risked a far sharper escalation. That would be even more obvious in the case of Ukraine - which yesterday gave a warning of the potential for future confrontation when its pro-western president threatened to restrict the movement of Russian ships in and out of their Crimean base in Sevastopol. As great power conflict returns, South Ossetia is likely to be only a taste of things to come.



This is a tale of US expansion - The Guardian

From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 August 2008 10:37 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:

So what we have here is 175 dead on Georgian side. Does that warrant ethnic cleansing charges?

It's like when the Nazis marched into Russia and called Russians "gangsters" or some such. Visiting guests to Russia were treated badly even back as far as Napoleon. Rooskies have terrible manners by what I can tell.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca