Model Seo Jin Ah cosplaying for SKYSAGA (developed by SmileGate) during G-STAR game exhibition in Busan, November 2014.
Source : koreangirlshd[dot]com
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
The day that Humanity died
Tragedy in the Andaman Sea. A boat laden with refugees drifting in the ocean currents after more than one country in South-East Asia refused to accept them. Deplorable conditions, many dead or dying of illness. The food ran out provoking a fight to the death. Around one hundred were stabbed, hanged or thrown overboard. The day that Humanity died.
This weekend, Humanity died, if it ever existed. A boat laden with immigrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar (the Rohingya migrants) was intercepted by the Indonesian authorities after drifting at sea for around two months after the Governments of Malaysia and Thailand refused to allow it to dock. Around one hundred people had died as a result of a furious fight which broke out when food stocks ran out.
The crew by then had abandoned the migrants to their fate. Nobody air-dropped food, medicines or other supplies to them. They were left - men, women and children - drifting around in a sea of excrement, starving to death, seared by the sun, lashed by the winds and rain. The Bangladeshis, poverty-stricken in their own overpopulated country and the Rohingya, Moslems living in Myanmar which does not accept them as citizens and which has relegated them to a status of statelessness.
When the boat was finally found by the Indonesian authorities and allowed to dock at the port of Langsa, there were around seven hundred survivors aboard, most of whom had to receive hospital treatment for illness or severe dehydration or malnutrition.
What was going through the minds of the Malaysian and Thai authorities when they refused these migrants the right to dock in their countries? Why did nobody at least provide them with supplies?
The legal issue
Under international law, if indeed today such a thing exists in practical terms, States are obliged to help those in need at sea (*):
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides that 'Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers: (a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost; (b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him' (Article 98(1));
The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS Convention) obliges the 'master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information2 from any source that persons are in distress at sea, ... to proceed with all speed to their assistance, if possible informing them or the search and rescue service that the ship is doing so' (SOLAS regulation V/33.1).
UNCLOS imposes an obligation on every coastal State Party to '... promote the establishment, operation and maintenance of an adequate and effective search and rescue service regarding safety on and over the sea and, where circumstances so require, by way of mutual regional arrangements co-operate with neighbouring States for this purpose' (Article 98(2)).
The SOLAS Convention requires each State Party to '... ensure that necessary arrangements are made for distress communication and co-ordination in their area of responsibility and for the rescue of persons in distress at sea around its coasts. These arrangements shall include the establishment, operation and maintenance of such search and rescue facilities as are deemed practicable and necessary ...' (SOLAS regulation V/7).
In addition, the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR Convention) obliges State Parties to '... ensure that assistance [is] provided to any person in distress at sea ... regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found' (Chapter 2.1.10) and to '... provide for their initial medical or other needs, and deliver them to a place of safety' (Chapter 1.3.2).
The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees defines a Refugee as a person who 'owing to [a] well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his [or her] nationality3 and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself [or herself] of the protection of that country' (Article 1A(2)).
The 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits refugees and asylum-seekers from being expelled or returned in any manner whatsoever 'to the frontiers of territories where [their] life or freedom would be threatened on account of [their] race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion' (Article 33(1)).
(*) International Maritime Organization
Conclusion
In the last three years, 120,000 Rohingya have been forced to flee Myanmar. So far this year, it is estimated by the UNO that 25,000 Rohingya have been transported out of Myanmar, where their plight is inhumane to say the least, by traffickers. It is believed there are several more boats like this one floating on the high seas, ignored by the countries of the region despite the legal principles and agreements set out above.
Worse, it is reported that the authorities of some of these countries have instructed commercial vessels not to help the migrants at sea.
It doesn't get much more callous than that, does it? This despicable story leads us to believe that neither is international law worth anything these days not does Humanity exist outside the realms of a vague chimera or notion or a meaningless precept on paper.
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. He is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights.
Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru
Monday, May 18, 2015
One Reason to Not Hate the Apple Watch
Is this the saving grace for one of the most underwhelming tech innovations ever?
As far as techno-innovations go, the Apple watch has got some serious street cred issues.
Far from the designer hype and the passionate queuing to purchase that previous Apple products have inspired, the Apple Watch has been a bit of a PR dud.
Computerworld.com pulled no punches when it stated that people “hate” it, apart from “$17,000 spendy douchbags”.
Pitch Perfect 2 actress Anna Kendrick took to her Twitter feed to express her feelings about the Apple Watch, stating, “We should be thanking Apple for launching the $10,000 "apple watch" as the new gold standard in douchebag detection”.
And even eminent philosophers have been lining up to put the boot in to what could have been a great leap forward in the world of tech.
But in recent news, Molly Watt, a profoundly deaf and mostly blind 20-year-old from the UK has found that features in the watch actually assist her greatly in her day-to-day life. Molly found that the haptic vibrate feature in the watch’s map function has been very helpful as a way to navigate her way around the streets of London.
She says on her blog review,
“I was born deaf and registered blind when I was 14. The condition I have is Usher Syndrome Type 2a. I am severely deaf and have only a very small tunnel of vision in my right eye… So far for me the most useful App on the Apple Watch is Maps – on my iPhone I can plan my journey from one destination to another, for me it will be on foot with Unis my guidedog. This is where Haptics really come into its own – I can be directed without hearing or sight, but by a series of taps via the watch onto my wrist – 12 taps means turn right at the junction or 3 pairs of 2 taps means turn left, I’m still experimenting with this but so far very impressed – usher syndrome accessible!”
So, now it looks like Apple has increased its market share beyond the “douchebag” set, to people in genuine need for some tech innovation.
Do you know anyone who’s actually bought an Apple watch?
Source : nickjrparents[dot]com[dot]au
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Chae Eun In The Club
Portrait photoshoot of model Rock Chae Eun with an old English club setting, or a pub, resthouse, whatever… she looks hot regardless.
Source : koreangirlshd[dot]com
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Democracy, elections and the fickle nature of Politics 2015
Politics 2015. Now the dust has settled on the British election and we see which way the wind blows the political particles in the fall-out, in a year in which there are no less than forty-seven Legislative, Presidential or Federal elections across the world (*), and the big one next year in the USA, to what extent can we draw parallels from the UK and predict the outcome of the democratic act by analyzing global political trends?
For a start let us ask whether this so-called democratic act is indeed about democracy and secondly let us analyze the United Kingdom election as an example, asking who voted, for what and why.
1. Did the majority of the population in the United Kingdom vote, being fully informed of the options, know what they were voting for and who was representing them?
2. Do the people trust the politicians?
3. Is there a narrow space, empathy, between the people and those they elect as their representatives?
4. Are all policies that are enshrined in law open to examination?
If the answer to any of these questions is negative, then the system is flawed and cannot be called democratic. If the answer to all of these questions is a resounding "NO!" then this underlines what I am about to write. Let us take the questions one by one.
1. Did the majority of the population in the United Kingdom vote, being fully informed of the options, know what they were voting for and who was representing them?
The voter turnout for the UK election in 2015 was just over 66 per cent, meaning over a third of the electorate did not vote, demonstrating a worrying trend shown elsewhere that a growing percentage of young voters are turned off by politics and politicians - these representing apparently around 42 per cent in the UK general election on May 7.
The fact that nearly half of the voters in the 18 to 24 age group did not bother to vote and some of those that did placed spoiled or blank votes, lends credence to the belief that they understand any participation in an electoral process will not make any difference, leading political analyst Christof Lehmann to conclude: "The situation brings to mind the words of the late German journalist and later RAF terrorist Ulrike Meinhof, who spoke out about a disenfranchised youth and the street as only remaining place to democratically voice actual dissent".
As for who the people voted for, the electoral system in the UK is based on political constituencies where the grass roots level of the political parties play an important role in selecting candidates to stand for election as Members of Parliament, each constituency electing one Member in a first-past-the-post suffrage. Sounds good? It would be but unfortunately a recent survey indicated that over three-quarters of voters do not even know who their representative is. In other political systems, in which the Parties draw up lists of candidates to be Members of Parliament, the candidates are wholly unknown to the population, and so people do not know who they are electing, making this void even wider.
If the void is wider, the mistrust is deeper. This is not democracy.
2. Do the people trust the politicians?
It is not necessary to answer this question because the answer is an obvious two-letter word, anywhere in the world, although there are exceptions: those with a calling to public service and to work for the good of the people, answering their trust with hard work and policies that make sense. The popularity/approval rating of 86 per cent places Russia's own Vladimir Putin in this category.
But as a rule the opposite is true. People do not trust politicians because they are seen to lie, they make pledges at election time, they place promises in manifestos and then promptly, blatantly and shamelessly break them. This may be the reason why more and more people are turned off by the entire process, because after all what use does a manifesto serve if it is not respected? And even then, how good an instrument of communication is it if it is written in a pompous verborrea nobody understands?
Let us once again take the UK elections as an example and take a look at the manifestos. Here is how the (victorious) Conservative/Tory Party's starts:
"Over the last five years, we have put our country back on the right track. Five years ago, Britain was on the brink. As the outgoing Labour Treasury Minister put it with brutal candour, 'there is no money'. Since then, we have turned things around".
Translation: The Conservative/Tory Party managed, through repetition of the same message throughout five years, to place the British Labour Party at the center of the world's economic, financial and banking crisis (the result of the capitalist/monetarist model, not party politics in one nation) and the Labour Party was so inept they did not pull this statement apart from day one.
In fact, the Tory Party won the election for two reasons alone: this agrument and the scaremongering about the Scots Nationalists sitting in London and ruling the roost under a Labour-led Government.
Labour's manifesto developed under the following theme: "Britain only succeeds when working people succeed. This is a plan to reward hard work, share prosperity and build a better Britain".
And here is Labour's problem: the "working class" argument in today's UK might work in those areas where the expression means something but there is a fundamental difference in Labour values in the inner cities of factory towns and cities in the north of England and among the intelligentsia in and around London, Labour's two heartlands. Now virtually wiped out in Scotland (Labour lost 50 seats there to the Scottish National Party, which won 56 out of the country's 59 seats) Labour has to claw back some fifty seats from the Conservatives in England if it ever wants to be a majority player again. Yet it has to claw those fifty seats back in a country where Conservative values are now national and traditional Labour values are regional. Bottom line: Labour has to reinvent itself.
When all is said and done, the system itself presents two alternatives to the people, one supposedly center-right and the other, center-left and anything outside this space is derided as loony, menacing or dangerously insane, those representing this space being wholly incapable of getting the message across. The several Communist Parties failed to get a vote in the UK in the 2015 election.
And around these two center options, like a vice, close the lobbies which pull the strings behind the scenes, forwarding people for jobs in or around Government, choosing the candidate for the job then writing the job description from the candidate's own CV so that only that candidate fulfils the requirements. This is not democracy.
3. Is there a narrow space, empathy, between the people and those they elect as their representatives?
Again, no. In fact the space could not be wider. The reason why is because the Government is not really chosen by the people, the leader of the party is. Political discussions can be summed up as discussions about "Him being better than the other one", or "There isn't any alternative" or "He does look nice on TV". And if it is the image on television and the slickness of the campaign which chooses the candidate, if it is the one who stands up on a soap box and shouts above the crowd or grabs more kids when the camera is on him/her, this is a cosmetic detail and no reason to elect a person to implement meaningful policies nationwide. This is not democracy.
4. Are all policies that are enshrined in law open to examination?
No, they are not. For one simple reason: many of them do not enter the Manifesto. For instance, in how many NATO countries is membership of this offensive alliance, the payment of two per cent of GDP to military expenditure, the collective budget of one point two trillion USD per year every year on weapons and administrative military costs, open to discussion?
In how many NATO member states is the control of national foreign policy by this supra-national organism on the political table at election time? The result in both cases is none.
In conclusion, less than two-thirds of the adult population and just over half the young adult population votes for a manipulated image, ignorant of the main guidelines of policy, ignorant of the character, competence or curriculum on their representatives; even so they vote for the leader they distrust less, feeling little or no empathy with the political party in power and in any case, neither is the manifesto a commitment to policy (but rather, often a meaningless tissue of lies from beginning to end) nor are all policies contained in the manifesto.
If this is democracy, then it is unrepresentative. Or else, this is not democracy.
While it is true that if people have bread on their table, a roof over their heads and a minimum of human rights then they are less politically motivated, it is also true that most people are unhappy with the governments that represent them. This is not democracy.
The main issues are the right to a job and the right to security - what sort of a system has endemic unemployment rates of over ten per cent built into it, and up to 40 per cent of youth unemployment? What sort of system has people terrified to venture out of their homes at night for fear of being assailed by drug addicts or marauding gangs of drunks? What sort of a system has failed to deliver full rights for women? What sort of system takes growing amounts of hard-earned cash and gives less and less back in return in the way of public services? What sort of system has turned dental care into a luxury for the rich and the healthcare and education sectors into businesses? Is this what the people want? I don't think so. This is not democracy.
The politicians don't care. They have jobs to go to once they have passed the "use by" date and they have bodyguards at the doors of the buildings they grace with their presence. This is not democracy.
(*) 2015 is election year for Parliamentary/Legislative elections (L) or Presidential elections (P) in no less than forty-seven countries/territories, namely:
In Africa, Benin (L), Burkina Faso (L), Burundi (L,P), Central African Republic (L), Comoros (L), Ivory Coast (P), Egypt (L), Ethiopia (L), Lesotho (L), Nigeria (L), Sudan (L), Tanzania (L), Togo (P), Zambia (P) and a constitutional referendum in Tanzania; in Asia, Kazakhstan (P), Sri Lanka (P), Tajikistan (L), Turkey (L), Uzbekistan (P); in the Middle East, Israel (L); in Europe, Andorra (L), Croatia (P), Denmark (L), Faroe Islands (L), Estonia (L), Finland (L), Gibraltar (L), Greece (L), Italy (P), Poland (L,P), Portugal (L), Spain (L), Turkey (L), United Kingdom (L) and a Federal election in Switzerland; in North America, a Federal election in Canada, Mexico (L); in Oceania, State elections in Queensland and New South Wales, F.S. Micronesia (L), Tuvalu (L); in the Caribbean, Trinidad and Tobago (L); in Central America, Guatemala (L); in South America, Argentina (L), Guyana (L), Surinam (L).
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. He is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights.
Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru
Friday, May 15, 2015
How Seymour Hersh decries Obama and western warmongers
By Nicolas Bonnal
The Bush era, I felt it was much easier to be critical than it is of Obama...
Almost everybody hated or despised Bush Jr., even in America. This is why Bush Number Two was less perilous for global peace and world order than Obama whom we worship. But Obama was re-elected because he allegedly killed Osama (what a paronomasia!), Bush's old Nemesis. And messiah Obama behaved just like another bushman.
Concerning Seymour Hersh and his revelations about the assassination of Bin Laden, I agree with Dr Roberts. There is nothing very serious about that stuff. Hersh looks very imaginative, but his long and blurred storytelling is not really credible for an audience, like that of the Pravda.Ru readers, accustomed to decrypt the incessant lies of the West and its stupid agencies. We know that a global gullible opinion can swallow nowadays any kind of crap, given that this opinion is still more interested in the intellectual remarks and philosophical achievements of Kim Kardashian or Lady Gaga...
Yet as we say in Paris we cannot, "cracher dans la soupe", spit in the soup! And the prestigious Pulitzer Prize acknowledges in his burst of rage the inconsequence, the amateurism and the cowardice of the main newspapers in the West. Here too I must add that a journal or a magazine, for instance in France, is worth nothing: only four millions Euros to buy the once prestigious Nouvel Observateur for instance. This datum confirms a fact: the Illuminati clowns who drive us to the abysm whether in America or in Western Europe really do not need a public opinion whose brains are continually moulded by servile and obsessive media. They just help themselves, confident in the global inertia underlined by De Tocqueville two centuries ago, an inertia that is congenital to classical western democracies. See the hundreds of stupid wars run by old imperialistic powers like England, France or the US.
But let us recall with the dictionary the different meanings of the word press. As a verb:
- To move or cause to move into a position of contact with something by exerting continuous physical force.
- To take strong efforts to persuade or force (someone) to do something
And as a noun, it means "a device for applying pressure to something in order to flatten or shape it or to extract juice or oil." Juice or oil: that means cash (liquid) or blood. For this is what western press got from the conflicts it encouraged in Syria, Ukraine, Libya or Iraq. But the bloody warmongers are never fed up. They ask more, like a monstrous baby-ogre. There will be oil, there will be cash, and there will be blood.
So let's listen and savour what the Pulitzer Prize tells us in his spicy prose about the western press:
"I'll tell you the solution, get rid of 90% of the editors that now exist and start promoting editors that you can't control," he says. I saw it in the New York Times, I see people who get promoted are the ones on the desk who are more amenable to the publisher and what the senior editors want and the trouble makers don't get promoted. Start promoting better people who look you in the eye and say 'I don't care what you say".
We all know that the "Watergate scandal" (Jean Baudrillard laughed at this creepy expression) was a complex operation designed to oust the last authentic - despite all his defaults - president in order to move forward the global agenda of the Trilateral (Nelson Rockefeller became Gerald Ford's vice-president); but what about the journalistic consequences?
Adds a shrewd Hersh's commentator:
"Woodward and Bernstein led to journalists wanting to have star power, get invited to the best Georgetown dinner parties and be best buddies with the political heavyweights, people you don't want to piss off."
Then Hersh plays the role of a rebellious citizen. He does a courageous job indeed, like Hollywood stars I spoke of last year, Gary Oldman, Mel Gibson, Javier Bardem or Sean Penn. But as we know in America it is the audience that is very dumb, not the famous.
"Do you think Obama's been judged by any rational standards? Has Guantanamo closed? Is a war over? Is anyone paying any attention to Iraq? Is he seriously talking about going into Syria? We are not doing so well in the 80 wars we are in right now, what the hell does he want to go into another one for. What's going on with journalists?"
Yes, what is going on indeed? For instance in France an ex-editor of prestigious newspaper Le Monde, an agitator who declared with a sinister emphasis that we are "all Americans" after the farce of the 9/11, continually argues in his editorials for a war against Russia. Will he get a Nobel Prize of Peace or of Literature to greet his delicate recommendations?
Anyone can avoid mainstream media and carefully pick his information elsewhere. He will be well-awarded, he will be sometimes confused, sometimes euphoric, sometimes disillusioned. But he will be a free mind. Truth will set him free.
'And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free' (John, 8, 32).
Unfortunately, such quest of knowledge is not easy job to the formal citizen. He is much more interested by Ronaldo CR7's thighs or Kardashian's butt. This is why Vladimir Putin is worse than renowned western star Adolf Hitler, according to our barbaric western doxology.
Seymour Hersh knows how Obama will have to act to get the public opinion ready for our next war; and that makes him not optimistic:
"But I don't know if it's going to mean anything in the long [run] because the polls I see in America - the president can still say to voters 'al-Qaida, al-Qaida' and the public will vote two to one for this kind of surveillance, which is so idiotic".
We know indeed that the world is a tale told by Bush, pardon, "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing". What signified the American Wars in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Syria, in Ukraine, anywhere?
At least, and thanks to Mr Hersh, a well-recommended voice labelled a terrorist by the insane Republican Party, we know that "the world is clearly run by total nincompoops more than ever ..."
Nicolas Bonnal
Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru
Thursday, May 14, 2015
Mr. John Kerry, freedom of expression and improving relations
It is reported that the United States Secretary of State Mr. John Kerry handed President Putin a list of quotes in the Russian media which were hostile to the position defended by Washington in international affairs, yet another clear display of pig-faced insolence from one who is supposed to be his country's leading diplomat.
If Mr. John Kerry has a problem with what I write in these lines, then I will wear that medal with pride. If some of my lines were in the dossier he presented to President Putin, then I thank him for proving that I have done my job. If Mr. John Kerry has a problem with freedom of expression, then I would suggest he restrict his idiosyncrasies to the corporate media in his own country and those which spend their time crawling round his legs as they spend two per cent of their GDP on the NATO military and administrative budget.
After all, by and large, to the media in the USA and UK in particular can be applied the "upside down" law, which is take anything they say, turn it inside out and upside down, stand it on its head and you will get something nearer to the truth than the original story.
Let us take the piece in Britain's The Guardian newspaper, for instance. The Guardian? Yes you know, the one that reported on my reply to that Australian Abbott person when he threatened to "shirt-front" President Putin, quoting a biography of me without doing a shred of research, a drunken spoof bio written by a friend just before he engraved "PRINT SCREEN" onto his forehead by collapsing over his keyboard. Reporting on Kerry's meeting with President Putin, the same newspaper stated the following:
"Putin said the Russian people would already remember the solidarity of Britain, the US and other allies during the second world war, which in Russia is known as the great patriotic war and does not include the two years from 1939 to 1941 in which the Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany".
So Britain was "allied" with Nazi Germany, one supposes, when Neville Chamberlain came back from Berlin waving slips of paper claiming "peace in our time"? And since when does a Non-Aggression Pact become a Treaty of Alliance? The "Bugger the Research" Guardian, ladies and gentlemen, has been assimilated and has become a prime example of what John Kerry wants - a mouthpiece to vomit forth the vitriol of the lobbies which control the foreign policies of the USA and its Poodles in Europe, which represent in turn the corporate interests which close ranks around any Government elected from the two options presented in an election, center-right and center-left. And they spend, ladies and gentlemen, each and every single year, one point two trillion dollars on their military budget.
So if Mr. John Kerry has a problem with the truth, let him restrict his censorial fantasies to his own country, for in Russia there exists something called freedom of expression and anyway, who the hell is he to dictate anything to anyone?
If there were quotes in the Russian media against the policies of the United States of American, I wonder why? So let's start with Afghanistan, shall we, you know the country where the United States of America used bin Laden as a CIA asset fighting against the Soviet-backed progressive Governments which provided full human rights, women's rights and attempted to distribute the country's wealth among the people instead of seeing it clasped greedily in the hands of the ruling elites? And so if the USA has the duty to rush in and help the Putsch Government in Ukraine because they asked for help, then the USSR likewise had the duty to help the Afghan Government being assailed by western-backed terrorists pouring into the country from Northern Pakistan and aided and abetted by the West.
Or doesn't it work both ways?
Iraq
Let us move on to Iraq, you know the country which did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction, the country which did not pose a direct threat to the USA and its allies, the country which was suffering the consequences of an inhumane blockade and whose children were dying in their hundreds of thousands as a result, while swathes of its territory were rendered wastelands by the deployment of Depleted Uranium. But what to expect from the country that deployed napalm against the kids back in Vietnam?
Nam
Mr. Kerry, as a Vietnam veteran, would know all about that of course, or shall we stand that story on its head as well? I know! How about the Americans were helping the Vietnamese farmers, their wives and children, to see the sunlight more clearly by blasting away the foliage on the trees and heck, if any kids were standing in the way then (chuckle) they shouldn't have been there, should they? A little bit of Agent Orange never did anyone any harm, eh what? Adds fiber to their character, makes a man out of them!
Twin Atomic terrorist strikes
Like those hundreds of thousands of "Japs" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, eh Mr. Kerry? Specially those babies lying in their cots, specially the dogs lying in the yard, specially the old folk crippled with arthritis who couldn't move an inch to save themselves when some American coward blasted their lives away with an A-Bomb. Yeah, I guess we should all just stand back and applaud.
Libya
Not doing that well so far are we, Mr. Kerry? OK then let's move on to Africa. Libya was a nice one, eh Mr. Kerry? How to turn the country with the highest Human Development Index into abject and utter chaos where your country's own ambassador was lynched and burnt by the very terrorists your country used to oust the Jamahiriya Government and replace it with what?
Why don't you go there and see for yourself? And I am not saying crawl into Tobruk under the cloak of nightfall, I am saying that if your country intervened to make Libya a better place, which anyway is illegal unless certain legal provisions exist, which they didn't, then walk around and see for yourself. I said, walk around and see for yourself.
The actions of your country and its sickening Poodles in Europe has turned Libya into a haven of human traffickers and terrorists, making people yearn for the stability of the Gaddafi period. The instability in Libya has made the lives of millions of people a misery. God Bless America, eh?
So congratulations for destroying the African Union, the one dream Africa had for African solutions for African problems, solutions made by Africans for Africans to live in dignity. So much for Africa... back to square one, back to slavery.
F*** the EU
So how about we move on to the Old Continent, what was it your assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland said? "F*** the EU"? I said, "F*ck the EU", was that it? Or was it *uck the EU? Whoops, Fu*k the EU, oh I am sorry, fuc* the EU?
So let's move on to Ukraine, the country in which the good ol' US of A yet again interfered and where it yet again sowed chaos. Why is it that everything Washington touches turns to excrement? Ukraine, where the democratically elected President Yanukovich was ousted by thugs, Fascists and those boasting about their ties to terrorists, where death threats were made against Russians and Jews, where the same thugs were firing against the police to get a reaction, the same thugs were firing against their own fellow protesters to cause martyrs...
Ukraine, where multiple voting was used in Parliament rendering any decisions illegal under Ukrainian law; Ukraine, whose Republic of Crimea's Parliament became the legally empowered entity after the illegal removal of President Yanukovich and which organized the free and fair referendum in which its population voted to return to Russia. Or don't you believe in expressions of democracy either, Mr. Kerry given that you apparently have an issue with freedom of expression?
What was that about improving relations, Mr. Kerry? And er... what's this I hear about Islamist factions being prepared for action in Crimea? Or was that only a rumor? I mean, given that you're all hell-bent on "improving Russian-American relations", and all that?
Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
*Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. He is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights.
Source : english[dot]pravda[dot]ru
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)