/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Monday, October 29, 2012

Political Opposition Arrested And Tortured

--posted by Tony Garcia on 10/29/2012

In the Russia that Obama during the 3rd debate implied was not dangerous and from where Obama got one of his foreign leader endorsements members of the political opposition are being arrested and tortured.
Russian police detained several opposition leaders, including Alexei Navalny and Sergei Udaltsov, during a protest held in Moscow Saturday against the latest wave of arrests of political activists.

Police claimed the detained activists violated public order after about 200 people gathered around the headquarters of the Federal Security Service (FSB) with signs protesting political repression against the opposition, including allegations of torture by one activist.
The violation occurs when more than one person protests without permission from authorities. Now at this point I should say that civil disobedience requires arrest and if that is what these rallies were then they should be arrested. I would love to know how many times they requested permission and were denied as well as the reasoning for the denials. That would be relevant.

But what makes this story worthy of calling Russia dangerous is the torture of political opposition prisoners.
The picketing was called following the arrest and charging of activist Leonid Razvozzhayev, who had told rights campaigners last Tuesday that masked men kidnapped him the week before from Kiev, where he was applying for refugee status.

He said he was later smuggled into Russia and held in a cellar, where the men terrorised and threatened him for several days until he agreed to cooperate, after which he was handed over to Russian investigators to pen a confession.
But look at this. Arrest after arrest after arrest...
Anti-corruption campaigner Navalny, Left Front movement leader Udaltsov, and fellow opposition leader Ilya Yashin tweeted from the police station, where they were taken together with several other protesters.
...for responding to a documentary that claimed they wanted to overthrow Putin (which, being rid of Putin might not be bad and the way he has rigged things now an overthrow may be the only way to get him out of office--but that is all Russia's house to fix on their own).
Razvozzhayev, along with Udaltsov and Udaltsov's assistant Konstantin Lebedev have been charged with plotting mass riots after a smear documentary aired on a pro-Kremlin television channel claimed the trio wanted to overthrow Putin.
And it seems these 3 are not the only opposition members arrested.
Russia has over the past few months targeted many protest activists in various probes, with 13 people behind bars and awaiting trial on charges of alleged disorder at a massive rally on May 6, one day before Vladimir Putin was inaugurated for his third Kremlin term.
Glad to know that Russia is a freedom loving nation and not a danger...one that we can trust to finally hold up their end of nuclear treaties (in spite of decades of contrary behavior). Though, I would hate to see how bad it would have to get for our leader to classify them as a danger.

Labels:

***** 0 refutations and clarifications *****

Thursday, October 25, 2012

To What Not Dangerous Russia Was Obama Referring

--posted by Tony Garcia on 10/25/2012

When Obama mocked Romney in the 3rd debate about considering Russia a threat I began to wonder which Russia Obama was talking about. Was it this one with the leader who endorsed Obama?
That brings us to Russia’s Vladimir Putin, who has eliminated most elections in his country, monopolized all major media and destroyed the political party system. ... In a letter to a major newspaper, the president of a group dedicated to expanding freedom around the world points out that under Putin there has been an “across-the-board crackdown on civil society.” The piece goes on to ask: “Will Obama stand up against Putin’s abuses?” Unlikely, now that the Russian dictator has extended his endorsement.
It could not be this Russia which is making any sharing of government information a crime of treason.
Russia's parliament has voted to widen the definition of high treason in a move critics say is a further attempt to stifle dissent in the country.

Under the proposed new law, high treason and espionage will include supporting "those seeking to damage Russia's security".

Those illegally obtaining secret state information could face an extended prison sentence.
Now I think is a good time to remind people that ANYTIME government gets in the business of controlling media it becomes dangerous. That is why things like the Fairness Doctrine were and will always be a danger to freedom.

This new bill in Russia has some scary implications.
The bill lists as high treason not only passing secret information to foreign governments, but also giving consultations or financial help, including to international organisations, in case the recipients engage in ''activities directed against the security of Russia''.

The bill also creates a new criminal charge, punishable by up to four years in prison, for people who receive state secrets through illegal means.

Rights activists and lawyers said the broader definitions laid out in the new amendments could criminalise sharing information with international organisations such as Amnesty International or even appealing to the European Court of Human Rights.
Picture this. Some illegal activity going on in a government agency and a moral person is going to blow the lid on it...or even just wants to get some amnesty in a different country away from the activity. By giving any information to a Russian reporter both the person AND the reporter would be held for treason. The reporter might not even know they are breaking the law.

The bill also changes the burden of proof from prosecutors having to show "hostile intent" to only needing to show a threat to state security.

Under the new legal definition going to the European Court of Human Rights about abuses in Russia could be prosecuted for revealing state secrets. Even the transmission of information on election fraud could be construed as state treason. Think about all of those stories in the United States about voter supression, intimidation, illegal activity, etc suddenly being illegal. Suddenly being illegal to even complain to anyone about it.

Go ahead, think of the implications beyond that. There are plenty. And with that kind of move away from a freedom-loving nation I think that makes them another step closer to the Big Bear they were in their days of the USSR. And that bear was dangerous to humanity in whole.

So which Russia was Obama thinking of when he said that Russia is not a danger?

Labels:

***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Monday, July 31, 2006

Iran says no way...Why it is WWIII

--posted by Tony Garcia on 7/31/2006

(H/T: Northern Alliance Wannabe)

Can We Think About That...No Thanks

In case you have not heard the completely expected news:
Iranian state radio said Saturday that the government would reject a proposed U.N. resolution that would give it until Aug. 31 to suspend uranium enrichment or face the threat of international sanctions.

"Iranians will not accept unfair decisions, even in the framework of resolutions by the international bodies," the commentary on state-run radio said.

There has been no official comment to the draft resolution, but state radio often is thought to provide the Iranian government line.

There has been no official comment to the draft resolution, but state radio often is thought to provide the Iranian government line.

The resolution was formally circulated to the full 15-member U.N. Security Council late Friday and likely will be adopted next week.

"Ultimatum and deadline cannot be acceptable to us," the commentary said, accusing the United States and its allies of making what it called an illegal demand.

The commentary also said the draft might not be approved because of opposition by China.

Tehran said last week it would reply Aug. 22 to a Western incentive package, but the council decided to go ahead with a resolution and not wait for Iran's response.

The incentive package includes economic incentives and a provision for the United States to offer Iran some nuclear technology, lift some sanctions and join direct negotiations. The proposal also calls for Iran to impose a long-term moratorium on uranium enrichment — which can produce peaceful reactor fuel or fissile bomb material.

The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its program is purely peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.

Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel but has indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions.
Had to do the whole article...sometimes the full story on FoxNews.com does not go into long term archives.

In case you didn't hear us yesterday (show is available through webcast) I explained why this whole Iranian consideration of the UN proposal was a delay tactic.

Short version in chronological bullet points:
* Iran enriching Uranium...making U-235. Takes about a year of spinning in centrifuge to make it weapons grade (80% pure).
* Israeli intelligence has been putting the estimated timeline for completion between May 2006 and October 2006.
* Iran claims enrichment is for needed power.
* In June Iran is offered enriched Uranium in exchange for them shutting down all enrichment facilities (estimated to be about 17 or 18 facilities). If the offer is not accepted there will be sanctions.

Consider how long sanctions would take to (a) be put in place and (b) have any effective impact.

* Iran says, "give us 'til the end of August to decide".
* Shortly after Iran's surrogate kidnaps Israeli soldiers and fighting begins.

Why? My belief is for a few reasons.
1) Create a distraction enough to take public attention away from Iran's development (completion soon?)
2) Tie up some of Israel’s military resources so Israel will be less able to effectively perform a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities
3) Have an event that will still be a higher priority in most people's minds when it is discovered that Iran's U-235 weapons grade enrichment is complete
4) Give the borderline Arab states a more solid justification for attacking Israel or at least standing on Iran's side firmly. As it is, Saudi Arabia is already swaying from the "Israel can defend itself" to the "Israel’s response is unhumanitarian"

That Iran is going to turn down an offer giving them everything they claimed they needed from nuclear enrichment is not surprising at all.

Why World War III is More than the GOP 2006 Campaign Slogan

Israeli intelligence is also indicating that once Iran has weapons grade U-235 and a delivery system (not difficult to buy, really) their first three targets will be simultaneous strikes on Israel, London and New York. Absolute collapse of the Western World's economic structure in more devastating fashion than 9/11.

What is Israel going to do? What are we going to do?

We will likely do nothing. We are immasculated by the war-protesting movement that effectively and falaciously blurred the line between "support our troops" and "against the war". While they are actually mutually exclusive the war-protesters have succeeded in making many people believe that it is possible to believe both. This strengthened the consensus of people who think the troops should come home from Iraq. Mind you, Iraq was never primarily about WMD, but was about Iran. That does not matter to the ideologues (party over principles on the Left)...they want a Bush defeat no matter the cost. The result is American sentiment leaning towards withdrawal from Iraq. That queasy stomach is also weakening support for being in Afghanistan (which, btw, borders Iran). The result is also the unwillingness of sitting politicians to take a strong stance for action against Iran.

That leaves Israel to act. There are 3 main scenarios from this.
1. ACTION AND SUCCESS
If they act (and succeed) in time by annihilating ALL of Iran's nuclear facilities they will have likely ended the immediate nuclear threat. But what will the response from Iran and the Arab world be? My belief is the attack on Iran will give them all the concrete justification to "unload in the face" of Israel. Then a good portion of the Western World and the few Arab states the do not attack Israel will be pressured into an actual armed response. We then will likely lead the charge with Canada and Australia, maybe even Japan. The UK will follow. Eventually I believe Russia will give the same neutrality for Iran that we gave the UK before WWI and WWII. Then Germany will jump in, I think on Israel's side. They are so aware and haunted by their history that they try to side on non-violence. At this point they will not be able to be on that side and, continuing to be in the shadow of judgement for the Holocaust, will side with Israel. France I believe will be the last to jump in...and I think their spineless nature will affect their decisions. They are a coin toss as to which side they would support. My money (though not a lot of it) is on them trying the road of appeasement once again...trying to satisfy their Muslim minority and side with Iran.

2. ACTION AND FAILURE
If Israel attempts to destroy all of the facilities and misses any or does not effectively damage/destroy any the response will be similar to above. Arab nations attack and sides will be taken. The difference is Iran will be able to turn the battle nuclear to some degree. That may affect which side and how strongly Germany & France join, but the important detail is: nuclear will be a factor. How soon into the fighting will nuclear weapons be deployed depends on the amount of damage, but it will be a question.

The problem is we will not know which of these scenarios is occurring until either Iran & co. are defeated or they do launch a nuclear missile.

3. INACTION
Inaction, sadly, is the most likely. As mention already we are hogtied by our anti-war movement. We are nearly as impotent as Europe has been. Israel's resources are distracted/divided right now making an effective strike unlikely, or at least unlikely to succeed. Getting the UN Security Council, the UN in whole, NATO, the EU or any consensus of nations to any action takes tooooooo long. That is a fact I'm certain the enemy is aware of. What happens then? Iran completes enrichment and fires their missiles. Do NOT fool yourself into thinking they are not willing to do so. Mutually Assured Destruction works if neither side wants to die. We fear death and our enemy looks for it.

They launch, and in their mind one of two things happens. (A) We launch back and we all die, they go to heaven, Zion and its allies are defeated, Muslims win, or (B) No equal response happens and they severely weaken, if not destroy, the West. Some of their brothers may die, but that is martyrdom at its finest!

They launch and (I hope) we would respond. Hopefully the yields they manage and yields we respond with are not high enough to destroy civilization (welcome back Cold War nightmares--remember The Day After). Then we simply have a war to be fought that has gone nuclear to start.

Peace and Palestinian Civilian Casualties

Certainly there may be a way for all of this to calm down without WWIII. I see it as a long shot...like trying to draw for an inside straight. I suppose the first step in that no-WWIII scenario is for Israel to cease fire. I don't see that happening as Israeli PM Olmert said so.
Israeli warplanes carried out strikes in southern Lebanon on Monday, hours after agreeing to temporarily halt air raids while investigating a bombing that killed at least 56 Lebanese civilians, mostly women and children seeking shelter. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said there will be no cease-fire, adding that "Israel is continuing to fight."
...
Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel plans to "expand and strengthen" its attack on Hezbollah, diminishing hopes that the 48- hour airstrike halt could become a longer cease-fire.
The worldwide crying against Israel is mostly rooted in the Lebanese civilian casualties. According to Australia's Herald Sun there are photos showing Lebanon is fighting from civilian suburbs...using civilian dressed fighters.
THIS is the picture that damns Hezbollah. It is one of several, smuggled from behind Lebanon's battle lines, showing that Hezbollah is waging war amid suburbia.

The images, obtained exclusively by the Sunday Herald Sun, show Hezbollah using high-density residential areas as launch pads for rockets and heavy-calibre weapons.

Dressed in civilian clothing so they can quickly disappear, the militants carrying automatic assault rifles and ride in on trucks mounted with cannon.

The photographs, from the Christian area of Wadi Chahrour in the east of Beirut, were taken by a visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend.
The reality is if one side dresses as, fires from and hides amongst civilians then the other side is 100% justfied in targeting civilian locations. If the blame is to be laid at the targeter's feet then the targets must be dressed in military uniforms, firing/fighting in uniform and NOT hiding as/among civilians.

No discussion. Sorry, Lebanese innocents, but the people you allow to hide amongst you have deemed you to be worthy and necessary targets. Good luck.

Conclusion

I hope I am wrong. I hope this is not WWIII brewing (or underway). I REALLY hope Iran cannot go nuclear. I see these paths though as being the most likely given the actors participating and the evil that is driving Muslim nations.

And if we, the West, and we, the United States, can get through the Iranian danger we cannot rest. North Korea is the exact same situation...except Iranian's leaders are rational (wrong and evil, but rational). North Korea's leaders is insane which complicates things. And after that...China. BTW, notice that China has been sitting fairly silent on the sidelines, not using any of their resources on this?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

***** 1 refutations and clarifications *****

Friday, July 14, 2006

May as well know whose on which side

--posted by Tony Garcia on 7/14/2006


Israel has a right to defend itself
Israel (of course)
Italy
Canada
United States
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
Jordan

Anti Semite...Israel has no right to self-defense
Germany
Britain
Lebanon
France
Palestine
Iran
Russia
Vatican City
Syria
Indonesia
European Union
Spain

********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of Truth Laid Bear. I don't think this post is really what you were searching for ("Vatican City") but hopefully you will find something the written posts.

Also welcome to the readers of Psycmeistr. Also...feel free to browse, bookmark and participate in the discussions!

********** UPDATE 2 ********** 7/18/06
Updated the list to include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt.

********** UPDATE 2 ********** 7/20/06
Updated the list to include Spain.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

***** 2 refutations and clarifications *****