A monument to those killed in the RAF terror raids on Hamburg… trust me, the West’s hands are NOT clean…
“On the night of 29 July 1943, 370 persons perished in the air-raid shelter on the Hamburgerstrasse in a bombing raid. Remember these dead. Never again fascism. Never again war”.
******
THIS is your tax dollars at work in Afghanistan… just think, this little girl suffered from an indiscriminate American air attack so that a fat bastard in a McMansion could get a bigger dividend cheque… fancy that… it’s only “collateral damage“, and they’re only wogs (don’t you want your betters to afford their wetback nannies and buy another piece of bling, you Hard Left ingrate?).
______________________________
According to the Human Rights and Democracy Report, published on Monday, in 2011, Britain spent 1.25 million UK Pounds (59.6 million Roubles. 2.03 million USD. 1.53 million Euros) to promote human rights and democracy in Russia. The report noted, “The human rights situation in Russia continued to be of concern in 2011. Although President Medvedev emphasised the importance of the rule of law, the Russian government’s support for human rights often appeared ambivalent”. The document, prepared by the British Foreign Office, states that human rights issues remains a top priority in Russian-UK bilateral relations, observing, “Our work with Russian human rights organisations complemented this bilateral engagement, including through funding for projects supporting human rights and democracy, on which we spent 1.25 million pounds in the 2011–12 financial year”.
Amongst the major fields of concern in Russia, British human rights advocates name human rights abuses in the North Caucasus, journalists’ security, women’s and minority rights. According to the report, in 2011, Britain spent 900,000 UK Pounds (42.9 million Roubles. 1.46 million USD. 1.1 million Euros) to fight violations in the North Caucasus via the UK government-backed Conflict Prevention Pool. Britain also funded several Russian non-government organisations, working to ensure journalists’ rights, freedom of expression and assembly, as well as women’s and gay rights. Reporters Without Borders ranked Russia 142 out of 179 countries in their 2011 Press Freedom Index.
30 April 2012
RIA-Novosti
http://en.rian.ru/world/20120430/173142894.html
******
On Monday, Argentina’s new ambassador to London ambushed the British foreign minister over the disputed Malvinas Islands, asking him at a public meeting whether he was ready to “give peace a chance” by opening talks on the islands’ future. Alicia Amalia Castro, formerly the Argentine Ambassador to Venezuela, took up her post in London in March, just as tensions escalated between Britain and Argentina 30 years after they went to war over the South Atlantic islands, known in Spanish as Las Malvinas. Castro’s appointment to a post left vacant since 2008 is part of a drive by Buenos Aires to push the Malvinas issue back up the international agenda.
Setting aside diplomatic niceties, Castro tackled British Foreign Secretary William Hague on the subject as he launched Britain’s annual world review of human rights at a ceremony attended by diplomats, journalists, and rights activists in the opulent surroundings of Lancaster House in London. as Hague took questions from the audience, she asked him, “Seeing that the United Nations and the international community and a large group of Nobel Prize winners urge both countries to (start) negotiations in order to find a pacific and permanent resolution, my question is, ‘Are you ready for dialogue? Are we going to give peace a chance?’” A flustered Hague, sensing that Castro was about to make a long statement, interrupted her several times, pressing her to ask a question before cutting her short with, “Thank you. That’s enough. Stop”. Argentine President Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner launched a wide-ranging diplomatic offensive to assert Argentina’s claims to the islands, accusing Britain of maintaining “colonial enclaves” and calling on London to open sovereignty talks.
Self-Determination
Britain says it’ll agree to talks only if the 3,000 islanders want them… something they show no sign of doing. Answering Castro, Hague said, “Self-determination is a basic political right of the people of the Falkland (sic) Islands … You can count on us always, permanently, to stand by that right”. After Argentina invaded on 2 April 1982, Britain sent a naval task force and recaptured the islands after a 10-week war, with the loss of 255 British and 650 Argentine lives. In the run-up to this year’s 30th anniversary of the war, Argentina protested to the United Nations over British “militarisation” of the South Atlantic and threatened to sue companies involved in oil exploration off the Malvinas. Last month, Argentine sculptor Adolfo Perez Esquivel and six other Nobel Prize peace laureates signed a letter urging Britain to negotiate on the sovereignty of the Malvinas.
Castro told reporters later that Hague hadn’t answered her question, saying, “You can’t say that you’re so good at human rights and democracy if you aren’t open for dialogue”. She said that self-determination doesn’t apply to the islanders in the Malvinas, observing, “Self-determination isn’t a right that every country has or every population has. A province in my country can’t decide if they want to belong to China”. Asked if she intended to make a habit of appearing at Hague’s public events to ask him about the Malvinas, Castro laughed, and she said, “You wait and see”.
Last week, Castro met a junior British foreign minister, Jeremy Browne, handing over notes requesting talks with Britain on air links with the Malvinas and South Atlantic fisheries. Britain maintains that the Malvinas are self-governing and that Argentina must talk to the islanders about such matters. London has controlled the islands since 1833. Argentina claimed the territory since that date, saying it inherited it from Spain on independence, and that Britain expelled an Argentine population from the islands.
30 April 2012
Adrian Croft
Reuters
As quoted in Yahoo News
http://news.yahoo.com/argentine-envoy-urges-uk-peace-chance-falklands-191127897.html
******
The Malvinas… Thirty Years Later
Carlos Latuff
2012
******
A Mexican view of it all from 2010…
Left-hand Mexican: “The presidents at the Río Summit in Cancun will ask England to return the Malvinas to Argentina”. Right-hand Mexican: “Whilst they’re at it, they also ought to ask the gringos to return Texas and California to us!”
______________________________
Editor’s Note:
Britain sanctimoniously lectures Russia whilst it occupies the Malvinas by virtue of “Might makes Right” at the same time! What 3,000 kelpers want is of no moment. The territory’s Argentine by right and it only became British by virtue of a 19th century seizure. That does sound like Texas and the American Southwest, doesn’t it? Those areas were Mexican by population, heritage, and culture. Then, Anglo interlopers came in with their slaves in the early 1820s, but they revolted when Mexico abolished slavery (Mexico followed the example of Lord Palmerston). The rebels severed Texas from Mexico, which led to the American seizure of the Southwest in the Mexican-American War (or, “The First North American Incursion”, as the Mexicans call it) a decade later (it was similar to the Nazi plan for Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, only, this time, the black hats won… it explains a lot about the crook political culture behind scummers such as Joe Arpaio and Rick Perry). As US President Ulysses S Grant said later, “The occupation, separation, and annexation of Texas was a conspiracy to acquire territory to bring more slave states into the American Union. … The Southern Rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican War. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times. … Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory”.
Just as the Malvinas are Argentine by right… Texas and Arizona are Mexican by right… that DOES put a new face on smug Anglo-Saxon holier-than-thou posturing, doesn’t it? I’m not saying that the USA should hand back these territories… I’m just sayin’ that the Anglo-Saxon countries are no better (and no worse) than the rest of mankind. They have NO Manifest Destiny… they have NO “exceptionalism“… they are NOT a “City on a Hill“. Their hands are as bloody as everyone’s else’s are (which makes their posturing absolutely ludicrous and obscene). They have NO right to lecture others… remember the firebombing of Hamburg and the massacre at Wounded Knee… ’nuff said.
Madame… your slip is showing…
BMD
Voices from Russia 
Do Traditional Values Have a Future?
Tags: Arab League, EU, European Union, Freedom and Justice, Fundamental rights, Human rights, human rights abuses, human rights activists, human rights advocates, Human Rights Council, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, League of Arab States, Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, political commentary, politics, right-wing, Russia, Russian, Russian culture, Traditional values, UN, UN Human Rights Council, United Nations, United Nations Human Rights Council, United States, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, USA
My Family from Age to Age
Tatiana Mikhedova
2000s
______________________________
On 27 September 2012, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a resolution submitted by Russia on “Promoting Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms through a Better Understanding of Traditional Values of Mankind: Best Practises”. More than 60 states sponsored this initiative, including, collectively, members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the League of Arab States. The resolution reiterates the idea that understanding of and respect for traditional values both encourage and facilitate the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
We strongly believe that all cultures and civilisations, in their traditions, religions, and beliefs, share a common set of values that belong to mankind in its entirety, and that those values have made an important contribution to the development of human rights, norms, and standards. The family, society, and educational institutions all play key roles in asserting these values. In a broader sense, traditions underpin national identity. It’s widely-recognised that manifestations and symbols of national identity unite people and underpin their sense of national pride, community, and continuity. It’d be no exaggeration to say that traditional values are the backbone of every society and define its existence. By protecting traditional values, we protect our societies from destabilisation, the erosion of fundamental moral principles, loss of national identity, and basic cultural codes. It’s clear that safeguarding human rights goes hand in hand with preserving traditional values.
The resolution that Russia initiated calls on UN member states to recognise and reaffirm the vital role of traditional values in promoting human rights. This is the third resolution in this vein adopted by the Human Rights Council since 2009. However, a few states, namely the USA and some EU members, voted against it. Their position is quite clear… they see traditional values as a way of justifying human rights abuses, particularly against those considered the most vulnerable members of society. Such arguments and unwillingness to collaborate on the draft are regrettable. Russia is open to dialogue and cooperation in this sphere, but we think that no state or group of states has the right to speak on human rights in the name of the entire international community. After all, we have universal instruments, such as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, amongst others. However, in some regions, the concept of human rights evolved considerably beyond that common denominator. Imposing that outcome on others isn’t an option. What, then, can we do?
I’m convinced that human rights issues should draw nations together, and that the Human Rights Council should focus on finding ways to accentuate the fact that human rights don’t exist in a societal vacuum. They didn’t emerge from nowhere. If traditional values crumble, so will human rights, since that would destroy the moral fabric that holds society together. It isn’t about which come first. There’s a real need to promote the understanding that human rights and traditional values are interconnected. To this end, it’s important to take into account the cultural, civilisational, historical, and religious heritage of all communities and nations. The concept of traditional values will only benefit from absorbing elements of different cultures. This is even more important now, when this period of global economic crisis puts the very foundations of social cohesion to the test.
17 January 2013
Aleksandr Yakovenko
RIA-Novosti
http://en.rian.ru/blogs/20130117/178839002/Ambassadors_Notebook_Do_Traditional_Values_Have_a_Future.html
Editor’s Note:
Let’s keep it simple and focused. The thesis of this essay is that the USA has no right to impose its idiosyncratic notions on the rest of the world under the guise of “human rights” and “traditional values”. This is especially true considering that the USA believes that it has the “right” to “impose” such notions using military force and violence against leaders and/or countries that it doesn’t care for (in addition, “traditional values” is used by the same lot to justify brutality and discrimination against individuals and groups that they don’t like). We, as Orthodox believers, follow the moral ethos and civilisational values of the Orthosphere… not the depraved moneygrubbing “values” and the twisted “morals” of the American élite (we have nothing in common with the crackbrained “Evangelical” sectarianism that cheerleads such rubbish). Note well that some of our clergy and laity have sold out to the American apparat… these people are Sergianists of the worst possible sort. Remember the definition of a “Sergianist”:
That definition fits Paffhausen, Potapov, Alexander Webster, Lyonyo, Jillions, Dreher, Mattingly, Freddie M-G, and Reardon, amongst others (sorts such as Whiteford and Trenham are simply uninformed louts… they’re not sell-outs… neither are Lebedeff, Roman Krassovsky, Behr, and Bobby K… they’re just First Family apparatchiki). Have a care… there ARE “Chekists in riassas”… and you can find them all on the Right, sucking up to the most extreme and irrational elements in the Republican Party (for instance, Paffhausen, Dreher, Mattingly, and Webster have sold out to the K Street stink-tankers). The worm does turn, doesn’t it?
BMD