Monday, November 27, 2006

[litvinenko] the vexed issue of whom your sources are

I greatly appreciate comments of any hue on this issue because through thrashing it out, it might be possible to arrive at the truth and by so doing, we might have done a good turn.

Gracchi said: I heard a Radio 4 Start the Week in April where Anna Neistat of Human Rights Watch argued that the Russians had effectively, through their brutality, turned a nationalist into an Islamist movement.

Notsaussure said: Isn't this conflating two separate questions? Whatever one thinks about Russia vs Chechnya, one can still hold views on the propriety of bumping off people who hold the wrong views, and particularly on the propriety of bumping them off in London … I tend to ask who benefits most and who has the opportunity; there's one well-known chap who clearly had the opportunity and whose name springs immediately to mind.

You can read their full comments in the comments section of the last post.

I replied: No doubt at all the Russians were more than heavy handed. The Russians aren't noted for their delicacy. Who was more heavy handed here – the oranges or the greens in Ireland? The Boers or the British? The Canaanites or the Israelis? A better question – who was in the right? These issues go too far back to draw a conclusion about that. And it’s hardly bumping someone off for ‘wrong views’ as you’ll see further down.

What is at issue here is that the British backed the wrong horse in Chechnya, a terrorist training ground. Sympathies were naturally directed towards the Chechnyans because of anti-soviet sentiment, because the FCO and BBC are very pro-arab, as are elements of the Royal Family and therefore the only story coming out was of Russian barbarity and Chechnyen innocence and national self-determination. The only media which was telling the other side was in the Russian language which Brits don’t read. But it was equally well documented and attributed and no – it was not state controlled – this was still in the heady days of almost complete press freedom 1991 - 2001.

I read two articles yesterday very pro Anna P which showed she was admitted to the company of the warlords, treated as a friend and given safe passage and yet the articles constantly referred to her as a fighter for justice, brave woman and so on. The Russians say she was consorting with known mass-murderers but worse – abetting them. You say, ‘What rubbish’ but on what do you base this ‘what rubbish’? I even provided links in the last post which show beyond doubt that Alex V’s and Anna P’s friends were criminals and in two cases, known committers of atrocities. Here and here are two of them.

In Alex V’s case, there is now evidence he’d even gone over to the Muslims and the source was radio Echo Moskva. Predictably, the western press immediately assassinated this radio station by saying it was Gasprom funded. This is gross injustice to a fine station and which my very libertarian Russian friends listen to avidly as the voice of freedom. The presenters’ tone is always critical and the articles in no way support the Putin line. That’s why EM is listened to. Why is it not shut down then?

Yes, exactly. Why is it not shut down then? And why does Putin hold citizen conferences where unvetted questions are asked online? Certainly not for foreign publicity because the west doesn’t know of them. And why does every Ministry have a ‘priyomni’ time where the Minister is in attendance to answer citizen’s questions and I’ve seen him doing it? And why is Putin popular?

The thing is, the British blogger is playing with a stacked deck which has been kindly provided by the MSM, which is controlled. And equally the Russian is playing with the same. And neither appear to want to hear both sides of the issue even when they can get hold of it. Of course I may be wrong in this.

4 comments:

Gracchi said...

James I still want evidence that Politkovskaya was on the side of the Chechen rebels. What you've proved is that she had associations with some of them- well she was a reporter and that's ultimately what being a reporter means- if you sent someone to Serbia and they didn't have relations with Milosevic they would be failing to do their job. That doesn't mean that she was on their side.

As to the Muslim Litvenenko, sorry if I can't spell it, even if he was a Muslim that wouldn't confirm that he was neccessarily an affiliate to Chechen extremism- all that that proves is that he was a Muslim, it doesn't prove anything else.

I take what you say about Israel- but don't you think just as interesting a comparison is to what's happening in Sri Lanka- a war which involves nationalism, religion and terrorism but not Islam. Isn't the problem that we keep on drawing straight lines and saying that there is an Islamic nationalist movement here, here and here- and there is an Islamic plan for global conquest here- therefore they must all be related. Isn't there another way of looking at these conflicts to say that though there is some relationship- there is also a lot of difference between them. That in Israel and Chechnya- what we are talking about is antional struggle with an actual greivance which can be addressed- ie independence for Chechnya, a two state solution in Palestine whereas Al Quaeda can't be negotiated with. That's not to say that there aren't Islamist forces in Chechnya or Palestine but that simply conflating this all into a global struggle against Islam actually is a failure to understand the fact that there are local elements in each case.

james higham said...

Thanks for the comment and as usual, it is well thought out. Reply will be forthcoming but first a working day and then I'll address this this evening, if I may.

Anonymous said...

The struggle for Palestine is a nationalistic movement, comprising of both Muslim and Christian Palestinians, supported by a large number of Jews in Israel. The attempt to present it as 'Islamic terrorism' is a zionist ploy, that has resonated well with the US press and congress, to keep the $3Billion aid flowing to Israel, at the idiot taxpayer's expense

Anonymous said...

The struggle for Palestine is a nationalistic movement, comprising of both Muslim and Christian Palestinians, supported by a large number of Jews in Israel. The attempt to present it as 'Islamic terrorism' is a zionist ploy, that has resonated well with the US press and congress, to keep the $3Billion aid flowing to Israel, at the idiot taxpayer's expense.