Showing posts with label Peter_Tatchell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter_Tatchell. Show all posts

29 January 2016

West dissidents go after Vladimir Putin?

The Blog


As Vladimir Putin steps up his opposition to US hegemony in Syria, Ukraine and other theaters of confrontation between the powers, supporters of US global dominance demonize all their critics as supporters of Putin.


In response to the demonization, some Western dissidents are starting to focus their criticism partially on Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. Any criticism of Putin will suffice, even if it doesn't make any sense. This new behavior is based on hysteria and the intense fear of being dismissed as "apologists" for Putin.

Severe punishment is already given to Western journalists for being supportive of Russia or even for being neutral on issues to do with Russia. Journalists have been fired or denied a platform even for being suspected of sympathizing with Vladimir Putin.

Recently, new laws are being drafted in the United States to make anti-Russian propaganda the official editorial policy of all news media establishments. The hysteria produced by such moves is pushing some major dissident journalists and celebrities into issuing anti-Russian remarks, often with no idea what they are talking about.

Because these celebrated dissidents had dedicated their lives to criticizing their own governments, not Russia, they find themselves not knowing what to say to satisfy the hysterical anti-Russian media. Take a look at the different examples below, ranging from the noblest to the most sold-out dissidents.

Snowden the Russian troll?



The noblest. The example of a Western dissident who still doesn't criticize Russia at all despite the hysteria, Edward Snowden leaked information on US illegal domestic surveillance against its entire population. He is a particularly obvious victim of demonization as a pro-Putin spy, due to being lost in transit in an airport in Moscow when the US cancelled his passport and later having no choice but to claim asylum in the Russian Federation. However, Snowden (as well as former Guardian journalist who covered Snowden's story, Glenn Greenwald) has maintained his belief that the US is the primary threat to civil liberties and human rights in the world. Not Russia - and Snowden realizes it is his prerogative as an American to criticize his own "regime" in the US rather than Vladimir Putin's government.

Assange the antiPutin?



Julian Assange, who is also accused of being an agent or otherwise instrument of Putin, has made some token effort to make it look like he not only criticizes the West but also Putin. He has met with members of the anti-Putin group P***y Riot, although it isn't clear that he really supports them or the dark figures at the US Capitol who made them into celebrities.

Assange also confused many in the audience at a televised RT network anniversary discussion, when he claimed that Russia would definitely shoot down British warplanes if they were operating in Ukraine. This, despite the fact that Russia has not directly shot down any warplanes in Ukraine to date, including Ukrainian ones engaged in bombing pro-Russian rebel forces in Donetsk and Luhansk.

Assange seemed to argue that Russia is hypocritical to condemn Turkey's shooting down of a Russian bomber aircraft in Syria, as the downing was typical of the perfidy of the Russian government itself. However, the claim is ill-considered at best and tongue-in-cheek at worst. Perhaps Assange only said it to confuse some of his own critics, who might have seen him as a Russian agent. Whatever the case, Assange's anti-Russia comment was of poor quality, and not quote-worthy material for anyone who wants to actually build a case against Putin. No political ammunition was really given by Assange for attacking Putin.

Owen Jones, the universalist leftist



Although not as extreme as the next case, Owen Jones wrote a recent shallow article in the Guardian called "Putin is a human rights abusing oligarch. The British left must speak out". Again, as with the Assange remark above, there is nothing quote-worthy in the content there for anyone who really opposes Putin. It appears to be a token article, designed less to support Putin's opponents and more to make Owen Jones look like a "good boy" who the British press will still be happy to tuck into bed.

The actual content just doesn't make any sense and is a dummy case, useless to anyone who opposes Putin. Jones calls for leftists in Britain and the West in general not quite to protest against the Kremlin instead of our own government (as our next case does), but to hope for regime-change in Russia by leftists who oppose Putin. No analysis of Russian politics is given, Jones does not elaborate which "leftists" he is talking about, and the actual leftists in Russia overwhelmingly praise Vladimir Putin's record and have no desire to overthrow him. Jones did subsequently tweet something about Russia's bombing of ISIL as an example of a Russian crime to be criticized alongside Western crimes. However, Russian actions in Syria are massively different from the West in the sense of being legal and based on an indigenous request for help, which differs starkly from Western imperialism.

The level of cross-party support in the Russian political spectrum for Owens' "Putin regime" is massive, and the "embattled democrats and leftists" in Russia to whom Jones is appealing don't merit mention or consideration. Even Jones admits that they are too insignificant to mention by name, insofar as he does not mention them.

Moreover, serious critics of Western foreign policy know that the anti-Putin groups in Russia are all funded by the US State Department. Jones knows it would be insane for him to support those groups and also maintain his role to "criticise Western foreign policy".

Peter Tatchell, lunatic who attacks the anti-war left for not supporting Western regime-change



The most extreme example. Even Owen Jones made a small jab at this guy in his aforementioned article, saying "there is something rather absurd about the baiting of the anti-war left for not protesting against, say, Putin or North Korea". Peter Tatchell's case is already covered by us. Read our special report on his warmongering and advocacy for "no bomb zones" which would require bombing Russians, Syrians and anyone else who gets in the West's way.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

29 December 2015

Peter Tatchell the 'anti-war' warmonger

The Blog


British "leftist" neocon warmonger Peter Tatchell has been criticizing Stop the War Coalition for its refusal to join his deranged calls for more Western-led military intervention in Syria and confrontation with Russia.


Tatchell, who claims to be an anti-war activist, has consistently advocated war as the solution to the violence in Syria. He sees the Syrian government as the problem, and Western military and moral support for violence as the only answer to the Syrian government.

Apparently, the main goal of Western interventionist commentators like Peter Tatchell has been to promote a Western-led war against the Assad government in Syria, under the guise of "stopping" this war the West itself started and funded against that country.


Although Peter Tatchell defends himself by saying he has criticized the current anti-ISIL bombing strategy of Western governments and has Syrian friends, this is irrelevant. His own advocacy is about imposing a foreign "no-fly zone" or "humanitarian corridor", exactly as advocated by the Turkish regime and US warmonger candidate Hillary Clinton.

Tatchell claims his strange "no bomb zone" for Syria would not involve any violence, despite it requiring the defeat of Russian aircraft and missile attacks on Russian airfields that will start a nuclear war.


Tatchell has even tried to hijack anti-war headlines and pictures in Britain to impose reactionary flags and slogans of pro-war neocons and Syrian rebel groups on anti-war and anti-imperialist rallies. This is despite the fact the anti-war movement in Britain is against intervention of any kind in Syria, and recognizes the war as a result of Western foreign intervention rather than the result of a failure to intervene.

Since the conflict started in 2011, Western governments offered a desperate lifeline of weapons and supplies to militant groups in Syria, convincing Tatchell and other neocons that the violence was going their way. Threats were made, as in 2013, that the US would bomb the Syrian Army and help the rebel groups defeat them after a chemical attack was blamed on them. Many of these groups only continued to fight because they believed Western warplanes would soon arrive to bomb their country and save their few surviving followers from the Syrian Army, just as Tatchell advocates.

Throughout the conflict in Syria, President Bashar al-Assad has stated that there would be peace within weeks if Western governments stopped giving weapons to his enemies and stopped encouraging them to fight on. This is reinforced by facts. The government, with no foreign support, managed to preserve much of its unity for multiple years and remains the sole provider of education and medical care. This was despite a vast coalition of up to 60 foreign states placing sanctions on it, supporting its enemies, bombing its territory illegally, or trying to annex areas.

Syria's survival is the achievement of Assad, whom the West and Peter Tatchell consider "illegitimate". Comparatively, anti-Assad rebels were only able to capture any territory through constant and intense support and training by foreign troops. Often, foreign troops even had to get directly involved in shelling Syrian forces and attacking Syrian aircraft to protect the unpopular fake "revolution" and make it look strong.

After US support for armed factions in Syria was counterbalanced by Russian airstrikes beginning in September, the war shifted decisively in Assad's favor again, with support for Syrian rebels evaporating and massive territories being liberated after years of starvation and mass executions by rebels.

As Assad's forces close in on Western-backed rebel groups, these groups along with so-called Human Rights Watch and other NGOs are no longer spreading propaganda about "Assad's barrel bombs" and now only talk about Russian airstrikes. The US regime has also only recently come to the negotiating table because of these terrible defeats.


The clubof.info Blog

Read More »

Featured

The Washington Post Vindicated SVR’s Warnings Of Ukrainian-Connected Cartel Threats To The US

The Washington Post Vindicated SVR’s Warnings Of Ukrainian-Connected Cartel Threats To The US By Andrew Korybko The “Foreign Legion’s” shari...

Follow Me on Twitter