International Politics Thread

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]US may have staged Georgian conflict - Putin

In an interview with CNN Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict may have been staged to secure a victory for one of the presidential candidates in the U.S. He says preliminary reports show that U.S. citizens may have been present in the combat zone.

“We have serious reasons to believe that American citizens were right at the heart of the military action. This would have implications for American domestic policy. If this is confirmed, we will have grounds to suspect that somebody in the U.S. has created this conflict to aggravate the situation and create a competitive advantage for one of the presidential candidatesâ€.

Russia’s Prime Minister also commented on the media coverage of the recent events.

“As far as the perception of these events by the general public goes, it depends not only on politicians, but also on how artful they are in controlling the mass media. And our American colleagues do this much better than we do and there's a lot we can learn from themâ€.

Putin stressed that Russia did not attack and cannot be portrayed as an aggressor.

“We didn’t attack anyone, we were attacked and therefore we need guarantees that we won’t be attacked again, and that our citizens won't be killed. They are trying to present us as aggressorsâ€.

The Prime Minister has given a detailed chronology of the events between August 7 and 10.

“On 7 August, at 14:42, the Georgian peacekeepers left the headquarters of the peacekeeping forces under the pretext that they'd received orders from their commanders to leave their posts, and they never returned.

One hour later, heavy artillery shelling began.

At 22:35 a massive bombardment of Tsklhinval started. At 22:50 the transfer of Georgian ground troops started to the combat area. At the same time Georgian field hospitals were set up.

And at 23:30 the Brigadeer General commanding the Georgian peacekeeping forces announced that Georgia has declared a war against South Ossetia. They announced this publicly, looking straight into the TV cameras.

At that point we tried to contact the Georgian leadership, but everyone refused to talk to us.

At 12:45 AM on the 8th of August the Georgian commander repeated his statement. So who attacked whom?â€

The former Russian president reiterated that the country has ‘no intention of attacking anyone, or of fighting a war with anyone’.

“For eight years while I was President I often heard one and the same question – what place does Russia think it should occupy in the world? We are a peace-loving state and want to co-operate with all our neighbours and other states. But if someone thinks they can just come in and kill us, and that our place is in the cemetery, these people should think of the consequences of such policiesâ€.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29626

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29626/video

ROFLCOPTER

I particularly liked the bold bit. Putin admits to trying to control the Russian mass media. That ought to raise a few questions of the validity of Russian news reports about Ossetia.

The whole idea that it was staged for a US Presidential candidate is a bit weak. If they staged that there would have to be something more important at stake.

I believe the US has enough on its plate without having to create conflicts that they can't really respond to militarily.

So what if there were US citizens there? There were also Russian citizens. Hell there was probably people from different parts of the world there.

[baddo 0]

It's cleverly written isn't it

Giving praise to the U.S.

They have sense of humour, was proven.

[igor drukov 0]

The source http://www.rferl.org/ can not call itself "independent" or "private". That's a ridiculous statement.

Let me state it clearly: the only thing www.rferl.org has got to do with the article is:

1) to have translated it;

2) to have selected it for publishing in this ocean of information we all drown in.

The original link is here.

For your theory to be true, you need to prove that Yezhednevny Zhurnal is financed by the US Congress, and that Yulia Latynina, or her editors, are American stooges. I'm not saying it's not the case, but the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

In the meantime, I'll just sit back and read one of her other leaders, and take it for what it claims to be, i.e. a Russian, anti-Putin voice.

[xawery 0]

Well atleast my country, Finland, got diplomatic shaking from UK goverment after ww1 as they were waging small (unofficial) war against Lenin's side in Karelia. Atleast if my memory serves right it was UK which did this.

Heh, what about the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-21? Lloyd George was pressuring the Poles to sing a peace agreement on unfavourable terms, as he was looking forward to a trade agreement with the Bolsheviks. British labourers went on strike, refusing to support "reactionary Poland", so this sentiment wasn't limited to a certain social class. How shortsighted... Can you imagine what would have happened if Poland hadn't retained its independence? The KPD would have surely been more successful with the Red Army at Germany's borders... no wonder historians agree that the outcome of this war delayed Soviet expansionism by 20 years.

Anyway, back on topic (how did we get here??). I, for one, am in favour of recognising Abkhazia and S-Ossetia as independent states. They have been just that for over a decade; bringing them back under Georgian control (and peacefully, at that! was little more than an empty election promise by Saakasjvili. Bringing the 'rebel' provinces to heel is not in the West's interest; ending the border conflicts is. As soon as that happens Georgia can become a member of NATO, thus securing a safe passage for energy to Europe. And let's be frank, that's what we Westerners want. We don't really care about territorial integrity or "dzala ertobashia": it's the Kaspian oil we're interested in. This little war should have been an eye opener for Georgian powers-that-be as well: they are quite obviously vulnerable to Russian influence; joining NATO at the cost of those oh-so-coveted provinces should be a priority to them.

It would be interesting to see Western powers suddenly agree with Russia and recognise the two provinces as independent states. Unfortunately, Russia is still in the position to prolong the border conflict on a low intensity level, thus complicating Georgia's accession to Nato.

I just can't wrap my head around Russia's decision to recognise Abkhazia and S-Ossetia as independent states. They were so furious about the supposed precedent being set by the independence of Kosovo, and now they suddenly create the precedent themselves? Odd.

[baddo 0]

The source http://www.rferl.org/ can not call itself "independent" or "private". That's a ridiculous statement.

Let me state it clearly: the only thing www.rferl.org has got to do with the article is:

1) to have translated it;

2) to have selected it for publishing in this ocean of information we all drown in.

The original link is here.

For your theory to be true, you need to prove that Yezhednevny Zhurnal is financed by the US Congress, and that Yulia Latynina, or her editors, are American stooges. I'm not saying it's not the case, but the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

In the meantime, I'll just sit back and read one of her other leaders, and take it for what it claims to be, i.e. a Russian, anti-Putin voice.

Sure...

didn't I say that I can not succesfully refute anything in the article. Doesn't that clearly say that I am not questioning the article, because I am smart enough to know that I don't have the information to do so.

I am questioning the source http://www.rferl.org/ though.

But I understand that the original source can be some else. But this doesn't end  here.

To me it sounds logical that a source, http://www.rferl.org/ , does not select an article to show which presents things so that the U.S. wouldn't accept it. Their job is to spread the message of the U.S., not to be an objective news source (I'm not going to believe that a source funded by the U.S. Congress is an objective source). No, I don't think this automatically makes all their articles, possibly originating from some other source, invalid, but I do think the question must be raised what is the motive to post exactly that article on their website. Why not some other article which presents things on different light. They are not going to post articles at http://www.rferl.org/ which are in favour of Russia's stance in this conflict, is my opinion.

Again, I say, I can not refute anything in the article because I simply don't know enough to do that. I would put you into the same position as myself regarding this, if you don't contest that.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ] Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

As you can see he was arrested for not meeting the requirements. If I did it I would do it by the rules.

They are not trying to shut him up. He has his own website, has appeared in the media, had his placards done as 'art' for a show and still protests.

That wasn't the main reason of the Act. If I remember correctly it was to set up a Serious Organised Crime Agency. Nothing about stopping free protest. You don't need a license or state approval or whatever. Stop misleading people into thinking the UK is North Korea.

Free protest doesn't involve any rules.

It is "free".

It's purpose is to object the rules, not go along with them.

Of course they were trying to shut him up.

And they have succeeded.

He may have a website, but they don't have to walk past his website on the way to work every morning.

A website can be ignored. The point of protest is to make yourself unignorable. To have your voice heard.

Democratic accountablility has been repressed.

A website! LMAO.

Do you really think every single Westminster employee is now looking at it three times a day?

They shut him up.

He made them listen to something they didn't enjoy hearing.

Now he has gone and they don't hear any complaints about Iraq anymore.

No one reminds them daily of all the people they arranged for to die.

They don't go to his website. You plank.

Freedom not to be ignored is not the same as freedom to make yourself heard.

If you applied to protest the Iraq war outside of parliament you would have your application denied, just like every one else.

There aren't any peace protests there any more.

There used to be one every day. But there hasn't been one since.

What funny co-incidence!

And a one man protest is not by anyones stretch of the imagination a threat to public order. It's utterly laughable to treat it as one. Contemptable.

You don't have to apply to the police for a lisence to protest in North Korea.

The state doesn't have he same level of control over it's population.

It's a poor country. They lack our infrastructure.

They are noobs.

[Baff1 0]

Here's agood article I enjoyed addressing the propaganda side of the Georgian conflict.

http://www.sofiaecho.com/article....tid_102

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ] Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

As you can see he was arrested for not meeting the requirements. If I did it I would do it by the rules.

They are not trying to shut him up. He has his own website, has appeared in the media, had his placards done as 'art' for a show and still protests.

That wasn't the main reason of the Act. If I remember correctly it was to set up a Serious Organised Crime Agency. Nothing about stopping free protest. You don't need a license or state approval or whatever. Stop misleading people into thinking the UK is North Korea.

Free protest doesn't involve any rules.

It is "free".

It's purpose is to object the rules, not go along with them.

Yes it does. With rights come responsibility. As you can imagine it is a security nightmare around Parliament square and the Police need to know when a protest if going to happen. Remember this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266512.stm ? Stop trying to pass off your inane dribble as fact.

Read again:

Quote[/b] ]Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

Quote[/b] ]Of course they were trying to shut him up.

And they have succeeded.

No they are not and they have not.

From Wiki:

Quote[/b] ]At a licensing hearing at Westminster City Council on 30 June, Haw was granted limited permission to use a loudspeaker in the space allowed to him.

On 22 January 2007 Haw was acquitted on the grounds that the conditions he was accused of breaching were not sufficiently clear, and that they should have been imposed by a police officer of higher rank. District Judge Purdy ruled: "I find the conditions, drafted as they are, lack clarity and are not workable in their current form."

Read it carefully. He can still protest. Some MP's even support him.

Quote[/b] ]A website can be ignored.

But they are not. The Government keeps a regular check on the internet. The internet is a powerful form of media and is just as useful as protesting outside Parliament. I never heard of this guy till you mentioned him here. The authorities taking action against him heightens his publicity.

Quote[/b] ]If you applied to protest the Iraq war outside of parliament you would have your application denied, just like every one else.

There aren't any peace protests there any more.

There used to be one every day. But there hasn't been one since.

What funny co-incidence!

Where is the evidence of that? I am sorry but 'I was there' doesn't cut it as this is the internet and that cannot be validated. Read this again:

Quote[/b] ]Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

If people are too lazy to do the following that's not the Governments fault.

Clause 134 of the SOCPA:

Quote[/b] ](2) The Commissioner must give authorisation for the demonstration to which the notice relates.

The Police Commissioner is required by law to give authorisation. All they need is authorisation and if they give that in ample time and have organised the protest it cannot be denied.

Quote[/b] ]You don't have to apply to the police for a lisence to protest in North Korea.

The state doesn't have he same level of control over it's population.

It's a poor country. They lack our infrastructure.

They are noobs.

Yeah, you can't get around North Korea for all the political movements and protests. You don't need a 'licence' to protest. Read the parts I have quoted.

I find you taking a moral high ground here with regards to freedom hilarious. Especially with regards to this:

Quote[/b] ]If Russia wants help subjugating Chechenya, I'll send them money. If genocide is what it takes, then so be it.

Found bottom of page here:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....st=2625

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ] Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

As you can see he was arrested for not meeting the requirements. If I did it I would do it by the rules.

They are not trying to shut him up. He has his own website, has appeared in the media, had his placards done as 'art' for a show and still protests.

That wasn't the main reason of the Act. If I remember correctly it was to set up a Serious Organised Crime Agency. Nothing about stopping free protest. You don't need a license or state approval or whatever. Stop misleading people into thinking the UK is North Korea.

Free protest doesn't involve any rules.

It is "free".

It's purpose is to object the rules, not go along with them.

Yes it does. With rights come responsibility. As you can imagine it is a security nightmare around Parliament square and the Police need to know when a protest if going to happen. Remember this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266512.stm ? Stop trying to pass off your inane dribble as fact.

Read again:

Quote[/b] ]Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

Quote[/b] ]Of course they were trying to shut him up.

And they have succeeded.

No they are not and they have not.

From Wiki:

Quote[/b] ]At a licensing hearing at Westminster City Council on 30 June, Haw was granted limited permission to use a loudspeaker in the space allowed to him.

On 22 January 2007 Haw was acquitted on the grounds that the conditions he was accused of breaching were not sufficiently clear, and that they should have been imposed by a police officer of higher rank. District Judge Purdy ruled: "I find the conditions, drafted as they are, lack clarity and are not workable in their current form."

Read it carefully. He can still protest. Some MP's even support him.

Quote[/b] ]A website can be ignored.

But they are not. The Government keeps a regular check on the internet. The internet is a powerful form of media and is just as useful as protesting outside Parliament. I never heard of this guy till you mentioned him here. The authorities taking action against him heightens his publicity.

Quote[/b] ]If you applied to protest the Iraq war outside of parliament you would have your application denied, just like every one else.

There aren't any peace protests there any more.

There used to be one every day. But there hasn't been one since.

What funny co-incidence!

Where is the evidence of that? I am sorry but 'I was there' doesn't cut it as this is the internet and that cannot be validated. Read this again:

Quote[/b] ]Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

If people are too lazy to do the following that's not the Governments fault.

Clause 134 of the SOCPA:

Quote[/b] ](2) The Commissioner must give authorisation for the demonstration to which the notice relates.

You talk like a Stalinist.

It's ok, we can protest freely as long as we get permission from the Police first.

I have no problem asking the Police if it is OK for me to go places and say things I want to say.

Police states are good.

You don't have to go all the way to North Korea and Chechenya to find state injustice.

More fool you if you thought that was something that could only ever happen to other people.

1 man in Parliament Square is not a security "nightmare".

My god man, how do you feel about 2 people?  Shall we call out the army?

Tanks all waiting outside the pub at kicking out time.

Lets nuke them as they come out of football matches while we still can.

Shoot down all the old ladies at the January sales.

I'm not talking about the Serious Crime.

He did follow the rules. Only they changed them to get rid of him.

These people make the rules. They criminalised him.

Prior to SOCPA he had the right to protest.

They took it away from him because he said something they didn't like to hear and he wouldn't shut up.

The whole point about the democratic freedom to protest is so that our law makers are able to be held to account by their people and not just free to make petty self-serving legislation.

The democratic freedom to make a webpage is not an equivalent substitute.

SOCPA "An Act to provide for the establishment and functions of the Serious Organised Crime Agency; to make provision about investigations, prosecutions, offenders and witnesses in criminal proceedings and the protection of persons involved in investigations or proceedings; to provide for the implementation of certain international obligations relating to criminal matters; to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002; to make further provision for combatting crime and disorder, including new provision about powers of arrest and search warrants and about parental compensation orders; to make further provision about the police and policing and persons supporting the police; to make provision for protecting certain organisations from interference with their activities; to make provision about criminal records; to provide for the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to extend to Scotland; and for connected purposes."

Are you so niave that you think the right to protest is a "serious" crime.

That the ammendments to our rights of lawful protestation were part if the governments attempts to clamp down on organised crime?

May I sell you a bridge please Snaf?

They tacked it on the end for one reason and one reason only, Brian Haw.

And our democracy is the weaker for it.

You can't beat the system by playing by the rules. They make the rules. Anytime they see you doing something they don't like, they make another one.

If they hear you saying something they don't like they make more, and if they don't like your attitude they make still more.

Being free to protest those decisions wasn't much, but it is more than we have today.

No Orange revolutions of this government. No peaceful mass camp-outs outside parliament to depose our unelected leaderss.

You need to go to Communist states to be allowed them.

That is what we have lost.

It's never going to be repealed. That right is gone now forever. For all of us.

Of course they are ignoring his website. Please name me the person who monitors it.

Every single member of Westminster was monitioring his protest at least twice a day. Now the man you cannot name is.

You want evidence that you can't get permission to protest the Iraq war. Brian Haw. The girl who was arrested with him. That's my evidence.

Where is yours, you say you can peace protest there? Who is doing it? Where are they? You say you would be given permission. Have you tried? Who do you know that has tried and has been given it? Name names.

How many peace protests have you seen him (or anybody else) do there since they changed the law?

I've given you evidence. Now you show me yours.

"Read it carefully he can still protest"?

WTF.

Read this carefully.

He has gone. The Police took him away.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]France and Germany were on the condemnations list. They actively spoke out against the war in Iraq.

Disapproval and condemnation are two completely different things. Sure, they are on the list, but I checked the source for that claim. There was nothing there about any condemnations.

It was more than disapproval. They publicly said it was wrong. They voiced it in the UN and the relations between those nations deteriorated very quickly. Disapproval would be a few comments and nothing more.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

This isn't comparable to the reactions on the Russian victory in Georgia.

And those are no condemnations, it didn't affect relations. There was no talk about sanctions against the US or anything like that.

Iraq is just one case. There are many others apart from those I mentioned.

Quote[/b] ]You're contradicting your own statements here. Unless you're seperating free trade and trade, which is a bit odd. In which case, just ignore this.

There's no contradiction. Free Trade isn't tied to any specific society. I don't think you know what communism is. I can wear an Armani suite, drive a Rolls-Royce and a Rolex. That doesn't make me less socialist.

Quote[/b] ]The tragic irony of having communism praised and Western liberties bashed on a Czech forum...

Yea because the CZ is so free. No unemployment anymore, all people have homes, no beggars. No police corruption. Higher education and health-care is affordable to all. All people work for society and not for some share-owners. The media is owned by a few and thus it's free, organizations aren't banned like the KSCM in some "other" country. CZ is a great country! With troops shining US boots all over the world, missile defences and all that. I guess those 20% communists think different. But who cares about them? The private owned and free media bashes them, smears them and lies about them. Western freedoms. That's the way to go.

Quote[/b] ]Russia missile test heightens standoff with West

What the fuck are they after ? Tensions are building by the hour and in a short time a little spark will be enough to blow the situation. If russia interferes in the running NATO naval maneuvers the shit will hit the fan, no matter what.

Kremlin crapheads.

And what's the US doing in the Black Sea? Is there a colony there? (yes). And what are they doing in Poland and CZ? Do they get their boots cleaned? (yes) The actions of the US provokes the Russian reaction.

There's Russian propaganda, but you forget to realize that there's as much western propaganda, and that you are affected by it.

[MehMan 0]

There's no contradiction. Free Trade isn't tied to any specific society. I don't think you know what communism is. I can wear an Armani suite, drive a Rolls-Royce and a Rolex. That doesn't make me less socialist.

I never said poverty has to dominate in a socialist society, I never even mentioned that. I'm just a bit baffeled by your statement that capitalism has nothing to do with trade, when it does, on the free market trade.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]US may have staged Georgian conflict - Putin

Old news. The Russian propaganda machine has been turning this bunk out since the fighting started.

Its only now that the western media has picked up on it and they are giving a stage to bold-faced lies.

Thats a bit simple minded isn't it?

There is plenty of western media claiming the Russian's staged it too.

It's not like the CIA have no historical record of fomenting unrest in the area. I'm sure the Kremlin does too.

Are you perhaps looking for this to be a case of the "the good guys vs the bad guys".

This isn't a Bruce Willis film mate. It's not a morality play.

[Spokesperson 0]

There's no contradiction. Free Trade isn't tied to any specific society. I don't think you know what communism is. I can wear an Armani suite, drive a Rolls-Royce and a Rolex. That doesn't make me less socialist.

I never said poverty has to dominate in a socialist society, I never even mentioned that. I'm just a bit baffeled by your statement that capitalism has nothing to do with trade, when it does, on the free market trade.

Most economic systems are based on trade. (Apart from the state- and classless society we call communism, not to be confused with socialism (USSR, Cuba etc)).

Protectionism and free trade both have with capitalism to do, but aren't tied to it.

Quote[/b] ]Are you perhaps looking for this to be a case of the "the good guys vs the bad guys".

This isn't a Bruce Willis film mate. It's not a morality play.

That's exactly the way to look at it. You're no sheep after all.

[Spokesperson 0]

There were a lot of news about Georgia earlier this year. Political crises etc. The question is if the president has more support now or not.

The state of Georgian democracy:

State of emergency:

(Violence against protestors, State of emergency, all-TV news suspended apart from the government one, TV-stations closed).

("Georgia Police storm opposition TV station in Tbilisi")

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/14/world/fg-billionaire14

(Georgian opposition leader found dead)

[scubaman3D 0]

Thats a bit simple minded isn't it?

Actually, I imagine only the simple minded would buy into it.

I read it on a Russian news site during the fighting. They said that according to Russian officials, the war was a big fat conspiracy by the Republican party. The news site said that the Republican party put pressure on George Bush to start a war in Georgia, but he didn't want to.  They then turned to Dick Cheney - who gave the order.  This was to ensure the election of Sen. McCain for president, since Barak Osama, is widely believed to be weak on national security. This would force Americans to vote Republican because they would be afraid of the threat Russia poses to US interests.

You know, it does sound like a Bruce Willis film to me...or maybe the Russian equivalent action film - maybe a Konstantin Khabensky film?

Anyways, this is the stuff fairy tales are made out of...

I mean, how could they even know all of that,  if they can't even prove that there were Americans there fighting the Russians?

Believe me, they toned down the propaganda a bit to make it seem more believable for the western audience but its still a lie.

Again, they are unable to put forth any evidence to support their outrageous claims.

[WazZzaaa! 0]

<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:red'>TSKHINVALI WOUNDS</span></span> (documentary)

Lol

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29654

More news @ www.russiatoday.com

http://www.youtube.com/russiatoday

2 scubaman3D

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29636/video

[turms 0]

2 scubaman3D

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29636/video

There was an american al qaida member also, is that a proof that USA is supporting al qaida?

Whatkind of US soldiers has his passport with him in combat with russian forces?

[scubaman3D 0]

2 scubaman3D

We're talking about the extravagant story Putin came up with about republicans/Bush/Cheny/elections, etc.

What proof did Putin put forward for any of this?

Isn't it possible this passport could have belonged to a mercenary? A contractor? God knows, there are many of those from the US. An adviser to the military?

In any case, its not enough to draw conclusions about some vast conspiracy regarding the election.

And I wouldn't gives a crap if he was US military. I wish we could have done more to help, but neither side wants open war with the other.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ] Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

As you can see he was arrested for not meeting the requirements. If I did it I would do it by the rules.

They are not trying to shut him up. He has his own website, has appeared in the media, had his placards done as 'art' for a show and still protests.

That wasn't the main reason of the Act. If I remember correctly it was to set up a Serious Organised Crime Agency. Nothing about stopping free protest. You don't need a license or state approval or whatever. Stop misleading people into thinking the UK is North Korea.

Free protest doesn't involve any rules.

It is "free".

It's purpose is to object the rules, not go along with them.

Yes it does. With rights come responsibility. As you can imagine it is a security nightmare around Parliament square and the Police need to know when a protest if going to happen. Remember this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266512.stm ? Stop trying to pass off your inane dribble as fact.

Read again:

Quote[/b] ]Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

Quote[/b] ]Of course they were trying to shut him up.

And they have succeeded.

No they are not and they have not.

From Wiki:

Quote[/b] ]At a licensing hearing at Westminster City Council on 30 June, Haw was granted limited permission to use a loudspeaker in the space allowed to him.

On 22 January 2007 Haw was acquitted on the grounds that the conditions he was accused of breaching were not sufficiently clear, and that they should have been imposed by a police officer of higher rank. District Judge Purdy ruled: "I find the conditions, drafted as they are, lack clarity and are not workable in their current form."

Read it carefully. He can still protest. Some MP's even support him.

Quote[/b] ]A website can be ignored.

But they are not. The Government keeps a regular check on the internet. The internet is a powerful form of media and is just as useful as protesting outside Parliament. I never heard of this guy till you mentioned him here. The authorities taking action against him heightens his publicity.

Quote[/b] ]If you applied to protest the Iraq war outside of parliament you would have your application denied, just like every one else.

There aren't any peace protests there any more.

There used to be one every day. But there hasn't been one since.

What funny co-incidence!

Where is the evidence of that? I am sorry but 'I was there' doesn't cut it as this is the internet and that cannot be validated. Read this again:

Quote[/b] ]Under clause 132 of the SOCPA, authorisation must be sought from the Commissioner of the Met for protests within 1km of Parliament Square (with an exemption for Trafalgar Square) six days in advance, unless that is not reasonably practicable then no less than 24 hours. As long as the protest is correctly organised authorisation cannot be denied.

If people are too lazy to do the following that's not the Governments fault.

Clause 134 of the SOCPA:

Quote[/b] ](2) The Commissioner must give authorisation for the demonstration to which the notice relates.

You talk like a Stalinist.

It's ok, we can protest freely as long as we get permission from the Police first.

I have no problem asking the Police if it is OK for me to go places and say things I want to say.

Police states are good.

You don't have to go all the way to North Korea and Chechenya to find state injustice.

More fool you if you thought that was something that could only ever happen to other people.

I talk like a Stalinist? LMFAO. You are the one condoning mass murder, saying Iraq is a brilliant success when it clearly isn't and generally not caring about other peoples lives. Now you are going on about this utter tosh about there being no free protest and not showing one shred of evidence. No, your made up waffle does not count as evidence. Once you notify the Commissioner in ample time about a protest authorisation cannot be denied. It is law. I have pointed this out to you several times but you ignore it. Your nothing but a troll. Constantly making up crap and putting words in peoples mouths. I never said anything about our society being perfectly just.  

Quote[/b] ]1 man in Parliament Square is not a security "nightmare".

I never said that. It's useful to know what protests are going on for security reasons. Parliament has been stormed by protesters twice. In this current period where certain people want to blow things up such simple measures are necessary. Yes, let us leave a big gaping security hole because some granola muncher is too much of an arse to follow the rules.

Quote[/b] ]My god man, how do you feel about 2 people?  Shall we call out the army?

Tanks all waiting outside the pub at kicking out time.

Lets nuke them as they come out of football matches while we still can.

Shoot down all the old ladies at the January sales.

Yet again you are assuming things, like when you said Germany has politicians that deny the Holocaust but had nothing to back that up.

Quote[/b] ]I'm not talking about the Serious Crime.

I know. It's all incoherent waffle.

Quote[/b] ]Prior to SOCPA he had the right to protest.

They took it away from him because he said something they didn't like to hear and he wouldn't shut up.

He still has the right to protest. There is no mention of any of this waffle on his website.

Quote[/b] ]The democratic freedom to make a webpage is not an equivalent substitute.

I never said that. Is making rubbish up a hobby of yours?

Quote[/b] ]Are you so niave that you think the right to protest is a "serious" crime.

That the ammendments to our rights of lawful protestation were part if the governments attempts to clamp down on organised crime?

Why do you have such a fascination with the name? Its the 'Serious Organised Crime and Police Act' thus not only about serious crime. Governments have a long habit of 'tacking' things to Acts. I have repeated the clauses of the Act showing that you can protest if you give a notice and the Commissioner is required by law to allow it.

Quote[/b] ]You can't beat the system by playing by the rules. They make the rules. Anytime they see you doing something they don't like, they make another one.

If they hear you saying something they don't like they make more, and if they don't like your attitude they make still more.

I guess that's why they included this then:

Quote[/b] ]133 Notice of demonstrations in designated area

(1) A person seeking authorisation for a demonstration in the designated area must give written notice to that effect to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (referred to in this section and section 134 as “the Commissionerâ€).

(2) The notice must be given—

(a) if reasonably practicable, not less than 6 clear days before the day on which the demonstration is to start, or

(b) if that is not reasonably practicable, then as soon as it is, and in any event not less than 24 hours before the time the demonstration is to start.

(3) The notice must be given—

(a) if the demonstration is to be carried on by more than one person, by any of the persons organising it,

(b) if it is to be carried on by a person by himself, by that person.

(4) The notice must state—

(a) the date and time when the demonstration is to start,

(b) the place where it is to be carried on,

© how long it is to last,

(d) whether it is to be carried on by a person by himself or not,

(e) the name and address of the person giving the notice.

(5) A notice under this section must be given by—

(a) delivering it to a police station in the metropolitan police district, or

(b) sending it by post by recorded delivery to such a police station.

(6) Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30) (under which service of a document is deemed to have been effected at the time it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post) does not apply to a notice under this section.

and this:

Quote[/b] ](2) The Commissioner must give authorisation for the demonstration to which the notice relates.

Quote[/b] ]No Orange revolutions of this government.

We don't need a revolution of any sort.

Quote[/b] ]That is what we have lost.

It's never going to be repealed. That right is gone now forever. For all of us.

Who told you that? Mystic Meg?

Quote[/b] ]Of course they are ignoring his website. Please name me the person who monitors it.

Every single member of Westminster was monitioring his protest at least twice a day. Now the man you cannot name is.

It's logical that they would monitor it, no reason not to. Good for seeing what he is doing. The MP's who support him are more than likely to read it. Probably MP's that oppose him view it to for a variety of reasons. Name the guy who monitors it? lol. It's quite obvious I am not privvy to such information. If they were trying to shut him up his website would have been shut down a long time ago. Like I said, I never heard of this guy till you mentioned him.

Quote[/b] ]The girl who was arrested with him. That's my evidence.

Since when does a generic statement constitute evidence? Link please.

Quote[/b] ]Where is yours

1. SOCPA - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_12#pt4-pb3

2. Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socpa

3. BBC articles I linked above

4. Scary's well informed post I linked to earlier which was all backed up with evidence that completely countered all your nonsense.

Quote[/b] ]Who is doing it? Where are they? You say you would be given permission. Have you tried? Who do you know that has tried and has been given it? Name names.

How many peace protests have you seen him (or anybody else) do there since they changed the law?

You don't read posts carefully do you? Using statements such as 'I was there and didn't see him there' as evidence isn't particularly useful on an internet forum as none of it can be validated.

Quote[/b] ]I've given you evidence.

No you have not.

Quote[/b] ]He has gone. The Police took him away.

This isn't mentioned on his website.

Also from Wiki:

Quote[/b] ]On 22 January 2007 Haw was acquitted on the grounds that the conditions he was accused of breaching were not sufficiently clear, and that they should have been imposed by a police officer of higher rank. District Judge Purdy ruled: "I find the conditions, drafted as they are, lack clarity and are not workable in their current form

[akm74 1]

Quote[/b] ]I mean, how could they even know all of that, if they can't even prove that there were Americans there fighting the Russians?

You must be kidding, right? 150 US instructors didn’t even notice how Georgian moves 10.000 troops and 300 tanks and artillery across the country at night? And then “officials†sad they didn’t know anything about it. …

Subscribe to any other cable TV package. Look like you have 900 channels of FOX alone.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]France and Germany were on the condemnations list. They actively spoke out against the war in Iraq.

Disapproval and condemnation are two completely different things. Sure, they are on the list, but I checked the source for that claim. There was nothing there about any condemnations.

It was more than disapproval. They publicly said it was wrong. They voiced it in the UN and the relations between those nations deteriorated very quickly. Disapproval would be a few comments and nothing more.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

This isn't comparable to the reactions on the Russian victory in Georgia.

I never said it was comparable.

All you asked was 'Who in the West opposed Iraq?' I pointed out that quite a few did. When you realised you were wrong you changed your question.

Quote[/b] ]And those are no condemnations, it didn't affect relations. There was no talk about sanctions against the US or anything like that.

It did affect relations. Imagine if I was your best mate and called you a wanker for threatening to beat a guy up. That would strain relations. Same thing.

From Wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]France made it clear it would use its UN Security Council veto against a proposed resolution for war in Iraq at that given point.

If that didn't strain the relations between the two then what would.

And for Germany:

Quote[/b] ]his notion deeply offended the American administration and led to a straining of relations between the two nations.

[scubaman3D 0]

Quote[/b] ]I mean, how could they even know all of that,  if they can't even prove that there were Americans there fighting the Russians?

You must be kidding, right? 150 US instructors didn’t even notice how Georgian moves 10.000 troops and 300 tanks and artillery across the country at night? And then “officials†sad they didn’t know anything about it. …

Subscribe to any other cable TV package. Look like you have 900 channels of FOX alone.

So you're saying that you prescribe to the conspiracy theory that the Republican party ordered Dick Cheney to start the war between Georgia and Russia to get John McCain elected?

And you think that Putin knows this how? Did he find Cheney's passport in Georgia? Maybe he saw some graffiti of elephants on the wall? Or a sign that said "Republicanz in da house"?

How does the puppet master and his advisers know this? He can't offer any proof but people of feeble intellect buy it hook, line, and sinker.

[Baff1 0]

I'm not arguing that you can't ask for permission to protest.

I'm stating that you have to. That you may only do so under lisence.

For you this is a good thing. Which is why you are a Stalinist. You believe in the inherant benignity of the state over the individual.

That the Police should be actively used to envigilate the lives of harmless, peaceful private citizens and I don't.

That might be OK in the situations other countries find themselves or have found themselves at moments of history, but that's not Ok here.

This isn't Chechenya. This isn't North Korea. There is no civil war here. No great famine. No rampaging army of murderous invaders.

And do you know what, when there was famine here. When there were bombs raining down and the imminent threat of invasion and slavery, it wasn't alright here either.

And no, Brian Haw wasn't a terrorist. He wasn't a hole in the security. He didn't break into parliament he sat/sits calmly on the opposite side of the road. For years.

Nice that in your eyes he deserves to be treated like one.

Quite frankly I don't care if there is a "hole" in the security. In fact I would prefer a rather much wider one.

That a man dressed as Batman can get on the roof and ask for access to his children isn't something I consider bad.

Neither is throwing flower bombs.

What are we trying to secure exactly any way?

A free and accountable democratic society.....

Or the ability of politicians to remain unaccountable and have people they don't like arrested and locked away.

To make rules that adversely affect the lives of their citizens safely from behind a wall of Police men?

I care far less about the ability of terrorists to endager my life and the lives of my fellow citizens than I do the ability for agents of the state to interefere with me.

I worked in London all through the troubles. I've had my nightclubs closed due to bomb scares at great personal expense.

Endless unexpected traffic jams and on one occasion a bus explode next to all my students on a school trip.

But I have also been arrested for terrorism.

I have first hand experience of the abuse of those powers that were supposed to be there to protect me.

I'll just take the bombs please. They are bad enough. I don't need any extra's.

They always sound like perfectly good ideas. They always sound reasonable. And if only used for the purpose they were originally intended logic dictates that this would still be the case.

Only experience dictates they never are only used for the purpose originally stated.

That sooner or later a bloke in power won't like your face.

That what happened to Brian Haw and his friend, may just happen to you.

It's a trust issue.

I'm glad to hear he is back (I don't agree with his ideaology in any way). And thank you for pointing it out to me. (In fairness it was only your comments that led me to believe otherwise).

I'm glad the judge acquitted him. I did mention it to you that he had been earlier; although I didn't realise he had now been given permission to return until you kindly pointed it out to me.

It's a shame about the woman with Brian who got prosecuted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4848040.stm

It's good that you don't want a peaceful revolution. It's nice that you are happy, it's bad that you don't have the ability to have one should that situation ever change.

You used to 3 years ago.

That communists in foreign countries have the choice to say when the system is broken and then peacefully change it but we don't is an irony that is not lost me.

And sorry it wasn't a German I was thinking of. I got it wrong. It was an Austrian. Joerg Haider.

[wipman 1]

Hi, for me it's clear that Russia acted and acts as the so called...

"super power" country that it's, it's also clear tha Russia began

the hostilities and it's clear too that Russia don't have any problem

with keep 'em going because they can and they don't have nothing

to fear form the western countrys that have much more to loose

here than to win in direct at open sight terms.

We all know that putin acts as a nazi, like G.W.B. no one really opposed

the current iraq war, and those who oppose the georgian war will

loose because if russia applyes the veto at the UN... they can't do

nothing about. Begin to read some strict economic media and you'll

see how they all say "russia has began to regain theyr control and

power in the regions that were previously theyrs". Russia began this

and sure that they gonna end it if they want. So what? do you

want a cookie now... or you want it after?. Let's C ya

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]I mean, how could they even know all of that,  if they can't even prove that there were Americans there fighting the Russians?

You must be kidding, right? 150 US instructors didn’t even notice how Georgian moves 10.000 troops and 300 tanks and artillery across the country at night? And then “officials†sad they didn’t know anything about it. …

Subscribe to any other cable TV package. Look like you have 900 channels of FOX alone.

So you're saying that you prescribe to the conspiracy theory that the Republican party ordered Dick Cheney to start the war between Georgia and Russia to get John McCain elected?

And you think that Putin knows this how?  Did he find Cheney's passport in Georgia?  Maybe he saw some graffiti of elephants on the wall? Or a sign that said "Republicanz in da house"?

How does the puppet master and his advisers know this? He can't offer any proof but people of feeble intellect buy it hook, line, and sinker.

No mate McCain is just being an opportunist.

Taking the opportunity to talk tough and show his muscleman creditentials in the run up to an election.

He's massively glad this is Bushes problem not his own.

It's not just McCain, our own prime ministers elect here are doing the exact same thing.

Making complete fools out of themselves in my opinion. Cameron hs even flown out to Georgia to discuss things with Saakashvili. LMAO.

Just a load of monkeys saying things to get airtime. Trying to spin the events for their own personal gain.

It's not that the Republican party ordered Georgia to start a war with Russia, it's that they knew full well that it was a likely outcome of training re-arming and offering NATO membership too Georgia.

In fact the resolution of this conflict was a precondition to it.

That although they knew the stakes involved they still carried on with their agenda.

They knew alright, they didn't force it, and I highly doubt they actively instigated it, but they certainly didn't do anything to calm it and they have done a lot to inflame the causes of this war.

They still are. Elements in America want this. Large mid western elements. They want confrontation with Russia.

If you made it an election promise they would all vote for you.

And McCain knows it too.

(You can bet your life they have been passing Georgia satelitte data also).