L'menexe have you posted at the SC at all? I can't tell if you did or not.The ones to me that were signed by you I know you did not because you would have done it here and I know you would not tell me how to think or what to say. I think after a year and a half I know you somewhat.

As far as I was taught and have seen documentaries on the subject,Hitler had as little regard for the Slavic peoples as he had for the Jews, he used the same kind of propaganda to justify the eastern campaign. Ie Slavs were not Human beings like the Arians, they were being "removed" to make way for superior Arian expansion eastwards.
The Germans carried out a scorced earth policy, crops were burned, towns and villages raised to the ground. I think the most gruesome thing I remember was documentary evidence of the German practise of locking Women and Children in their Churches and burning them alive whilst they forced the men to watch.
You know that gruesome though they often are the "Hollywood" accounts of the jewish holocaust and the second world war are the sanitised versions.
Packaged for easy consumption. Not everyone has my macabre interest for what really happened in the second world war, not everyone has had the chance to study it in depth, not everyone can stomach the reality.
You can't blame people for only remembering what they can deal with. But the information is there for anyone who wants to look into the history. There isn't a cover-up.

I am not persecuting anyone but Muslims, but so much empasis should not be placed on one people and the rest forgotten.You know Germany got the Marshall Plan and Churchill wanted to nuke Russia. All Russia got was a lot of dead and devastation and no help but a cold war initiated by the west. How did we become the enemy?In hindsight Stalin should have done all of Europe.

Chorny,

L'menexe is having some problems with his server, can't get through to here.

"but so much empasis should not be placed on one
people and the rest forgotten"

- right I agree, but is there a compassion limit?? If you give too much to one group, there isn't enough for the other? And you may not be persucuting the jews, but others as we have seen are.


"You know Germany got the Marshall Plan and Churchill
wanted to nuke Russia. All Russia got was a lot of dead and devastation and no help but a
cold war initiated by the west. How did we become the enemy?In hindsight Stalin should
have done all of Europe. "

I am not going to justify that with a response, and we were doing so well for once.
Listen its 4am here, so good night and cheers for the discussion!

Good night Kim talk to you tomorrow.Ultra was having problems getting through to here also

The World That Clinton And Albright Have Left Us
by Rick Rozoff
October 16, 2000





The Middle East is in flames, the Balkans are a devastated NATO occupation zone, Central Africa is a wartorn wasteland with little hope of imminent recovery, and northeastern and northwestern Africa are in similar straits.

Colombia is slated to be the next El Salvador if not the next Vietnam, with the entire Amazon basin at risk of being pulled into the vortex.

Japan is being remilitarized, contrary to its U.S.-authored constitution, and its troops are being deployed abroad for the first time since the defeat of its imperial government in 1945. Similarly, a united Germany has been reborn as a military powerhouse, resettling the Balkans and selling weapons to Turkey and others.

The moribund and superfluous North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been revived, strengthened and expanded, with last year's war against Yugoslavia its official debut - an event that coincided with its fiftieth anniversary retooling and apotheosis in Washington last spring.

Three Eastern European former Warsaw Pact members, none of them near the Atlantic Ocean, north or otherwise, have been inducted into NATO with the required increase in military expenditures and upgrading of their equipment, the latter to be purchased from U.S. and Western European arms manufacturers.

No fewer than fourteen other nations, from Ireland to Georgia, are members of the Partnership for Peace, a cynically named apprenticeship program for NATO itself. Old military blocs are being recreated and redefined, new ones are proliferating, the entire globe is being turned into an armed camp bristling with state-of-the-art weaponry almost exclusively of Western origin.

The U.S. military budget, which this year experienced its largest increase since the Reagan era, is now equal to that of the next seven to twelve largest national defense budgets, depending on which figures you trust.

U.S. arms exports represent at least 60% of weapons sold worldwide. They frequently go to both sides fighting in sanguinary conflicts like the Ethiopian-Eritrean war of earlier this year, one tragically and fruitlessly prodigal of young human lives.

President Clinton and his Secretary of State Madeleine Albright are now waging war in three continents simultaneously - in or against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Colombia. A new benchmark for global military deployment; no previous regime has ever done so.

All the vocabulary of late nineteenth-century colonialism and imperialism is now back in vogue, or should be: Sabre-rattling, gunboat diplomacy, diktat, force majeure, demarche, casus belli.

In any given month Clinton's White House and Albright's State Department are waging a war of words, diplomatic and economic warfare, or the genuine article against as many as a dozen countries. The traditional villains, formerly so-called rogue states, now 'states of concern,' aside, the current targets include Iraq, Liberia, Belarus, Malaysia, Peru, Haiti, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Myanmar and Congo. Until recently, and perhaps soon again, Yugoslavia, too. Erstwhile allies like Indonesia and Austria can at any given time be subjected to blistering denunciations and economic penalties.

The above list is so diverse that it's hard to tell what common thread runs through it. Maybe they're targets only because targets are needed.

Again, under the Clinton-Albright foreign policy establishment, the Tomahawk missile reigns supreme. It and other U.S. missiles and explosives have landed in Somalia, the Republika Serpska, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria in the last seven years. According to a report from a government-linked Peruvian radio station a year ago, they are also ready to be launched into southern Colombia, as they were toward North Korean nuclear sites six years ago.

This is the world that the soon to be retired President and his current foreign policy chief have bequeathed the people of America and the globe.

Analyses of this period and what it portends for the future will be written for decades to come. The entire framework of the post-World War II order, forged by the victorious allies after 1945 and formalized in numerous treaties under UN auspices, has been bypassed and dismantled. There are no longer checks, controls, counterbalances or even protocols. Might simply is right, and all the rights to act, however unilaterally and arbitrarily, belong to the mightiest and its allies and clients.

If the era of international law and of multinational conventions and covenants, including those of the United Nations and even NATO itself, as well as internal constitutional restraints on the use of military force abroad has been brought to an end by Washington and its European allies, another one has replaced it: The age of doctrines.

Writing in the spring of 1999, author Michael Klare identified in a Nation article what he titled the Clinton Doctrine. Immediately afterward the so-called Blair Doctrine was enunciated by the British prime minister in a speech he gave in Chicago during the bombing of Yugoslavia.

Both, no doubt worked out in unison, affirm essentially the same thing: The United States and Great Britain reserve the right to employ military strikes anywhere and for any reason they choose. A thin and unconvincing veneer of Jimmy Carter-style human rights phraseology is usually applied by way of justification, but is soon, and almost invariably, supplemented by expressions like national security and vital economic interests. The latter rationales are the ones understood by the governments and peoples of the countries on the receiving end as well as by disinterested third parties.

Anticipating the above dual doctrine by some eight months is what should be called the Clarke Doctrine, after Richard Clarke, the White House's ominously-named Counter-Terrorism director. In August of 1998 Clarke, with a resume as suspect as anyone alive, announced his doctrine of retaliation against the government facilities of any nation accused of, in his words, harboring terrorists.

In keeping with the spirit of the times and the administration he serves, Clarke felt under no obligation to define terrorism, to identify a consistent set of criteria for determining who is a terrorist, or even for delineating what was meant by harboring one. Vocabulary, like behavior, is the sole prerogative of the powerful.

That this now implied, for the first time in modern history, that a major world power - indeed the world's major power - could, without having to make its case in the United Nations, the World Court or in any other world body, launch unprovoked military attacks at will around the world seems not to have been accorded the attention and concern it warrants.

Neither has the latest doctrine of arbitrary military aggression, this one emanating from Madeleine Albright's State Department. This past August her underling Richard Boucher defended a new policy of what he termed cross-border anti-terrorism raids. This pronouncement came days after and was clearly occasioned by a Turkish air strike in Northern Iraq which reportedly resulted in the deaths of more than thirty Kurdish civilians.

The targets of that attack were ostensibly members of the Kurdish Workers Party, as were the intended targets of a buildup of hundreds of thousands of Turkish troops on the Iraqi border earlier in the year. But it may just as well have been, as it may at any time be, other forces in other countries. The fact is that all the doctrines mentioned are by their very nature ones that would be applied by those designing them against others who won't be allowed to explain and won't be able to defend themselves.

This unprecedented policy of issuing what in essence are open-ended declarations of war, to be implemented selectively and presumably without prior notification; to be applied on an ad hoc basis and solely at the discretion of the perpetrators, is nothing less than putting the people of the world on notice that they're fair game whenever their governments have done something - or have not done what was demanded of them - to displease the Clintons, Blairs and Albrights of the world.

And just as the targets are chosen more or less arbitrarily, so is the mechanism through which the attack can be launched. Implicit and more than implicit in the Clinton and Blair Doctrines - and certainly *explicit* in how they've been implemented to date - is the capricious and self-serving manner in which onetime coalitions and select use of institutions are exploited to achieve what are primarily narrow American and British interests. Other nations and organizations may be brought in to provide the illusion of a consensus, what is disingenuously called the international community, but all key decision-making and the overwhelming bulk of armed force is all but monopolized by Washington and London.

The process may be lawless, but it's not unlawful in the broadest sense of the word. With no countervailing military, political or economic rivalry that can check the rapacious ambitions of an uncontested global superpower - and the United States of the Clinton-Albright period is just that - the mighty are always right.

Which is wrong. Wrong for those countries and populations that have been squeezed out of any pretense of a comity of nations and peoples. Wrong, even, for Americans, Britishers and others who see their increasingly remote, venal and brutal political system yet further degenerate under the influence of globalist and militarist pressures, as their societies become more ruthless, their economies more distorted and their mass cultures more debased by a ubiquitous celebration of violence, brute force, cynicism and chauvinism.

The dream of humanity for a world of peace, justice and security, which blossomed in the European world in la belle epoque before the crushing disillusionment of 1914 and the First World War; which revived in the two decades afterward in Europe, the Americas and throughout the world; which appeared to be the last opportunity for human survival following the unspeakable horrors of World War II; this dream, born of all that's hopeful, decent and sensible in the human race, was supposed to receive a fresh impetus in the early 1990s with the end of this century's longest and most dangerous military rivalry. It didn't. Instead it's witnessed challenges to its very existence, as an unbridled military-economic juggernaut rushes hellbent to dominate all and destroy much of the world.

It has to be stopped. Our rights as citizens of our own countries as well as of the world depend on ending, reversing and redefining the current reckless course of mindless militarization and global bullying. We're soon to be rid of two of its major architects and practitioners - let's also be rid of their handiwork.

IM HERE. SERVER SEEMS TO BE WORKING FINE NOW.

By Kim Arx ( - 137.138.245.48) on Monday, October 16, 2000 - 10:45 pm "You can't blame people for only remembering what they can deal with. But the information is there for anyone who wants to look into the history. There isn't a cover-up."
It helps when you own all the media .I guess it is called good PR work.Also from the Hollywood movies you would have thought that America fought the whole war and won it on it's own.

yeah, me too. couldnt get here, gave up, went to
bed.

igor:
havent seen the cafe yet today; thanks for giving
me the benefit of the doubt...i doubt i
said...whatever...
DMS is where i would address you, not the stupid
cafe -_-
i dont like that place.
but i was thinking that ber-STEEEN might be
"joshua"...-_-

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ALBRIGHT'S INSENSITIVITY.THIS COW IS A WAR CRIMINAL--Shame on you, Mrs Albright
By Hanan Ashrawi


In her interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" (Sunday 8 October 2000), US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright epitomised the willful blindness, moral emptiness, human insensitivity, political cynicism, and strategic ignorance that have characterised the US's handling of the Arab-Israeli "peace process" and the Palestinian question in particular. When asked about the US's abstention on UN Security Council Resolution 1233 deploring the [anonymous] "provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000" and condemning [also anonymous] "acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians," Albright immediately waxed apologetic.

She was not defensive about diluting the text of the resolution and eliminating any explicit reference to Israel's culpability, about abstaining when the US should have cast an affirmative vote in condemnation of the horrific and tragic loss of Palestinian lives (mainly children), or about American passivity before the very visible crimes against humanity that are being committed by Israel with impunity and arrogance. Rather, Mrs Albright expressed contrition at not casting a veto on this hesitant, apologetic, and inadequate expression by the international community of minimal recognition of Palestinian humanity and suffering. Why? Because the US wants to "safeguard" its role as an "even-handed peace broker."

To the Palestinians, this came as a complete surprise, since the US has never been even-handed or fair, or even remotely human, in its brokerage of the peace process. Given the chance to atone, however modestly, for such double standards and bias, the US once again has insisted on failing the test of moral integrity and humanity. Worse yet, Mrs Albright (with a straight face) declared in a cold and deliberate tone that the Palestinians have "placed Israel under siege." I immediately assumed that she had confused her nouns, and that she had inadvertently given the converse version of reality. In the next breath, however, and with the same deadpan, expressionless, emotionless, glazed look, Mrs Albright repeated: "Those Palestinian rock throwers have placed Israel under siege," adding that the Israeli army is defending itself.

At the risk of tediousness and redundancy, it is appropriate to remind Mrs Albright of a few basic facts that may have escaped her notice. It is Israel that is the belligerent occupant of Palestine (and not the other way around). Israeli tanks and armoured vehicles are surrounding Palestinian villages, camps and cities (and not the other way around). Israeli (American-made) Apache gun ships are firing Lau and other missiles at Palestinian protesters and homes (and not the other way around). It is Israel that is confiscating Palestinian land and importing Jewish settlers to set up illegal armed settlements in the heart of Palestinian territory (and not the other way around). The settlers on the rampage in the West Bank are Israelis terrorising Palestinians in their own homes (and not the other way around). The homes that are being demolished at the hands of the Israelis are Palestinian homes (and not the other way around). The armed soldiers and Special Forces at checkpoints throughout Palestine are Israeli (and not the other way around). The more than a hundred murdered civilians and thousands of injured are all Palestinians being shot by Israeli occupation troops (and not the other way around). It is Israel that has closed down the Palestinian airport at Gaza, thereby preventing badly needed medical supplies from reaching the Palestinians (and not the other way around). The crossing points to and from Palestine as well as entrances and exits to and from all Palestinian inhabited areas are manned and controlled by Israeli soldiers who have completely prevented all freedom of movement (and not the other way around).

To state the obvious once again, Israel is committing atrocities against the Palestinians with total impunity, and yet Mrs Albright maintains that "Israel is besieged." To add insult to injury, she admonishes the Palestinian leadership for not ordering its people to "stop the violence," as though she were entirely oblivious of the fact that all it takes is an order from Barak to his "disciplined" occupation army to stop killing Palestinians. No, we will not lie down and die in silence, even to accommodate you, Mrs Albright, for cold-blooded murder is not a phenomenon we condone. I suggest that the siege is in the minds of American officials and apologists for Israel, who willfully persist in blaming the victim, finding a false symmetry between occupier and occupied, adopting a double standard on the value of human lives and rights while totally dehumanising the Palestinians, in treating Israel as a country above the law and Palestinians as a people not worthy of the protection of the law, in manipulating and inventing a peace process that would accommodate such a racist and stereotypical version of reality rather than a reality of justice and evenhandedness, and in evading and distorting moral responsibility towards the Palestinian victims rather than celebrating the violence of the oppressor.

Granted, Mrs Albright, Milosevic is a war criminal (although his army did not massacre the Serb opposition that brought about his downfall), but what about Ariel Sharon and even your good friend Ehud Barak? Whose blood is dripping from their hands? Granted, Mrs Albright, "the people have spoken" in Yugoslavia, so why don't you listen when the Palestinian people cry out for justice? As a woman, a mother and grandmother, you surely understand the pain of children and their parents when they get hurt; what about the agony of the senseless and brutal murder being visited on Palestinian children? I suggest, Mrs Albright, that before you go on television in front of the whole world to pontificate on issues Palestinian, you start by examining the facts, and then start to examine your own conscience.

note to igor:
i didnt see any postings from me at the cafe as of 0853 edt.
i almost never do any "new posts"; if you saw such a thing it was not moi.

what pissed me off yesterday was that joshua ber-STEEEN kept saying "i agree w/ L'menexe and Kim". for one thing he confused the sc 'kim' w/the dms 'kim' [afternoon, mum!] and he used it at least 3 times.

the cafe is full of creeps; not all of 'em are creeps, but at DMS we have the creeps we are used to and cant get rid of. -_-
hear what i say, FAKE american?
afraid to go to the cafe dressed as a yank, eh?
dont worry, the cafe already overflows with fakes and impersonators, just like you.

They will let me be the moderator on the SC yeah.No more spam

Nezavissimaya gazeta"
RUSSIA WILL BE FORGIVEN FOR FIGHTING TERRORISM
The United States may be reconsidering its position on Chechnya

---

Shamil Basaev’s threats to send 1,500 Chechen guerillas to the Middle East to take part in the “Islamic jihad” have seriously concerned Washington. Some US Congress analysts have admitted that Chechnya is a dangerous centre of international terrorism.


Shamil Basaev’s threats to send 1,500 Chechen guerillas to the Middle East to take part in the “Islamic jihad” for the sake of “liberation of Jerusalem” have seriously concerned the United States. A US Congress analyst has confirmed in his an anonymous report to the ITAR-TASS news agency. According to him the matter concerned sending of 1,500 mercenaries, not only from Chechnya but also from the other countries, to Israel. This means that guerillas could enter Israel by using foreign passports and organize terrorist bombings in the very centre of the country.


It id worth noting that Washington has for the first time expressed the viewpoint that considerably differs from its previous official position. Some congress specialists have admitted that foreign mercenaries have started to play an increasingly important role in separatist gangs in Chechnya since it has extremely difficult for guerillas to recruit volunteers in Chechen settlements. American analysts noted that people in Chechnya “have been disappointed both in the war and its leaders”, and that these moods have overwhelmed even the elite detachments led by Basaev and Khattab, leading to mass desertion.


American analysts have drawn the conclusion that the aims of the war initially propagated by its ideologists, including Chechnya’s independence from Russia, have been it into the background. Washington views this situation as a serious threat – not only to Russia, but also to other countries.


If American analysts have beginning to express such assessments of the situation in Chechnya, it means that the international community may soon reconsider its attitude towards Russia’s activities in the North Caucasus. To all appearances, the current crisis in the Middle East has played its role in this, since it may spread worldwide.


Presidential aide Sergei Yastrzhembsky described Basaev’s announcement as more propaganda, and said that the possibility of transported of guerillas to the Middle East was Basaev’s fantasy. However, our sources in the Federal Security Services (FSB) have reported a radio conversation between field commanders in the mountains of Chechnya about opportunities for assisting the extremist Islamic organization ‘Hamas’ and the Islamic Jihad, acting in Palestine against Israeli Security services. Later Yastrzhambsky spoke of extremists boosting coordination of their activities in such hot spots as Chechnya, Afghanistan and Middle East.

the cafe already overflows with fakes and impersonators, just like you.
EXPLAIN PLEASE

Chorny,

"It helps when you own all the media .I guess it is called good PR work.Also from the
Hollywood movies you would have thought that America fought the whole war and won it on
it's own."

Hollywood as a cold war propaganda machine!?- What would McCarthy have thought of that.he, he.

I know what you mean though, the Enigma Code springs to mind for some reason.
Are there Russian "Death and Glory"-style World war two films, or do Russian film makers take the "serious" European approach to films?