It looks like the fighting in the Caucasus is over, at least for the moment. It’s hard to know how many people have been killed or driven from their homes in recent days but the figure must run to thousands in the former category and tens of thousands in the latter. Let me mention a few of the things I haven’t seen in Buenos Aires in the last seven days.
1.
Protests led by left-wing political parties outside the Russian Embassy demanding an immediate end to the “genocide of the Georgian people”.
2.
Demonstrations outside the Georgian Embassy in support of its government.
3.
An advertisement in a national newspaper taken out and signed by prominent Argentines of Russian descent dissassociating themselves from the actions of the Russian government.
4.
The walls of the part of the city where I live plastered with posters drawing a direct comparison between the actions of the current government of Russia in Georgia and the actions of the Nazi regime that governed Germany.
5.
Graffiti suggesting that, a) an appropriate response to the fighting in the Caucasus would be to kill a Russian Argentine, and b) that Russians take particular delight in murdering children.
6.
Anyone being time on a reputable current affairs programme on TV to suggest that the root of the conflict lay in the necessity of the Russians for a daily ration of blood and human flesh.
Normally you would see all of that, but the Feinmann article has poisoned the Argentinian soul.
Talking seriously, the day Russia claims to have “the most moral army in the world,” I promise you I’ll be the first to denounce it does not.
People who boast of holding the moral high ground are usually more closely scrutinized than those who admit to being like everyone else; and it’s reasonable.
Really, Ibrahim? Chavez, Castro and Mugabe all claim a hold on the moral high ground - and how much scrutiny are they exposed to when it comes to the Indymedias of this world?
On the subject of our friend Feinmann, I notice you didn’t respond to my comments on your comments. I wonder why…
I don’t know; I never read Indymedia. But Chávez has been scrutinized by more relevant people, such as US Government officials. The American Defense Secretary said in 2006: “He’s a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally.”
None of the Zionist bloggers who continually sermonize us about the misuse of Nazi analogies complained about a Nazi analogy being used against Chávez.
“I don’t know; I never read Indymedia.”
You should. You’d feel right at home there.
“But Chávez has been scrutinized by more relevant people, such as US Government officials. The American Defense Secretary said in 2006: “He’s a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally.”
You think Rumsfeld has some kind of moral authority to judge Chávez. You’re full of surprises.
You think Rumsfeld has some kind of moral authority to judge Chávez. You’re full of surprises.
WTF? Whoever spoke about Rumsfeld’s moral authority?
I’m just pointing out that you didn’t speak out against Rumsfeld’s Nazi analogy against Chávez, while you would most certainly write a long, angry post if a Nazi analogy were used against Olmert.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with that. But there’s nothing wrong with denouncing Israel’s atrocities without denouncing Russia’s, either.