Толстый и тонкий

[Roger Sanchez]

Pa, nece biti.

 

Ruska bankarska filijala daje kredit FN.

 

Sa druge strane, americke drzavne agencije finansiraju friendly NGO.

 

Razlika je tacno sta?

Znam da ti je strašno bitno nategnuti svaku moguću paralelu, ali za to da ne poimljaješ razliku između NGO i političke stranke, imam samo dvije riječi.

Moskovska vizura. Jbg, zapatilo se.

[Lord Protector]

Kod National Endowment for Democracy možeš da apliciraš online za sredstva

 

https://www.grantrequest.com/SID_1280/Default.asp?SA=SNA&FID=35048&SESID=6253&RL=

 

 

NED's Statement of Principles and Objectives, adopted in 1984, asserts that "No Endowment funds may be used to finance the campaigns of candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money".

As described in the "Elections" and "Interventions" chapters, NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996; helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992; and worked to defeat the candidate for prime minister of Slovakia in 2002 who was out of favor in Washington. And from 1999 to 2004, NED heavily funded members of the opposition to President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to subvert his rule and to support a referendum to unseat him.

Additionally, in the 1990s and afterward, NED supported a coalition of groups in Haiti known as the Democratic Convergence, who were united in their opposition to Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive ideology, while he was in and out of the office of the president.

[Pantelija jr]

eh, sad i ti, slowe... dokle vise ta moskovska vizura?

[Roger Sanchez]

Slow je patrijarh te vizure.

 

Telefonika Lakonika

[Roger Sanchez]

Krim je rusko Kocobo

«Когда мы говорим о Крыме, любой российский гражданин - мы понимаем, что это и наша история, и наша судьба, и в какой-то период наша боль, и очень большое количество наших людей, которые в этом году проголосовали за то, чтобы вернуться в Российскую Федерацию. Поэтому Крым - это не просто полуостров, не просто прекрасные пляжи, санатории, здравницы, хороший климат, а это наша история и наша сегодняшняя судьба. И я с этого бы выходил на будущее»

a i nekoga ima sram da bude..

The Prime Minister said he was aware that the food embargo is being violated by some countries, as Russian stores still sell banned Polish apples disguised as Serbian.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Roger Sanchez

[Budja]

Znam da ti je strašno bitno nategnuti svaku moguću paralelu, ali za to da ne poimljaješ razliku između NGO i političke stranke, imam samo dvije riječi.

Moskovska vizura. Jbg, zapatilo se.

 

 

Nije govno, no se pas posro.

 

 

No, ne videh ja da to ruska drzava finansira NF, to je 1 filijala banke koja je u tome pronasla komercijalni interes. 

 

A ako ti ne vidis razliku izmedju komercijalne banke i politickih fondacija, dve reci. Vasingtonska vizura. 

[Roger Sanchez]

Nije govno, no se pas posro.

Je li? Ti si u redakciji NSPM, sumnje nema. Saboterske NGO, to je taj tematski krug.

 

Drugo, drago mi je da ližeš slowove doprinose ko pas govno. U dva posta oni postaju istina koju serviraš spremno i orno, kao neki fundament za diskusiju!

Ovaj mi je biser posebno upečatljiv

helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992

Valjajte se ti i slow u svojim sranjima zajedno, I declare myself uninvited.

 

Treće, sve je ovo počelo sa s tvojim hipotetiziranjem o hipotetičkim zabranama, a gdje u stvari postoji samo transparentnost. To si opsesivno-kompulzivno paralelizirao sa stvarnim djelujućim restrikcijama u Putinovom toru za ovce zvanom RF, koje se ne odnose na stranke, kao u svakoj normalnoj demokraciji, nego na NGO. NGO, koje, uz sve crne moći koje ste im ti, drugi, i vaša NSPM crna bratija pripisali, ne mogu utjecati neposredno na političke odluke. Koje se ne bave čak ni lobiranjem politike. Koje, poneke, u stvari u Putinovom toru samo remete silovički monopol na pranje mozga, tj, pokušavaju to.

 

Završno pitanje, imaš li ikakve namjere početi normalno diskutirati ili da te počnem zaobilaziti, ili, kad bude naročito glupo i botovski, pizazirati?

Edited December 10, 2014 by Roger Sanchez

[odmor]

Pa nisu sve NGO isto sto i ekspoziture uticaja/politicke stranke. Realno jedno 40% jesu.  Sa druge strane imas NGO za protekciju gljiva na podrucju tom i tom,.. ukratko zavisi od sponzora.

 

http://www.parapsihopatologija.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18099&page=12&do=findComment&comment=2337537

[Roger Sanchez]

Da ponovim, ko nije pazio na času. NGO mogu utjecati na politiku zemlje samo posredno, utjecanjem na javno mnijenje. Jedino tu djeluju u istoj areni sa strankama, i pri utjecanju na to javno mnijenje nemaju monopol. Osim podnošenja izvještaja o izvorima prihoda, izlišno je izmišljati dodatne stupove srama - osim nesigurnim, slabićkim, diktatorskim, ranjivim, tiranskim, mozgoperačkim režimima - njima je to nužno. Takav jedan je u mucici Rusiji, jadnoj, opsjednutoj.

 

Političke stranke pak, kao faktori koji neposredno odlučuju o pitanjima zemlje, trebaju imati rigoroznije regulirane (ne zabranjene) prihode, kako po iznosima, tako i po izvorima.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Roger Sanchez

[Anduril]

Nije govno, no se pas posro.

 

 

No, ne videh ja da to ruska drzava finansira NF, to je 1 filijala banke koja je u tome pronasla komercijalni interes. 

 

A ako ti ne vidis razliku izmedju komercijalne banke i politickih fondacija, dve reci. Vasingtonska vizura. 

Pravo ima Roger - dalja diskusija uopste nema smisla.

http://euobserver.com/foreign/126731

[Budja]

Je li? Ti si u redakciji NSPM, sumnje nema. Saboterske NGO, to je taj tematski krug.

 

Drugo, drago mi je da ližeš slowove doprinose ko pas govno. U dva posta oni postaju istina koju serviraš spremno i orno, kao neki fundament za diskusiju!

Ovaj mi je biser posebno upečatljiv

Valjajte se ti i slow u svojim sranjima zajedno, I declare myself uninvited.

 

Treće, sve je ovo počelo sa s tvojim hipotetiziranjem o hipotetičkim zabranama, a gdje u stvari postoji samo transparentnost. To si opsesivno-kompulzivno paralelizirao sa stvarnim djelujućim restrikcijama u Putinovom toru za ovce zvanom RF, koje se ne odnose na stranke, kao u svakoj normalnoj demokraciji, nego na NGO. NGO, koje, uz sve crne moći koje ste im ti, drugi, i vaša NSPM crna bratija pripisali, ne mogu utjecati neposredno na političke odluke. Koje se ne bave čak ni lobiranjem politike. Koje, poneke, u stvari u Putinovom toru samo remete silovički monopol na pranje mozga, tj, pokušavaju to.

 

Završno pitanje, imaš li ikakve namjere početi normalno diskutirati ili da te počnem zaobilaziti, ili, kad bude naročito glupo i botovski, pizazirati?

 

ponovo, nece biti:

 

 

 

Europe must wake up to their insidious means of funding, or risk seeing its own institutions subverted.

 

Ova recenica je malo vise od poziva na transparentnost, protiv cega nemam nista. Transpartentnost je svakako potrebna. 

[Roger Sanchez]

Čak i da zabrane (a što neće) - niti se slažem s tvojom interpretacijom moći Luke Hardinga (wake up to - osvijestiti se) -  to nema veze ni s metom ni s motivacijom Putinovih djelatnih restrikcija i zabrana, pa ih ni ne može ex post legitimizirati. Osim u tvojem dozlaboga na silu isparaleliziranom anšaungu.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Roger Sanchez

[Budja]

Čak i da zabrane (a što neće) - niti se slažem s tvojom interpretacijom moći Luke Hardinga (wake up to - osvijestiti se) -  to nema veze ni s metom ni s motivacijom Putinovih djelatnih restrikcija i zabrana, pa ih ni ne može ex post legitimizirati. Osim u tvojem dozlaboga na silu isparaleliziranom anšaungu.

 

Za sada si u pravu, videcemo sta nosi buducnost.

Za Snoudena i Asanza smo videli, kao sto takodje znamo da nije nimalo prijatno biti kriticar kremaljskog autoritarnog rezima.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Budja

[Roger Sanchez]

Za Snoudena i Asanza smo videli, kao sto takodje znamo da nije nimalo prijatno biti kriticar kremaljskog autoritarnog rezima.

Oh, editirao si. Vidjeli smo za Snowdena i Asangea, ali Asangea ne ganja USA, nego njegova neutralna nemeza. Možda misliš na Manninga?

 

Koliko ja znam, tkogod je odao nešto rusko također je zbrisao iz zemlje i našao utočište na skroz drugoj strani. Ili je u slammeru. Osim recimo Mitrohina, ništa Snowden/Manningovske magnitude nije iscurilo. Ali, ako Snowden jednog dana slučajno popije čai s polonijem u Piteru, priznat ću ti tu paralelu neprijatnosti.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Roger Sanchez

[Lord Protector]

 

The Two Faces of Azerbaijan’s Government

Azerbaijan's leaders like to pretend that they’re friends of the West. Time for a reality check.

 

BY ALTAY GOYUSHOV

Altay Goyushov is a faculty member at Baku State University (Azerbaijan) and currently Reagan-Fascell Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy.

DECEMBER 6, 2014

Azerbaijan’s most famous investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova is the latest in a long list of Azerbaijani activists to become political prisoners. Ismayilova, a journalist with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, has just been sentenced to two months of administrative detention on charges of driving a fellow reporter to attempt suicide, following, an accusation that observers called “ridiculous.” Ismayilova, a long-term critic of the government who has published numerous reports about official corruption, was denounced as a “traitor” by the head of the presidential administration Ramiz Mehdiyev in a lengthy anti-American treatise that appeared a day earlier.

The article denounces United States democracy assistance efforts as undermining foreign states, and refers to domestic civic organizations as a “fifth column.” Mehdiyev attacks Ismayilova by name, accusing her and her collaborators of devising “anti-Azerbaijan programs” that are “the equivalent of working for foreign security services.” In November, Ismayilova was prevented from participating in a Helsinki Commission hearing on corruption where she was supposed to testify, and earlier in the year she was accused of leaking information to U.S. intelligence officials following a meeting with U.S. Senate staffers.

Ismayilova’s current predicament serves as a perfect illustration of Azerbaijan’s two-faced policy towards the U.S. The government of Azerbaijan has been bankrolling Western lobbyists and think tanks in order to convince policymakers in the U.S. and Europe that it is a credible and democratic partner. At home, however, the government’s actions tell a different story. During the past few years, the regime in Baku has systematically destroyed independent institutions such as the media, political parties and, most recently, non-government organizations — all under the guise of safeguarding against Western influence. (The photo above shows U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel welcoming the Azerbaijan defense minister to Washington last August.)

This is especially ironic, considering that these things are happening in a country that was once proud to call itself the first secular Muslim democracy in the world. In 1918, a few months after Russia was taken over by the Bolsheviks, Azerbaijan declared its independence. Local leaders of a firmly liberal-democratic bent formed a government backed by the majority of parliament. President Woodrow Wilson described meeting “with a very dignified and interesting group of gentlemen who were from Azerbaijan,” noting that they “talked the same language that I did in respect of ideas, in respect of liberty, in respect of conceptions of right and justice.” The men he referred to were the founding fathers of the first Azerbaijani Republic.

Although a Bolshevik takeover ended the brief independence of Azerbaijan two years later in 1920, the collapse of the USSR in 1991 paved the way for Azerbaijan to regain its sovereignty once again. Azerbaijanis once again showed a strong desire to build a secular democratic system and to become part of the free world. In 1992 the last Soviet-appointed leader of Azerbaijan was forced to flee to Moscow in a popular uprising. Former Soviet dissident and political prisoner Abulfaz Elchibeywas elected the nation’s new leader.

Sadly, this attempt to restore democracy in Azerbaijan did not last long: the freely elected president of Azerbaijan was overthrown in a Russian backed military coup a year later. The former KGB general and Soviet Politburo member Heydar Aliyev seized advantage of the turmoil to seize power. Although President Aliyev continued cooperation with the West in the spheres of energy, security, and counterterrorism, his power gradually grew more and more authoritarian.

When President Aliyev’s young and well-educated son Ilham replaced him in in a highly contested election in 2003, many believed Azerbaijan had a chance to revive its democratic legacy. Those hopes have steadily faded, and over the past two years the situation has deteriorated dramatically. The ruling elite has clearly set out to destroy the last remnants of free media, civil society, and liberal political opposition.

This crackdown has been accompanied by an ambitious lobbying campaign in Western capitals, one that encompasses policymakers, government officials, the media, and think tanks. The aggressiveness of these efforts have drawn international and Western media attention. In July 2014, for example, the Houston Chronicle disclosed the funding of a visit to Baku by U.S. lawmakers, who attended a conference sponsored in part by the SOCAR, Azerbaijan’s national oil company. Last September, the New York Times published detailed evidence of the Azerbaijani government’s intimate relationship with a U.S.-based lobbying firm and several think tanks. A few days later, Radio Free Europe ran a piece shedding light on Brenda Shaffer, a visiting researcher at Georgetown University who has used the media to promote the Azerbaijani government as a partner of the West without disclosing that she had served in the past as a SOCAR advisor.

To U.S. and European audiences, Azeri officials plead for support against neighboring Russian and Iran and assistance in overcoming the vestiges of Soviet rule. In this guise, the Azerbaijani government likes to claim that it is still on the path to Europe. Meanwhile Azeri officials and members of the ruling party are telling audiences at home a rather different story. “Recently the US has shifted from being a country that fights terrorism into a country that supports terrorism,”said Ali Guseinli, the chairman of the Legal Affairs and State Reform Committee of the Azerbaijani parliament.

Officials of the ruling party justify the crackdown at home by arguing that Western support for democracy is a neo-imperialist ploy intended to dismantle the statehood of developing nations, which must be protected against “agents of the West.” State-controlled media, members of parliament, and government officialspoint to Western powers as the real cause of instability in the region, accusing them of masterminding the Arab Spring, the Color Revolutions, the crisis inUkraine, and ISIS.

Pro-government media accused IREX, a highly regarded organization that supports media development and people-to-people exchanges, of “pursuing the interests of Azerbaijani enemies.” Ultimately, the group was pressured to leave the country. Official interference has led Peace Corps to discontinue its programs in the country as well. In the wake of the crackdown, former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar also received targeted, verbal attacks from a top Azeri official. According to independent activists, there are now more than 90 political prisoners in Azerbaijan.

These instances are of a piece with a wider campaign of repression that features new legislation designed to strangle civil society, criminal investigations, and the freezing of bank accounts of both international and local NGOs. Leaders of youth organizations have been jailed and travel bans on pro-democracy activists imposed.

This ferocious government crackdown of recent weeks comes at a time when pro-democracy youth activists have gained momentum. Liberal local initiatives like the Free Thought University and other youth groups have been closed due to their popularity. These initiatives have become primary targets of the regime, which intensified its repression while the world was preoccupied with the conflict in Ukraine.

The demolition of local democratic movements is all the more disconcerting because it paves the way for extremist religious groups to fill the vacuum.Azerbaijan’s authoritarian rulers, whose fragile legitimacy fuels its subversion of independent voices, are apparently interested in having Islamic radicals as their principal opponents. The specter of such opponents allows the regime to make the case for its own ostensible indispensability to Western governments.

Moreover, by portraying pro-democracy activists as subversives and traitors who serve the interests of Western imperialists, authoritarian regimes in fact repeat and strengthen the discourse of ISIS and other radical groups.

There is no doubt that the West has a vital interest in preserving good relations with Azerbaijan. It’s a secular Muslim country that cooperates on diversifying energy routes and a broad range of security issues. But, in an environment where basic human rights are denied, anti-western propaganda is flourishing, and democratic voices are stifled, local extremist groups will find fertile ground to take root. As such, the West has cause for concern.

In cracking down on peaceful activists and reformers, the regime in Baku argues that it is taking steps to ensure stability. They have this exactly wrong. By eliminating moderate voices in society, Azerbaijan’s leaders set the stage for anti-Western environment that will serve as a breeding ground for radical Islamists, who pose a grave security threat to both the region and the West. For these reasons, it is essential that the U.S. and EU underscore that the West’s full cooperation with Azerbaijan is contingent upon its adherence to democracy and human rights standards.

Edited December 10, 2014 by slow