Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
Reposted fromgruetze gruetze viasleeping sleeping
6017 795d 500
Reposted fromcontroversial controversial viastraycat straycat
1142 d4ca
Reposted fromhagis hagis viadrugs drugs

Qualitätsmedien sorgen für Stimmung

Nicht existenter Gast bestiehlt erfundene Sängerin bei Gitarrenkonzert um 5 Uhr morgens in geschlossenem Club
Reposted fromverschwoerer verschwoerer viaMissDeWorde MissDeWorde

In einem Artikel unter der vielsagenden Überschrift „Das Völkerrecht gilt nicht“ legt Johnson bereits 2003 in einem Kommentar zur Rechtfertigung des Irak-Kriegs dar, was für ihn gültige Kriterien zur Kriegsführung sind. Das Völkerrecht gehört nicht dazu. „Der Test, ob ein Krieg gerechtfertigt ist oder nicht, besteht nicht in der Einhaltung juristischer Prinzipien, sondern in der Wahrung der Menschenrechte“, so Johnson.

Problematisch ist an dieser Definition vor allem, dass der Begriff „Menschenrechte“ zum einen sehr vage und zum anderen ein rein europäisch-amerikanisches Konzept ist. Die Idee, die Menschenrechte mit Waffenwalt zu einem universellen Dogma zu machen, würde wohl selbst den Philosophen der Aufklärung den Schrecken ins Gesicht treiben. Abgesehen davon begibt man sich in einen sehr gefährlichen Bereich, wenn man die Wahrung der Menschenrechte zur monokausalen Begründung von Krieg und Frieden erhebt und gleichzeitig juristische Prinzipien verteufelt. Wer soll dann bitte wie überprüfen, ob die Menschenrechte gewahrt werden? Die Antwort ist ebenso einfach wie verschreckend: Die Medien – oder besser gesagt, die Propaganda, der die Medien aufsitzen.

In diesem Kontext ist Johnsons zweite grundsätzliche Erklärung, nach der „eine humanitäre Intervention sich aus sich selbst legitimieren muss“, eine Steilvorlage für jeden Kriegstreiber in Latzhosen. Sobald ein Staat die Menschenrechte seiner Bevölkerung nicht wahrt, wäre demnach ein Angriffskrieg gegen diesen Staat gerechtfertigt.

In Dominic Johnson lebt ein naives Kind, das immer wieder „das gilt nicht“ schreit, wenn es auf echtes oder gefühltes Unrecht stößt. Sicher – jeder von uns fühlt sich hundsmiserabel, wenn er an die Opfer von Srebrenica, Ruanda oder Aleppo denkt. Jeder von uns würde Morde, Kriege und Unrecht lieber heute als morgen stoppen. Wenn man dies erreichen würde, indem man einfach ein paar Soldaten in die Krisengebiete schickt, wäre die Welt schon schnell ein besserer Ort. Die Geschichte lehrt uns jedoch, dass es nicht so einfach ist. Die Geschichte lehrt uns auch, dass die große Propagandisten „humanitärer Kriege“ alles andere als altruistisch sind.

Kosovo, Irak, Libyen, Afghanistan und nun Syrien – die Motive für den Westen, in aller Welt Kriege zu führen, waren nie altruistisch, sondern stets egoistisch. Wie sieht es denn heute in diesen Ländern in puncto Menschenrechten aus? Haben „wir“ im Irak wirklich erfolgreich Menschenrechte herbeigebombt? Haben „wir“ die afghanischen Frauen befreit und im Kosovo ein zweites Auschwitz verhindert? Unfug. All dies waren nur die Zückerli für die Johnsons dieser Welt, die zugleich Opfer und Täter sind und dabei von Tag zu Tag den Boden der Realität weiter verlieren.

"Kriegstreiber in Latzhosen"

http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=35247 ;

Reposted frome-gruppe e-gruppe
8872 d8c2 500
Reposted fromcit cit viaMissDeWorde MissDeWorde
0725 f11c
Reposted fromLittleJack LittleJack viastraycat straycat
5468 ee63
Reposted fromfungi fungi viastraycat straycat
6542 c798
Reposted fromMaelstrom Maelstrom viastraycat straycat
6802 d506 500
Reposted fromoll oll viastraycat straycat
6147 6a8d
Reposted fromMiziou Miziou viastraycat straycat
Greener via Pie Comic
Reposted frommalborghetto malborghetto viastraycat straycat
Reposted fromSpecies5618 Species5618 viaMissDeWorde MissDeWorde
1629 65c7 500
meanwhile...(via)
Reposted bypaket paket
7525 d142
Looks accurate.
Reposted fromflauschfisch flauschfisch viapaket paket

Stop Pretending You Don’t Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton

via mynnia tumblr. excerpt and highlights by samanthabeeismyqueen.

"Why Is Clinton disliked?"

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:

“I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

… There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.”

Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server and didn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!”

Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity Watch, a four out of four star rating byCharity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seemssuper concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, (like so many of his online “supporters,”) is a goddamn Russian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up.

Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet.

And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing.

Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions. Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, “A bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right?

In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you.

Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after he voted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too.

And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Reposted frompaket paket
4645 2ac1
Reposted frommistic mistic viapaket paket
Fefes Blog:
Neulich, bei der Bundesanwaltschaft, bei der Befragung von Lothar Lingen, ex-Referatsleiter beim Verfassungsschutz…
Reposted frompaket paket
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl