Democracy and power. Laws and interests. How people insist on their law treatment.
The text below is accessible from EFnet logs of channel #unixhelp . A lot of people publish such logs, so the tool to proof is your best search engine.
For easier reading I removed messages unrelated to the subject of the story, due to livejournal syntax restrictions I've also removed left brackets.
So, the text is posted publicly to let people think on the subject of the post.
The start of the story is here: http://grey-olli.livejournal.com/849896.html
, the continuation is below:
pbug> olli: hold on reading what you said
pbug> olli: inside the EU we had peace for a very long time, 70 years, crimea is just a little bit too close, and serbia will join the EU one day including kosovo they have already applied for it
pbug> olli: we don't want conflict in europe
pbug> olli: in ukraine what happened was people were protesting peacefully until it became a violent protest, they were protesting for closer ties with the EU at first
[olli]> pbug, I can't tell you what people really did in Ukraine. I was not there at the moment. But I can say you how the picture is looking from my side. And yes, I'm daily watching news from diffrent sources. From BBC, CNN, Euronews, France24, RussiaToday, Russia24, and other sources available on paid TV subscription. I know each position. And I do support our position for Crimea. We did the right thing. According to Euronews, BBC and CNN the l
[olli]> ocal majority is Russian. They prefer to call it minority, but in Crimea the majority is Russians and more than 70% of Crimea people tired of weak Kiev officials. We just made the same as EU/US officials have done in ex-Ugoslavia.
[olli]> So we just allowed local majority to vote for their decision.
[olli]> This is against interests of EU/US dreaming weak Russia betraying interests of its people.
[olli]> But is's over.
[olli]> The thing Putin just did is not subject to rollback.
[olli]> At least nearest years.
[olli]> We will support Russians.
[olli]> As US does for their citizens.
[olli]> As each country in EU does for theirs.
[olli]> The world just has to accept this.
[olli]> Sooner or later.
[olli]> Thanks for reading.
pbug> I just hope it doesn't escalate
pbug> oh nice sunset here currently
[olli]> yep, I hope there will be no bloody conflict.
[olli]> At least for now our officials keep things that way. At least it looks so,
pbug> olli: thing is that some people have already drawn equivalencies between russia today and germany in 1939 when tehy annexed the sudetenland in checkoslovakia
pbug> back then germans in sudetenland were also a majority but viewed as weak by germany
[olli]> tell me then how that people think about ex-Ugoslavia facts - the country local majorities were devided as result of NATO bombings.
pbug> well kosovo wasn't annexed by nato
[olli]> They could deal w/o this. But external forces made the things the way when no deal is possible.
[olli]> Crimea is not annexed. The secquence right according to the international laws was made this way: 1st Crimea tells it independent. 2. The referendum. 3. The join supported by local majority and supported by local law.
[olli]> It's not occupation.
[olli]> Russia does the thing in the way the world does.
[olli]> The funny thing is that was quick enough.
[olli]> So other world had no time to make the situation bloody.
[olli]> But it's okay for us.
[olli]> We do not want the real bloody war.
pbug> it could have turned bloody
[olli]> We prefer to deal.
pbug> taht's teh scary thing
[olli]> Yes. It could if we were not strong enough to make a real bloody conflict too costly.
pbug> I think such actions are wrong
[olli]> But currently no one in the world is able to make no-fly zone in Russia to prevent our officials to deal with bandits.
[olli]> I mean deal accordingly to Russia law.
roycroft> the independence vote and subsequent annexatin of crimea were both illegal under international law
[olli]> Not the law of external power supporing local minorities to make things bloody.
[olli]> International law is precenendet way.
roycroft> i saw it coming, though
[olli]> So once US + NATO made Kosovo precendent they got to accept Crimea case.
roycroft> when the ukraine legislature voted that russian would no longer be an official language
roycroft> even though that bill was vetoed
[olli]> So YES. The things are going accordingly to international laws provided by US + NATO a not long ago.
roycroft> it was a clear message to ethnic russians in the ukraine that they were going to be actively oppressed under the new regime
[olli]> So what?
roycroft> russia was a signatory to the 1994 disarmament agreement that said that ukraine's sovereignty would be defended
roycroft> they violated that agreement
[olli]> After the revolution the country is new. The accept on keeping agreement with new country is optional.
oycroft> the secession vote was illegal under the ukrainian constitution, which is what is recoginised by international law
[olli]> US agreed with Russia to rent territory for 99 years, afair.
roycroft> russia invaded crimea before this so-called independence "vote"
[olli]> roycroft, no, officially no.
roycroft> and putin and you are both bold-faced liars with zero credibility
roycroft> you can't invade a foreign country and claim you didn't because you refuse to "officially" admit it
roycroft> you can't steal your neighbor's television, get caught red-handed doing so, and get off because you say "i don't officially admit to having stolen it"
roycroft> you're still in jail if you do that
roycroft> take your propoganda somewhere else
roycroft> i'm interested in truth, not bullshit
roycroft> and you are incapable of speaking the truth
roycroft> under putin, russia has gone much farther backwards than the us did under bush
[olli]> roycroft, the liars or not liars become a subject to make anything law-meaningfull based on this law-proven-fact-of-lies (or really not lies - our _official_ position is that Armed people Crimea before the Crimea independence fact were local armed forces) only when the things are in discuss in law-forcing-institution. The law forcing institution officially supported by all countries is UN. Anything not-accepted by UN security is a local-in
[olli]> terpretation (US,EU,Russia,all other countries).
[olli]> roycroft, So the position you sit is just a consequence of local interest.
[olli]> The things done accordingly to international laws.
[olli]> If people thing another way - ok, prove this in UN.
roycroft> my official position is that you are a turtle, not a human being
roycroft> that makes you a turtle
[olli]> roycroft, thanks. I've records in logs that will prove you're in interest in my death some day. :)
roycroft> there is nothing you can do to prove me wrong, because my official position trumps any other truth
roycroft> a delusional turtle, i should add
[olli]> roycroft, tell this to your local law-enforcement stuff. I do not care.
* roycroft is done with [olli] for a while
[olli]> the law is not something that just makes the world accept it. Your right and abilities to prove your rights are different things.
[olli]> because when two or more people are telling this is against laws to prove this they have to spend something for this.
[olli]> That's how the world is made by creator.
[olli]> You can ignore this.
[olli]> But this is how things work.
mouse> bullys push others around, for millenia
mouse> you're right, that's indeed how it works
[olli]> Sorry, ppl, I've to work Saturday - I had no ability to work Friday. I'm afk for long time.
* [olli] is away
* roycroft removes channel operator status from [olli]
* roycroft sets ban on *!*olli*@*.pppoe.spdop.ru
* roycroft sets ban on *!*olli*@*
* You have been kicked from #unixhelp by roycroft (my official position is that [olli] left of his own accord)
And my afterwords for the text. You 're OK to disagree, but the text is something to make people think on subject, not to agree.
I've added a 1984 tag also, since Orwell novel 1984 is the limit that any society will reach if people will ban others by their position.
Europe gave us these examples of social relations fear:
a long ago:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
- entire Europe (all countries) was burning people thinking other way.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre
- France well known example of the same fear.
not that long ago, but the similar things:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
- Germany + Italians social fear - the second world war has ended this fear.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Fascism
- Italians sample of the similar social fear.
England had a similar sample https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Brice%27s_Day_massacre
by belief that Danes are guilty just because them are.
Any country has something similar in its history, even the country calling itself civilized one.
All above was made in belief of being the last resort of truth and the right of well educated world to insist on the rules made in it for everyone around.
Well, there 're samples from last 10 years in recent century, there 're samples from begin of the current century when people in 'civil world' force other countries to do something in belief of supporting their ideals in the world around.
We had fear social relations in Russia too, most recent example was Soviet repressions against people by political decision,
though we never had _in_common_ for Russia to burn people as civil Europe had, though as entire world around we had a lot of blood made by interest of part of society.
BTW, we had no fascism - currently we're multiple-national, multicultural, federation and fascism was an enemy of our system in world war two.
And as any state or any company and any people we have interests.
People that claim that their point of view is last resort one just do not understand what is the limit of this situation. The limit is local 1984.
1984 is not something that happening only somewhere far from you.
1984 is the logical continuation of dark side of a humans being.
And any human being has this in its nature. Including you and me.
That's why treating other human being not a human being is a simple deal with the dark side of yourself and either a misunderstanding of the universe nature or a lie, a lie to others and a lie to yourself. When some people have decided to treat someone as an enemy they often start thinking that an enemy is not human being. In reality it's a lie to themselves.
When you're banning other human beings on belief them are not human beings due to their idea cannot be idea of a human being - you just lie yourself.
The human beings are able to think and implement ideas that are not acceptable for other human beings - that is reality.
Idea of human being is not only a human being, but 'a human being accepting some external claims' is idea that could produce a civil world, but this ide also can result in 1984 society, even in civilized Europe or United State.
It is very easy to exclude other human beings from the human being definition as you seen from example chat history above.
As you see in chat log above:
My point is that the law is the claim.
The claim is something to be supported. No claims make the world change.
But claims supported by some human beings are implemented in real world.
As any right declared by law it is claim that is subject to accept by humans being.
And once the majority supports the claim it makes law enforcement system that makes all covered by this claim to be punished on disagree act.
Surely the disagree act should be proven by law suite proceedings.
The words that something is against the international law is subject to law suite proceedings.
Unless the decision is made by UN-supported law system the words "against the law" are just words supported by some of local majorities.
And current situation in the world is that some majorities are OK to insist on their treatment of law by using military forces for countries that have other laws.
In international law, military forces are okay if this is accepted by UN. Any other military actions are potentially subject for 'law suite proceedings',
but in reality UN have not enough resources (money, people, time) to make a final 'de-jure' claim on each military action. This is also a consequence of
the nature of law suite proceedings: they assume complaints and time to get the final decision that finally cannot be complained. And this nature of 'law suite proceedings' if a thing that make human beings (including local majority representatives (usually called governments)) to do risky things - thirst they do something an later their acts are subject to be dealt by UN-accepted international laws.
The law is always made by lobby. Lobby is a majority of some humans being. Some laws declare to "protect rights of all people". Bu in reality we have a lot of countries with a very different laws "protecting human rights". Something that is in law in one is prohibited by law in another one. For example, funny to know, that sexual agreement age in different countries is differs a lot.
The international law is a compromise as any other law. The international law is often a precedent one.
So once US and NATO insisted on divide for ex-Yugoslavia against its law - they made precedent.
And now, sooner or later, due to this, the world have to accept Crimea referendum made by local majority against Ukrainian laws be okay in international laws that accepts region votes that are against country law.