From what I have read, journalists in Russia have about the same freedom to investigate and report facts as the MSM in the US. The exception might be that in Russia, journalists who embarrass their government, the Russian Mafia, or Oligarchs often face violent, deadly retribution.
I recently received an email suggesting the article below made interesting reading, without commentary. Hat tip to Jack at LUV News. Well, one thing lead to another and before you know it I've read nearly every article on the page.
As that old saying goes, always consider the source, Pravda Propaganda. Without access to top secret intelligence documents, there is really no way to verify, or dispute the claims in the article. Did Prime Minister Putin authorize these “leaks” to Pravda?
more below
I decided to broaden the topic of this diary to include my personal views on military intervention. Is there ever any moral justification when the US decides to use military force? My father always said, “All wars are fought for economic or religious reasons”. (I'm not sure who he was quoting.) I'm having difficulty wrapping my mind around the idea that attacks in Libya are justified as a “humanitarian mission”.
After the article, I will include thoughts attributed to Albert Einstein. The man's genius includes a profound understanding of philosophy and foreign relations. Your comments on the article, related issues, or topics are appreciated.
http://english.pravda.ru/...
The West has its own good and bad terrorists
13.04.2011 Sergei Balmasov
Iranian Foreign Ministry demanded the European Union should stop supporting the terrorists who conduct subversive activities against the Islamic Republic. Ramin Mehmanparast, an official spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, stated that the EU must stop giving shelter to terrorist organizations such as Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (or MEK).
…..
"Mujahedin-e Khalq Iran (the People's Opposition of Iran) is the most reactionary, active and bellicose groups. The group periodically conducts terrorist acts against the Islamic Republic. As a matter of fact, it is the USA and the EU that use the group for their political purposes to destabilize Iran. The West hopes that the group will become a tool to tame Iran. As for Mujaheddins, they have been cooperating with the West actively for over 20 years already. They used to have their one and only strongman - Saddam Hussein, Iran's sworn enemy. He could use them in his own interests whenever he wanted to.
…........
As for Mujaheddins, they are not just a group of gunmen. In addition to the National Liberation Army of Iran, there are also political structures responsible for the ties with the West. The political wing of the organization is headquartered in Paris. The shadow parliament is also located in the French capital. The parliament consists of 570 members representing various Iranian parties and factions including members of the Communist Party of Iran, the People's Party (Tudeh), Fedayeen-e-Khalk and Howeyyat. MEK is also represented in the USA, Germany, Italy and Canada.
The leaders of the organization are Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, who live between Washington, Paris and Baghdad. They have over 4,500 gunmen under control, most of them are situated in Iraq.
Did anyone else notice that the author did not mention any "terrorist" organizations operating on the behalf of Russian or Chinese interests? My only other comment, the US should consider the dangers of the following old axiom, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". When you provide weapons to any group, there is no guarantee that they will remain loyal to US interests.
The author of this article, and journalists around the world should spend more time writing about ways to resolve conflict, not create, or glorify violence. To that end, I submit the following quotes attributed to Albert Einstein.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/...
Is there any way out of this impasse created by man himself? All of us, and particularly those who are responsible for the attitude of the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R., should realise that we may have vanquished an external enemy, but have been incapable of getting rid of the mentality created by the war. It is impossible to achieve peace as long as every single action is taken with a possible future conflict in view. The leading point of view of all political action should therefore be: what can we do to bring about a peaceful coexistence and even loyal cooperation of the nations? The first problem is to do away with mutual fear and distrust. Solemn renunciation of violence (not only with respect to means of mass destruction) is undoubtedly necessary. Such renunciation, however, can be effective only if at the same time a supranational judicial and executive body is set up empowered to decide questions of immediate concern to the security of the nations. Even a declaration of the nations to collaborate loyally in the realisation of such a restricted world government would considerably reduce the imminent danger of war.
This sounds great in theory, what are the obstacles to achieving the goal stated above?
.the greatest obstacle to international order is that monstrously exaggerated spirit of nationalism which also goes by the fair-sounding but misused name of patriotism. During the last century and a half this idol has acquired an uncanny and exceedingly pernicious power everywhere. (Albert Einstein, 1931)
The armament industry is indeed one of the greatest dangers that beset mankind. It is the hidden evil power behind the nationalism which is rampant everywhere ... (Albert Einstein, 1934)
Anybody who really wants to abolish war must resolutely declare himself in favour of his own country's resigning a portion of its sovereignty in favour of international institutions: he must be ready to make his own country amenable, in case of a dispute, to the award of an international court. He must, in the most uncompromising fashion, support disarmament all round, as is actually envisaged in the unfortunate Treaty of Versailles; unless military and aggressively patriotic education is abolished, we can hope for no progress. (Albert Einstein, published 1934)
We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. And those who have an interest in keeping the machinery of war going are a very powerful body; they will stop at nothing to make public opinion subservient to their murderous ends. (Albert Einstein, 1934)
Around the world people are being divided based on economic class, or religious affiliation. We can not begin to enjoy the benefits of shared values, economic prosperity and peace until society, as a whole excepts the need for democratic, secular government. We must also admit that capitalism, in its present form, has become a vehicle to separate populations into a few masters with many slaves.
It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption. I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis in our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil. (Albert Einstein, 1949)
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
That's all I have. Thank you for listening.