‘Green’ protests in India backed by U.S.-funded NGO’s

Comments

1. Charles Liu says

   April 17, 2012 at 12:34 pm

   The so called “non-violent warfare” has been part of US government’s foreign policy for quite some time, towards China, Eastern Europe, Middle East, elsewhere:

   https://www.google.com/search?q=Sharp+Helvey+Einstein+Institute+non-violent+warfare+Falun+Gong+Hong+Kong

   But under the guise of “free expression”, “self-empowerment”, “democracy”, is the goal of escalating violence to destabilize functioning society, disrupt law and order, weaken established sovereignty – anything but non-violent.

   The NED sponsored green protest in India that resulted in death, injury, looting and vandalism says it all:

   http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/south-asia/20-injured-in-protests-over-india-nuclear-power-plant

   Surely, the retort and narrative would be faulting the police for shooting peaceful protester – pray tell, do police world over not have the right to use deadly force? Where’s the evidence the killing was investigated and proven under Indian law to be unjustified?

   It is very easy to spot the pattern of escalating violence in all these supposed “non-violent action”.

2. pug_ster says

   April 24, 2012 at 4:49 pm

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUmSaueB2b8

   Western Funded NGO’s don’t really care countries that they are ‘aiding’ in. Most Americans thinks that it is a waste of eoney, Foreign countries don’t like them operating in their countries.

3. zack says

   April 27, 2012 at 6:42 pm

   and still India is prepared to serve her white masters by aiming missiles at China, and endorsing seperatists in China, even as the West sabotages India’s own development so as to re-affirm its own ‘place’.

   see, non anglo races are meant to serve as vassals and satraps to the dominance of the anglo race. Think i’m kidding? i ifind it hard to believe that western foreign policy is guided by anything but racism and ethnocentrism.

4. raventhorn says

   April 29, 2012 at 3:16 pm

   Interesting, India takes away “license” from US based NGO’s?

   Why not just say “banned”?

5. zack says

   April 29, 2012 at 4:33 pm

   @raventhorn
   because india, as much as it falls short of being white enough for the ‘West’, can still fulfil the most important objective of sacrificing its own future to prevent the rise of the Chinese. The life of the white man and his wealth are worth infinitely more than that of the Asian; let the comprador indians and asians beggar his own kin and bleed his own blood in preventing the realisation of a more egalitarian world.

6. aeiou says

   April 29, 2012 at 11:01 pm

   Internationalization of the world – Cristovam Buarque

   Brazilian Senator Cristovam Buarque gave a lecture at New York University in 2000, after the lecture he was questioned about the internalization of the Amazon region. And, this is his answer:

   “During a recent discussion, in the United States, someone asked my opinion regarding the internationalization of the Amazon Region. The youngster asserted that he expected a response of a humanist and not of a Brazilian.

   This was the first time anyone had established the humanist viewpoint as the starting point for my response. In fact, as a Brazilian I would have responded simply against internationalization of the Amazon Region. Even if our governments have not given the attention that this treasure deserves, it is ours. I responded that, as a humanist, realizing the risk of environmental destruction that threatens the Amazon Region, I could imagine its internationalization, just as for everything else that is important to humanity.

   If the Amazon Region, from a humanist?s point of view, has to be internationalized, then we should internationalize the oil reserves of the entire the world as well. Oil is just as important to the well being of humanity as the Amazon Region for our future. Nevertheless, the owners of oil reserves feel it is in their right to increase or decrease oil production and to raise or lower the price. The rich of the world, feel they have the right to burn this valuable possession of humanity. Similarly, the financial capital of the wealthy nations should be internationalized. If the Amazon Region is a natural reserve for every human being, then it could not be burned down by the decision of a landowner or a country. To burn down the Amazon Region is so tragic, as the unemployment provoked by the arbitrary decisions of world wide speculators. We cannot permit that the world?s financial reserves serve to burn down entire nations according to the whims of speculacion.

   Before the (internationalization of the) Amazon Region, I would like to see the internationalization of all the world?s great museums. The Lourve cannot belong only to France. Each museum in the world is a guardian for the most beautiful works produced by the human genius. It cannot be permitted that these cultural possessions, as the natural posession of the Amazon Region, can be manipulated or be destroyed according to the whims of an owner or a country. Recently, a Japanese millionaire decided to have a painting of a grand master burried with him in the grave. This painting should have been internationalized.

   At the time of the meeting, in which this question came up, the United Nations convened the Forum of the Millennium and the presidents of several countries had difficulties in attending due to barriers (they faced) at the border. Therefore, I contend that New York, as the base of the United Nations, should be internationalized. At least Manhattan should belong to all of humanity. Similarly Paris, Venice, Rome, London, Rio de Janeiro, Brazilia, Recife, every city with its own beauty, its own history should belong to the whole world.

   If the United States wants to internationalize the Amazon Region, due to the risk of leaving it in Brazilian hands, then we should internationalize all the nuclear stockpiles of the United States. Particularly since they have already shown that they are capable of using these weapons, causing a destruction thousands of times greater than the sad fires taken place in the Brazilian forests.

   During their debates, the current U.S. presidential candidates have defended the idea of internationalizing the world forest reserves in exchange for the debt. We could begin to use this debt to guarantee the right of every child in the world to attend school. We could internationalize the children treating all of them, regardless of their birthplace, as a posession which deserves the care and attention of the entire world. Even more so than the Amazon Region. When the world leaders attend to the world?s poor children as possessions of Humanity, they will no longer permit that these children work when they should be studying, that they die when they should be living.

   As a humanist I accept to defend the internationalization of the world. So long as the world treats me as a Brazilian, I will fight so that our Amazon Region will be ours. Only ours.”

   Text by Cristovam Buarque (Professor of Brasilia University, ex-governor of Brasilia, D.F. and Brazilian Senator). As reported in the Brazilian Daily O Globo on the 23rd of October, 2000.

7. YinYang says

   April 30, 2012 at 12:04 pm

   @aeiou
   Thanks for sharing that. Beautifully articulated. Goes to show how thick the hypocrisy can be instilled into a young’s mind, and for someone like Buarque who’s seen so much of it, only a retort like what he’s written would do.