EU trying to help Belarusian people.

[Opo]

28 minutes ago, Milos Uzelac said:

Yes in a perfect linear progression contradiction free and injustice free world where everyone gets the same outcome from an event.

But the real world of relationships between humans in different countries, societies and cultures doesn't work that way, it is full of perceived commited mutual injustices and ills where one group, country, culture is treated better and fairer than the other, which makes linear progression growth path where everyone gets on board with it literally impossible.

These contradictions and injustices from technological and cultural progression stem exactly from the way they are generated by favoring one part of a world over another or using and exploiting one part of the world for a benefit another, essentially making, equal treatment and progression where everyone can get on board impossible, without backclashes, conflicts and internal contradictions within the way progression in the world is manifested. 

Globalization and globalism in today's form and written and spoken usage (related to a contemporary globalised form of capitalism as our dominant way of production and consumption that makes our survival in contemporary complex and interconnected societial systems possible) is another ideological worldview point, of the ruling classes in the countries that espouse it, that is prescribing their norms of what progression of the world ought be like and look like and that suits their own interests in having the meaning of the word progression entail that narrow meaning and viewpoint that coincides with their perspective on the world and how and in which way it should go and develop. 

In short it rids the word progression of it's internal contradictions and conflicts that go into its full meaning. 

Thanks for the answer. 

[Milos Uzelac]

1 hour ago, Opo said:

Thanks for the answer. 

I hope this isn't ironic an response based on some preconceived notion  about what my answer about my opinion will be about EU's aims, plans and goals of penalising or sanctioning (dunno haven't researched about their exact measure) the Polish governments recent Anti-LGBTQ moves and legislations, since I wrote this way about my interpretation and criticism of the contemporary discussion regarding globalisation and progression. I am just too tired to  research and write about your posed question to me rn. Sorry my man ?

Edited August 23, 2020 by Milos Uzelac

[Opo]

@Milos Uzelac it's ok no worries i pretty much get where are you coming from. I don't care that much about the specifics no need to research it. 

[Yog]

Hm, I've been observing this. I am not that familiar with the political situation there. I would be glad if someone from there, someone that can think independently were to elaborate on this.

But I cant help but allow these thoughts to come into mind:

-Belorussia is a wall between the EU and Russia.
-It is pro Russian, economically and politically.
-Has the gas line ruining trough it.
-Would be very beneficial for the EU if it got hold of it.
-Russia will plainly not allow EU tentacles that close.
-Is Lukashenko really a unwanted dictator, or is he painted to be one. (I've just seen this too many times, cant help but ask myself the question)
-Is a part of the protestor group sponsored to warp the protest dynamics in order to overthrow the "dictator" (Seen this too many times too).
-Never seen western media to properly elaborate on eastern, south-eastern European issues.

[Opo]

10 minutes ago, Yog said:

-Is Lukashenko really a unwanted dictator, or is he painted to be one. (I've just seen this too many times, cant help but ask myself the question)

I remember Leo saying something like this and idn if it fits because i don't understand Belarus but it feels like it does. 

When people live in an unsafe and chaotic environment they will sacrifice freedom for safety. So they elect Lukashenko and he does a good job and gives them safety.

But now after a while they got used to the safety and they aren't afraid anymore so now they want freedom. 

Lukashenko is probably still in the same mentality as when he became the leader and he thinks that if he gives them freedom they will lose safety and the country will return to what it was. 

 

21 minutes ago, Yog said:

-Is a part of the protestor group sponsored to warp the protest dynamics in order to overthrow the "dictator" (Seen this too many times too).

I have never seen that could you give me a few examples? 

[Epikur]

3 minutes ago, Opo said:

I remember Leo saying something like this and idn if it fits because i don't understand Belarus but it feels like it does. 

When people live in an unsafe and chaotic environment they will sacrifice freedom for safety. So they elect Lukashenko and he does a good job and gives them safety.

But now after a while they got used to the safety and they aren't afraid anymore so now they want freedom. 

Lukashenko is probably still in the same mentality as when he became the leader and he thinks that if he gives them freedom they will lose safety and the country will return to what it was. 

 

I have never seen that could you give me a few examples? 

You didn't see it?

What about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

[Opo]

9 minutes ago, Epikur said:

You didn't see it?

What about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

I read the main part and it talked about cash infusions but it didn't say to whom. 

If you are taking about effecting foreign governments i know about that. 

I wanted to specifically see where someone sponsored the protestors to overthrow the government. 

[Epikur]

@Opo

That someone is the USA (CIA). Is that not enough?

 

6.22000s

6.2.12000: Yugoslavia

6.2.22002: Venezuela

6.2.32003–2011: Iraq

6.2.42006–2007: Palestinian territories

6.2.52006–present: Syria

6.2.62007: Iran

6.2.72009: Honduras

6.32010s

6.3.12011: Libya

6.3.22015–present: Yemen

6.3.32019–present: Venezuela

 

[Opo]

@Epikur source pls. 

[Yog]

9 minutes ago, Opo said:

I remember Leo saying something like this and idn if it fits because i don't understand Belarus but it feels like it does. 

When people live in an unsafe and chaotic environment they will sacrifice freedom for safety. So they elect Lukashenko and he does a good job and gives them safety.

But now after a while they got used to the safety and they aren't afraid anymore so now they want freedom. 

Lukashenko is probably still in the same mentality as when he became the leader and he thinks that if he gives them freedom they will lose safety and the country will return to what it was. 

 

I have never seen that could you give me a few examples? 

I was actually thinking the very same thing. I'll add few more things too.

We had a similar situation here, most people used to vote for the same government for at least 10 years. It wasn't amazing, there were many flaws, but the country was growing big time economically and infra structurally, all of it in the midst of the 2008 economic crisis, it was a conservative demo-christian party. It wasn't really a dictatorship, this government fixed so many things such as crime, roads, sanitation ect, that in a way it had insured its trust in the people. The social democrat opposition had no political program, it just ranted about the flaws and organized protests, promoted rage, hoping to get reactive votes, they did this for 10 years. Ofc this did not work, they lost every time.

So what they did was, out of nowhere started organizing protests against the "dictatorship", rebranded themselves design wise, changed their logo, slogans and the color palette, did huge marketing that they couldn't do before because they were broke, they did the colorful revolution, stop oppression vs lgbt campaigns, stop police brutality, Otpor, fueled by out of context videos and posts, printed pre made slogans and graffiti, color buckets to throw over traditional statues and institutions and many more similar gimmicks.

The thing that was funny was that the government wasn't oppressing lgbt, it had its demo-christian flaws, like no gay-marriage lets say, but that is all there was,  there was no police brutality, no beating gays, it was all a template, majority of the population knew what was going on and was extremely weirded out. It was paradoxically weird to see of how the police just stood with shields, almost never hit anyone, no gas, while taking damage from protestors throwing stuff at them in the protest against police brutality.

I even got an insider info when it all ended, that this was sponsored from various organizations in order to overthrow the government, few people actually knew the real info and were paid to manipulate the dynamics of the protests, they liked the money, so they did it, that was their reason.

All this that I said was based on the many opinions that I have heard, some insider info and my common sense while observing political manipulative situations. I used to have a list, but not any more.
 

Basically stuff like this, just found a video, watched few mins, will watch it to the end to see if there is any legitimacy:
 

 

[Epikur]

@Opo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change


 

Contents

1Pre-1887 interventions1.11800s

1.1.11805: Tripolitania

1.1.21846-1848 Annexation of Texas and invasion of California

1.21860s

1.2.11865–1867: Mexico

21887–1912: U.S. Empire, Expansionism, and the Roosevelt Administration2.11880s

2.1.11887–1889: Samoa

2.21890s

2.2.11893: Kingdom of Hawaii

2.31900s

2.3.11903: Panama

2.3.21903–1925: Honduras

2.3.31906–1909: Cuba

2.3.41909–1910: Nicaragua

31912–1941: The Wilson administration, World War I, and the interwar period3.11910s

3.1.11912–1933: Nicaragua

3.1.21913-1919: Mexico

3.1.31915–1934: Haiti

3.1.41916–1924: Dominican Republic

3.1.51917–1919: Germany

3.1.61917–1920: Austria-Hungary

3.1.71918–1920: Russia

41941–1945: World War II and the aftermath4.11940s

4.1.11941: Panama

4.1.21941–1952: Japan

4.1.31941–1949: Germany

4.1.41941–1946: Italy

4.1.51944–1946: France

4.1.61944–1945: Belgium

4.1.71944–1945: Netherlands

4.1.81944–1945: Philippines

4.1.91945–1955: Austria

51945–1991: The Cold War5.11940s

5.1.11945–1948: South Korea

5.1.21945–1949: China

5.1.31947–1949: Greece

5.1.41948: Costa Rica

5.1.51949–1953: Albania

5.1.61949: Syria

5.21950s

5.2.11950-1953: Korea

5.2.21952: Egypt

5.2.31952-1953: Iran

5.2.41953-1958: Cuba

5.2.51953: Philippines

5.2.61954: Guatemala

5.2.71956–1957: Syria

5.2.81957–1959: Indonesia

5.2.91958: Lebanon

5.2.101959-1963: South Vietnam

5.2.111959: Iraq

5.2.121959-2000: Cuba

5.31960s

5.3.11960–1965: Congo-Leopoldville

5.3.21960: Laos

5.3.31961: Dominican Republic

5.3.41961–1975: Laos

5.3.51961–1964: Brazil

5.3.61963: Iraq

5.3.71964: Chile

5.3.81964-1975: Vietnam

5.3.91965–1966: Dominican Republic

5.3.101965–1967: Indonesia

5.3.111967–1975: Cambodia

5.41970s

5.4.11970–1973: Chile

5.4.21971: Bolivia

5.4.31972–1975: Iraq

5.4.41974-1991: Ethiopia

5.4.51975-1991: Angola

5.4.61977: Zaire

5.4.71978: Zaire

5.4.81979–1993: Cambodia

5.4.91979–1989: Afghanistan

5.51980s

5.5.11980–1989: Poland

5.5.21980–1992: El Salvador

5.5.31981–1982: Chad

5.5.41981–1990: Nicaragua

5.5.51983: Grenada

5.5.61989-1994: Panama

61991–present: Post-Cold War6.11990s

6.1.11991: Iraq

6.1.21991: Haiti

6.1.31992–1996: Iraq

6.1.41994–1995: Haiti

6.1.51996–1997: Zaire

6.1.61997–1998: Indonesia

6.22000s

6.2.12000: Yugoslavia

6.2.22002: Venezuela

6.2.32003–2011: Iraq

6.2.42006–2007: Palestinian territories

6.2.52006–present: Syria

6.2.62007: Iran

6.2.72009: Honduras

6.32010s

6.3.12011: Libya

6.3.22015–present: Yemen

6.3.32019–present: Venezuela

 

Edited August 25, 2020 by Epikur

[Opo]

40 minutes ago, Yog said:

The thing that was funny was that the government wasn't oppressing lgbt, it had its demo-christian flaws, like no gay-marriage lets say, but that is all there was,  there was no police brutality, no beating gays, it was all a template, majority of the population knew what was going on and was extremely weirded out. It was paradoxically weird to see of how the police just stood with shields, almost never hit anyone, no gas, while taking damage from protestors throwing stuff at them in the protest against police brutality.

I remember seeing few months ago when the protests were going on 3 guys sitting on a bench and talking then the police walk up to them and just start beating them. Then they get bored and walk away and the guys just stand up dust themselves off and sit back down and continue talking. 

It was posted here. 

And there was so much homophobic slurs used by the protestors it was kinda shocking. 

Do you think something changed and they became more violent or there weren't so many cameras then so people didn't know?

Id consider not allowing marriage to be an oppression. I guess different times no one cared about it back then. 

Great video btw. It was funny to see someone under dictatorship say they are free.

[Epikur]

It's a dilemma

Like this one. What would you do?
 

 

 

[Opo]

18 minutes ago, Epikur said:

It's a dilemma

Like this one. What would you do?
 

 

 

Stay private they can't force heroes to do anything. 

Let them deal with the small stuff on their own. Iron man can hack them and get information about big treats. Deal with that and then release the information into the public on why you did it so it's harder for them to smear you. 

[Epikur]

@Opo

He will be jailed. Maybe he should become a benevolent dictator.

[Opo]

11 minutes ago, Epikur said:

@Opo

He will be jailed. Maybe he should become a benevolent dictator.

If he submits? Or can they forcefully jail him? 

[Epikur]

7 minutes ago, Opo said:

If he submits? Or can they forcefully jail him? 

I meant if he retires officially but still stays active then he will be jailed.

[Opo]

25 minutes ago, Epikur said:

I meant if he retires officially but still stays active then he will be jailed.

Yea but can they jail him if he resist?

If they don't have monopoly of force they don't have authority over him. 

[Epikur]

7 hours ago, Opo said:

Yea but can they jail him if he resist?

If they don't have monopoly of force they don't have authority over him. 

Yes they do have the monopoly of force. All countries decided that together. He is not allowed to use force without their order.

[Opo]

2 hours ago, Epikur said:

Yes they do have the monopoly of force. 

What can they do?