Confused, Can Anyone Help Me?
By Neil Clark
April 16, 2014 "ICH"
I'm confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the
West that people occupying government buildings in
Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we were
told by our political leaders and elite media
commentators, were 'pro-democracy protestors'.
government warned the Ukrainian authorities against
using force against these 'pro-democracy
protestors' even if, according to the pictures
we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were
throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the
police and smashing up statues and setting fire to
Now, just a
few weeks later, we're told that people occupying
government buildings in Ukraine are not
'pro-democracy protestors' but 'terrorists'
Why was the
occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very
good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in
April? Why was the use of force by the authorities
against protestors completely unacceptable in
January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I'm confused.
Can anyone help me?
anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the
winter received visits from several prominent
Western politicians, including US Senator John
McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State
Department, who handed out cookies. But there have
been very large anti-government protests in many
Western European countries in recent weeks, which
have received no such support, either from such
figures or from elite Western media commentators.
Nor have protestors received free cookies from
officials at the US State Department.
they were so keen on anti-government street protests
in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of
'democracy', McCain and Nuland would also
be showing solidarity with street protestors in
Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I'm confused. Can
anyone help me?
A few weeks
ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of
State John Kerry who
said, “You just don't invade another country
on phony pretexts in order to assert your
interests.” But I seem to recall the US doing
just that on more than one occasion in the past 20
years or so.
misremembered the 'Iraq has WMDs claim'?
Was I dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when
politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every day
to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq
because of the threat posed by Saddam's deadly
arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote in Crimea
on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the
brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion
which has led to the deaths of up to 1 million
people? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
also told by very serious-looking Western
politicians and media 'experts' that the
Crimea referendum wasn't valid because it was held
under “military occupation.” But I've just
been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan,
held under military occupation, which have been
hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO
chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a “historic
moment for Afghanistan” and a great success for
“democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote
dismissed, but the Afghanistan vote celebrated? I'm
confused. Can anyone help me?
is rather baffling. We were and are told that
radical Islamic terror groups pose the greatest
threat to our peace, security and our 'way of
life' in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such
groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have
a relentless 'War on Terror' against them.
Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such
radical groups in their war against a secular
government which respects the rights of religious
minorities, including Christians.
bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in
Syria and innocent people are killed there is no
condemnation from our leaders: their only
condemnation has been of the secular Syrian
government which is fighting radical Islamists and
which our leaders and elite media commentators are
desperate to have toppled. I'm confused. Can anyone
there's gay rights. We are told that Russia is a
very bad and backward country because it has passed
a law against promoting homosexuality to minors. Yet
our leaders who boycotted the Winter Olympics in
Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where
homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and
warmly embrace the rulers there, making no mention
of the issue of gay rights.
imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse
than a law which forbids promotion of homosexuality
to minors? Why, if they are genuinely concerned
about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and
not countries that imprison or execute gay people?
I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
We are told
in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian
ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that
its rise is a cause of great concern, even though it
is not even in the government, or likely to be. But
neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do hold positions
in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders
in the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis
and the far-right played a key role in the overthrow
of Ukraine's democratically elected government in
February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the
West. Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right
groups unacceptable in Hungary but very acceptable
in Ukraine? I'm confused. Can anyone help me?
We are told
that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and
that NATO's concerns are about opposing the Russian
‘threat’. But I looked at the map the other
day and while I could see lots of countries close to
(and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO,
the US-led military alliance whose members have
bombed and attacked many countries in the last 15
years, I could not see any countries close to
America that were part of a Russian-military
alliance, or any Russian military bases or missiles
situated in foreign countries bordering or close to
the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the
‘aggressive one’. I'm confused. Can anyone help
is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award
winning blog can be found at