&host=www.rt.com&uri=/news/blogs/juha-molari-blog-finland/finland-flaunts-un-terror/comments/&via=1.1 199.93.58.151:80 (Footprint 4.8/FPMCP)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
Finland flaunts UN in support for Al Qaeda-linked terror
Published: 13 February, 2012, 18:56
Edited: 11 May, 2012, 17:23
The 65th anniversary of the Paris Peace Treaty on February 10 shed light on a disturbing fact. Although the treaty allowed Finland to join the UN, the country is now flaunting a Security Council ban on supporting terror organizations like Al Qaeda. The Security Council’s Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee requires countries to block all resources going to Al Qaeda-linked terrorist Doku...
Comments (16):
Just recently, Estonia has decided that Estonia re-interpreted that men in the outfit of Nazi soldiers were "freedom fighters", because they fought against Soviet Union, just innocently alongside Hitler's Germany. Possibly also death sentence of Ain-Erwin Mere is now canceled and he moves as an accepted ghost in the present government of Estonia. I do not talk any more about this issue now, because Estonia wants to write their own new history for the new political needs. Estonia was implicated in the Paris Peace Agreement: G. Cruz, the foreign minister of Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, was involved in the negotations. What is important to me that PEACE would finally turn to be greater in value than new and new contracts for WAR. The sanctions of UN Security Council are a serious matter. I would like to see in the Baltic States and Scandinavia that our countries would comply with UN demands. I feel very difficult to accept that the Prime Minister of Estonia gave the Estonian state badge to a man whose home is used for the servers of the terrorist web site (against the sanctions of UN Security Council). It is a brazen hypocrisy and double standards in Estonia.
Why do you say Estonia has "re-interpreted" something or another? It has "re-interpreted" absolutely nothing. Estonia has evaluated its history, including from 1940 onward, exactly and absolutely consistently, just like it, and the rest of the world, have always done. Nothing has ever been changed, and nothing will be. Else it would no longer be history, but fairy stories -- those can be changed at will, as "history" in Russia often has been.
Secondly, you assume that fighting in a German uniform is, all by itself a crime. Yet you don't apply the same criteria to those who fought in Stalin's uniform -- why not? Those who committed crimes against humanity in Stalin's uniform were criminals, those who didn't, weren't. Precisely the same in regard to the wearers of German uniforms. There were precious few Estonians amongst the criminals in either set of threads.
Estonia honours those who fought for its freedom regardless of what they wore. Some wore the uniform of the Red Army, some of the German Army, and for all I know, some might have utilised pink pyjamas. All fought against at least one deadly enemy of Estonia, whose aim was to destroy its nationhood forever. Some also fought in British and American uniforms. The reason for this wide range of sartorial elegance is because your Russian friends dismantled Estonia's own army in the first Soviet occupation of 1940, and Estonia's German tormentors did not see fit to restore it in 1941.
Estonia was absolutely not implicated in the 1947 Paris Peace Conference, Juha. Estonia was an occupied country, in the very depths of Stalin's cruel oppression, terror and mass deportations. It had no "foreign minister" apart from in the sick and cynical nether-world of Stalin's fantasy. It did have a quisling, though, who licked Russia's boots at the conference.
You say that peace is important to you. Truth has to be, too, because peace cannot possibly be built on a lie.
As for Ain-Erwin Mere, he was an outstanding military commander who fought against Soviet invaders. This, I know, is a huge crime in your strange morality, but, with the exception of also the KGB, in no one else's. Only the KGB accused him of crimes -- but they would, wouldn't they? Britain, where he lived out the rest of his life after the War, refused to extradite him to Russia, because it found "evidence" that the KGB offered unconvincing.
Secondly, you assume that fighting in a German uniform is, all by itself a crime. Yet you don't apply the same criteria to those who fought in Stalin's uniform -- why not? Those who committed crimes against humanity in Stalin's uniform were criminals, those who didn't, weren't. Precisely the same in regard to the wearers of German uniforms. There were precious few Estonians amongst the criminals in either set of threads.
Estonia honours those who fought for its freedom regardless of what they wore. Some wore the uniform of the Red Army, some of the German Army, and for all I know, some might have utilised pink pyjamas. All fought against at least one deadly enemy of Estonia, whose aim was to destroy its nationhood forever. Some also fought in British and American uniforms. The reason for this wide range of sartorial elegance is because your Russian friends dismantled Estonia's own army in the first Soviet occupation of 1940, and Estonia's German tormentors did not see fit to restore it in 1941.
Estonia was absolutely not implicated in the 1947 Paris Peace Conference, Juha. Estonia was an occupied country, in the very depths of Stalin's cruel oppression, terror and mass deportations. It had no "foreign minister" apart from in the sick and cynical nether-world of Stalin's fantasy. It did have a quisling, though, who licked Russia's boots at the conference.
You say that peace is important to you. Truth has to be, too, because peace cannot possibly be built on a lie.
As for Ain-Erwin Mere, he was an outstanding military commander who fought against Soviet invaders. This, I know, is a huge crime in your strange morality, but, with the exception of also the KGB, in no one else's. Only the KGB accused him of crimes -- but they would, wouldn't they? Britain, where he lived out the rest of his life after the War, refused to extradite him to Russia, because it found "evidence" that the KGB offered unconvincing.
Juha, Paris Agreements are no more valid. They were signed by U.S.S.R. which exists no more
Sorry Aaron, you don't know correctly. During the last year, the Paris Peace Treaty in 1947 was important and essential in the negotiations between Moldova and Romania, when Romania had plan to enter the Schengen area. This was a single case, but it showed that the agreement is still impressive and valid. Contracts can be terminated, but it takes place in a multilateral context. Paris peace treaty is valid law in Finnish legislation. Even an extreme nationalist Finnish Party - so-called "The Finns" - has just a day or two ago decided an initiative, according to which the Paris Peace Treaty should be terminated - thus, they recognize too that the Treaty is still in force. The biggest problem is, however, the current bad attitude or view against peace agreement, although some extreme nationalists want now reject these noble ideals of the agreement.
Juha writes, "The biggest problem is, however, the current bad attitude or view against peace agreement, although some extreme nationalists want now reject these noble ideals of the agreement" (sic).
No.
The biggest problem with the 1947 Paris Agreement is, that it did not acknowledge the Soviet Union as the aggressor of the Winter War of November 1939 - March 1940 (for which aggression it was expelled from the League of Nations), and did not acknowledge the Continuation War of June 1941 - September 1944 as being just that -- the continuation of Russia's war of aggression against Finland.
The result of that war and the hypocritical Paris agreement was that Finland permanently lost 11% of its territory to Russia, and had to pay $300 million to Russia for damages. An arrangement which Stalin, and apparently Juha, too, found excellent.
No.
The biggest problem with the 1947 Paris Agreement is, that it did not acknowledge the Soviet Union as the aggressor of the Winter War of November 1939 - March 1940 (for which aggression it was expelled from the League of Nations), and did not acknowledge the Continuation War of June 1941 - September 1944 as being just that -- the continuation of Russia's war of aggression against Finland.
The result of that war and the hypocritical Paris agreement was that Finland permanently lost 11% of its territory to Russia, and had to pay $300 million to Russia for damages. An arrangement which Stalin, and apparently Juha, too, found excellent.
The Paris Agreement is legal. It is not a question that somebody would like or wouldn't like it nowadays. It is possible to state against Finland, too, that Finland didn't earlier follow Tarto's peace contract, but rather Finnish half-official armies attacked many times against the Soviet Union since 1920. Aggression was repeatedly against the Soviet Union already before the so-called "Winter War" (but the Finnish population should understand that Finland's case was only a part of international war). And more than one million people did, when Hitler and Risto Ryti directed siege of Leningrad, because Finland had dream about "bigger" Finland. The Paris Agreement is a good compromise; sometimes boarders were more in East, some times more in West, and sometimes Finland region was a part of imperial Russia. Modern Finland accepts the existence of terrorist website, and this is against the Paris Peace Treaty and UN Security Council. Both international agreements oblige Finland for better peaceful process.
Sorry: I would like to write that in Leningrad more than a million people were killed ("died") by Adolf Hilter and Finnish president Risto Ryti, but a mistake in my writing (I wrote: "more than one million people did"; should be "- -- died").
May I begin by commenting on a shared a point of frustration with Juha, namely that posting protocols in the RT do not allow any revision of posts once they have been submitted, and as a result simple typing errors or other unintentional errors of expression cannot be edited. As I have made plenty of such errors myself, I can hardly criticise Juha's. It would be nice if, on a far bigger scale, Russia and its Finnish apologist applied similar standards in regard to their serial anti-Estonian eruptions.
As for the Paris Agreement, I have never said that it was not legal, merely that it was hypocritical, with the greatest hypocrisy of all evidenced by Russia, which presumed to condemn and penalise Finland for resisting Russia's own aggression against it. You can't get much more Kafkaesque than that.
Inventing pretexts for Russian aggression after the fact absolves neither Russia's crimes against Finland of 1940-44, nor its self-righteous hypocrisy of 1947. Claiming, as Juha does, that permanently losing 11% of one's national territory plus a $300 million penalty (in 1947 values) for purported "half official armies" adventures sounds treasonous to me.
As for Juha's pre-occupation with the mentioned website, I would welcome comments from a Finnish perspective on this subject, as I do not know enough about it to comment myself. I do know from Juha's article, though, that the only reason he provides for his antipathy to Al Qaeda-linked terror is because Russia has been targetted by it. Why am I not surprised?
As for the Paris Agreement, I have never said that it was not legal, merely that it was hypocritical, with the greatest hypocrisy of all evidenced by Russia, which presumed to condemn and penalise Finland for resisting Russia's own aggression against it. You can't get much more Kafkaesque than that.
Inventing pretexts for Russian aggression after the fact absolves neither Russia's crimes against Finland of 1940-44, nor its self-righteous hypocrisy of 1947. Claiming, as Juha does, that permanently losing 11% of one's national territory plus a $300 million penalty (in 1947 values) for purported "half official armies" adventures sounds treasonous to me.
As for Juha's pre-occupation with the mentioned website, I would welcome comments from a Finnish perspective on this subject, as I do not know enough about it to comment myself. I do know from Juha's article, though, that the only reason he provides for his antipathy to Al Qaeda-linked terror is because Russia has been targetted by it. Why am I not surprised?
If you read history more carefully, you see that words about "half official armies" and their attacks against Soviet Union come from serious historical facts, but unfortunately now own evil actions are forgotten. Marzipan's argumentation is quite foolish: he states that my "only reason" to "antipathy to Al Qaeda-linked terror is because Russia has been targeted by it". For better understanding I would like to know, would Marzipan accept Al Qaeda-linked terrorism - and against Russia? I never wrote about "only reason", but rather I refer to the fact of UN Security Council. It should be enough serious reason also, if attacks are focused against Russia - or is it not so Marzipan? If I understand the thinking of President Ilves and Finnish Government, they are condemning the Al-Qaeda terrorism in general, but allow more or less openly attacks against Russia. Then it is very right to talk about hypocrisy.
I need to correct a misconception that might arise in the readers after Marzipan's writings, because "he" speaks about Finnish-Soviet relationships in his references to Paris Peace Agreement (in 1947). In reality, it is an international agreement. Parties were also e.g. Soviet Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Czechoslovakia, India, New Zealand, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and Union of South Africa.
Juha, I don't recall discounting any "serious historical facts" regarding pre-War Finnish-Soviet disputes, nor are you able to quote anything of the kind from my posts. I simply pointed that any such incidents are not valid pretexts for the Stalin's savaging of Finland, and are completely disproportional justification for Finland losing 11% of its national territory and being penalised to the tune of $300 million for defending itself against Soviet aggression.
Also Juha, please read my posts much more carefully before commenting on them. You misrepresent me when you claim that I state that your only reason to antipathy to Al Qaeda-linked terror is because Russia has been targeted by it. Readers will notice that I actually wrote, "the only reason HE PROVIDES for his antipathy to Al Qaeda-linked terror is because Russia has been targetted by it." And indeed that is the only reason you provided. It is found twice, in paragraphs 4 and 6 of your article. Read it again, and see for yourself.
Also, I kno full well that the Peace Agreement was a multi-national affair. But amongst the participants, the only aggrssor country was the Soviet Union, and the greatest mantle of hypocrisy falls upon it.
Also Juha, please read my posts much more carefully before commenting on them. You misrepresent me when you claim that I state that your only reason to antipathy to Al Qaeda-linked terror is because Russia has been targeted by it. Readers will notice that I actually wrote, "the only reason HE PROVIDES for his antipathy to Al Qaeda-linked terror is because Russia has been targetted by it." And indeed that is the only reason you provided. It is found twice, in paragraphs 4 and 6 of your article. Read it again, and see for yourself.
Also, I kno full well that the Peace Agreement was a multi-national affair. But amongst the participants, the only aggrssor country was the Soviet Union, and the greatest mantle of hypocrisy falls upon it.
To answer Juha's question of "Would Marzipan accept As Qaeda-linked terrorism - and against Russia?": absolutely not. I do not accept any terrorism by anyone against anyone, for any cause or any pretext at any time. Nor, much more importantly, does Estonia.
For example, for years the Estonian Red Cross, financed by contributions by Estonians throughout the country, provided free summer camps in an Estonian resort for the children of Beslan and their carers. All travel, accommodation and food costs were covered. Although Juha has a lot to say about Estonia, he has never mentioned this, probablly because it does not fit his anti-Estonian world view.
Whereas I unequivocably reject and condemn all terror, Juha does not. I have implored him to use his prominence as an RT blogger to condemn Soviet Russia's enormous and protracted terror campaigns against the Baltics, which lasted well into the 1950s, and he has refused to do so. I have implored him to point out that it is time for Russia to reconcile with its small Baltic neighbours (see in "Remembering the Holocaust Should Not Be a Mere Ritual", post of February 4 2012, 10:39). Juha replied (in same blog, post of February 5 2012, 12:27), "I don't share your sentiments, Marzipan6. Of course, I don't write such articles that would provide apology for discrimination, although Marzipan6 would like to see such writings."
Juha twists reconciliation for past Russian crimes into being some kind of justification for alleged present-day discrimination against Russians in the Baltics. Quite to the contrary, if reconciliation happened on a national level between Russia and Estonia, reconciliation between individual people would be greatly enhanced. But precisely this is what Juha rejects, and what he refuses to facilitate. He does so because he faithfully follows Moscow's lead; Moscow judges it to be in its interest to try to stir and maintain instability in the Baltics hoping that this would provide it with opportunity to increase its influence there.
Even what Juha views as discrimination is itself a misrepresentation of reality. The alleged "discrimination" is merely a rejection by the Baltics of Moscow's denial of Soviet occupation, and an insistence that illegal occupation-era settlers gain citizenship by lawful and standard naturalization.
All in all, Juha's position is a very unlovely one.
For example, for years the Estonian Red Cross, financed by contributions by Estonians throughout the country, provided free summer camps in an Estonian resort for the children of Beslan and their carers. All travel, accommodation and food costs were covered. Although Juha has a lot to say about Estonia, he has never mentioned this, probablly because it does not fit his anti-Estonian world view.
Whereas I unequivocably reject and condemn all terror, Juha does not. I have implored him to use his prominence as an RT blogger to condemn Soviet Russia's enormous and protracted terror campaigns against the Baltics, which lasted well into the 1950s, and he has refused to do so. I have implored him to point out that it is time for Russia to reconcile with its small Baltic neighbours (see in "Remembering the Holocaust Should Not Be a Mere Ritual", post of February 4 2012, 10:39). Juha replied (in same blog, post of February 5 2012, 12:27), "I don't share your sentiments, Marzipan6. Of course, I don't write such articles that would provide apology for discrimination, although Marzipan6 would like to see such writings."
Juha twists reconciliation for past Russian crimes into being some kind of justification for alleged present-day discrimination against Russians in the Baltics. Quite to the contrary, if reconciliation happened on a national level between Russia and Estonia, reconciliation between individual people would be greatly enhanced. But precisely this is what Juha rejects, and what he refuses to facilitate. He does so because he faithfully follows Moscow's lead; Moscow judges it to be in its interest to try to stir and maintain instability in the Baltics hoping that this would provide it with opportunity to increase its influence there.
Even what Juha views as discrimination is itself a misrepresentation of reality. The alleged "discrimination" is merely a rejection by the Baltics of Moscow's denial of Soviet occupation, and an insistence that illegal occupation-era settlers gain citizenship by lawful and standard naturalization.
All in all, Juha's position is a very unlovely one.
Marzipan deliberately messed up the concepts about "terrorism", when he describes the situation of Estonian Socialist Republic as equal situation to the victims of the terrorist Doku Umarov and Al-Qaeda, although Estonian Socialist Republic was headed by the Estonian people. I am not a socialist and I don't admire the Socialist Soviet Union, but still I can say that Marzipan's style is dishonest. Then Marzipan states again and again that I would condemn only and only terrorism against Russia, but not other terrorism! Marzipan seems to be quest all the time, however, that the President of Estonia wards honor for an administrator of the terrorists' server. Does Marzipan accept these activities of the Estonian President (the rules of UN Security Council are against such "hero")? I will speak against discrimination, because of my conscience I cannot be silent: just came news that Latvia rejected the language rights of the Russians. This was possible technically because non-citizens cannot influence for their own position. Pretending is dominated by the Scandinavian and Baltic political life: support is given even for the terrorist activities, despite the decisions of UN Security Council. Finland dreams about membership of the Security Council, use 2 million euros for advertising, but at the same time Finland doesn't follow the sanctions of UN Security Council!
Juha, dragging literally several hundred thousand men, women and children out of their beds in the middle of the night, piling them into locked cattle wagons and transporting them into Siberian slavery where a very large percentage of them died from cold, disease, starvation or overwork, and where the lives of all the remainder and their loved ones were scarred forever -- that is NOT terror??
Strangely enough, history calls it the Red Terror. So did Stalin. That's why he ran it -- to terrorize the people of the occupied Baltics into submission.
Please get it out of your head that occupied Estonia "was headed by the Estonian people". It was controlled and ruled absolutely from Russia, and primarily by Russians. In conformity with Soviet Russia's chronic addiction to deception, top people in government departments or important enterprises may have been Estonians (often Russian Estonians brought in from across the border, who could barely speak Estonian). But their supposed Number 2 was invariable a Russian, and real power resided with him. Baltic people couldn't even decide where a public toilet could be located in a park without the matter being referred to Moscow. There is a famous case of precisely this Vilnius, and is typical of Russian occupation rule generally
Juha, I have never seen you condemn Soviet terror against Estonians. I have only seen you duck and weave and prevaricate, as in your current post.
I do not know the details about the presidential honour to the server administrator, of which you write. Given your demonstrated record of dealing with facts, you will forgive me if I do not take what you write about Baltic matters as Gospel. Knowing the values that Estonia strives to live by, I would be very surprised if it honoured any terrorist. But if it did, it would be wrong, and I would condemn it for that.
You speak of your conscience, Juha. A conscience that is based on misinformation is misdirected. And bias that is impervious to facts is something less than honourable.
I will not comment on the Latvian language referendum here, as I have done so elsewhere in RT, under relevant articles.
Strangely enough, history calls it the Red Terror. So did Stalin. That's why he ran it -- to terrorize the people of the occupied Baltics into submission.
Please get it out of your head that occupied Estonia "was headed by the Estonian people". It was controlled and ruled absolutely from Russia, and primarily by Russians. In conformity with Soviet Russia's chronic addiction to deception, top people in government departments or important enterprises may have been Estonians (often Russian Estonians brought in from across the border, who could barely speak Estonian). But their supposed Number 2 was invariable a Russian, and real power resided with him. Baltic people couldn't even decide where a public toilet could be located in a park without the matter being referred to Moscow. There is a famous case of precisely this Vilnius, and is typical of Russian occupation rule generally
Juha, I have never seen you condemn Soviet terror against Estonians. I have only seen you duck and weave and prevaricate, as in your current post.
I do not know the details about the presidential honour to the server administrator, of which you write. Given your demonstrated record of dealing with facts, you will forgive me if I do not take what you write about Baltic matters as Gospel. Knowing the values that Estonia strives to live by, I would be very surprised if it honoured any terrorist. But if it did, it would be wrong, and I would condemn it for that.
You speak of your conscience, Juha. A conscience that is based on misinformation is misdirected. And bias that is impervious to facts is something less than honourable.
I will not comment on the Latvian language referendum here, as I have done so elsewhere in RT, under relevant articles.
You are wrong, Juha. A propaganda move of a Finnish party means nothing for international treaties. Russia can't denounce the Paris Treaty even if it wished to. The Treaty is invalid because a signatory party exists no more.
It is the same with e.g. the Tartu Treaty of 1920 between the Soviet Russia and Estonia. The Soviet Russia exists no more, and the new democratic Russia of Vladimir Putin doesn't recognize it.
POST COMMENT
If terror and abuse of multiple thousands of innocent men, women and children is not Juha's concern, what is? The following quote from his article gives a clue: "Through the Paris Treaty, Finland was accepted back into the international community, gaining 'atonement for the sins' of pre-war fascist spirit. Through the articles of the treaty, each government undertook procedures to prevent the resurgence of fascist and other organisations engaged in hostile propaganda against the Soviet Union...."
Now we've got it! Juha is angry that his native Finland fought against unprovoked invasion by the country of his first preference, the Soviet Union, and calls this "the sin of fascist spirit". He is angry that thereafter the victim of Soviet aggression might actually tell the truth about it, and calls that "a resurgence of hostile fascist propaganda against the Soviet Union." Terrible crimes, those.
He is not at all angry at Soviet Russia's unprovoked invasion of Finland, not at all angry at the killing and destruction which Russians wreaked in Finland, not at all angry that a huge section of his Finnish homeland was torn from Finland and has become a permanent part of Russia. No, all of that is just fine.
But at Al Qaeda-linked terrorism Juha at last becomes a knight in shining armour and decides that he doesn't like terror after all, especially if he can aim a kick at Finland along the way.