Forum

L’Eglise - et c’est justement le problème des USA protestants qui ne La reconnaissent pas - a toujours condamné les visions millénaristes. Déjçà un teste de saint Paul invite -sans parler des paroles mêmes du Christ - à  NE PAS CROIRE ceux qui annoncent la fin du monde. il n’y a dans ce monde plus qu’une ligne de fracture importante : Catholiques-Protestants. Et les protestants sont prêts à instrumentaliser la planète entière dans leur folie pour ne pas avoir à reconnapire leurs erreurs. Y compris en falsifiant la parole du Christ. L’Eglise seule est habilitée à discerner les signes des temps. Et ses faiblesses même dans les temps troublés, ne permettent pas de lui contester le Magistère.

Si je partage votre opinion sur l’analyse de la crise coréenne, la politique américaine et l’hypocrisie de la société occidentale, je suis en désaccord sur votre vision stratégique : le futur sera d’abord la continuation de la politique globale menée durant ces quinze précédentes années, caractérisée par une escalade continue, et ensuite son épilogue. Parce que ni la Corée ni l’Iran ni l’Europe n’ont le moindre poids, les événements à venir pour les prochains mois ne dépendront que des Etats-Unis, en position hégémonique.

La Corée n’a jamais menacé les Etats-Unis. Ainsi quelle est l’utilité de missiles anti-missiles spécifiquement déployés contre une menace nord-coréenne qui n’existe pas encore, et alors qu’on a de plus décidé de mener des frappes préventives ? La réponse à une telle question conduit à la conclusion évidente que les déterminismes de la politique de Washington sont ailleurs – intérêts du complexe militaro-industriel, création de tensions justifiant l’imposition de protectorats américains, etc. La réponse américaine à l’essai nucléaire nord-coréen doit donc être analysée dans le seul cadre d’une stratégie américaine globale, et non en fonction de la situation en Corée. Or, compte tenu de l’intransigeance de Washington vis-à-vis de Pyongyang, la provocation coréenne devient une atteinte insupportable à son prestige minant la crédibilité de sa diplomatie face à l’Iran. Les Américains se sont mis dans une position où ils ne peuvent reculer. Si ce n’était pas la une raison suffisante pour une action militaire et en dépit de l’absence de sa nécessité (il n’y a pas de menace réelle pour les Etats-Unis), le fait que l’étape suivante soit l’installation de têtes nucléaires sur des missiles Nodong (créant ainsi une dissuasion crédible) signifie que c’est maintenant ou jamais.

Quelle serait la riposte de la Corée du Nord en cas de frappes américaines ? Elles ne seraient certes pas nulles pour les populations de la région, mais elles seraient quand même assez faibles, car, une fois de plus, on a grossi la menace – hormis une centaine de missiles sol-sol, les Coréens seraient impuissants. Par ailleurs, en cas de désaccords avec les Etats-Unis, comme ni la Chine ni la Corée du Sud n’ont de moyens de rétorsion, la crise ne s’étendra pas. En conclusion, avec les habituels habillages, tout comme l’invasion de l’Irak, pour quelques semaines ce sera un triomphe de plus pour G.W. Bush.  Le fait est que la force paye quand on est à cent contre un - dénoncer le virtualisme c’est tenir compte de cette réalité.

Le problème est que l’odeur du sang excite les fauves. Or, un succès en Corée pourrait conduire les Etats-Unis à réitérer l’action contre l’Iran, alors que le rapport de force géopolitique est complètement différent. Premièrement, l’Iran peut riposter sans en venir à l’action militaire ni même à l’arme du pétrole : les mollahs peuvent soulever les populations en Irak ; en dépit de rivalités religieuses, Téhéran peut décider de soutenir des guérillas ou des mouvements d’opposition en Afghanistan, dans le Caucase et en Asie Centrale. Deuxièmement, une agression contre l’Iran perçue comme une attaque contre un pays musulman aurait des répercussions imprévisibles et impossibles à maîtriser sur les opinions publiques de nombreux pays instables.

Les Etats-Unis ne seront plus alors les seuls à jouer tous les coups sur l’échiquier, comme c’est le cas depuis le 11/09. Ne serait-ce que pour le pétrole, Russes et Chinois seront aussi de la partie. Ce jour là, trop tard, le monde se rendra compte que “The dark side of Forrest Gump” est allé un peu trop loin.

Excellente analyse:un vrai régal.

USA: North Korea detonated regular explosives instead of nuclear bomb

US intelligence specialists cast doubt on reality of the nuclear test held yesterday by North Korea. Unnamed sources told in an interview to Washington Times (USA) that, according to data obtained by seismologists, it could be regular explosives to cause plutonium chain reaction. According to them, indexes of the blast power capacity were not enough for nuclear detonation. According to a source close to US intelligence, RSN report, “the underground explosion presented by Pyongyang as their first nuclear test could be an explosion of several hundreds tons of TNT, which is far from several thousands tons of TNT like in a nuclear test.”

http://www.regnum.ru/english/719141.html

Oct 10 2006 11:58AM

North Korean nuclear test announcement is no bluff - expert

MOSCOW. Oct 10 (Interfax-AVN) - The nuclear test in North Korea is no bluff but an accomplished fact, said Maj. Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, former head of a Russian Defense Ministry research center.

“Defense Ministry technical means registered the nuclear explosion and a mistake here is impossible. A nuclear explosion can be accurately distinguished from a conventional explosion, say the explosion of one hundred tonnes of conventional explosives,” he told Interfax-AVN on Tuesday.

“The parameters of explosions of nuclear and conventional installations differ in the shock wave, in duration, in the reverse front, so it’s difficult to make a mistake,” Dvorkin said.

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/28.html?id_issue=11601999

La grande erreur de Chan Akya, c’est de croire que les stratèges occidentaux ont peur des pertes civiles; sans doute parle-t-il des pertes
civiles dans le camp ami. Mais la folie anglo-saxonne et israélienne comprend l’intériorisation
et la prise en compte de gigantesques massacres;
pour ceux qui ont vu les villes rasées de l’Allemagne année zéro (1945-46), il n’y a pas l’ombre d’un doute. Que les références à la bible et plus particulièrement à l’Apocalypse fassent ressortir l’irrationalité haineuse des religions monothéistes, c’est un fait qu’il faut prendre très au sérieux, selon moi. On ne peut s’en débarrasser facilement car ce sont les pays les plus marqués par ces croyances qui détiennent les bombes “mégatonniques”. (Peut-être y a-t-il plus de liens qu’on ne croit, entre de telles inventions, les armes atomiques et thermo-nucléaires et les grands mythes judéo-chrétiens travaillant encore les structures imaginaires des pays occidentaux).

C’est excellent. Je retiendrai un élément qui me tient à coeur et que vous faites ressortir. Le “nihilisme européen” dont l’empire USA n’est que l’un des avatars se caractérise par le chaos auquel nous assistons au niveau mondiale mais aussi par l’utilisation incessante des discours éthiques, le monopole de la bonne conscience. C’est vraiment l’un des aspects les plus répugnants.
J’ai envie de reprendre ici le titre d’un ouvrage que j’ai écrit il y a 6 ans et qui fut refusé avec horreur:
Le blanchiment du crime en permet la répétition
dont le sous-titre était:
L’arme éthique dans les nouvelles guerres occidentales
Encore bravo pour cet article

L’auteur de cet article se sert de la Révolution de 56 pour écrire un pamphlet anti-américain ... quel manque de respect pour toute ces personnes qui ont souffert dans le plus profond de leurs entrailles à cause du communisme !

Rappelons que si le peuple s’est levé contre le pouvoir s’est parce que celui-ci ne reignait que par la terreur. Mort, exécutions, privations voilà ce qu’était ce pays durant le règne du communisme !

De plus, comment peut-on accuser un héro national tel que Imre Nagy qui par ses réformes ramena un peu d’espoir auprès du peuple. Il a eu le courage de prendre ses responsabilités et de reconnaître la Révolution. Il fut pendu en 1958, mais réhabilité en 1989 et reçut des funérailles nationales.

Bien sûr cette révolution fut marqué par un échec qui coûta la vie à de nombreuses personnes, nombreux furent ceux qui fuirent l’avancée des chars soviétiques et se refugièrent à l’étranger. Les espoirs de voir l’Europe de l’ouest et les USA venir secourir la petite Hongrie restèrent vain. Mais ne vous servez-vous pas de cette partie de l’Histoire pour écrire vos “leçons” erronées !!!

SPEECH/06/559

Mr Olli Rehn

Member of the European Commission, responsible for Enlargement

Turkey’s best response is a rock-solid commitment to reforms

International Symposium on “European Social Model and Trade Union Rights within the EU negotiations”
Ankara, 3 October 2006

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Friends,
Gunaydin! (good morning)

Let me start by warmly thanking the organisers of this symposium. This is a prime example of the kind of initiatives that are needed to enable the civil societies of Turkey and the EU to get to know each other better.

The role of social partners is central in any modern society. Social dialogue has been a cornerstone of the European project since its very beginning. For Turkey it is also important since one of the premises for a successful accession is a broad societal consensus on European goals. The same goes for meeting the challenges of globalisation. Needless to say, trade unions play a particularly valuable role in this respect.

I am glad to be today in Ankara for the first anniversary of the EU’s accession negotiations with Turkey. The 3rd of October 2005 was a historic day. The decision opened up the process towards Turkey’s accession to the EU and it implied a qualitative change in our relations, as your country has since then no longer been a candidate but a negotiating country.

The challenge today is to make the utmost out of this process. It will call for adaptations and sometimes difficult decisions.
It should not be surprise to any that there is an on-going debate on enlargement in the EU as well as in Turkey. Such a debate is normal and healthy. And you should not expect it to stop: it will accompany the process until the very end, and even beyond.

In the EU, this debate is wide. Voices have been raised requesting a pause to enlargement. There are those who have concerns about issues such as the effect on the labour market or the costs for the present Member States. There are some who wonder how EU will function with Turkey as a member. But this debate is not Turkey-specific, it has to do with the Union itself.

It is in this context that president Barroso clarified recently that a new institutional settlement should have been born by the time the next member is going to join the Union. While we prepare internally for a new institutional settlement, the gradual and carefully managed accession process continues with the countries of Southeastern Europe, that is, Bulgaria and Romania, Turkey and Croatia, and other Western Balkans countries. We are cautious about taking on any new commitments, but we stick to our existing commitments to these countries.
In this country, some interpret this as a sign of the EU weakening its commitment to Turkey. The average Turkish citizen might ask: do they really mean business? Do they really want my country into the EU?

Let me put this debate in context. To start with, let me be clear, the EU means business. We are talking about Turkey’s accession and nothing else.

However, it is also perfectly normal that, every time we welcome a new member to our family, we want to ensure that the house is comfortable and functional for everybody. In other words, the EU must be able to effectively continue to deliver its policies. This is nothing new, but has been the challenge of all previous enlargements.
We need to maintain the momentum of European integration. Absorption capacity is a factor important for both Turkey and the EU: it is in your country’s interest to ensure that you join a well functioning European Union – not a weak or a messy EU! I am confident that we will address this issue in an appropriate way.

Second, EU is a complex organisation. We have our institutional framework, within which the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission play their distinctive roles. We are a Union of 25 Member States, each of them with their democratically elected Government, its elections, its politicians who express their views in the context of their national debate.
We should welcome this debate and meet arguments with counterarguments, myths with facts, and, inertia with action. Turkey’s best response is a rock-solid, resolute commitment to reforms that would allow the country to meet the conditions for accession.

Let there be no misunderstanding on the strategic value of our common project. Europe needs Turkey as a key player, as a bridge and as a proactive moderator. Turkish accession should set a powerful counter-example to the alleged ‘clash of civilisations’. Turkey is, also, essential for the stability and security of one of the most unstable and insecure regions in the world. Turkey’s strategic significance was once again illustrated by its decision to take part in the UNIFIL mission in Lebanon.

But to make the accession process with Turkey a success, there needs to be concrete progress on the ground within the country. I keep repeating this and will continue relentlessly: the reforms you implement will determine the pace of the process. Thus, the accession process takes place mostly here, in Turkey, and not in Brussels.

Against this background, the adoption of the ninth reform package is necessary. It concerns a number of issues that Turkey needs to address as a matter of urgency, even if it does not address the critical issue of free speech. I am convinced that Turkey’s progress in resolutely pursuing the reform agenda will have a most positive impact on the European public opinion.

First, freedom of expression must be brought fully in line with European standards. There have been altogether some 70 cases against journalists, authors, publishers and citizen activists for supposedly “insulting Turkishness”, but in reality expressing non-violent opinions. The prosecutions have been done on the basis of the notorious Article 301 of the penal code. We pointed out the loophole already when the new penal code was prepared, but our advice was not taken into account. The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation on the Hrant Dink case set a jurisprudence which keeps freedom of expression under threat in this country. The judicial proceedings have a chilling effect and damage the important work carried out by journalists, intellectuals and activists. It is high time that Turkey brings the penal code into line with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Let me be absolutely clear here. This is not a matter for horse-trading. The aim is not just to meet the “request of Brussels”, as I read from time to time in the Turkish media. Freedom of expression, in the sense of expressing freely even a critical but clearly non-violent opinion, is part of the EU’s political criteria. It is a cornerstone of our common democratic values. I cannot even imagine a member state in the European Union that would not respect such a fundamental European principle as the freedom of expression. Hence, those opposing repealing the unjustified restrictions of free speech in Article 301 and other parts of the Turkish law, are effectively opposing a key condition of EU membership.
But this is first and foremost in the interest of the Turkish citizens. Freedom of expression is the foundation of any open society and key to modernisation and social progress, which Turkey rightly strives for.
The same goes for other fundamental freedoms, as for instance freedom of religion. Non-Muslim and, also, Muslim communities, for instance the Alevis, still face difficulties on the ground. The adoption of a law which improves the property situation of these communities is now urgent.
As regards women’s rights, the implementation of legal provisions, for example as regards punishment of crimes supposedly committed in the name of honour, needs to be improved.

The terrorist activity of PKK has been condemned by the EU without any ambiguity. But the problems of the Southeast cannot be addressed through an exclusively security approach. Turkey needs to develop a strategy for the region that addresses its political and socio-economic problems together with the cultural rights of the Kurdish population.

We are also concerned of the possible restrictive impact of the amendments to the anti-terror law upon fundamental freedoms of Turkish citizens. The law defines terrorism far too widely and vaguely.

Coming to matters more closely linked with this Symposium, Turkey needs to ensure that full Trade Union rights are respected in line with EU standards and ILO Conventions, in particular as regards the right to organise, the right to strike and the right to bargain collectively. To this effect, Turkey needs to eliminate existing restrictions and adopt a fully revised legislation in this area for both private and public sectors.

Unfortunately, no progress has been made by Turkey on the trade union rights recently. Therefore, one of my main messages to my Turkish interlocutors today and tomorrow will be that we expect the Government to redress this and present a legislative initiative shortly, once the ongoing consultation with social partners has been duly completed. 

Ladies and Gentlemen,
We appreciate the reforms Turkey has carried out in the recent years. But as a friend of Turkey, I want to be frank and open with you, as friends always should be: the pace of reforms has slowed down in the past twelve months. The expectations have risen since Turkey became a negotiating country on 3 October last year. It is therefore all the more important that new initiatives are taken and tangible progress is still achieved before the Commission will present its report on 8 November.

Since signing the Additional Protocol of the Association Agreement in July 2005 as a condition to open the accession negotiations, Turkey has not moved towards its implementation. It has not removed obstacles to the free movement of goods, including restrictions on transport links with Cyprus. Yet, this is a legal, contractual obligation Turkey has made.
Dear Friends,
Our common endeavour of the EU accession process with Turkey is not only about reforms and chapters. It is as much about communication and mutual understanding.
Many Europeans ask questions which concern geography, culture, religion, civilization, history. They ponder what will be the impact of Turkey’s EU accession on the philosophy of the European integration and on the effective functioning of the EU. Many concerns are understandable and must be addressed in the course of the negotiations. Others result from ignorance of what Turkey is today.

Concerns of the Turkish public opinion seem to be of a different nature. The main challenge is the perceived uncertainty of the EU’s true intentions towards Turkey. As I said, we mean business, and you can rest assured that the EU is committed to pursue Turkey’s EU accession, on the condition it meets our criteria fully.

Be that as it may, we must get to know each other better. This is the aim of the Commission’s programme to enable a civil society dialogue between Turkey and the EU. Some 70 million euros will be committed to this programme in 2006.
It is a bottom-up and not a top-down exercise, based on the demand from the civil society organisations. It aims at promoting interaction between non-governmental organisations, e.g. student exchange, study visits of journalists, as well as exchange between women’s organisations, trade unions, chamber of commerce and business communities. Local government is included through exchange and twinning.

I want to encourage you, as social partners, to use this opportunity.

Dear Friends,
We have a common goal to counter the pessimists and avoid train crash. Nothing is predetermined. With political will we can turn the tide and pave the way for Turkey’s accession to the EU. It matters to our future, for our children and grandchildren.

If Turkey succeeds in its reforms and meets the criteria of accession, it will become an ever stronger bridge of civilisations. This is a great opportunity for both Europe and Turkey, especially for their younger generations. I want to make sure that this opportunity is not missed.
Thank you for your attention.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/06/559&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

The NYT : “A consortium of major universities, using Homeland Security Department money, is developing software that would let the government monitor negative opinions of the United States or its leaders in newspapers and other publications overseas. Such a ‘sentiment analysis’ is intended to identify potential threats to the nation, security officials said. . . Ultimately, the government could in a semiautomated way track a statement by specific individuals abroad or track reports by particular foreign news outlets or journalists, rating comments about American policies or officials.”

( NB : Bush avait bien promis de ne pas surveiller le téléphone public, ni les “e-mails” ... jusqu’à d’inévitables scandales. En fait “Echelon” de la NSA surveille déjà tout, non ? Ah oui ... le progrès “update 3.42” !

Dedefensa a donc l’oreille “algorithmée de Big Brother”, peut-être même un “rootkit” sur votre PC/Mac qui affiche le moindre claviotage sur leurs étranges lucarnes. Mais non : l’interprétation est surement numérique, virtualisme disiez vous ? Du “facteur humain” ils vont crouler sous les hoax, les bugs, les spams, les jokes et autres “scénarii terminator”.

Mais réussiront ils à détecter les e-mails pédophiles au congrès ? )

Courrier International : ‘Poutine porte la responsabilité de la mort d’Anna Politkovskaïa’, by P.Randrianarimanana
“Novaïa Gazeta” ... “elle était étonnamment courageuse. Bien plus courageuse que de nombreux machos qui roulent en 4 x 4 blindés entourés de gardes du corps.”

... “Ça suffit”, lance Gueorgui Saratov, un politologue russe indépendant, dans “Ejenedelny Journal”. “Est-il possible que l’on doute encore du diagnostic de la situation actuelle ? Il s’agit de fascisme. Il a pris de nouveaux traits. Il recourt plus à l’abrutissement des masses qu’à la terreur de masse. Mais il ne dédaigne pas les anciennes méthodes. Dans l’arsenal du pouvoir actuel, on compte l’intimidation, le chantage, le scandale, l’espionnage, le passage à tabac. Et puis le meurtre.” L’auteur en appelle à tout un chacun, aux partis. IL faut faire un choix : “Soit devenir un collaborateur des fascistes, soit s’unir et rejeter cette saleté de fascisme.”

... “Vladimir Vladimirovitch [Poutine]”, interpelle Alexandre Minkine dans le “Moskovski Komsomolets”, “c’est sinon votre faute, du moins votre responsabilité”. L’éditorialiste russe poursuit : “Ceux qui ont commandité cet acte sont des gens du pouvoir. Ils sont des vôtres. Cela fait longtemps qu’il n’y en a plus d’autres. C’est une affaire politique. Cela signifie qu’en Russie les problèmes politiques peuvent se régler par une exécution dans un ascenseur.”

Libération, Lorraine MILLOT : ... Poutine, à qui Jacques Chirac vient tout juste de remettre la grand-croix de la Légion d’honneur, a entrepris depuis son arrivée à la présidence russe en 2000 de museler d’abord les télévisions, puis les journaux. Au point que cet assassinat apparaît aujourd’hui comme un point d’orgue sanglant sur une partition écrite en haut lieu. «C’est un nouveau pas en avant vers la tchétchénisation de la Russie, résumait hier le politologue Gueorgui Satarov, ancien conseiller de Boris Eltsine, passé à l’opposition sous son successeur. Les méthodes d’abord employées en Tchétchénie le sont maintenant en Russie», explique cet analyste, rappelant comment Poutine a reconquis la Tchétchénie par le sang et la terreur. «L’assassinat d’Anna est un signal pour tous ceux qui pensent comme elle», prévient-il, faisant aussi le lien entre ce crime et la nouvelle vague de xénophobie attisée cette semaine même par Poutine en marge de son conflit avec la Géorgie. Un nouveau «fascisme» est en marche en Russie, met en garde Gueorgui Satarov.

Verheugen warns EU against ‘dangerous spiral’ on Turkey

09.10.2006 - 09:58 CET | By Mark Beunderman

The EU’s former enlargement commissioner has warned the bloc not to turn its back on Turkey, saying a “dangerous spiral” of negative signals could undermine the key geo-strategic goal of future Turkish membership.

Guenter Verheugen, who ran the commission’s enlargement department from 1999-2004 and currently holds Brussels’ industry portfolio, over the weekend made a strong plea in favour of Turkey in remarks explained by German media as going against the stance of German chancellor Angela Merkel.

“Europe is sending Turkey almost exclusively negative signals,” he told German weekly Bild am Sonntag.

“We are focusing on the weaknesses of the country, while not encouraging them to change. This is causing a growing reluctance to pursue the reforms we are asking for. This in turn leads Europe to the view that the Turks are not managing it.”

“This is a dangerous spiral that threatens to lead to a geopolitical failure of the highest order.”

The remarks come after Mrs Merkel during a visit to Turkey on Friday (6 October) said that only at the end of the talks will it be decided “what the result is,” indicating that full membership as an outcome is not ensured.

The chancellor’s Turkey trip has sparked disagreement in the governing coalition in Germany, with the conservatives reiterating that they are against fully-fledged membership.

Conservative CDU party leader Ronald Pofalla said that he believes Turkish accession is “not defendable and wrong” and repeated the alternative of a “privileged partnership” for Ankara.

But Mr Verheugen, himself a German social democrat, was backed by other German centre-left politicians who said dropping the goal of membership would be a “terrible mistake.”

—-

EU has limits in respecting Muslim traditions, says Frattini

09.10.2006 - 09:59 CET | By Lucia Kubosova

The vice-president of the European Commission Franco Frattini has said Europe can only respect Muslim traditions if they do not contradict the bloc’s own basic values, such as freedom of speech or equality between men and women.

“We are not governed by sharia, after all,” he said in an interview with the Italian daily La Repubblica published on Monday (9 October).

Mr Frattini, in charge of the justice and security portfolio, has among commissioners been the most outspoken critic of the recent reaction in the Muslim world to a speech by Pope Benedict XVI suggesting links between Islam and violence.

Referring to the controversy, Mr Frattini told La Repubblica that both European political and cultural leaders and moderate Muslim authorities should have condemned threats to the pope after his speech.

“If we ourselves do not maintain our strong identity, if we are not sure about our principles - how can we manage integrating with others?” he asked.

“We can guarantee respect of traditions of the Muslim community only if these are not in contrast with our core rules, even if they are unwritten.”

He suggested that a similar silence by the European elite during the pope controversy was the same one that occurred some time later when Italy was shocked by cases of Muslim girls being locked at home or being killed by their own families.

“These - equality between a man and woman and the liberty of expression - are the pillars of European society which are not to be touched upon,” noted Mr Frattini.

Asked about suggestions in some EU countries that veils should be banned or at least removed from faces at public places - as recently advocated by UK minister Jack Straw - the commissioner pointed out “on this issue, I would like to hear the position of Islamic women.”

“I would like to hear those Muslim women who do feel above all as European. I believe there are a lot of them who, for example, consider themselves first Italian and then Islamic. It is these women I want to hear speaking. Otherwise, how can we speak of integration if we want to segregate women?” added the Italian commissioner.

Chers Messieurs,

je me demande pourquoi une revue lucide comme “Dedefensa” n’élabore pas sur la crise EADS-Airbus.

Il me semble que Vous etes trop attentifs aux crises américaines, et trop peu attentifs à celles franco-allemandes…

D’ailleurs, ces crises stratégico-militaires, idéologiques, industrielles états-uniennes—quoique bien réelles—ne sont pas nécessairement structurelles. En Vous lisant, on a parfois l’impression que Vous transformez des épisodes en tendances irreversibles.

Merci,

Eric

Nos dirigeants ont tout interrets à pratiquer la politique de l’autruche et à banaliser la crise climatique qui va nous faucher de plein fouet, car que deviendra,l’economie ou l’avenir si on nous le promet sans lendemains ?????????

  je ne vois ce qu’il y aurait de choquant à proposer un accès payant à votre site de grande qualité.

Pourquoi les vrais journalistes vivraient-ils de pain et d’eau fraiche ? Quelles sont vos alternatives ? appeler à la rescousse des investisseurs et finir comme un Libération devenu bien médiocre depuis les années 90. Ce ne serait pas glorieux.
Proposez donc des abonnements à vos lecteurs par ailleurs adultes consentants et amateurs de la chose (politique bien entendue), ne mettrait nullement en péril votre indépendance journalistique, bien au contraire.

En vous souhaitant un avenir prometteur bien mérité.

A ma connaissance Borchgrave est americain pur et simple.
Il est aussi bien sur, belge d origine, comme l etait Degrelle mais l ancien redacteur en chef du Washington Times a pris la succession sur la scene washigtonienne de Ralph de Toledano.
Et maintenant il cherche par tous les moyens a credibiliser le Washington Timers - qui perd glorieusement des dizaines de millions de dollars tous les ans ( du jamais vu meme aux Etats unis - dans un climat)
Alors, de grace, n introduisez pas ce caractere dans vos colonnes car alors on pourrait se poser des questions.
Au minimum prevenez vos lecteurs.
Dans tous les cas je vous renvoie a une edition recente de The Nation qui a interroge plus d une dizaine de journalistes du Washington Times et qui ont tous - sous couvert de l anonymat (au risque de renvoi) ont confirme les tendances neonazies et racistes de la direction actuelle du journal et confirme le climat de rage haineuse y existant.