Agent provocateurs and their relationship with the mafia.

https://pimeakronikka.blogspot.com/

Kimmo Huosionmaa

Agent provocateurs are suitable actors when somebody wants to justify the use of force against some groups. Those provocateurs are professional rioters, who are throwing the rocks and Molotov cocktails against the police, and after that, the riot control team has free hands to use the power against those demonstrators. In some cases, those provocateurs are claimed to burn cars or broke windows during demonstrations, and that would justify the police actions against the people.


In some cases, the journalists, who have written books about mafia and some other criminal organizations have faced the things, that their cars have been pushed by other vehicles or their garbage have not taken away. In those cases that a person has faced the psychic violence, where each work, what is ordered have been done only after the reclamations. And that thing causes very bad stress for people, who are facing that kind of things. In Italy, those journalists have faced the thing, that their parking lot has been filled with garbage, and that kind of things are disgusting.


When we are thinking about the demonstrations against the Bank of World and the G-12 meetings, the demonstrations have many times turned to violent riots, and that thing is very sad because people have the right to protest. In some cases, there have been claimed that the demonstrations were manned with professional provocateurs, who would start to throw the petrol bombs against police, and the reason for those claiming is mentioned that the demonstrations wanted to crush, because somebody doesn't like those people.


Somebody suspect that behind those actions is some security services, what want to demonstrate, that the demonstrations would be crushed also in the western nations. Or the actor would be some private security corporation, what will want to cause fear in the mind of those persons, who take the part of the meeting. That would make rational thinking very difficult, and also riots make those meetings very unpopular for cities, what is hosting them.


Sometimes is claimed that the terrorism in the 1970's has caused by provocations, what were made the mercenaries, who worked for some multinational corporations. The international terrorism caused very much problems for socialists, and that's the reason, why those attacks, what is claimed to made by RAF (Rote Armeé Fraction). That kind of terrorism justified the massive police actions against the left-wing radicals. And when we are thinking about the political field where the IRA operated, the reason for underline the socialistic ideology could be caused by the weapons, what the leaders of that group wanted to get from the Eastern Block.


When we are remembering the bomb strike against Margaret Thatcher, the prime minister of Great Britain. The person behind this bomb strike made very bad service for IRA, and sometimes there are rumors that behind that strike were Loyalists, who wanted that British army would be more active in Northern Ireland. The Loyalist is the world, what some Protestant's groups like UVF (Ulster Volunteer Fighters) used about themselves, for underlining the friendship for the British government.


And that would give the picture, that those groups are supported by the British government. But in the real life, those loyalists organizations are also classified as terrorists, and I sometimes wonder, why they are not mentioned so often in the situation in Northern Ireland. Many of the groups, what operates in Northern Ireland have very mighty names, but in the real world, those groups might have only about 20 members, and that makes them dangerous.


Some of those groups would be ordinary criminals or mercenaries, who would make strikes for money, and in those cases, they would play the IRA or UVF members. And the targets for those attacks might be some drug dealers, who would not pay the "protection money" for those men. And of course, real IRA and UVF have sold contract killings for criminals, because that would get money for their actions. Maybe there are men who are still believing in terrorism, but as we might see, anybody could write those letters to the wall after shooting somebody.

http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/aatteellisista-ryhmista-seka-lehdiston.html

http://yhteiskuntajakansa.blogspot.com/2018/08/syrjaytyneet-ovat-loistava-kohde.html

The principle of the using force in international arenas

(Picture 1)

Kimmo Huosionmaa

There is one principle for using force in international politics. That is “the first strike looks very bad thing”. So if we are following this principle and make induction think about this very complicated thing, we must say that the best way to justify own military action against another nation is to provocate opponent to use force against own troops. This is the most elegant way to begin little war against other nations.


Let’s think about the philosophy of the force. If some nation has nuclear weapons, the other world would be very tolerated against that nation. And nuclear armament gives the politicians the very good reason to let conflicts be. When we are talking about the role of nuclear weapons in many conflicts, we must say that no nuclear countries have ever prosecuted in international court.


Also, the nuclear weapons have very good influence in other military operations, or do you think that the nuclear arsenal of the United States or Russia has no influence, how other nations would defend their citizens in the case, that those nations special forces operate in their area. Ald this is the treatment, what makes nations proud.


That’s the reason why France, United Kingdom, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, South Africa and North Korea have to provide those weapons. They have seen how the other nuclear nations would be dealing in international politics. There is a long list of nations that don’t let their soldiers to an international court for defending themselves for war crimes. Or have you ever heard that any member of those nations special- or conventional military forces ever convicted or prosecuted in the international court?


There is the reason, why Great Britain and France produced their own nuclear arsenals, what is smaller, but also an effective threat in the hands of those governments. The reason was that those nations had colonies, what became independent mainly in 1950’s and 1960’s, In those nations, military forces were the threat, that members of the colonial army were prosecuted as war criminals And that was the reason for purchasing nuclear weapons.


And the example of those nations was the impulse for other players in the international area for beginning the production of nuclear armament. Those weapons are the very good threat, and they keep other nations out of the nuclear states internal business. From the shield of nuclear weapons is very good to begin attacks against hostile actors. And the tolerance of actions what nuclear state does is very high. And this is the good reason to take those weapons in the arsenal.


The world woke up to the threat of nuclear arsenal when Pakistan made the first nuclear test. Now the first Islamic state had those weapons in hand. And at least when North Korea made its first nuclear test and tested the missiles, what would have range even in Finland and other Scandinavia, we realized that those weapons are real. North Korea was not “quiet country” anymore. It was the new nuclear state, what has the technology to make missiles, what can attack in great part of the World. And that weapon is the good thing to make other nations tolerate the Pyongyang's policy.


That nation followed the route, what was beginning by Israel or the United States. The nuclear arsenal was one reason, that the United States air force ever needed to explain their actions in Europe. The threat in the eyes of NATO was that European allies of the United States would not get support from Washington against the Soviet Union. And the invasion of the Soviet Union was out of the question because the nuclear arsenal of that nation would be the very good shield against aggression. Of course Stalin’s actions in his country were defined as police operations, and international law doesn’t allow to convict the members of NKVD because they were police who worked in their own area and the international community has no legal right to convict the internal affairs of independent nations.

Sources :

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

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/all-you-need-to-know-about-pakistans-nastiest-weapon-tactical-nukes.452088/

Picture 1.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVJaBu-cqKiCOm3WMUdB7JG3H1aMXuxNSbx2LxwlbHqNp9bwdS