International Crisis Group reports on Serbian constitution and Kosovo status

One small thing I need to point out folks: Did you all read the new Kosovo report the International Crisis Group published this morning? I would pay VERY special attention to it and what it has to say. Scroll down to its last page and look at its Senior Advisers: Who do you see listed as number one there? Marti Ahtisaari (emmeritus too) :) Now do you get it?

This is a very interesting way to phrase it:

“...the longer the Kosovo Albanians are forced to wait, the greater the chance they will DISCREDIT themselves... with riots.”

"Discredit" is a very interesting choice of wording.

It is soft in connotation. It nudges the reader to "understand" the actions --rather than condemn the actions (the appropriate response to violence in all civilized societies and media sources).

Should it not be the responsibility of this proposed state to act in civility rather than violence? Should this not be a pre-condition of discussion... let alone statehood?

Should ICG not cease from defending or understanding violence -- for whatever reason it may happen? Is this not the duty of any public organization that operates from the United States or that receives American taxpayer dollars to fund its opeartions?

It seems to me that the ICG is suddenly very concerned. That which was a foregone fact, now seems to be drawan into question.

One small thing I need to point out folks: Did you all read the new Kosovo report the International Crisis Group published this morning? I would pay VERY special attention to it and what it has to say. Scroll down to its last page and look at its Senior Advisers: Who do you see listed as number one there? Marti Ahtisaari (emmeritus too) :) Now do you get it?

This is a very interesting way to phrase it:

“...the longer the Kosovo Albanians are forced to wait, the greater the chance they will DISCREDIT themselves... with riots.”

"Discredit" is a very interesting choice of wording.

It is soft in connotation. It nudges the reader to "understand" the actions --rather than condemn the actions (the appropriate response to violence in all civilized societies and media sources).

Should it not be the responsibility of this proposed state to act in civility rather than violence? Should this not be a pre-condition of discussion... let alone statehood?

Should ICG not cease from defending or understanding violence -- for whatever reason it may happen? Is this not the duty of any public organization that operates from the United States or that receives American taxpayer dollars to fund its opeartions?

It seems to me that the ICG is suddenly very concerned. That which was a foregone fact, now seems to be drawan into question.