Poisoned Russian spy.

[AlphonseCapone]

1 hour ago, Adam Murray said:

 

Serious question here, I know people on these Islands refer to themselves as Brits, Scots, Irish, Welsh, Geordie etc, etc, but are there people who solely refer to themselves as European. not just here, but in any other European country?

 

I know that's not what you were referring to AC, just curious if anyone knows of anyone, or of any instances of people claiming to be just European?

 

I've never heard anyone from here refer to themselves as European but I have heard a Greek and a Spaniard say it. 

[felix]

19 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

If someone else is engaged in covert operations against you, then pretending they're good mates is not in your country's best interests.

Russia acts against the interests of the UK, so the UK should adopt a defensive posture and act against Russia's interests.  That's when you get "cold war". 

Apart from supine surrender, the only realistic alternative to a cold war is a hot one, which means that unless it becomes absolutely necessary, a cold war is better for the interests of the UK.

 

Except history shows a cold war isn't in the economic or security interests of the west.

Those who gain most in such tensions - are arms manufacturers and conservative or republican politicians.

 

[Ulysses]

1 minute ago, felix said:

 

Except history shows a cold war isn't in the economic or security interests of the west.

Those who gain most in such tensions - are arms manufacturers and conservative or republican politicians.

 

 

The mistake we made was thinking we won the last one.

 

If countries mess about with you, you have no choice but to mess about with them.

[Sraman]

4 minutes ago, felix said:

 

Except history shows a cold war isn't in the economic or security interests of the west.

Those who gain most in such tensions - are arms manufacturers and conservative or republican politicians.

 

 

A cold war doesn't give economic benefits to anyone except the people that are in charge at the moment. That's some way to put a guys mind at ease Felix.

 

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

The mistake we made was thinking we won the last one.

 

If countries mess about with you, you have no choice but to mess about with them.

 

Nobody wins in a cold war. Except, of course, the above.

[felix]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

The mistake we made was thinking we won the last one.

 

If countries mess about with you, you have no choice but to mess about with them.

We (the west) did win the last one and we're deluded to think Russia has any interest in messing about with a piddly Island, who pose no threat  to them.

[Ulysses]

Just now, felix said:

We (the west) did win the last one .......

 

 

If you say so.  I'd say that's what Russia wants you to think.

[felix]

3 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

A cold war doesn't give economic benefits to anyone except the people that are in charge at the moment. That's some way to put a guys mind at ease Felix.

 

 

It's the politicians  pushing for greater arms/defence spending in cold wars who do rather well Straman - thus the  reference to republicans/conservatives.

The general public don't really prosper as a result of posturing- look at the UK's history during the cold war years "sick man of Europe" "Winter of discontent" etc.

It's not pretty.

 

[felix]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

If you say so.  I'd say that's what Russia wants you to think.

Isn't that a bit tinfoil ?

 

[Sraman]

1 minute ago, felix said:

It's the politicians  pushing for greater arms/defence spending in cold wars who do rather well Straman - thus the  reference to republicans/conservatives.

The general public don't really prosper as a result of posturing- look at the UK's history during the cold war years "sick man of Europe" "Winter of discontent" etc.

It's not pretty.

 

 

Who cares about the general public? This is the UK we're in.

[felix]

2 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

Who cares about the general public? This is the UK we're in.

[shaun.lawson]

8 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

 

Russian state TV, eh?

 

And now sport: Deek Rearend believes Kujabi's foul was outside the box, wasn't a foul and Hibs should have been awarded a goal for having a Japanese-style card display. We'll hear Paul Kane's view on that.

 

"Many thanks to Oren Dorrell for confirming this with the State Department".

[Ulysses]

16 minutes ago, felix said:

Isn't that a bit tinfoil ?

 

 

Of course not.  I'll leave that kind of silly buggers up to the loolahs.

 

The west won a phase of the Cold War, and Yeltsin chucked Russia down a rubbish chute (with some help from the USA, both active and passive).  Then the west - particularly the United States - got complacent.  Russia did the exact opposite, while China increased its capacity for all sorts of strategic mischief, and several other countries upped their capabilities.

 

If Russia isn't in the game of cold war, then Putin isn't doing his job properly.  When he first came to power, he said he would do what it took to restore Russia to its previous standing as a world power, and that's what he has been doing ever since.  Non-military conflict and "frozen conflict" are Russian strategic weapons of choice.

 

The UK and other targets of this kind of "warfare" need to respond in kind.  It's very naive to do otherwise.

[Sraman]

22 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Of course not.  I'll leave that kind of silly buggers up to the loolahs.

 

The west won a phase of the Cold War, and Yeltsin chucked Russia down a rubbish chute (with some help from the USA, both active and passive).  Then the west - particularly the United States - got complacent.  Russia did the exact opposite, while China increased its capacity for all sorts of strategic mischief, and several other countries upped their capabilities.

 

If Russia isn't in the game of cold war, then Putin isn't doing his job properly.  When he first came to power, he said he would do what it took to restore Russia to its previous standing as a world power, and that's what he has been doing ever since.  Non-military conflict and "frozen conflict" are Russian strategic weapons of choice.

 

The UK and other targets of this kind of "warfare" need to respond in kind.  It's very naive to do otherwise.

 

 

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

 

Who is doing the responding and (whoever it is) how do we know this, or is that just naivety as well?

[shaun.lawson]

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

After WW2 there was little public support for Marshall Aid to Germany. And "cultural issues" with the ally who made a major contribution to victory were negligible compared to the "cultural issues" most of us had with Germany. In contrast despite decades of propaganda I don't believe there was widespread cultural antagonism against Russia after it had itself removed the Communist regime without the West lifting a finger, at least compared to our losses in defeating the Nazis.

  After all the US and western Europe had just suffered millions of dead at the hands of the Germans and the full story of the Holocaust was emerging.  The reaction of my parents who lived through WW2 and one of whom fought in it to the fall of the Berlin Wall was not delight that the East Germans would be liberated but regret that a wall had not been built around the whole of Germany to ensure the Germans would stay behind that wall indefinitely. Marshall Aid was the result of far sighted decision which was opposed by the public (or would have been if they had been asked)  at least in relation to Germany. The desire to rebuild a strong Western Europe also of course had quite a lot to do with the threat from the Soviet Union and its communist supporters in the West as you said earlier. A similar strategy to promote prosperity and true democracy might have lessened the risk of a resurgence of an aggressive nationalist Russia.

 

Not seen evidence yet that a single vote was affected by Russian meddling in the US election or the Brexit referendum.

 

The Buzzfeed thing looks a bit lurid and OTT but I'll read it later

 

 

Yes, there was little public support: certainly between 1945 and 1947, when Britain struggled to get a hearing in the US, The New York Times ridiculed Churchill's warnings, and naturally, they wanted their money back. But then events rather took over, and Kennan, Marshall and Bevin won the day. 

 

But even then, getting the package through Congress was a huge task. I can't believe how blase you are about the possibility of doing the same in the early 1990s. Could a similar package ever be got through Congress now, for example? No chance. Only for Israel, frankly.

 

And in any case: you seem to want to have it both ways. You've asked for evidence re: Russian interference - which is why Mueller's investigation is ongoing. But in the late 1940s, where was the evidence that the USSR was a huge threat to the US and UK? Kennan wrote a Telegram, packed full of his own opinions and prejudices; Churchill made a speech; the Brits pleaded with their American counterparts. But evidence? Real evidence? Where was it? Stalin's approach post-WW2 was "what we have, we hold": a perfectly legitimate one given his country's experiences.

 

So - what gives?

[jake]

19 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

Thanks Jake, I was interested enough in your message that I googled him. I will try to read some of his stuff, but I was a wee bit disconcerted with his relationship to a Church. He certainly has an interesting backgground but at seventy nine he is probably just another of those know nothing old in my day seniliity sufferers.

He is no old fool Bob that's for sure.

[jake]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Of course not.  I'll leave that kind of silly buggers up to the loolahs.

 

The west won a phase of the Cold War, and Yeltsin chucked Russia down a rubbish chute (with some help from the USA, both active and passive).  Then the west - particularly the United States - got complacent.  Russia did the exact opposite, while China increased its capacity for all sorts of strategic mischief, and several other countries upped their capabilities.

 

If Russia isn't in the game of cold war, then Putin isn't doing his job properly.  When he first came to power, he said he would do what it took to restore Russia to its previous standing as a world power, and that's what he has been doing ever since.  Non-military conflict and "frozen conflict" are Russian strategic weapons of choice.

 

The UK and other targets of this kind of "warfare" need to respond in kind.  It's very naive to do otherwise.

The US got complacent.

By expanding NATO ever closer to Russian borders?

 

Sure they had other arenas worldwide not least south China seas but I very much doubt the CIA took their eye of the ball regarding Russia.

Especially as the wars by proxy involved both countries.

 

I think everyone needs to try and remember that blocks of nations falling out diplomatically can and does lead to conflict.

And that the weapons at the disposal are nuclear.

Even limited use would result in 80% extinction.

 

It would appear to me that May has played a card not to trump (pun not intended ) but to who she perceives as to holds power in the States.

And that is very anti Russian .

 

Mischief making espionage propaganda is not exclusive to Russia and to suggest that other security services have been sleeping is incorrect.

 

Anyway I know you have me marked down as a loolah but just thought I'd give my view on it.

[Cairneyhill Jambo]

9 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

What does "European" bring to mind? What is this identity? Does it include only EU countries, or all European countries?

 

Do you feel you have more in common with a person from Belarus, Liechtenstein or Albania than with a person from Newcastle, Liverpool, Swansea or Belfast?

All European countries. I've got more friends from Europe than I do from Newcastle, Liverpool, Swansea or Belfast. 

[shaun.lawson]

10 hours ago, Gorgiewave said:

What does "European" bring to mind? What is this identity? Does it include only EU countries, or all European countries?

 

Do you feel you have more in common with a person from Belarus, Liechtenstein or Albania than with a person from Newcastle, Liverpool, Swansea or Belfast?

 

As a citizen of the world - and May doesn't like them - I have more in common with well-travelled, well educated, open-minded middle class people from any developed country. Within that context, I utterly resent my European citizenship being removed from me because of a pack of lies and fraud.   

 

However, once I get my Uruguayan passport to go with my British one, I shall allow myself a chuckle as European countries wave me through passport control while British citizens have to wait in long lines. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[jake]

Craig Murray former UK ambassador dared to.questiin the validity of the accusations laid against Russia. 

 

A concerted campaign has been waged against him since.

He has unsurprisingly been called a nut and a conspiracy theorist.

Not loolah though.

His website subjected to millions of hits.

 

His nutty conspiracy ?

 

He wondered how a GP who arrived at the scene could treat one of those affected with no protective clothing.

After all it is known to be one of the deadliest poisons on earth.

 

He wondered before the day was out how the government not only blamed the Russians but seemed well briefed on the text used.

Yet they refrained from using such forthright language in parliament and in representation to the UN.

He made the point that the EU also worded it's statement carefully.

 

He concerned himself with the factual inaccuracies of Boris Johnstone.

 

There's more to his piece but I'm sure it's been covered.

 

Just thought I'd share .

Being a loolah and naive .

[jake]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

As a citizen of the world - and May doesn't like them - I have more in common with well-travelled, well educated, open-minded middle class people from any developed country. Within that context, I utterly resent my European citizenship being removed from me because of a pack of lies and fraud.   

 

However, once I get my Uruguayan passport to go with my British one, I shall allow myself a chuckle as European countries wave me through passport control while British citizens have to wait in long lines. 

And I have more in common with my work mates on site from Romania Poland .

And my neighbours from Portugal Greece and Poland.Than I do with the self important class of people in this country who dismiss the working class brexit voters as racist thick old etc.

All free to work in this country.

As British worked in Germany in the 80s.

As many Turkish do in Germany.

Freedom of movement is for the benefit of the richer economies of Europe to the detriment of the poorer ones.

 

You yourself pointed out the anomaly of the euro as a currency and it's effects on southern Europe for the benefit of especially the German economy.

And it's effects on national democracy.

 

Sorry can't help but bite on the brexit question especially as lies are told constantly about the effects of brexit.

 

Plus you are annoying with your two passport patter.

 

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

the self important class of people in this country who dismiss the working class brexit voters as racist thick old etc.

 

Did the old play a disproportionate role in voting for Brexit? Yes.

 

Did the under-educated play a disproportionate role in voting for Brexit? Yes.

 

Have racist attacks gone up significantly since Brexit? Yes. 

 

Brexit, in my view, is a failure of the political system, a failure of the economic system and a failure of the education system. Or to put it another way:

 

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, Sraman said:

 

 

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

 

Who is doing the responding and (whoever it is) how do we know this, or is that just naivety as well?

 

There are people - some of them on this forum - who can readily believe that the British government or the U.S. administration run false flag operations, or who are prepared to believe that the murder victims of American gun nuts are made up, or that NASA somehow persuaded over half a million people to lie about a faked moon landing, or that multiple layers of American federal, state and city governments did the same about a false flag operation on 9/11, and all because they watched some videos on YouTube.  Yet the minute it is suggested to these people that someone else's government might be acting the maggot they go into apoplexy demanding proof, and a standard of proof they don't expect from their YouTubers.

 

As if anyone engaged in the serious business of government is going to place their agents, operatives, informants and contacts at risk just so that a bunch of internet randomers can pronounce themselves satisfied with the quality of evidence. 

[jake]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Did the old play a disproportionate role in voting for Brexit? Yes.

 

Did the under-educated play a disproportionate role in voting for Brexit? Yes.

 

Have racist attacks gone up significantly since Brexit? Yes. 

 

Brexit, in my view, is a failure of the political system, a failure of the economic system and a failure of the education system. Or to put it another way:

 

Reported incidents of racist attacks went up.

This is not the same as actual.

 

Evidence for under educated please?

 

And being old is now some form of abuse .

In more enlightened minds the elderly are usually associated with wisdom.

 

But you stick to your middle class coffee drinking insults as you snobbishly tell us working class oiks what socialism really means.

 

[Ulysses]

54 minutes ago, jake said:

Anyway I know you have me marked down as a loolah but just thought I'd give my view on it.

 

jake, it shouldn't be important to you what I think of you.  You should waste the same amount of mental energy on me that I waste on you, then you'd be much happier. 

[jake]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

There are people - some of them on this forum - who can readily believe that the British government or the U.S. administration run false flag operations, or who are prepared to believe that the murder victims of American gun nuts are made up, or that NASA somehow persuaded over half a million people to lie about a faked moon landing, or that multiple layers of American federal, state and city governments did the same about a false flag operation on 9/11, and all because they watched some videos on YouTube.  Yet the minute it is suggested to these people that someone else's government might be acting the maggot they go into apoplexy demanding proof, and a standard of proof they don't expect from their YouTubers.

 

As if anyone engaged in the serious business of government is going to place their agents, operatives, informants and contacts at risk just so that a bunch of internet randomers can pronounce themselves satisfied with the quality of evidence. 

Yet you slag of those who form a view with what you say is little evidence yet defend proven liars on the same basis.

 

Works both ways .

You believe unequivocally despite previous lies .

 

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

And being old is now some form of abuse .

In more enlightened minds the elderly are usually associated with wisdom.

 

In more enlightened societies, certainly. Unfortunately, neoliberal, Greed Is Good Britain - which has sold out an entire generation of young people for the express benefit of rich, old people - is anything but enlightened.

 

And no, I don't mean all old people at all. But far, far too many of them. The most selfish generation in modern history. 

[Ulysses]

Just now, shaun.lawson said:

 

The most selfish generation in modern history. 

 

Who are?

[jake]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

jake, it shouldn't be important to you what I think of you.  You should waste the same amount of mental energy on me that I waste on you, then you'd be much happier. 

It's not  important.

 

I do laugh at your insults though.

They are Victorian in their delivery although lack the quality of supposed compliment.

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

Who are?

 

The baby boomers: for whom Brexit was the last great "**** you!" to everyone else.

 

Said baby boomers took much more out of the welfare state than any other generation - before voting through policies which have dismantled everything about that welfare state except their pensions, paid for by the young. And now WASPI (more like GRASPI) women even demand unequal, unfair treatment, just so they can screw the young even more.

 

 

You even started your very own thread on the baby boomers. Here:

 

 

[Ulysses]

7 minutes ago, jake said:

It's not  important.

 

Then stop posting about it. 

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The baby boomers: for whom Brexit was the last great "**** you!" to everyone else.

 

Said baby boomers took much more out of the welfare state than any other generation - before voting through policies which have dismantled everything about that welfare state except their pensions, paid for by the young. And now WASPI (more like GRASPI) women even demand unequal, unfair treatment, just so they can screw the young even more.

 

 

You even started your very own thread on the baby boomers. Here:

 

 

 

 

You should bear in mind that a lot of the age cohorts in the graph you posted don't qualify as baby boomers.  In fact, quite a few of them would have been between 110 and 120 on the day of the Brexit referendum.

 

Are you saying that people born between, I dunno, 1946 and 1961 were a particular concern?  If so, how does it make the poisoned Russian spy problem better or worse?

[jake]

5 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

In more enlightened societies, certainly. Unfortunately, neoliberal, Greed Is Good Britain - which has sold out an entire generation of young people for the express benefit of rich, old people - is anything but enlightened.

 

And no, I don't mean all old people at all. But far, far too many of them. The most selfish generation in modern history. 

It's strange because here I am in a loose way attacking the same establishment for hastily blaming Russia .

For purposes that lead some to call me loolah.

But now I have to defend it against you who have on this thread at least went along with this same establishment.

 

For all the UK s faults it's one redeeming feature has been it's on the whole fairness and a place where many people from around the world wish to live and work.

Why?

Because on the whole you can express your thoughts and views .

That's enlightened.

Where we have a country where thick old working class have a vote.

That's enlightened.

 

Those like you who snobbishly think they are enlightened are the ones who with their ever increasing views on the right way to think speak constantly turn into the worst kind of hypocrites.

 

You will also defend those who hold indefensible beliefs because that's the narrative you follow.

 

You are all over the place.

[jake]

8 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Then stop posting about it. 

Oh come on.

 

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

You should bear in mind that a lot of the age cohorts in the graph you posted don't qualify as baby boomers.  In fact, quite a few of them would have been between 110 and 120 on the day of the Brexit referendum.

 

Are you saying that people born between, I dunno, 1946 and 1961 were a particular concern?  If so, how does it make the poisoned Russian spy problem better or worse?

 

1. Everyone's been taking this thread off topic, not just me.

 

2. There were surveys done which showed that the very, very old - those who actually lived through the war - voted in much smaller numbers for Brexit than the boomers. Which is highly instructive.

 

3. The people born between 1946 and 1961 have been a particular concern: because it's those people who, after presiding over the sexual revolution (they got one thing right, at least), then voted for Thatcherism, tuition fees, the housing bubble, austerity, and Brexit. And it's those people who politicians have continually sought to bribe with freebies, while punishing the nation's young.

 

Britain in recent years has been part socialist, part capitalist. Socialist for the old and rich; capitalist for the young and poor. But you know all this anyway.

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

For all the UK s faults it's one redeeming feature has been it's on the whole fairness

 

That may have been true once. Now it's one of the most unequal societies in the Western world. But do go and tell, for example, the Grenfell Tower survivors how "fair" Britain is. 

[jake]

11 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The baby boomers: for whom Brexit was the last great "**** you!" to everyone else.

 

Said baby boomers took much more out of the welfare state than any other generation - before voting through policies which have dismantled everything about that welfare state except their pensions, paid for by the young. And now WASPI (more like GRASPI) women even demand unequal, unfair treatment, just so they can screw the young even more.

 

 

You even started your very own thread on the baby boomers. Here:

 

 

But you are not selfishly bleating about losing your European citizenship while living in South America having done quite well from the society created by these selfish old people.

 

Sounding like the typical spoilt brat if you ask me.

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

But you are not selfishly bleating about losing your European citizenship while living in South America having done quite well from the society created by these selfish old people.

 

Sounding like the typical spoilt brat if you ask me.

 

I've done quite well because I was born middle class. As Ulysses himself posted on that thread I linked to, social mobility in the UK is practically non-existent. And any country in which the income and wealth of the family someone's born into invariably determines their life chances is the very opposite of "fair".

Edited March 31, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[jake]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

That may have been true once. Now it's one of the most unequal societies in the Western world. But do go and tell, for example, the Grenfell Tower survivors how "fair" Britain is. 

 

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. Everyone's been taking this thread off topic, not just me.

 

2. There were surveys done which showed that the very, very old - those who actually lived through the war - voted in much smaller numbers for Brexit than the boomers. Which is highly instructive.

 

3. The people born between 1946 and 1961 have been a particular concern: because it's those people who, after presiding over the sexual revolution (they got one thing right, at least), then voted for Thatcherism, tuition fees, the housing bubble, austerity, and Brexit. And it's those people who politicians have continually sought to bribe with freebies, while punishing the nation's young.

 

Britain in recent years has been part socialist, part capitalist. Socialist for the old and rich; capitalist for the young and poor. But you know all this anyway.

The very very old who lived and perhaps fought in the second world war.

Yeah had it to easy.

Maybe switch of their heating garner some votes for a second referendum.

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, jake said:

 

The very very old who lived and perhaps fought in the second world war.

Yeah had it to easy.

Maybe switch of their heating garner some votes for a second referendum.

 

Please learn to read, Jake. It's because the very very old remember the war all too well that they voted in much smaller numbers for the lunacy of Brexit. 

[jake]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I've done quite well because I was born middle class. As Ulysses himself posted on that thread I linked to, social mobility in the UK is practically non-existent. And any country in which the income and wealth of the family someone's born into invariably determines their life chances is the very opposite of "fair".

And of course the EU has increased the opportunities of the working class throughout Europe .

Anyway this isn't a brexit thread.

 

You better get back to believing those you don't trust for the purpose of the narrative you choose to follow.

[jake]

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Please learn to read, Jake. It's because the very very old remember the war all too well that they voted in much smaller numbers for the lunacy of Brexit. 

Ooops.

 

I have to laugh at myself sometimes.

Anyway like I said see you on a brexit thread.

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, jake said:

And of course the EU has increased the opportunities of the working class throughout Europe .

Anyway this isn't a brexit thread.

 

You better get back to believing those you don't trust for the purpose of the narrative you choose to follow.

 

1. The EU has certainly increased opportunities for British people and British business throughout Europe.

 

2. There is no evidence that the EU has had a negative effect on the opportunities of working class people in the UK. What has had a negative effect - profoundly negative - has been a series of appalling political choices taken under the Tories.

[Francis Albert]

21 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Interesting post, thanks for this. You make a particularly good point on the question of why we didn't have a Marshall Plan 2 after the Cold War ended - but the will in the US just wasn't there. It was tough enough to get Marshall Aid through Congress in the late 1940s; impossible to get something similar through four decades later. No country ever likes agreeing to colossal, humungous investment somewhere else - and cultural attitudes towards Russia made it a non-starter.

 

As for the threat Russia poses now: we're still only in the infancy of understanding just what Russia is doing to the West through cyberwarfare. The extent of its success thus far is astonishing, resulting in a hitherto unthinkable state of politics in the US and UK, and governance so breathtakingly incompetent that it threatens the national interests, national security and future of both. 

 

As I've mentioned several times on this thread already, Russia also murders both its own and British citizens on British soil. This is well worth a read if you have the time and inclination:

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil

 

The latest act of aggression in Salisbury - endangering so many bystanders - is simply the last straw as far as we're concerned. Hot war is impossible; cold war a long overdue response. 

As promised despite being deterred by the melodramatic first paragraph I did read this.

Which prompts three comments.

First why only after Salisbury with its atypical and clumsy  modus operandi, pointing a large red arrow at the Kremlin, have we reacted to Russian "acts of aggression"?

Second ... most if not all victims (including the UK citizens) were part of the obscene carve up of Russian assets following the collapse of the Communist regime (or were Russian traitors - see below)). Those involved no doubt created many enemies who lost out in that scramble for assets which belonged to the Russian state and people. In that process they no doubt created many enemies, not just Putin and his cronies, who may have been motivated to kill them. Many may have had a motive for suicide.

Third ... I am not sure how much I should care about the victims - most of whom benefitted from what if not illegal was certainly immoral stripping of the assets of the old Soviet Union for their personal gain ... and then fled to the UK to enjoy their ill gotten gains ... or were traitors.

[Ulysses]

jake and Shaun, could you take the Brexit chat to the relevant thread?  Thanks.

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

As promised despite being deterred by the melodramatic first paragraph I did read this.

Which prompts three comments.

First why only after Salisbury with its atypical and clumsy  modus operandi, pointing a large red arrow at the Kremlin, have we reacted to Russian "acts of aggression"?

Second ... most if not all victims (including the UK citizens) were part of the obscene carve up of Russian assets following the collapse of the Communist regime (or were Russian traitors - see below)). Those involved no doubt created many enemies who lost out in that scramble for assets which belonged to the Russian state and people. In that process they no doubt created many enemies, not just Putin and his cronies, who may have been motivated to kill them. Many may have had a motive for suicide.

Third ... I am not sure how much I should care about the victims - most of whom benefitted from what if not illegal was certainly immoral stripping of the assets of the old Soviet Union for their personal gain ... and then fled to the UK to enjoy their ill gotten gains ... or were traitors.

 

1. We've acted now because we can no longer ignore it, given it endangered so many of our own citizens. The article - and the series it's part of - sets out why we've turned a blind eye for so long: because we're terrified. But now that Russia appears to have raised it to this level... well, appeasement is only resulting in more and more trouble.

 

2. "Traitors" according to whom? A tyrant? And in any case, the victims also include an ordinary British scientist - who just happened to be the poor unfortunate to discover that Litvinenko had been poisoned with polonium. Said scientist apparently went on to "commit suicide" through multiple knife wounds... with two different knives. 

[Ulysses]

Just now, shaun.lawson said:

 

And in any case, the victims also include an ordinary British scientist - who just happened to be the poor unfortunate to discover that Litvinenko had been poisoned with polonium. Said scientist apparently went on to "commit suicide" through multiple knife wounds... with two different knives. 

 

Yep.  Coroner said it was the worst case of suicide ever encountered. 

[jake]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. We've acted now because we can no longer ignore it, given it endangered so many of our own citizens. The article - and the series it's part of - sets out why we've turned a blind eye for so long: because we're terrified. But now that Russia appears to have raised it to this level... well, appeasement is only resulting in more and more trouble.

 

2. "Traitors" according to whom? A tyrant? And in any case, the victims also include an ordinary British scientist - who just happened to be the poor unfortunate to discover that Litvinenko had been poisoned with polonium. Said scientist apparently went on to "commit suicide" through multiple knife wounds... with two different knives. 

Is the poison used in this case a more fatal one than polonium?

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Yep.  Coroner said it was the worst case of suicide ever encountered. 

A British coroner ?

 

Now not to say Russia isn't responsible but to suggest that the UK government just got sick and tired because it endangered so many of our own citizens is laughable.

 

It's funny how this uncaring Tory government suddenly cares about a handful of people and manages to galvanise the western governments .

 

But I suppose the Russians hacked emails and nearly had world domination with 13 facebook trolls.

 

 

I love you conspiracy nuts.

[Francis Albert]

19 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

1. We've acted now because we can no longer ignore it, given it endangered so many of our own citizens. The article - and the series it's part of - sets out why we've turned a blind eye for so long: because we're terrified. But now that Russia appears to have raised it to this level... well, appeasement is only resulting in more and more trouble.

 

2. "Traitors" according to whom? A tyrant? And in any case, the victims also include an ordinary British scientist - who just happened to be the poor unfortunate to discover that Litvinenko had been poisoned with polonium. Said scientist apparently went on to "commit suicide" through multiple knife wounds... with two different knives. 

1. How many British citizens were harmed in the Salisbury attacks? And why were we "terrified" before but not now?

2. A double agent is a traitor according to me. The British scientist? Why did we not act on that ... because we were "terrified" or because we had to wait until many of our citizens were "endangered" rather than simply being killed?

[shaun.lawson]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

1. How many British citizens were harmed in the Salisbury attacks? And why were we "terrified" before but not now?

2. A double agent is a traitor according to me. The British scientist? Why did we not act on that ... because we were "terrified" or because we had to wait until many of our citizens were "endangered" rather than simply being killed?

 

As long as it was possible to sweep things under the carpet, that's what we've done. Russia is a nuclear power which props up our economy, supplies much of our energy and is a lawless, mafia state. Naturally, we've done as much as possible to avoid antagonising it.

 

After Salisbury - which most certainly could not be swept under the carpet, and represented a whole new level - the question became: which is worse? Do we keep appeasing the crocodile and keep allowing this to happen on our doorstep - or do we finally take some sort of action? We don't have much to gain from the latter (if we had a lot to gain, I'd have a lot more time for the conspiracy theorists); we had zero to gain from the former.

 

Typical international relations, in other words. A choice of two almost equally awful options. But when a country is engaged in low level warfare against you, it cannot be ignored forever. 

Edited March 31, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Gorgiewave]

2 hours ago, Cairneyhill Jambo said:

All European countries. I've got more friends from Europe than I do from Newcastle, Liverpool, Swansea or Belfast. 

Are Newcastle, Liverpool, Swansea and Belfast in Europe?