Poisoned Russian spy.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, maroonlegions said:

For those defending the governments or Boris and Maybots stance on blaming the evil Russians from day one 

Its good to be sceptical about Government intelligence on Russia and the Salisbury attack as we know from the past that not everything they say is always accurate.

 

 

And this from a man who has more credibility than May and clown Boris.

The wests agenda is about to be realised. It's all about Syrian invasion. Another manufactured nerve gas bs story.

[Sharpie]

30 minutes ago, Barack said:

Here. Who's getting the blame for these Syrian's being bombed with (reportedly) Sarin, then?

 

According to Lavrov...No evidence to suggest anything other than; those unfortunate men,women, & children on the news, despite living in squalid conditions,under constant barrage and with the most basic of supplies,have somehow managed to assemble the world's greatest collection of child actors and Hollywood make-up artists, to then put on a show for the world's media.

 

How dare they accuse Assad. 

 

Just listened to Trump seemingly contradict himself about leaving Syria, then saying later today they will say what action they are going to take. I am very pro American, in an earlier thread I asked about if there was any Russian involvement in the some time ago Bosnian escapade.  I looked up Google to get an answer, and from reading that saw that the United States seemed to be adjudged the highest cause of the whole thing, I was sure it was going to say Russia, they were never mentioned.  Now even I a firm believer in Russia always bad, America always good concept, have to start wondering what the hell is really going on in this world, and as a mentally challenged person wonder as I have recently on here been diagnosed, if it is just a case of way too much information for a mind like mine to take and compute.

[ri Alban]

48 minutes ago, Barack said:

Here. Who's getting the blame for these Syrian's being bombed with (reportedly) Sarin, then?

 

According to Lavrov...No evidence to suggest anything other than; those unfortunate men,women, & children on the news, despite living in squalid conditions,under constant barrage and with the most basic of supplies,have somehow managed to assemble the world's greatest collection of child actors and Hollywood make-up artists, to then put on a show for the world's media.

 

How dare they accuse Assad. 

Sarin? Is that all you have to do, hose yourself down. Aye.

Here, I'll go out ma back door and hose ma masel doon and post it on uchoob under the heading.

 

Team GB nerve gas attack on Scottish Indy fanatic. Boris ordered attack.

[Cade]

Many sides in the Syria conflict have previously made use of chemical weapons, that much is not in doubt.

 

Why the Government and their Russian backers would risk an escalating international response by using chemical weapons at this stage in the conflict seems bizarre.

They have more than enough conventional weaponry to bomb the various rebels into the stone age.

 

Or maybe they think they can double bluff the UN and the western powers and use chemical weapons with impunity.

 

[ri Alban]

Britain and America are gonnae get their ****s kicked in if they continue with their shite. A dirty pair of nasty animals who need sorted.

[scott herbertson]

1 hour ago, Cade said:

Many sides in the Syria conflict have previously made use of chemical weapons, that much is not in doubt.

 

Why the Government and their Russian backers would risk an escalating international response by using chemical weapons at this stage in the conflict seems bizarre.

They have more than enough conventional weaponry to bomb the various rebels into the stone age.

 

Or maybe they think they can double bluff the UN and the western powers and use chemical weapons with impunity.

 

 

Or maybe we are just being told they are by our governments? If it seems illogical  and “bizarre” then it is more reasonable to assume it is not happening than that it is. The same points were made about Saddam - to paraphrase “why is he still using WMD when he has been told to stop. We will have to incvade to stop him. He must be stupid and mad!”

 

Instead of stupid and mad it appears he was clever and evil but the false WMD scenario was used as a Casus belli for regime change in favour of the West.

 

I hope we are not on that slippery path again.

 

[niblick1874]

WMD

 

David Kelly, WMD expert that would know better than anyone says there's no WMD.

 

Shut up you tinfoil hat nut job.

 

They killed him. Shut up you sick ****.

 

Well? No WMD, what do you say now?

 

You are a nut job.

 

The Iraqi soldiers are taking babies out of their incubators, throwing them on the floor and leaving them to die. We need to go to war. Where are you hearing this? It's all over the MSM, some we girl saw them do it.

 

So it turns out the we girl is the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and was coached by a PR firm in America. She was lying through her teeth and the ones that wanted to go to war knew it.

 

Shut up you sick ****

 

It's true here's the proof

 

 

YouTube LOL, I'm not wasting my time watching anything you post you sick ****

 

It's true and way beyond just one girl lying. It was quite the operation. Below is the full program that the clip above is from. Scary. Thank God they never had nuclear weapons.

 

 

Why don't you tell us yourself what you want to say instead of posting shite from youtube. You need help.

 

I could fill page after page on here of the times they have done what I have pointed out above, they are called falls flag and are not conspiracy theories. They are facts.

 

As I have said many times on here, the American people have figured it out because there is no Clinton to cover up all the shit that is now coming out. At the same time, it is not passing them by that the MSM are not covering a thing about any of it and they have figured out what that means (propaganda and lies, not bias). The Russian shit? The Americans know it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. 

 

One trick they use is to tell everyone (using the MSM and the press) that the majority are seeing it the way they tell it when in fact, it's an ever decreasing minority. They also know Europe and Britain have figured it out (not to the extent that the Americans have, but there are now to many for them to shut up). they know the game is up for them.

 

Trump told them to get the troops out and shortly thereafter we had a gas attack. A year down the road Trump tells them to get the troops out and shortly thereafter there is a gas attack, only this time we have the Russian BS world wide.

 

I ask you to punch my hand that Is in front of a wall and when you do I pull my hand away and you punch the wall. I then put my hand back in front of the wall and ask you to punch my hand and when you do I pull my hand away and you punch the wall. Again I put my hand in front of the wall and ask you to punch my hand. will you punch my hand? It seems that once bitten twice shy means nothing now. There may or may not be something we can do about it but for goodness sake don't punch the hand. 

 

I have said for years on here that if they are found out by the majority they would not hesitate. They have been found out by the majority. Is it really the case that some can't wrap their head around the fact that they would embark on such atrocities? They are ******* sociopaths for Gods sake.   

 

We are not looking at another cold war here. We are staring war in the face and there are nuclear weapons this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

^^^^

 

Garble warble fibble wibble completely hatstand.

 

Oh yeah.

[shaun.lawson]

Nick, answer me a question please. 

 

Do you think Sandy Hook happened? Yes or no will suffice. 

[cosanostra]

6 hours ago, niblick1874 said:

WMD

 

David Kelly, WMD expert that would know better than anyone says there's no WMD.

 

Shut up you tinfoil hat nut job.

 

They killed him. Shut up you sick ****.

 

Well? No WMD, what do you say now?

 

You are a nut job.

 

The Iraqi soldiers are taking babies out of their incubators, throwing them on the floor and leaving them to die. We need to go to war. Where are you hearing this? It's all over the MSM, some we girl saw them do it.

 

So it turns out the we girl is the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and was coached by a PR firm in America. She was lying through her teeth and the ones that wanted to go to war knew it.

 

Shut up you sick ****

 

It's true here's the proof

 

 

YouTube LOL, I'm not wasting my time watching anything you post you sick ****

 

It's true and way beyond just one girl lying. It was quite the operation. Below is the full program that the clip above is from. Scary. Thank God they never had nuclear weapons.

 

 

Why don't you tell us yourself what you want to say instead of posting shite from youtube. You need help.

 

I could fill page after page on here of the times they have done what I have pointed out above, they are called falls flag and are not conspiracy theories. They are facts.

 

As I have said many times on here, the American people have figured it out because there is no Clinton to cover up all the shit that is now coming out. At the same time, it is not passing them by that the MSM are not covering a thing about any of it and they have figured out what that means (propaganda and lies, not bias). The Russian shit? The Americans know it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. 

 

One trick they use is to tell everyone (using the MSM and the press) that the majority are seeing it the way they tell it when in fact, it's an ever decreasing minority. They also know Europe and Britain have figured it out (not to the extent that the Americans have, but there are now to many for them to shut up). they know the game is up for them.

 

Trump told them to get the troops out and shortly thereafter we had a gas attack. A year down the road Trump tells them to get the troops out and shortly thereafter there is a gas attack, only this time we have the Russian BS world wide.

 

I ask you to punch my hand that Is in front of a wall and when you do I pull my hand away and you punch the wall. I then put my hand back in front of the wall and ask you to punch my hand and when you do I pull my hand away and you punch the wall. Again I put my hand in front of the wall and ask you to punch my hand. will you punch my hand? It seems that once bitten twice shy means nothing now. There may or may not be something we can do about it but for goodness sake don't punch the hand. 

 

I have said for years on here that if they are found out by the majority they would not hesitate. They have been found out by the majority. Is it really the case that some can't wrap their head around the fact that they would embark on such atrocities? They are ******* sociopaths for Gods sake.   

 

We are not looking at another cold war here. We are staring war in the face and there are nuclear weapons this time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your posts are long and incoherent and the videos are usually too dumb for words. If you posted shorter, more concise posts with actual evidence from reputable sources, it would be easier to take you seriously.

[XB52]

For once, in amongst his ramblings, Nibs has a point about the USA and msm. This latest "chemical attack" while Israel attacks a sovereign state with absolutely no comment???? 

[deesidejambo]

On 06/04/2018 at 21:58, Space Mackerel said:

 

Dont start that chat, there’s gullibles on here think we went 280,000 miles through space, drove a wee buggy, had a cup of tea, planted a wavy flag in a vacuum, then flew all the way back for a very unheroic welcome judging by their faces at the press conference. There was also no stars present in any photos, almost like they didn’t want the professional and amateur astronomers to figure out it was a pile of shite too. 

The reason many of the photos (not all) had no stars was because of the intense brightness caused by the presence of the sun in the sky which also reflected off the surface, to the camera apertures had to be adjusted for this intense brightness.    Just the same as on earth - in daytime you also wont see any stars in the sky here.  Go outside Spacey on a clear summer day and take a look.  You wont see any.

 

Spacey you are an idiot and your credibility on your other posts is affected by your stupidity in the conspiracy discussions.  Still believe Sandy Hook and Pentagon attack were faked by the US Govt?

[XB52]

52 minutes ago, Barack said:

There were comments.

 

The comments were: "Israel does not comment on military actions." 

 

This lead to speculating by msm, that it was probably Israel that bombed the airfield, as they don't like Iran very much...

 

So, speaking of Israel and "falls flags," are we to speculate, that they've supplied the resistance' effort, not with arms, or medicine, but with a chemical agent dropped from the sky, in an effort to ramp up efforts by other nations against Russia, Syria, & Iran? Was the plane flying overhead at the time, an Israeli,operating in Syrian(Russian protected airspace), a phantom plane? That the sophisticated radar of Russia, couldn't detect?

 

Have the people just been given mouthful of Mentos, & a big swig of Coke by Mossad, then rolled the cameras...?

 

Questions, questions...

not really sure what you are getting at here. Israel attacked Syria, yes or no?? Not a word of criticism about it, yes or no??

As for your point about Israel operating in Syrian airspace, they have done this countless times. Only time we heard about it was when one of their planes was shot down.  

[jake]

9 hours ago, Ulysses said:

^^^^

 

Garble warble fibble wibble completely hatstand.

 

Oh yeah.

 

9 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

Nick, answer me a question please. 

 

Do you think Sandy Hook happened? Yes or no will suffice. 

What a cute tag team.

 

 

[Thunderstruck]

The Israeli raid was against Iranian/Hezbollah forces occupying a remote air base inside Syria. A site that is used for incursions into Israeli territory.  

 

Such raids by Iran/Hezbollah are far from rare and Israeli responses are regular enough that there is a deconfliction mechanism (often conducted in Russian) in place to ensure no entanglement between Israeli and Russian aircraft. A similar airspace management system is in place to keep US/UK/French/Russian aircraft apart. 

 

The Israeli v Iran tit-for-tat is now routine enough not to excite the media. Had this raid happened at a different time, it would have passed almost unnoticed. 

 

Why then the Russian response to this particular raid? Could it be simple deflection?

[XB52]

46 minutes ago, Barack said:

The quote wasn't really aimed at you sorry, mate.

 

Just trying my hand at conflicting, alternate theories in a rambling fashion.

 

See what life's like on the other side, so to speak.

No probs☺

[XB52]

1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

The Israeli raid was against Iranian/Hezbollah forces occupying a remote air base inside Syria. A site that is used for incursions into Israeli territory.  

 

Such raids by Iran/Hezbollah are far from rare and Israeli responses are regular enough that there is a deconfliction mechanism (often conducted in Russian) in place to ensure no entanglement between Israeli and Russian aircraft. A similar airspace management system is in place to keep US/UK/French/Russian aircraft apart. 

 

The Israeli v Iran tit-for-tat is now routine enough not to excite the media. Had this raid happened at a different time, it would have passed almost unnoticed. 

 

Why then the Russian response to this particular raid? Could it be simple deflection?

Can't remember the last time Iran bombed an Israeli airbase??

[felix]

I'm guessing Nibs point was governments make up stories to sway public opinion in favour of wars - especially tales of suffering children .

Don't think there's much argument about this tbh.

 

 

[I P Knightley]

I'm not sure I want to read the 20 odd pages since I last visited this thread but have we had a "Yulia Skripal - GHP" post thus far?

 

I would but, if I did, would it make me glow in the dark?

[Boris]

14 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

I'm not sure I want to read the 20 odd pages since I last visited this thread but have we had a "Yulia Skripal - GHP" post thus far?

 

I would but, if I did, would it make me glow in the dark?

 

Chernobyl fall off rather than fallout?

Edited April 10, 2018 by Boris

[tian447]

39 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

I'm not sure I want to read the 20 odd pages since I last visited this thread but have we had a "Yulia Skripal - GHP" post thus far?

 

I would but, if I did, would it make me glow in the dark?

 

Thank **** it's not just me that would

[I P Knightley]

33 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Chernobyl fall off rather than fallout?

One of my favourite gags for folk who are visiting Kiev. "Whatever you do, don't buy any underpants when you're there." "Why not?" "Chernobyl fallout"

 

32 years and still going strong

[Boris]

7 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

One of my favourite gags for folk who are visiting Kiev. "Whatever you do, don't buy any underpants when you're there." "Why not?" "Chernobyl fallout"

 

32 years and still going strong

 

That joke has a long (half) life...

[Gorgiewave]

Some details of the Dynamo Kiev v Celtiv match in 1986:

 

Celtic consider whether to travel to Kiev as city is only 60 miles from Chernobyl where a nuclear disaster had occured the previous spring.

Foreign Office advise no one to travel to Kiev unless absolutely necessary.

UEFA declare game can be played in Kiev.

Celtic demand a check on radiation levels before travelling.

Celtic travel with their own food and take Tim Kelly, manager of the Grosvenor hotel, in charge of catering for the trip.

Celtic take SFA secretary Ernie walker as a precaution.

Celtic played in change strip of yellow shirts, green shorts and yellow socks.

150 Celtic fans travel to support the team on a chartered jet.

 

http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/1986-11-05%3A+Dynamo+Kiev+3-1+Celtic%2C+European+Cup+2nd+Leg

 

[niblick1874]

13 hours ago, Ulysses said:

^^^^

 

Garble warble fibble wibble completely hatstand.

 

Oh yeah.

 

13 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

Nick, answer me a question please. 

 

Do you think Sandy Hook happened? Yes or no will suffice. 

 

3 hours ago, jake said:

 

What a cute tag team.

 

 

 

Yep, and you will I am sure have noticed that nether reply was about anything I had said or for that matter about the topic of the thread. The reason for that is because they don't want what I say to be discussed, that is the last thing they want.

 

1 hour ago, felix said:

I'm guessing Nibs point was governments make up stories to sway public opinion in favour of wars - especially tales of suffering children .

Don't think there's much argument about this tbh.

 

 

 

Yes, you are right felix. I was pointing out the obvious for a lot of but there was something else I was pointing out. I was also pointing out why they have ramped it up to such a dangerous degree, reason being, they know the majority of Americans, Europeans and British have figured them out.

 

Below is a post to show a small cog in the machine that behind the scenes has been manufacturing the Russian shit. There are far more American people that know about this than don't. There are a lot more cogs now out there that have left the Americans no option but to admit to themselves the truth. The deep state and shadow government not only exist but have stolen their country. They have admitted that what I show you below is true and have demoted Mr Ohr. He should be in the clink along with his wife for the rest of their lives and the American people Know it. 

  

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 16:32, niblick1874 said:

 

Seeing as you brought it up, lawson you may find this of interest.

 

Have you heard about Mr and Mrs Ohr?

 

The wife is a Russian expert and hubby was very high up in the Justice Department (his office was four doors down the hall from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein). He was demoted when he was found out not that long ago and most people that know about it are asking why he was not fired let alone put on trial.

 

Mr Ohr met with Cristopher Steels in 2016, Christopher Steels being the one that came up with the Trump-Russia dossier. Mr Ohr also met with the founder of Fusion GPS more than once, a company that specialises in smear jobs as well as the company that hired Christopher Steel to come up with the Trump-Russia dossier. Mrs Ohr gets hired by Fusion GPS to work on the Trump-Russia dossier and is paid by..........................

 

You know what, I'll let everyone go check this stuff out themselves as the more you follow the paper trail (yep, the same one) the more out there it gets .

 

It's all proven fact and you couldn't make it up. 

 

But...................................................The Russians are close to taking over the American government

 

Blame the Russians for everything and if you don't, you're a Russian spy.

 

 

 

Below is someone using an irrelevance to claim my points were irrelevant. Everyone knows that the Russians try and interfere in others elections as do many others in everyone else's elections and it has been a lot more than two or three years that the Americans have been investigating this. As you can see, I was pointing out part of an attempt to fool the American people into thinking that Trump was in cahoots with the Russians, which is a completely different thing altogether.

 

Did he mean to do that or is he just 10 years a slaver on here?

 

Wool pulled over my eyes indeed. Paaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Not by you Lawson, that's for sure.

 

 

On ‎4‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 18:08, shaun.lawson said:

 

This is all very well, but it's 100% irrelevant. The investigation into Russian interference started well before the Steele Dossier. Subsequent co-ordinated intelligent assessments on the extent of Russian interference didn't even use the Steele Dossier as a source.

 

But still: congratulations on having the wool well and truly pulled over your eyes by that oh-so-trustworthy Donald Trump, and his treason weasel pals.  

 

[I P Knightley]

23 minutes ago, Gorgiewave said:

Some details of the Dynamo Kiev v Celtiv match in 1986:

 

Celtic consider whether to travel to Kiev as city is only 60 miles from Chernobyl where a nuclear disaster had occured the previous spring.

Foreign Office advise no one to travel to Kiev unless absolutely necessary.

UEFA declare game can be played in Kiev.

Celtic demand a check on radiation levels before travelling.

Celtic travel with their own food and take Tim Kelly, manager of the Grosvenor hotel, in charge of catering for the trip.

Celtic take SFA secretary Ernie walker as a precaution.

Celtic played in change strip of yellow shirts, green shorts and yellow socks.

150 Celtic fans travel to support the team on a chartered jet.

 

http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/1986-11-05%3A+Dynamo+Kiev+3-1+Celtic%2C+European+Cup+2nd+Leg

 

I seem to remember Celtic having teams and stands full of mutants long before 1986.

[Seymour M Hersh]

3 hours ago, Boris said:

 

Chernobyl fall off rather than fallout?

 

Ach, he's just had his Ready-Brek on a winters morning! 

[milky_26]

3 hours ago, I P Knightley said:

I'm not sure I want to read the 20 odd pages since I last visited this thread but have we had a "Yulia Skripal - GHP" post thus far?

 

I would but, if I did, would it make me glow in the dark?

just think, if you need to get up in the middle of the night for a slash you wont need to turn on any lights

[John Findlay]

 

Definitely your urine.

[Ulysses]

My mother told me never to mock the afflicted, but I think even she might make an exception for paperless trail boy.   

[Francis Albert]

10 hours ago, felix said:

I'm guessing Nibs point was governments make up stories to sway public opinion in favour of wars - especially tales of suffering children .

Don't think there's much argument about this tbh.

 

 

Correct. In the First World War the UK was in the forefront of "atrocity propaganda", most notoriously in the case of claims that German soldiers in Belgium cut the hands off Belgian babies and ate them (whether the babies or the hands was maybe not clear, and in any event not really important,  but the former was widely believed). This was of course pure invention. Unfortunately when news of very real German atrocities emerged in the Second World War it was difficult to persuade people this was not just more wartime propaganda.

I don't believe for a second that the CIA orchestrated 9/11 or that the moon landings were invented. But I do believe a healthy scepticism of what our governments and the media tell is absolutely justified. The WMD nonsense that "justified" the Iraq war for example.

I am sceptical about the Russians' and  Putin's role in the Salisbury attacks because it was such an absurdly botched job. I think it quite likely that the Assad regime was behind the gas attacks in Syria (they have previous) but dubious about Putin's or Russia's direct  involvement in them. Western allies in many wars have committed atrocities.

Some posters seem to equate scepticism about these things with crazy "tinfoil hat" views.

Maybe they would have thought the same about denials or disbelief about German soldiers eating babies in WW1.

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Francis Albert

[robbo1874]

32 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Correct. In the First World War the UK was in the forefront of "atrocity propaganda", most notoriously in the case of claims that German soldiers in Belgium cut the hands off Belgian babies and ate them (whether the babies or the hands was maybe not clear, and in any event not really important,  but the former was widely believed). This was of course pure invention. Unfortunately when news of very real German atrocities emerged in the Second World War it was difficult to persuade people this was not just more wartime propaganda.

I don't believe for a second that the CIA orchestrated 9/11 or that the moon landings were invented. But I do believe a healthy scepticism of what our governments and the media tell is absolutely justified. The WMD nonsense that "justified" the Iraq war for example.

I am sceptical about the Russians' and  Putin's role in the Salisbury attacks because it was such an absurdly botched job. I think it quite likely that the Assad regime was behind the gas attacks in Syria (they have previous) but dubious about Putin's or Russia's direct  involvement in them. Western allies in many wars have committed atrocities.

Some posters seem to equate scepticism about these things with crazy "tinfoil hat" views.

Maybe they would have thought the same about denials or disbelief about German soldiers eating babies in WW1.

 

Here's the thing I don't get about the gas attack. It just doesn't make any kind of sense for him to do it. He's about to win it seems and he must have known what kind of reaction would happen to any gas attack. It just doesn't seem to add up to me. It's like political suicide on his part.  

[shaun.lawson]

6 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Some posters seem to equate scepticism about these things with crazy "tinfoil hat" views.

 

Some posters might well do. I'm not one of them. I think healthy scepticism and critical thinking are incredibly important, along the lines of:

 

1. Who is telling me this?

2. Why are they telling me this?

3. In whose interests are they telling me this?

 

But the problem comes when healthy scepticism and critical thinking turn into the very kind of invention you mention; when supposed healthy sceptics completely abandon those three questions above when they watch videos or read articles which fit their 'world view'; and especially, when people think there are simple explanations for a very complex world.

 

The idea, for example, that the US is this all-knowing, all-seeing, dark, shadowy power which "pulls the strings" everywhere isn't that far removed from the same thing being said about the Jews throughout history. That in practice, the US is so incompetent that it ****ed up Iraq, destroying its own ability to start similar wars in future; and appears to have stood and watched while Russian operatives ran roughshod over its Presidential election, never occurs to the conspiracy theorists. Who start out by correctly rejecting the silly idea of "US good, Russia bad" - but end up with the even sillier "Russia good, US bad" or "Russia good, UK bad".

 

Life just ain't that simple - and no amount of references to 1970s Latin America, Iran in 1953 or the lack of WMD in Iraq will ever change that. The West has done many awful things - but so has everyone else. Such are international relations: which nowadays, sees far left loons nonsensically blaming the US for a disgusting, despotic, murderous regime in oil-rich Venezuela which can't even provide its benighted people with toilet paper on the shelves of its stores; let alone food or basic medicine.

 

Said loons attack Israel continually but ignore Hamas executing its own people, throwing Fatah representatives off buildings to their deaths, and denying the Palestinians elections since 2006. Some of these loons' response to Assad coming under threat from the US is to view him, ludicrously, as some poor, misunderstood good guy holding his country together. And they delight in good old Russia's intervention in Syria, while demanding we keep out and ignoring that Russia has spent most of its time there bombing civilians with impunity.  

 

Maybe all of us, as we grow up and become more informed about the world, are shocked at one point or another when we realise its many grotesque realities. But the desire to assume that if one side does bad, the other side (invariably, the one we're exposed to a lot less) must be good, is at the root of all this. Because very very often, the other side is actually a heck of a lot worse.

Edited April 11, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[deesidejambo]

10 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Some posters might well do. I'm not one of them. I think healthy scepticism and critical thinking are incredibly important, along the lines of:

 

1. Who is telling me this?

2. Why are they telling me this?

3. In whose interests are they telling me this?

 

But the problem comes when healthy scepticism and critical thinking turn into the very kind of invention you mention; when supposed healthy sceptics completely abandon those three questions above when they watch videos or read articles which fit their 'world view'; and especially, when people think there are simple explanations for a very complex world.

 

The idea, for example, that the US is this all-knowing, all-seeing, dark, shadowy power which "pulls the strings" everywhere isn't that far removed from the same thing being said about the Jews throughout history. That in practice, the US is so incompetent that it ****ed up Iraq, destroying its own ability to start similar wars in future; and appears to have stood and watched while Russian operatives ran roughshod over its Presidential election, never occurs to the conspiracy theorists. Who start out by correctly rejecting the silly idea of "US good, Russia bad" - but end up with the even sillier "Russia good, US bad" or "Russia good, UK bad".

 

Life just ain't that simple - and no amount of references to 1970s Latin America, Iran in 1953 or the lack of WMD in Iraq will ever change that. The West has done many awful things - but so has everyone else. Such are international relations: which nowadays, sees far left loons nonsensically blaming the US for a disgusting, despotic, murderous regime in oil-rich Venezuela which can't even provide its benighted people with toilet paper on the shelves of its stores; let alone food or basic medicine.

 

Said loons attack Israel continually but ignore Hamas executing its own people, throwing Fatah representatives off buildings to their deaths, and denying the Palestinians elections since 2006. Some of these loons' response to Assad coming under threat from the US is to view him, ludicrously, as some poor, misunderstood good guy holding his country together. And they delight in good old Russia's intervention in Syria, while demanding we keep out and ignoring that Russia has spent most of its time there bombing civilians with impunity.  

 

Maybe all of us, as we grow up and become more informed about the world, are shocked at one point or another when we realise its many grotesque realities. But the desire to assume that if one side does bad, the other side (invariably, the one we're exposed to a lot less) must be good, is at the root of all this. Because very very often, the other side is actually a heck of a lot worse.

 

We all let our personal biases affect our interpretations.   It’s a matter of how much.

 

Here’s a question - geopolitically what do you think would happen if the Russians decided to unilaterally disarm?

 

And same question for NATO?

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

We all let our personal biases affect our interpretations.   It’s a matter of how much.

 

Here’s a question - geopolitically what do you think would happen if the Russians decided to unilaterally disarm?

 

And same question for NATO?

 

 

 

If Russia did, I don't know what NATO would do, but I imagine it wouldn't be good.

 

If NATO did, Russia would be in Eastern Europe like flies on Easter Road.

 

And if both did... China would just take over the world instead.  

[deesidejambo]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

If Russia did, I don't know what NATO would do, but I imagine it wouldn't be good.

 

If NATO did, Russia would be in Eastern Europe like flies on Easter Road.

 

And if both did... China would just take over the world instead.  

To me it’s a bit different.

 

Firstly China.   I don’t see it as particularly expansionist.   They want Taiwan back for sure but I’m not sure they are interested in expanding their territory.  Maybe Nepal?

 

If Russia disarmed and dropped all claims to Eastern Europe I think that would spur global disarmament.  NATO would not need to exist.

 

But here’s the problem, and imo the root cause of the world sleepwalking into war - if the West were to disarm, Russia would be into Eastern Europe the next day.  They are hegemonists (if that’s the right word) and they want their Empire back.  The West has no designs whatsoever on invading Russia and never has had. It’s the other way round.

[shaun.lawson]

25 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

To me it’s a bit different.

 

Firstly China.   I don’t see it as particularly expansionist.   They want Taiwan back for sure but I’m not sure they are interested in expanding their territory.  Maybe Nepal?

 

If Russia disarmed and dropped all claims to Eastern Europe I think that would spur global disarmament.  NATO would not need to exist.

 

But here’s the problem, and imo the root cause of the world sleepwalking into war - if the West were to disarm, Russia would be into Eastern Europe the next day.  They are hegemonists (if that’s the right word) and they want their Empire back.  The West has no designs whatsoever on invading Russia and never has had. It’s the other way round.

 

Oh, I don't think China is expansionist in a global sense either. But it is employing soft power in many areas of the world (notably Africa) in a way it hadn't done previously; it's made much of the world alarmingly dependent on it financially... and the point is, if the US and Russia abandoned their roles, someone has to step up and be world policeman instead.

 

NATO? Well, you might ask why NATO didn't disband after the Cold War ended. Instead, it dramatically expanded: partly to protect all those nations of Eastern Europe who'd at last gained their independence and are all too painfully aware of Russian excesses, but also because of the very military-industrial complex which Eisenhower warned about as he left office. That complex absolutely does exist and governs policy to an increasingly alarming extent. It doesn't necessarily demand perpetual war; it does make way too much of the American economy dependent on arms and defence. 

 

And it also exists in Russia. When in doubt - ie. the economy is collapsing - gotta give those millions of unemployed, red blooded young Ruskies something to keep themselves occupied. But is Russia hegemonic? Nah. Like us, it just seeks to increase its sphere of interest wherever it can, usually (but not solely) for defensive reasons. It's just that it tends to employ considerably more ruthless tactics in doing so.

 

The thing that really frightens Putin isn't the US and the West at all, incidentally. It's China. Nothing gets him waking up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night more than the thought of Russians being Chinese vassals half a century from now. You might be amazed by this - but I've often suspected the endgame of his current policy might well be to join the West and Russia together in a confluence of economic and military interests... against China. But that's to assume he has an endgame at all. It might simply be that he enjoys making mischief, and aims not to destroy, but to divide.

Edited April 11, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[deesidejambo]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Oh, I don't think China is expansionist in a global sense either. But it is employing soft power in many areas of the world (notably Africa) in a way it hadn't done previously; it's made much of the world alarmingly dependent on it financially... and the point is, if the US and Russia abandoned their roles, someone has step up and be world policeman instead.

 

NATO? Well, you might ask why NATO didn't disband after the Cold War ended. Instead, it dramatically expanded: partly to protect all those nations of Eastern Europe who'd at last gained their independence and are all too painfully aware of Russian excesses, but also because of the very military-industrial complex which Eisenhower warned about as he left office. That complex absolutely does exist and governs policy to an increasingly alarming extent. It doesn't necessarily demand perpetual war; it does make way too much of the American economy related to arms and defence. 

 

And it also exists in Russia. When in doubt - ie. the economy is collapsing - give those millions of unemployed, red blooded young Russians something to keep themselves occupied. But is Russia hegemonic? Nah. Like us, it just seeks to increase its sphere of interest wherever it can, usually (but not solely) for defensive reasons. It's just that it tends to employ considerably more ruthless tactics in doing so.

 

The thing that really frightens Putin isn't the US and the West at all, incidentally. It's China. Nothing gets him waking up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night more than the thought of Russians being Chinese vassals half a century from now. You might be amazed by this - but I've often suspected the endgame of his current policy might well be to join the West and Russia together in a confluence of economic and military interests... against China. But that's to assume he has an endgame at all. It might simply be that he enjoys making mischief, and aims not to destroy, but to divide.

On your last paragraph- Maybe Orwell got it right!

 

It seems to me an easy solution - Russia disarm and that’s the end of it.   They will be left to live in peace.    But if NATO disarms that won’t happen the other way round.

 

Whats your take on a  good solution for Israel?

[shaun.lawson]

37 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

On your last paragraph- Maybe Orwell got it right!

 

It seems to me an easy solution - Russia disarm and that’s the end of it.   They will be left to live in peace.    But if NATO disarms that won’t happen the other way round.

 

Whats your take on a  good solution for Israel?

 

There isn't one.

 

The thing about the two state solution was, in the terms of how Israel intended it, it wasn't viable. Israel began building the illegal settlements in the 1970s (appallingly, under a Labor government) expressly to stop any possibility of a contiguous, viable Palestinian state. It also meant the 1967 borders (which Israel, rightly in my view, regards as woefully vulnerable and insecure) could never be returned to.

 

At Camp David in 2000, Israel also demanded control over the new Palestinian state's air space, water supply... and was prepared to concede just 22% of historic Palestine - not as a contiguous state, but much of it within apartheid South Africa-style Bantustans. Yet Israel viewed this as a major, historic concession! The Palestinian leadership knew it would never be able to sell this to its people (and Ehud Barak had no chance of selling it to his people either) - so the talks collapsed, with Bill Clinton outrageously blaming Arafat, then Ariel Sharon deliberately provoking the second Intifada a few weeks later. 

 

Where we are now is an utterly hopeless situation. Gazans are as good as under lock and key - but there is no faith between either side (how could Israel ever trust a Hamas leadership which wants to push it into the sea? How could Palestinians ever trust an Israeli state which has brutalised and slaughtered its people, and even tried to turn them into non-people in the eyes of the world?), while the Israeli left has spent the last 20 years as little more than a joke.

 

With the continued influx of Russian orthodox Jews and, for want of a better way of putting it, the relentless breeding of Hasidic Jews, Israeli politics have hurtled ever more to the right: so much so that Netanyahu looks like a decent, reasonable man compared with the nativist nutcases of Jewish Home, several of whom would quite happily wipe out the Palestinians, but whose support he needs to prop up his government.

 

The two-state solution is as good as dead - but that only leaves a one-state solution. Which I often hear advocated, but chronically ignores the very reason why Israel's existence was so important to begin with. It also ignores history, religion, and a never-ending conflict between two peoples who I can hardly imagine ever trusting each other again.

 

So what Israel is slowly doing instead is creating a fait accompli. Its influence with the US (but Russia too) is such that I doubt the international community can ever do anything about that.

Edited April 11, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, deesidejambo said:

To me it’s a bit different.

 

Firstly China.   I don’t see it as particularly expansionist.   They want Taiwan back for sure but I’m not sure they are interested in expanding their territory.  Maybe Nepal?

 

If Russia disarmed and dropped all claims to Eastern Europe I think that would spur global disarmament.  NATO would not need to exist.

 

But here’s the problem, and imo the root cause of the world sleepwalking into war - if the West were to disarm, Russia would be into Eastern Europe the next day.  They are hegemonists (if that’s the right word) and they want their Empire back.  The West has no designs whatsoever on invading Russia and never has had. It’s the other way round.

That is a pretty ahistorical statement. The Russians have a strong sense of history, one that goes back a long way, and it is a history over centuries of pretty regular and murderous invasions from the West. If we are talking, with our Western short term memories, about just the few decades since WW2, Russia had at least as little intention of invading the West as vice versa.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Francis Albert

[deesidejambo]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

That is a pretty ahistorical statement. The Russians have sense of history, one that goes back a long way, and it is a history ovrer centuries of pretty regular and murderous invasions from the West. If we are talking, with our Western short term memories, about just the few decades since WW2, Russia had at least as little intention of invading the West as vice versa.

Cant agree here.

 

Russia has already recently annexed part of Ukraine.    

 

After WW2 the Russians got as far as Czechoslovakia before being halted.   That doesn't seem a defensive strategy to me.  Happy to be persuaded otherwise though.

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

Cant agree here.

 

Russia has already recently annexed part of Ukraine.    

 

After WW2 the Russians got as far as Czechoslovakia before being halted.   That doesn't seem a defensive strategy to me.  Happy to be persuaded otherwise though.

 

I think it was mostly defensive. Stalin's approach was "what we have, we hold" - and who could argue with that given:

 

1. Tens of millions of his compatriots had died fighting Germany in not one, but two world wars over the preceding one and a half generations?

 

2. Most of the territory between Berlin and Moscow is flat. Therefore, it's very difficult to defend. 

 

But what's significant is that when the US, through Marshall Aid, said to Stalin "we're not a threat to you. Let's all open up and become interdependent", he rejected this, and vetoed Eastern Europe from receiving any aid either. When you also look at Soviet behaviour in Berlin, its demands for absurd amounts of reparations from Germany (Versailles all over again), and its attitude to the Paris talks of 1946-7 over the postwar future of Europe, where it played all sorts of bad faith games, it becomes a lot harder to view the Soviets as misunderstood good guys.

 

At the very least, Stalin's behaviour made it incredibly easy for the West to begin projecting ourselves as the forces of good. We were far more interested in compromise than he was; but once the Berlin Blockade began and the Czech government was ousted by a Communist coup, the die was cast.

[deesidejambo]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I think it was mostly defensive. Stalin's approach was "what we have, we hold" - and who could argue with that given:

 

1. Tens of millions of his compatriots had died fighting Germany in not one, but two world wars over the preceding one and a half generations?

 

2. Most of the territory between Berlin and Moscow is flat. Therefore, it's very difficult to defend. 

 

But what's significant is that when the US, through Marshall Aid, said to Stalin "we're not a threat to you. Let's all open up and become interdependent", he rejected this, and vetoed Eastern Europe from receiving any aid either. When you also look at Soviet behaviour in Berlin, its demands for absurd amounts of reparations from Germany (Versailles all over again), and its attitude to the Paris talks of 1946-7 over the postwar future of Europe, where it played all sorts of bad faith games, it becomes a lot harder to view the Soviets as misunderstood good guys.

 

At the very least, Stalin's behaviour made it incredibly easy for the West to begin projecting ourselves as the forces of good. We were far more interested in compromise than he was; but once the Berlin Blockade began and the Czech government was ousted by a Communist coup, the die was cast.

I can understand that Russia wanted a buffer zone to protect themselves against invasion in the 40s-50s or whatever, but things are different now.  Does anyone really think the West or anyone else for that matter has designs on invading Russia?    I guess its probably the same nowadays the other way round as more countries join NATO.

 

Will be interesting to see the US response on Syria.   

[shaun.lawson]

14 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Does anyone really think the West or anyone else for that matter has designs on invading Russia? 

 

Well, to put it like this about Putin, Stalin, or even dear old Vladimir Romanov: Just because they're paranoid, it doesn't mean we weren't/aren't out to get them.  

Edited April 11, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Francis Albert]

43 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Cant agree here.

 

Russia has already recently annexed part of Ukraine.    

 

After WW2 the Russians got as far as Czechoslovakia before being halted.   That doesn't seem a defensive strategy to me.  Happy to be persuaded otherwise though.

I don't think Russia has ever considered Crimea as part of the West and the Russians got as far as Czechoslovakia (and indeed Berlin) in defeating the Germans in WW2. Direct military intervention thereafter consisted mainly of suppressing the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and the Prague spring of 1968 where the Russians were certainly "bad guys" but were not attacking the West. And unfortunately worldwide condemnation of the Russian interventions  was somewhat muted by France, Britain and Israel's simultaneous invasion of Egypt in 1956 and of course the ongoing American intervention in Vietnam in 1968.

In fact until Afghanistan the Russians/Soviets  did not do much outside its East European sphere of influence, certainly not on the scale or scope of America, or even the UK,  which continued defending the remnants of its  Empire in Malaya, Aden, Kenya etc into the 1960s.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Francis Albert

[shaun.lawson]

9 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

worldwide condemnation of the Russian interventions  was somewhat muted by France, Britain and Israel's simultaneous invasion of Egypt in 1956 

 

Yup. The UN General Assembly voted by some extraordinary number to condemn Britain, France and Israel, all the while the Red Army was getting away with blue murder in Budapest! 

 

And as a personal aside: from London, my grandmother, who'd emigrated from Hungary before the Iron Curtain came down, organised the escape of the rest of her Holocaust-surviving family around the time of the Soviet suppression of the revolution. Her mother, two sisters, her husband-in-law, and her baby niece, had to be smuggled over the Austrian border - whence they headed to the British Embassy in Vienna. Which thanks to my gran, then organised flights to the UK for them.

 

All the adults were in jobs by the very next week. 

Edited April 11, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Boris]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The thing that really frightens Putin isn't the US and the West at all, incidentally. It's China. Nothing gets him waking up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night more than the thought of Russians being Chinese vassals half a century from now. You might be amazed by this - but I've often suspected the endgame of his current policy might well be to join the West and Russia together in a confluence of economic and military interests... against China. But that's to assume he has an endgame at all. It might simply be that he enjoys making mischief, and aims not to destroy, but to divide.

 

Can't remember who wrote it, but I read a piece in either the Sunday Times or the Observer a few years ago, it was an interview with some old guy who was a bit of a future gazer, ecologist/environmentalist, and his point was that in the future, with global warming, China will become an arid desert.  With 1bn+ of a population, the obvious move is to travel north and inhabit Siberia, which will not be as inhospitable due to aforementioned global warming.

 

In other words, watch out for Sino-Russian tensions in the future.

[shaun.lawson]

57 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

Can't remember who wrote it, but I read a piece in either the Sunday Times or the Observer a few years ago, it was an interview with some old guy who was a bit of a future gazer, ecologist/environmentalist, and his point was that in the future, with global warming, China will become an arid desert.  With 1bn+ of a population, the obvious move is to travel north and inhabit Siberia, which will not be as inhospitable due to aforementioned global warming.

 

In other words, watch out for Sino-Russian tensions in the future.

 

Yes, definitely. I think that Russia actually wants global warming, because it'll suddenly gain access to all sorts of valuable raw materials. 

[I P Knightley]

What's a "husband-in-law"?

[John Findlay]

The time for the west to have invaded the Motherland was after the fall of Berlin in Apr/May 45. Patton wanted to but, after 6 years of gruelling war Truman and especially Churchill(Britain couldn't afford it anyway) no longer had the stomach for more fighting. No one will be invading anyone anytime soon but, there will be the usual sabre rattling from both the East and West.