The Curious Case of Alexander Litvinenko

[broncofan]

For anyone genuinely interested of a non-Establishment point of view, self confessed Conservative Peter Hitchins writes;

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co....-are-next.html

I read this article earlier. Did you consider him non-establishment before he wrote this article? What qualifies someone as establishment except that they disagree with Corbyn?

[peejaye]

You are so far away from the truth with that comment, I'm not even going to begin! As you seem to be swallowing all the garbage on here' I'll leave you to it.
Peter Hitchins is a realist, he lives in the same world as me as some cunts on here clearly don't, saying that about someone who's as opposite to me on politics is hard to swallow!
If you lived here Bronco, you might understand what the fucks happening. I'd love to know more about US politics but I would never ask some fanatic whose not a US citizen anything about it!
BEWARE & good luck!

[broncofan]

I find the article full of strawmen as well. If someone takes a position where they do not seem to acknowledge the evidence indicating Russia engaged in an act of war people will question whether they will take the appropriate actions to defend their country. That does not reflect an intolerance of dissent.

Believing that Russian diplomats should be expelled does not signify a desire to restart the cold war or to start wwiii, namely because it would be an appropriate response regardless of which country engaged in that conduct. And people who disagree with Russian policy do not loathe Russia or its people. The things Russia has done in the U.S. have been carefully documented and their history of assassinations of journalists and dissidents is worthy of condemnation. If you do not appear to respond forcefully to this act of war and then one of your oldest allies appears on Russian state tv insinuating it may have been your own government it will raise eyebrows. Just my take.

[broncofan]

Peter Hitchins is a realist, he lives in the same world as me as some cunts on here clearly don't, saying that about someone who's as opposite to me on politics is hard to swallow!

The reason I asked is because being establishment seems to disqualify them from having a view, regardless of whether it's consistent with the facts. I just wanted to know what the criteria is for considering someone establishment. From time to time I will agree with people I've historically disagreed with. I don't see why people's affiliation and upbringing and all these labels should mediate whether what they're saying is true.

[broncofan]

Peter Hitchins is a realist, he lives in the same world as me as some cunts on here clearly don't, saying that about someone who's as opposite to me on politics is hard to swallow!
BEWARE & good luck!

I'm not attacking you. I'm saying I don't find the use of establishment to be one that can be consistently applied or that tells us anything anyway. It might not be that hard to say that about him given that he agrees with you on this issue. I think it's somewhat similar to what they call the "strange new respect" formulation in this country....

[peejaye]

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

Look under United Kingdom, hope it helps.

[Stavros]

For anyone genuinely interested of a non-Establishment point of view, self confessed Conservative Peter Hitchins writes;
l

I wonder how a 'self-confessed conservative' who spent his teenage years in Tony Cliff's 'revolutionary' IS before abandoning Trotskyism for the Labour Party, which he left in 1983 before becoming besotted with Margaret Thatcher, ended up in the Daily Mail, which is an establishment of cranks all to itself, having a long history of backing losers, like one Adolf Hitler in those now-forgotten days.

If Jeremy Corbyn is to be admired as a man of principle, why did he spent most of his career arguing that the UK should leave the EU, only and grudgingly accepting the Social Chapter of the Single Market Act in 1987 knowing the UK under a Labour govt could (and should) make legal all those rights if it wasn't in the EU? He could have said in the EU Referendum 'I have always argued the UK should leave the EU and do so again today' only of course he was more or less invisible throughout the campaign. He has since led the Labour Party to vote in favour of almost every government proposal on Brexit, always claiming he is doing so to honour the referendum not to join with the Tories. The truth is he doesn't care about Europe or the EU, his priority is a form of socialism in one country that is little different from the economic nationalism that is making the US an international troublemaker with who knows what consequences? And like the current US administration, his intention in addressing the domestic economy and its problems is to borrow billions without knowing when or how it will be paid back. As Dick Cheney said: deficits don't matter.

As for the foreign policy issues Christopher Hitchens younger brother jumps into a swamp of victims, all of them cast into the dump by the wicked west. On this scenario, the Maidan Revolution in the Ukraine was Made in the USA, as if the people of Ukraine were not fed up with one corrupt President after another looting the country's wealth and giving nothing back in return. No, apparently these are the people who, when Hillary Clinton said 'revolt!' jumped out of their seats as if to say 'why didn't we think of that before?'.

As for Libya, the ignorance is astounding. I think it was 1997 or 1998 when I asked a Libyan colleague what would happen if Qadhafi died tomorrow. I remember him shaking his head and saying 'terrible things', and went on to explain how many people who had suffered under his regime would exact retribution. The west had a dilemma in 2011, as Qadhafi was preparing to launch an assault on the Benghazi region with a violence that would have been similar to that we have seen inflicted on people in Syria and Egypt. The simple truth is that Libya was already on the verge of collapse when the Arab Spring created the conditions for Qadhafi's demise. That Libya, as with Syria, crushed all forms of civil society guaranteeing social chaos after the collapse of the totalitarian govt was always part of the plan, as dictators throughout the centuries have declared Après moi, le déluge.

As for Libya, when in Hitchens' wordsthe Libyan adventure created the unending migration crisis across Europe you wonder what planet this moron is living on. The refugee crisis was created by failed states in Syria and Libya, but the majority of refugee and bogus asylum seekers entered Europe through Turkey with the connivance of the Turkish goverment. Hitchens has been out of touch for years, in a trivial example he once wondered why anyone would kick a ball around a field for 90 minutes, oblivious to the fact that millions of men and women, boys and girls do just that every Sunday morning.

So there you are, poor old Russia, the victim of this smear and that, the victim of western aggression and misunderstanding, the fall guy for the western world's endless pursuit of world domination.

You find this drivel in the Mail on Sunday for a reason.

[peejaye]

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitio...-jeremy-corbyn

[Stavros]

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitio...-jeremy-corbyn

Alexander Litvinenko was a victim; Sergei Skripal and his daughter are victims. Corbyn is not a victim. He is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons.

[sukumvit boy]

Excellent BBC Newsnight interview with Mikhail Khodorkovsky ,former Russian oligarch who in 2003 was thought to be the "richest man in Russia ".
He says that ,if asked a few years ago whether Putin was behind the attempted assassination of Skripal and his daughter he would have said undoubtedly ,yes. But now he believes that in certain affairs Putin is a "puppet" controlled by a gang of rich and powerful businessmen and gangsters who are calling the shots.