Printable View
Please please please! We don't know what our depleted intelligence service finds out because this corrupt Government censor all of our news in this country. The UK as the most gullible people on the planet. That's why they get away with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sukumvit boy
This could possibly be a campaign by the Establishment to stabilise Theresa May in her battle against Corbyn for power? I hope Russia don't play her games and expel no diplomats in return!
Presumably you are not one of the 'most gullible people on the planet'? From what emerged yesterday both in Parliament and among the commentators, there are details about the incident which the government has not released to the public, but even if you don't believe a word of the government, ask yourself some pertinent questions:Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
1) who manufactured the precursors needed to create a nerve agent capable of causing such harm, and why has the British govt been so confident in identifying the agent used as derived from the Novichuk agents developed in the USSR in the 1970s?
2) If -the issue was raised yesterday in the Commons by Corbyn- the agents were made and used by persons unknown but not the Russian state, who are they? Are they Russians 'out of control' in a country where chemicals weapons 'if they exist' are among the most controlled in the country?
3) If the 'terrorists' are not Russian, who are they, and even if they wanted to implicate the Russians, how would they know that Skripal was a useful target and that he lived in Salisbury? If, for example they were Serbians paid by the Russian state or elements in the FSB to carry out the attack, they still needed to know who to attack and where they lived.
4) If it was a 'false flag' operation carried out by the British govt, why were the perpetrators so incompetent as to threaten the lives of innocent people?
Again, as I suggested yesterday, the Russians, already in the frame for the use of chemical weapons in Syria, are now deliberately merging the boundary between conventional and unconventional weapons, either because, like the Americans they want to use tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield of their choice, or to raise the stakes in order to force the Americans to 'come to the table' to negotiate much as the North Koreans successfully worked away at the US until it too caved in to their pressure to accept in principle the need for talks.
This is part of the campaign rolled out some years ago by Vladimir Putin; it is called: Make Russia Great Again!
-and no, they don't care how many people are killed to achieve it.
You are the most patronising little man I have ever had the misfortune to come across! Just a mouthpiece for the BBC! Why bother??
This is looking more & more of a conspiracy against Corbyn every day that passes by? We know rubbish like you, the Tories & the Establishment are petrified of a left wing Government taking power. You despise working class people, you had the chance to get rid of these cunts but like the true "bottler" you are you voted Green! What a waste of a vote, all fucking mouth Mister.
We've got you rubbish over Brexit & you're determined we're not going to get you again!
Our day will come, try & shrink your BIG fucking head. I'm another of many sticking to the Escort section because of your drivel!
:fu:
I think for myself, and use a variety of sources across the spectrum of opinion to form my own, in the hope of generating debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
You can shout as much as you like, but your resort to insults tends to imply you don't think past your reactions to ask or answer serious questions, like what the nerve agent is that was used in Salisbury, where it came from, who delivered it, and why. Look at it this way, Peejaye, it is not weed killer. Take it from there.
Attachment 1063705
May couldn't give any proof of evidence to Jeremy Corbyn in PMQT yesterday & todays tabloids most preposterous anti-Corbyn propaganda we’ve seen so far! Coincidence?
FUCK OFF!
How stupid do you think the Russians are leaving so called proof everywhere!
We know the targets are people the Russian state would have been interested in. Do you think someone else targeted Skripal to try to make Russia look bad? Have they done it before? In fact, many times before using exotic materials that are very hard to come by?Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Mate, who are the others? Are there a lot of people who agree with you on this? Your hypotheses just seem far-fetched.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Welcome back, Comrade. I don't know why Mrs May said what she said, I suspect she was under pressure to make a statement and take active measures before the various medical and forensic teams have completed their work,, which may take months.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Intelligence now believe the nerve agent may have been planted in Russia-
Senior sources have told the Telegraph that they are convinced the Novichok nerve agent was hidden in the luggage of Yulia Skripal, the double agent’s 33-year-old daughter.
They are working on the theory that the toxin was impregnated in an item of clothing or cosmetics or else in a gift that was opened in his house in Salisbury, meaning Miss Skripal was deliberately targeted to get at her father.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...uggage-sergei/
(Paywall)
Attachment 1063730Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Yeah right! You've made 11 posts in the last 2 days on this topic alone. You keep saying you are not going to waste time arguing with him, so why not just do it?Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
Further to my post earlier, Mark Urban on BBC-2's Newsnight claims the luggage theory is weak because traces of the nerve agent were not found in the Skripal house -making the family car the primary source- though that cannot rule out a package in the luggage, say a gift not being opened in the house -? Also 46 people were treated in hospitals in the area with the symptoms of nerve agent poisoning and police think over 100 may have been subjected to mild doses, so there is clearly more to come from the investigations.
There you go again! Mr Finger waver...who the fuck are you? Apart from Stavros' fucking poodle. I know your the one ticking all of his postings, you got nothing better to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I'd love to come face to face with you.
FUCK ME! You mean there's something out there you DON'T actually have the answer to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
There's a first time for everything. I mean you've even tried to educate me on my hobby of 35 years, you gunna tell me how to brew beer next?
It's understandable why you throw stones at Putin everyday.
I mean..... LOOK at our Leader & look at him. You must be so jealous? Speak to Russian people and ask them what they want. A STRONG leader is what they reply.
As I say, look at ours, fucks sake!
I will sign off for good now, I will leave you and your little poodle to educate & insult the great unwashed & gullible on here.:violin
Bronco; You would have to live over here to understand fully what I mean. Jeremy Corbyn will not be allowed to govern this country. If it looks like he's sweeping to power just before the General Election he will be "took out" by the Intelligence service! Russia is just another thorn in their side! Taking out a Russian & his daughter is nothing to what they WOULD do! They knew how Corbyn would react to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
[QUOTE=peejaye;1828202
[I]It's understandable why you throw stones at Putin everyday[/I].
--Hmm let's see...rigged elections; Alexander Litvinenko; Boris Nemstov; Alexei Navalny; Mikhail Khodorskovsky; the Crimea; eastern Ukraine and the bombing of Malaysian Airlines 17; Chechnya; Georgia and the fake republics of Abkhazia and Transnistria; Syria and the indiscriminate bombing of schools, hospitals and residential districts; money laundering; interfering in foreign elections- and that's just for starters...
He doesn't inspire respect in me, sorry about that.
I mean..... LOOK at our Leader & look at him. You must be so jealous?
Theresa May is not our leader, we don't have leaders in the UK. We have a head of state, and a Prime Minister and a Parliament. I am not a supporter of the Tories or Mrs May, but if you look at the party forming our government, the choice after her is substantially worse, unless you want your Brexit pals to 'lead us' into the sunlit uplands of 'independence'.
Jealousy is an infantile emotion.
Speak to Russian people and ask them what they want. A STRONG leader is what they reply
-The last time I was in Russia, in 2013, I did speak to Russians and the Russians I spoke to loathed and detested Putin, and that was in his 'home city' of St Petersburg.
What hysterical rubbish. I would not be surprised if Corbyn did become Prime Minister, the Murdoch Press and the Mail failed to make any impression in the last election, and as most people in the UK are more concerned with domestic issues than, for example, Brexit or Russia, Labour is in a strong position. Corbyn's primary enemy is himself. He came across in the Commons debate as someone who preferred to criticize the government rather than express solidarity with it, because he can't stomach the thought, let alone the expression of solidarity the occasion required, he really is that narrow-minded. He was right about the impact of austerity and cuts to the diplomatic service, but he will never stand aside a Tory unless he is forced to, as happened in Batley and Spen when he was standing next to Cameron and looked as if he had been, well, poisoned...the irony is that Theresa May's position, for the time being has been strengthened by the Russian attack, but when that subsides and we get back to Brexit, she will be looking over her shoulder with some anxiety as the maniacs reach for their blades. Hard to know who is most vulnerable -May or Corbyn?Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
[QUOTE=Stavros;1828241]Billy Joel should have left it alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye;1828202
[I
I don't much care for the, "We didn't start the fire", reboot! :shrug
This thread's turning into a bit of a wild ride! :hide-1:
:dead:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...source=Twitter
Breaking news: Another false flag, compressed upon Nikolai Glushkov's neck. The Russian government are the unluckiest victims of serial framing in the history of the world.
I listened to Jeremy Corbyn in the Commons and here's the issue I have. He is careful not to say what his supporters are saying, for instance, the false flag hypotheses or the claim by Seumas Milne that the intelligence services' failures during Iraq cast doubt on any conclusion they make. But Jeremy's statements are always conspicuous by what they don't say. It is the tone and the gestalt that paints a very different picture from what is going on.
Here's the test: if one were completely unaware of what has gone on in the last fifteen years and listened to both Corbyn and May, whose speech would have better informed them about the nature and seriousness of what Russia has done? I would probably disagree with most of May's domestic policy proposals, but Jeremy seemed to need to find some way to distinguish himself from her by planting subtle little strawmen. For instance, the claim that there is a McCarthyite intolerance of dissent, or the idea that the west is looking for confrontation with Putin.
Corbyn's supporters will often post excerpts of his speeches and say, "what is wrong with that. Why is the Tory press attacking him?" It's because the picture he paints is not consistent with reality, in a hundred different ways. Then you look at people who have historically supported him or been allies of his, like Livingstone, going on RT to insinuate there was maybe a false flag, and it makes one wonder what motivates Corbyn's slightly peculiar responses.
And Peejaye, I have nothing against you, but not everyone who dislikes Corbyn is a liar or has some special interest. That assumption makes his movement look a bit cult-like.
[QUOTE=Jericho;1828262]Very funny. I now can't read that post w/o that tune. No truth to the rumor Jeremy wanted to call it "they didn't start the fire."Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
[QUOTE=broncofan;1828273]My work here is Done! :hide-1:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
Here's one of the reasons the Corbynistas are so 'rabid' sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
One of the BBC's flagship political news programs, Newsnight, had this as a backdrop during a recent discussion.
Attachment 1063905
So much for neutrality!
You're right. That's not a neutral image that's a partisan image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
But we have to ask what kind of look he's trying to affect with that hat. I found it in a slightly different shade https://www.ebay.com/i/122336404395?chn=ps&dispItem=1 And for women:) https://www.amazon.com/Hula-Girl-Ush.../dp/B00WWEDNME
Well, before it became "hat of choice" for the Allfather, we just used to call them twatcaps! :shrugQuote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
This is just scratching the surface! This is why you guys overseas should NEVER ever believe what the BBC report on Politics in this country. There Chief Political Editor is a member of the Tory Party!Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Welcome back, comrade. Perhaps you can explain why your Brexit chums like UKIP and its former leader Nigel Farage regard the BBC as a left-wing organization fully committed to the implementation of Marxism's Common Purpose...?Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
What I find bizarre about this is that there is nothing left-wing about the Putin regime, which is characterised by crony capitalism, ethno-nationalism and social conservatism. Putin has far more in common with Trump and the right-wing governments of Hungary and Poland than with Corbyn and his supporters. It's as if these people can't move beyond the reflexive reactions they learnt in their youth when Russia was communist.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Out of idle curiosity I googled this claim and could not find a shred of evidence for it. The most I could find is that she was once listed as an invited speaker at a conservative conference fringe event, but the invitation was refused.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
I agree. It's almost as if the identity of the parties involved matter more than principles and facts. Even if Russia were still a communist country, they either had a hand in poisoning a former spy or they didn't. But as you say, there is nothing left-wing about the Putin regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
Is there a possibility of some sort of frame-up or false flag? I swear to God if there is ever a large-scale false flag that fools most honest people and then is revealed we are going to be paying for it for the next hundred years. It would legitimize infowars and their ilk to some people.
To avoid outlier views on twitter I've ignored those with fewer than 3000 followers and I've still heard bizarre theories, from the number of different countries who could have been involved to the hypothesis that maybe novichok wasn't even used. I still haven't heard the definitive view on whether Corbyn's hat in that image has been altered to make it more Russian, as though it needed the help.
Out of generosity I was going to point out all the differences between Trump and Corbyn, of which there are many, but Corbyn's ineffectiveness is especially dangerous because of whatever the hell is going on with Trump, which is not mere ineffectiveness.
I think the key question here concerns motive - who gains? It's obvious that the Russians had a motive to kill this guy, and they have plenty of form in that regard. I find it very hard to see who would gain sufficiently from provoking a dispute with Russia at a time when the UK is going through a messy divorce with the EU and we have a US president who is averse to taking firm action against Russia. Also, you have to wonder about the role of Russia in promoting these conspiracy theories, given they also have form in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by 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!
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment
Look under United Kingdom, hope it helps.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by peejaye
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA8x_ozvtqo