MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
War on Terrorism (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 50, 51, 52 ... 106, 107, 108  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Haven't you missed out three salient facts, Ishmael?

1. You were typesetting the book at the time
2. I kept nagging you to read it
3. After six weeks or so, you actually did.
Then you gave me some feedback.

I am not complaining about people not reading my book, I am complaining about people not giving me feedback about why they didn't read the book. This is what is useful. Tears on my pillow are dry by morning. Look at Borry! Until I cornered him, the cur wouldn't give up the priceless information the print was too small. And 'brilliant', Ishmael, is not very helpful either. What is welcome is not necessarily useful.

Class dismissed.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Petrov and Boshirov looked a bit glum.

The bad publicity has played havoc with their fitness (sic) business.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A wonderful piece of theatre between our Kirsty (presenter, BBC Newsnight) and their Kirsty (presenter RT, the Putin mouthpiece channel). They pretended they were two old pro's (that is objective journalists) having a bit of a spar until our Kirsty asked one too many spiked questions whereupon their Kirsty slammed the phone down! This is all too characteristic of Putin's Russia. They sort of know what they are supposed to do but always end up building Potemkin villages.

The AE aspect though is that our Kirsty is much more of a British mouthpiece than she understands. Our model permits more objectivity but only up to a point, Lord Reith.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Petrov and Boshirov looked a bit glum

This is surely in their favour. Any properly trained field operative would be able to handle a telly interview. Blimey, it's Interrogation Resistance Techniques 101. They'd be able to present themselves as a pair of innocents caught up in a bewildering international crisis without breaking sweat. Ah...I see what you mean.

Still nobody has alluded to the significance of Gatwick inbound, Heathrow out.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The suspects contended that one photo released by British police was incorrect – a CCTV still showing them at separate passport windows at the same time at Gatwick airport. “We always go together through the same corridor. One goes, the other waits,” Boshirov said. “So how did this happen? You should ask them [the UK police].” (Guardian)

This is immensely significant. They knew they had sequentially numbered passports so couldn't go to the same window. But not going to the same window would admit foreknowledge therefore the photos showing they did must have been 'doctored'.

It shows the incompetence of the GRU that this was ever a problem in the first place. What were they thinking? Maybe Hatty is right, and it's all an elaborate con to create an international incident. I'd be worried about a Great Power that was capable of such Machiavellianism.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mark Urban pointed out that cloned passports were used by Mossad agents in the 2010 Dubai assassination. One hopes this is coincidence and the GRU isn't learning from Mossad ops.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

They surely are since the Mossad operatives were caught! However we know these passports are not cloned because they are sequentially numbered (and anyway both Russians and Britain say they are genuine). It is true they are not in the real names of the two passport holders (the Guardian claims that MI5 knows their real identities, which will be interesting when the time comes).

However this does raise another point. If the GRU is to some extent a rogue element in the complicated internal working of the Russian state apparat, they may have applied for passports for the two men and been given passports for the same men quite outside the remit of ordinary secret service procedures i.e. without the connivance of the ordinary passport issuing authorities. As the RT presenter put it angrily in reply to our Kirstie's forensic questioning, "My husband and I have sequentially numbered passports because we applied together."

There is plenty of evidence from other times and other states that secret services can act of their own accord without taking into account the wider picture (remember Buster Crabbe?). The GRU taking out one of their own gone rogue (i.e. Skripal) for their own good reasons (a lesson for other would-be double agents) seems a reasonable explanation for the whole imbroglio. It should not be forgotten though that taking out Skripal broke a strong 'spies convention' -- that once swapped they are left alone (otherwise nobody would go in for swaps). Perhaps in this new era of not-so-cold Cold Wars spy agencies are not in favour of swaps. It's always swings and roundabouts for them since while it encourages treachery it makes spying less hazardous.

Or maybe the Russians figure, "We'll take out ours because we know you won't take out yours." Very short-term thinking though perhaps true enough since they mind getting caught a good deal less than we do. Remember Buster Crabbe?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This new Salisbury scare is clearly a hoax (the bloke's got form) but it is going to have two interesting repercussions. The bloke is going to find out what happens to people who mess with the (British) state and will be going down for a substantial period. More significantly, what will the Russians do with this latest twist? Not so long ago they would have jumped on it gleefully as part of their normally quite effective policy of multiplexing the message but since they made a real blunder over the spies videotape, my guess is that word has gone down that a period of silence is best. But we shall see.

This is the policy they belatedly adopted over the drugs in sport business after initially multiplexing -- everything from the whistle blower being clinically insane to the whole thing being a CIA put up job. WADA is due to bring Russia's suspension (for the state-drugging of thousands of athletes) to an end today without the Russians carrying out the conditions imposed on them. The Kremlin calculated, it seems correctly, that a) they are too important to ban indefinitely and b) as long as they kept quiet about the whole business for a sufficiently long period of time, it could be swept under the carpet without too much world hoo-hah.

It should be noted from an AE standpoint, as opposed to a liberal throw up one's hands in horror standpoint, this is probably the correct policy on the part of WADA.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The problem for terrorists wishing to return to Britain is that if you are truthful, and explain the rationale of your actions in moving abroad, you are deemed a threat.

On the other hand if you argue you were radicalised, you are either feigning or so open to manipulation you are also an on-going threat

That's the thing with terrorism. It creates a mentality, in the population the terrorists wish to scare, of inflated threat or risk. So folks are wetting themselves.

Ms Begum appears bemused by why folks are so worried. She clearly would not be a good terrorist.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I rarely take a position when it comes to 'symbolism' which the Begum case (even adding in the 'hundreds of others') clearly is. Yet I found myself horrified at the British position. I really thought British citizenship counted for something and shouldn't be cast so lightly aside just because MI5 manpower would be stretched a tad. But then I regard terrorist acts as 'symbolic' so the sixty million headless chickens with British passports, who don't, are entitled to take a different view.

'Terrorist brides' have interesting parallels with 'trafficked women' but since this involves a degree of heartlessness towards both categories I will take time off to prepare my words with more than my usual care.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There are only two types of terrorism "right wing" and "Islamic".

It is no longer a left/right thing.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Which one was SOE?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Which one was SOE?

That is the Grey Zone.

Ministry of ungentlemanly warfare.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

That is careful ignoral, Wiley. I am surprised.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Maybe, but the first question is where these left wing terrorists have gone and why. There are a few lefties in Greece still blowing things up, but it is clearly not the norm. When the bombs go off it's a case of is it an Islamic Group, or a Right Winger. Unless you believe it is a Security Services conspiracy. In which case your starting point is always... Is it the State again?
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 50, 51, 52 ... 106, 107, 108  Next

Jump to:  
Page 51 of 108

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group