MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Questions Of The Day (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 87, 88, 89 ... 299, 300, 301  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It will not be ironic if President Trump falls because of Stormy Daniels rather than his committing treason by colluding with Russia (a capital offence by the way but I think, under the American system, he can pardon himself on the way to the chair). It will be par for the course.

President Clinton was not impeached because of anything that might reasonably count as a high crime or misdemeanour (I'm not saying there weren't) but because of lying about a blow job. And even that technically wasn’t a lie because he was, apparently quite sincerely, drawing a distinction between having relations with that woman and a blowjob. English is not the most forensic language in the world when it comes to sex. The Nixon case was even more ‘ironic’. He was impeached not for, say, bombing Cambodia, not even for lying about bombing Cambodia, but for covering up a break-in.

Goodness, the Americans are a litigious lot. We British gave up on the messy business of impeachments just at the time we were giving up on Americans.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is becoming increasingly clear that Stormy Daniels will have to give President Trump his $130,000 back. The contract is clearly invalid on its face and she has broken the terms even on the best construction. From my knowledge of porn stars it is unlikely she will have any of the money left so Trump will have to issue a tort in relief.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

This could get embarrassing, or more likely not embarrassing just more expensive....Mr "good at deals" appears not to have checked his paperwork, (whoops schoolboy Coyote type error) before not signing and thus invalidating the said poorly drafted contract.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

just more expensive...

On the contrary, impeachment will be a very profitable exercise. According to reports, Mr Trump's net worth has substantially declined since his taking on the burdens of the presidency.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The AE aspect of this Skripal poisoning case is that the reward is minimal, the costs are maximal. Even allowing for Russian insouciance it seems to make very little sense.

When the Litvinenko business happened back in 2006, and in contrast with what everybody is remembering now, the British response was extremely robust. Too robust, I thought at the time, when it was clearly just someone at the higher levels of the Russian government having a rush of blood. But the British just wouldn’t let it go. Fair enough, I thought, perhaps not wise in terms of overall foreign policy but at least they are making it clear to da Bear there was no percentage in such rather petty acts.

So how are we to view Skripal in relation to Litvinenko? Should we conclude, as the urbane Urban put it on Newsnight, “The policy worked for ten years” or, as everyone else has concluded, "We didn’t do anything last time, so they did it again, so this time we’ve got to do something really meaningful."

The problem with Kremlinology is that it is impossible to tell How high? How rational? Whose rationality? and Rational for what purpose? Given that both events were rather sloppily done, the real question is ‘Why do the Russians seem not to care at being fingered for such big crimes for such relatively small rewards?’ General incompetence on the part of the FSB, both in decision-making and execution, is certainly possible but I am inclined to think both events were fully wargamed -- though for what purpose still eludes me. None of the rationales advanced so far make much sense. One thing nobody ever mentions is that Skripal got an absurdly light sentence for what he (allegedly) had done, betraying ‘dozens’ of Russian spies.

This would incline me to believe that it is ‘rogue elements’. It is foolish for all sorts of reasons to murder a swapped spy but since Skripal (allegedly) got so many Russian spies caught it is understandable their spy-masters might want to exact revenge on him. If so, the only question would be whether Putin is himself a ‘rogue element’. In other words, Putin (the President of Russia) would certainly say ‘no’ to such an absurd project but Putin (the ex-FSB spymaster) might say ‘yes’. But I don't altogether buy it. No, there's something more going on. Or something less.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
None of the rationales advanced so far make much sense.

To murder Mr Skripal would maybe make a semblance of sense. To murder his innocent, good looking (media friendly) daughter makes zero sense.

Very good PR though if you want to get an otherwise disinterested British public emotionally invested in another round of Syrian war.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Also the sloppiness of failing to actually kill him. Very poor on the part of the Russian sent to murder him, but very useful if you want to stretch a story out over a couple of weeks or months.

They'll probably drag it out right up until the World Cup.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

To murder Mr Skripal would maybe make a semblance of sense.

You haven't said why. There is not even the semblance of sense in creating an international incident just to bump off a traitor (or whatever you have in mind). Perhaps that is why you haven't said why.

To murder his innocent, good looking (media friendly) daughter makes zero sense.

We do not know she was other than collateral damage. Actually, to send a signal, whatever the signal you have in mind, we'll only know when you say what it was, it makes a great deal of sense to bump her off too.

Very good PR though if you want to get an otherwise disinterested British public emotionally invested in another round of Syrian war.

You'll have to spell out this baffling comment.

Also the sloppiness of failing to actually kill him. Very poor on the part of the Russian sent to murder him, but very useful if you want to stretch a story out over a couple of weeks or months.

I see, so you are suggesting it was a false flag operation. Why you would believe that is even more baffling. No doubt you won't tell us that either.

They'll probably drag it out right up until the World Cup.

Although Porton Down is only up the road, can you be sure that they could be sure how long a nerve agent never used on human beings would last before finally killing them (or not killing them, it is hard to follow your precise reasoning). Ah, but that explains the mysterious deaths of ... well, we all know who ...
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
To murder Mr Skripal would maybe make a semblance of sense.

You haven't said why. There is not even the semblance of sense in creating an international incident just to bump off a traitor (or whatever you have in mind). Perhaps that is why you haven't said why.


I agree. There is no sense in it whatsoever really. The only possible explanation that does make any sense is that it's a warning to any other would-be Russian traitors. I watched This Week with Andrew Neil and this was the only rational explanation Michael Portillo could offer. In my opinion it's a pretty poor explanation, but I concede it does at least make some sense. I just assumed that this would be the go-to explanation for most people here too so I preemptively conceded it.

Very good PR though if you want to get an otherwise disinterested British public emotionally invested in another round of Syrian war.


You'll have to spell out this baffling comment.


If you want to make Putin look bad it's better to have a young, beautiful innocent victim. It pulls at the hearts strings more effectively. An old Russian spy who looks like a mobster doesn't quite get the same sympathy vote. It's also useful to send out the message that innocent people are potential victims as it induces fear in people more readily ..and the subsequent demand for protection from their government, and retaliation against Russia.

I see, so you are suggesting it was a false flag operation.

Not so much a false flag. Just a simple lie or soap opera.

This man has already spent a life time as a spy lying on behalf of states for various reasons. This may just be his latest assignment.

can you be sure that they could be sure how long a nerve agent never used on human beings would last before finally killing them

Again, no need to actually poison anyone. All you have to do is create the pretence of poisoning. It's much, much easier.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So you have replaced the Russian government/security services carrying out a paltry act with enormous ramifications with the British government/security services carrying out an even more paltry act with even more enormous ramifications. Truly, Scottie, you live in a remarkable world.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
with even more enormous ramifications..

But if those ramifications are sanctions against Russia and renewed impetus re Syria, and that's what they desire. Then that makes sense.

Whereas there's no obvious reward for Russia in doing this.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

These are not the ramifications I am referring to (though a few more sanctions and increased support for Britain's Syria policy is remarkably paltry, even you would have to admit). It is what happens when the perpetrators are identified. Russia is about to find out and however feeble the response it hardly seems commensurate with taking out a traitor. But if your theory is correct it would be the end of the government, of MI5, of Porton Down and life imprisonment for an entire chain of command.

"Yes, Prime Minister, we're right on it. That Assad johnny is not going to know what hit him."
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
It is what happens when the perpetrators are identified.

The real perpetrators of these shenanigans won't be identified because it requires genuine critical thinking - which most honest, decent minded people, at all levels (particularly higher-up educated types), are incapable of. Ironically, it's the mindset that "conspiracy theories" are impossible that makes them so possible, and makes it so easy to dupe politicians and the general public.

"Yes, Prime Minister, we're right on it. That Assad johnny is not going to know what hit him."


The Prime Minister probably has no clue what's actually going on. In fact, I hope her dithering nature stops her from taking any real action on the back of all this. It's actually her best strength in my opinion (and I mean that as a compliment. I think she's naturally inclined to being patient, which the media despise, because it makes events such as this less fruitful as they're designed for an emotional quick response. You may have noticed how much the media are demanding a strong response from her.)

Imagine a scenario. The PM is sitting in her office. She gets a phone call telling her an event/attack of some sort has took place. She sees a TV screen and the same event is on the news. Unless she's a "conspiracy theorist" like me she won't even think to question any of this. They could tell her anything. The possibility that what she is being told is not true simply never enters her head.

And if someone like me tries to suggest such a thing it's dismissed out of hand on the grounds that "conspiracies" are impossible. Of course, this is unlikely anyway as most the people around her will have the exact same mental block.

This makes us incredibly vulnerable as a nation.

If a murderer is up in court a judge and jury will demand evidence in order to seal a conviction. Yet a Prime Minister will take action based on what they see on TV, or what they are told, without even asking for hard evidence. And the public and her fellow politicians likewise. All on a wave of emotion.

This should be a murder investigation. We don't even have a suspect. Or even a CCTV image of this person(s). Nor has there been time for a thorough investigation. Yet responses are imminent.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You're quite right. I've been so blind.
Send private message
N R Scott


In: Middlesbrough
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You may dismiss, but you, like most others have something akin to Stockholm Syndrome. Where the good guys who rule you and give you your daily news are incapable of deceit, but where the external bad guys are literally capable of anything no matter how illogical, silly or gruesome. Saddam Hussein's "belly-dancing assassins" spring to mind.

The simple truth is if you really want to exercise control over a country you don't have to resort to assassinating spies with poison gas. You just have to buy up the media, and get people in a few key positions. Britain is just like a large Banana Republic in that sense. This is why our foreign policy doesn't reflect our national interest.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 87, 88, 89 ... 299, 300, 301  Next

Jump to:  
Page 88 of 301

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