Russia and the World Cup

[drillerpie]

OK.....let us be sensible here......personally I think the Ruskies did the deed.....maybe not Putin but someone close to him looking for revenge.

This chemical can be knocked up by anyone with a GCE in Chemistry......the formulae is on the internet ffs.......and as for "invading Ukraine and Crimea", some of you are having a laugh.....the areas "INVADED" were Russian speaking and historically Russian for zillions of years, Putin is a tough guy and he wanted his territory back.....simple as......he did not "invade" Skeggy which is why the UN are holding back.

The weapon that shot down the airliner is freely available on the black market and was antiquated ie it was not able to differentiate between an airliner and a warplane.

Having said all of the above, Putin is a tough guy as I have already stated, BUT what does he have to gain from killing an ex~spy that spilled his guts years ago?

Maybe it's not the formula that's hard but making it without killing yourself?

The areas invaded spoke Russian because the communist party deliberately starved the Ukrainians to death and replaced them with Russians from other parts of the USSR.

Do you know how many invasions and wars you could justify with your logic?

No weapons which can bring down a passenger plane at at cruising altitude are 'freely available' on the black market. That is one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said (a hotly contested field).

Putin has plenty to gain.

[drillerpie]

Apparently the UK has shown France the supposed evidence (they've been 'thoroughly briefed'). And in their short press release they simply say that they believe Russia did it (their strongest claim being that there are no other plausible explanations) and that they 'stand with the uk'... whatever that means.

Being from Missouri, I like to see the 'evidence' handed over to a neutral 3rd party for independent assessment before being confident that the conclusions are correct, after all, we've known the 'intelligence' to be wrong before and the mistake cost a lot more lives than the threat to a Russian double agent, his daughter and a local copper.

Unfortunately though, there's no mention in the joint statement of whether footy-fan citizens of those countries should or shouldn't go to the world cup... or any other retaliatory measures.

Andy would you agree that the shooting down of the passenger plane was investigated by a team of independent experts and it made no difference whatsoever?

[andy6025]

Andy would you agree that the shooting down of the passenger plane was investigated by a team of independent experts and it made no difference whatsoever?

I don't know - I haven't read the details of who investigated. I'll trust that your insinuation is right though, just as blowing up wedding parties in Afghanistan didn't really make much of a difference either, except possibly for the US president known for his 'dignity' to change body-count methodology: any 'collateral damage' that is male and of military age is automatically considered an enemy combatant (for the press' benefit, of course) unless he's proven to be otherwise. It really does make war easier to swallow knowing that we do it right and they do it wrong.

And being so crude as to lace door handles with chemical weapons. Those Russians are so freakin' barbarian. Don't they know it would be better to kill him by hacking into his car and crashing it (that one's near the bottom of the article below)? I really hope TM & friends adopt a stern reaction to Putin's evilness. After all, we wouldn't want the press to have to cover boring stories like what kids are having for lunch at school.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theg...ld-north-korea

Edit: just looked up the passanger plane investigation. It was led by the Dutch - a member of Nato and from where the plane originated. So no, I'd say that it was not independently investigated. Reminds me of a scene from an old film: 'You keep using this word - independent - I don't think it means what you think it means.'

[LaxtonLad]

Apparently the UK has shown France the supposed evidence (they've been 'thoroughly briefed'). And in their short press release they simply say that they believe Russia did it (their strongest claim being that there are no other plausible explanations) and that they 'stand with the uk'... whatever that means.

Being from Missouri, I like to see the 'evidence' handed over to a neutral 3rd party for independent assessment before being confident that the conclusions are correct, after all, we've known the 'intelligence' to be wrong before and the mistake cost a lot more lives than the threat to a Russian double agent, his daughter and a local copper.

Unfortunately though, there's no mention in the joint statement of whether footy-fan citizens of those countries should or shouldn't go to the world cup... or any other retaliatory measures.

What has "Being from Missouri..." got to do with anything, or did you just want to let us know?

[drillerpie]

I don't know - I haven't read the details of who investigated. I'll trust that your insinuation is right though, just as blowing up wedding parties in Afghanistan didn't really make much of a difference either, except possibly for the US president known for his 'dignity' to change body-count methodology: any 'collateral damage' that is male and of military age is automatically considered an enemy combatant (for the press' benefit, of course) unless he's proven to be otherwise. It really does make war easier to swallow knowing that we do it right and they do it wrong.

And being so crude as to lace door handles with chemical weapons. Those Russians are so freakin' barbarian. Don't they know it would be better to kill him by hacking into his car and crashing it (that one's near the bottom of the article below)? I really hope TM & friends adopt a stern reaction to Putin's evilness. After all, we wouldn't want the press to have to cover boring stories like what kids are having for lunch at school.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theg...ld-north-korea

Edit: just looked up the passanger plane investigation. It was led by the Dutch - a member of Nato and from where the plane originated. So no, I'd say that it was not independently investigated. Reminds me of a scene from an old film: 'You keep using this word - independent - I don't think it means what you think it means.'

I see we haven't really moved on from 2014 and the 'because Russia isn't the only country that does bad things doesn't mean it's ok for Russia to do bad things' argument.

Ok so the Dutch are in on it too now. Most technically advanced countries are NATO members, who would you have liked to see do the investigation? Also if you don't trust the Netherlands to be able to carry out a fair investigation because they are in NATO, why take an interest in what France says?

How do you know a wedding party was blown up in Afghanistan? Who has most to gain from making you think a wedding party was blown up in Afghanistan? What would the US have to gain from blowing up a Afghan wedding party with weapons which could be traced back to them? Did you see it with your own eyes? (And so on and so forth).

[andy6025]

What has "Being from Missouri..." got to do with anything, or did you just want to let us know?

'I'm from Missouri' is a figure of speech.

[andy6025]

Driller, I'll refer to my thoughts on the matter posted in the thread on 'Public Safety' (copied below). You're right to point out though that all the countries mentioned, including Russia, engage in acts like this when it suits their interest, and cry foul when others do it contrary to their interests. I know nothing in the Russian DNA, nor their methods of operation that sets them significantly apart from their Western counterparts, nor amongst either of their numerous vassals abroad. In light if that, I'd agree with Corbyn that measuring twice before cutting once is sensible policy, especially before going down the avenue of disproportionate escalation. Just as an exit strategy was lacking prior to the invasion of Iraq (possibly because there may have never been a desire to exit at all), we would do well to ask ourselves what's the end game that TM es all have in mind?

My thoughts copied from the other thread:

I see two possible narratives here, both plausible.

1) Russia did it and did so in so obvious a fashion as to send a warning to all of their agents not to double cross Russia in the future as this will be their fate. In light of all the investigations into Trump's alleged collusion with Russia in securing an election victory (by simply making the Dem's own words public, funding his campaign, and/or using social media to discredit the Dems) it is of strategic importance to ensure that spies remain loyal. Getting Britain and possibly the EU wound up and considering counter measures (increased Nato presence in Eastern Europe, increased arms sales to Ukraine, increased interference in Syria, expulsion of ambassadors, retraction of RT news in the uk, etc) is a worthwhile price to pay to help (no guarantees!) Trump remain in office for another 2 years, possibly 6.

2) It is in a particular states interest to make it appear as if Russia is the culprit. What would they hope to achieve? Same as the list above: increased Nato presence in Eastern Europe, increased arms sales to the Ukraine, increased interference in Syria, expulsion of ambassadors, retraction of RT news in the uk. Add to that an attempt to further 'expose' Trump circumstantially as a Putin puppet. In this narrative it could be a number of actors who would be interested in securing these results - elements of the CIA and/or MI6, Ukrainian agents hoping to gain increased support in their civil war, or even Israel (Russia is throwing a monkey wrench into their middle-east designs). What would be the cost for any of these agents engaging in such a tactic? If they don't get caught, nothing at all. If they DO get caught... hmmm, would Therressa May call out the CIA, her own intelligence agency, the Israeli or Ukrainian governments? I can't be certain, but I suspect she might stick with the 'Russia did it' narrative even if she knew otherwise. Besides, could she really be exposing any of these groups at a time when her 'communist' opposition is currently polling higher than her own party? I have doubts, especially when it may circumstantially assist her re-election efforts to paint Russia as a real threat in a renewed cold war and further solidify her support for programs like Trident - an example of one issue among many that separates her from Corbyn.

With no evidence at hand to the public and little choice but to either accept or reject what our masters tell us, either narrative seems plausible to this footy fan.

[sidders]

From today's Guardian (the pressure is growing)

On Thursday the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, said there were no plans to stop England competing in the World Cup, but he said there would not be any “high-level representation” at the event.

Woodcock said: “This is a decision which should be shared between the government, the fans and the FA. I don’t want to see anyone dictated to and I am not calling for England to unilaterally withdraw from the tournament. But there is a growing appetite among MPs to push for concerted international action over the World Cup. It should be on the table because of the appalling magnitude of what Russia has done.”

Another Labour MP, Ian Austin, said: “I am very concerned that [Vladimir] Putin will use the World Cup in the same way that Hitler used the 1936 Munich Olympics, as a public relations exercise for a brutal dictatorship.”

[SmiffyPie]

OK.....let us be sensible here......personally I think the Ruskies did the deed.....maybe not Putin but someone close to him looking for revenge.

This chemical can be knocked up by anyone with a GCE in Chemistry......the formulae is on the internet ffs.......and as for "invading Ukraine and Crimea", some of you are having a laugh.....the areas "INVADED" were Russian speaking and historically Russian for zillions of years, Putin is a tough guy and he wanted his territory back.....simple as......he did not "invade" Skeggy which is why the UN are holding back.

The weapon that shot down the airliner is freely available on the black market and was antiquated ie it was not able to differentiate between an airliner and a warplane.

Having said all of the above, Putin is a tough guy as I have already stated, BUT what does he have to gain from killing an ex~spy that spilled his guts years ago?

Two points. Firstly if there are traces of the agent left behind they can be traced back to the production site/state. Secondly you need to read up on the Ukraine, a sovereign state.

[SolSigns]

Driller, I'll refer to my thoughts on the matter posted in the thread on 'Public Safety' (copied below). You're right to point out though that all the countries mentioned, including Russia, engage in acts like this when it suits their interest, and cry foul when others do it contrary to their interests. I know nothing in the Russian DNA, nor their methods of operation that sets them significantly apart from their Western counterparts, nor amongst either of their numerous vassals abroad. In light if that, I'd agree with Corbyn that measuring twice before cutting once is sensible policy, especially before going down the avenue of disproportionate escalation. Just as an exit strategy was lacking prior to the invasion of Iraq (possibly because there may have never been a desire to exit at all), we would do well to ask ourselves what's the end game that TM es all have in mind?

My thoughts copied from the other thread:

I see two possible narratives here, both plausible.

1) Russia did it and did so in so obvious a fashion as to send a warning to all of their agents not to double cross Russia in the future as this will be their fate. In light of all the investigations into Trump's alleged collusion with Russia in securing an election victory (by simply making the Dem's own words public, funding his campaign, and/or using social media to discredit the Dems) it is of strategic importance to ensure that spies remain loyal. Getting Britain and possibly the EU wound up and considering counter measures (increased Nato presence in Eastern Europe, increased arms sales to Ukraine, increased interference in Syria, expulsion of ambassadors, retraction of RT news in the uk, etc) is a worthwhile price to pay to help (no guarantees!) Trump remain in office for another 2 years, possibly 6.

2) It is in a particular states interest to make it appear as if Russia is the culprit. What would they hope to achieve? Same as the list above: increased Nato presence in Eastern Europe, increased arms sales to the Ukraine, increased interference in Syria, expulsion of ambassadors, retraction of RT news in the uk. Add to that an attempt to further 'expose' Trump circumstantially as a Putin puppet. In this narrative it could be a number of actors who would be interested in securing these results - elements of the CIA and/or MI6, Ukrainian agents hoping to gain increased support in their civil war, or even Israel (Russia is throwing a monkey wrench into their middle-east designs). What would be the cost for any of these agents engaging in such a tactic? If they don't get caught, nothing at all. If they DO get caught... hmmm, would Therressa May call out the CIA, her own intelligence agency, the Israeli or Ukrainian governments? I can't be certain, but I suspect she might stick with the 'Russia did it' narrative even if she knew otherwise. Besides, could she really be exposing any of these groups at a time when her 'communist' opposition is currently polling higher than her own party? I have doubts, especially when it may circumstantially assist her re-election efforts to paint Russia as a real threat in a renewed cold war and further solidify her support for programs like Trident - an example of one issue among many that separates her from Corbyn.

With no evidence at hand to the public and little choice but to either accept or reject what our masters tell us, either narrative seems plausible to this footy fan.

**** me, after all these years you've finally said something worth saying.