*** Official Putin Started Shootin' Thread ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I was going to make a few of the points in cocco's recent post. Nice post.

War is brutal and there will be people driven to committing terrible atrocities on all sides. No one could convince me that there were no rapes of Afghani women by American soldiers during that occupation. No one could convince me that Americans never ever targeted civilians. No one could convince me there was no pillaging and stealing by Americans.

BUT - The news and images coming out during the past 24 hours have been heart-rending.
What the Russians left behind them in Bucha is gut-wrenching.


Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't recall seeing anything like that from a NATO occupation.


I appreciate an independent POV, ong. I appreciate your point that pretending our side has clean hands is folly.
I do think there are stark, notable, significant differences between how NATO occupies a place and what Russia is doing in Ukraine.

Not all dirt is equal.

[OngBonga]

Sergei Yushenkov, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Alexander Litvinenko, Galina Starovoitova, Anna Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov and others might disagree.

The first two guys, that's the Salisbury poisoning and it makes absolutely no sense. The Litvinenko case I actually believe was a Russian state attack. The others, I'm not immediately familiar with by name. I guess one of them is the individual who turned up in a suitcase, that one seemed legit too. There was one fairly recently where an activist turned up ill on a plane. Wasn't buying that one. But I can only speculate. That Salisbury one though, I've read a fair amount about that and it's just a huge crock of shit.

The Russians are definitely capable of having a pop at those they deem to be enemies of the state. Don't assume that because I think we milked the fuck out of the Salisbury incident, that I believe every incident is a false flag. I don't believe that.

Invasions of Afghanistan

This actually made me laugh. Remember how we invaded Afghanistan after a bunch of Saudis apparently flew planes into American buildings? I say apparently because I find it staggering that their passports survived, allowing them to be identified, which is a common theme in these kind of incidents. They should make planes out of whatever they make passports out of. I digress.

Chechnya twice

Really messy situation. First war, they tried to leave Russia when the USSR collapsed. They partially succeeded, creating a de facto independent state. Putin came into power and took back control. These were terrible wars. If I had to choose a moral position here it would be on the side of democratic self determination, but I'm not surprised Russia considered this to be a red line.

Georgia

Very much geopolitical. They wanted to join NATO, so Russia took control of all but one of their Black Sea ports. A shitty thing to do, but a consequence of NATO expansion. I'm not sure what the people of these regions in Georgia wanted, but if they want to leave Georgia, then again we come back to democratic self determination.

indiscriminate civilian bombings in Syria

You made me laugh again. Why are you presenting evidence of "Russia bad" when we've done precisely this?

raping and pillaging

Yeah you don't hear about what our soldiers get up to in war zones because the media supress the real shitty stuff. The Russians are worse when it comes to this kind of stuff though. That's always been the case, it's why, after the British bombed the fuck out of Hamburg for years during WWII, that the locals were delighted it was the British occupying the city when Germany surrendered. People were fleeing Russian occupation into British controlled areas.

execution and torture of civilians

Again, we do this kind of thing. Remember Guantanamo Bay? We were literally plucking random people and shipping them to Cuba for detention and torture. Some died. This isn't a one off. There are detention camps at Diego Garcia, a place we ethnically cleansed so we could build a military base.

attacks against schools and hospitals and goddamn nuclear plants

What happens when the enemy hides in schools and hospitals?

And the nuclear incident, I watched that happening live, it seemed to me that the Russians were firing away from the reactors. They were attacking the security building at the entrance to the plant. Blown out of proportion because it's a nuclear facility.

which other current country or regime would you expect these kind of actions from?

USA, UK, France.

You know it was a Frenchman who killed Gadaffi, right? Sodomised by a gun. Western regime change in action. Rumours were that Gadaffi was preparing to expose Blair, Bush and (I think) Macron for knowingly and corruptly accepting dirty Libyan money. Who knows if this is true? It certainly wouldn't surprise me.

Maybe, just maybe, Russia has actually given people multiple good reasons over decades and centuries to hate them.

I don't dispute this. But we've given the rest of the world reason to hate us too. And many do hate us.

The difference being use or lack thereof of systematic human rights violations and war crimes.

We commit "systematic human rights violations and war crimes". Diego Garcia, Gadaffi, Assange, these are examples I've already given. There's plenty more.

Could you point to just one source that would justify questioning what happened in Syria?

Sure. Former British Ambassador Craig Murray, an expert on geopolitics and a man with insider contacts. He resigned when the British ignored his protests about us knowingly using Uzbek torture information to help shape foreign policy. At the time, Craig was Ambassador to Uzbekistan, so very well placed to know what was happening. Anyway, here's his comments about Syria...

https://truepublica.org.uk/contribut...probabilities/

He has a lot more to say about this matter, and indeed the Salisbury poisoning incident, google his name and whatever you're interested in, ie "Craig Murray Salisbury".

btw, just because a body has "independent" in its official title, doesn't mean it's truly independent. We're really good at this kind of propaganda, making people believe that investigative bodies are independent from the state. Rarely is that actually true.

but to say that the reporting of BBC, NYTimes and RIA Novosti are equally bad is to me laughable.

I dunno about RIA Novosti but I can tell you that I consider the BBS and Russia Today to be equals. The only difference is Russia Today don't pretend to be independent from the state.

Btw re: the Salisbury poisoning, what exactly are you referring to? I'm assuming this:

Yes. Craig Murray tears this story to pieces, it's worth a read. Here's one of his many articles on the matter...

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...-of-salisbury/

[CoccoBill]

We commit "systematic human rights violations and war crimes". Diego Garcia, Gadaffi, Assange, these are examples I've already given. There's plenty more.

Totally the same as torturing and executing a few hundred civilians in a war of conquest. It boggles my mind that you keep doubling down.

btw, just because a body has "independent" in its official title, doesn't mean it's truly independent. We're really good at this kind of propaganda, making people believe that investigative bodies are independent from the state. Rarely is that actually true.

Right, so let's just listen to this one Craig guy instead who happens to be saying something my ears find more comfortable.

[OngBonga]

Totally the same as torturing and executing a few hundred civilians in a war of conquest. It boggles my mind that you keep doubling down.

A few hundred? You think our body count is lower?

Right, so let's just listen to this one Craig guy instead who happens to be saying something my ears find more comfortable.

You ask for a source, I give you one. You want more sources, find them yourself. He's the guy I trust the most, certainly a great deal more than MSM. You make your own mind up.

[CoccoBill]

A few hundred? You think our body count is lower?

From yesterday, ya pretty sure.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What happens when the enemy hides in schools and hospitals?

I'm going to go with, "You choose not to fire weapons at civilians, no matter where the enemy hides." as it's a standard operating procedure of most peace-keeping forces.

You don't get to claim you're the good guys fighting the bad guys when you go shooting at civvies, man. That's what bad guys do. We can't both be the bad guys.

WTF kind of world would that be to raise my Hitlerpolean (They/them) kids in?

***

Also, side note: Instantly tell someone is talking out their ass and has no idea what War Crimes actually are when they say "The Geneva Convention" like a fucking moron.
It's a great tool when someone is talking on TV and they sound reasonable, but then they say that and you're all, "Oh right. You're a fucking idiot."

Cause FYI... there's more than 1 Geneva Convention, and someone who doesn't even have the basic knowledge of how many conventions there are, let alone what the contents of those conventions are is a total fucking dickwad blowing hot air to puff themself up.

This has been a PSA

[OngBonga]

War is brutal and there will be people driven to committing terrible atrocities on all sides. No one could convince me that there were no rapes of Afghani women by American soldiers during that occupation.

I'm in no doubt there were. Certainly there were British soldiers who committed atrocities. I know this first hand, having heard confessions from someone who went there. I've talked about him recently. There's stuff I left out because it's not nice to talk about or think about.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't recall seeing anything like that from a NATO occupation.

Grozny was completely destroyed, too. The Russians definitely have form for going overboard when they are at war.

But I'll just point to Basra. We destroyed that city.

I appreciate an independent POV, ong.

I appreciate that I might, at times, come across as supporting Russia, because I repeat some of their propaganda. I'm not pretending I'm right about everything I say. I readily admit I don't know the facts.

I just find it naive to say we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. I find it difficult to support the West in these geopolitical matters because I think we're terrible bastards too. We do almost everything we accuse the Russians of. We just do a really good job of convincing the general public that what we're doing is moral. We're better at lying than they are.

[OngBonga]

Ok, we're taking it day by day are we? Then yes, sure, yesterday the Russians killed more then the West.

We killed a fuck ton of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia... but that wasn't yesterday. Maybe in ten years we can forgive Russia completely for Bucha and never mention it again.

[Poopadoop]

Apart from the UK, none of the countries in the EU sent troops to Iraq.

Obviously though they've just been saving them for the Evil Imperial European Army, waiting for the day they could go Hitlerpolean on Russia. I'm sure there's some guy online who says so, and I choose to believe him.

Seriously though, I don't know what point you're trying to make here Ong. "We" (i.e., some countries in the West) have done some really bad things in the past so what Russia is doing now isn't that big a thing? Amristar was a worse massacre than Mariupol? NATO has bullied Russia into attacking Ukraine? Abraham Lincoln was woke?

I mean you're one small step away from saying "Putin isn't as bad as Caligula, so we should leave him be."

[CoccoBill]

Ok, we're taking it day by day are we? Then yes, sure, yesterday the Russians killed more then the West.

The point was more like Russia probably murdered more people yesterday, Ukrainian and their own, than you can find examples of the west doing since WW2.

We killed a fuck ton of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia... but that wasn't yesterday. Maybe in ten years we can forgive Russia completely for Bucha and never mention it again.

When there's a war, people are quite often killed. I don't like any wars, but some are more justifiable than others. I think it's far more acceptable to attack a country if you have the backing of the UN and your mission is to stop the target from exterminating a population, for instance, than just pure conquest. Please don't make me say again there are varying degrees of bad. Saying "Russia bad" doesn't mean "West good".

[OngBonga]

""We" (i.e., some countries in the West) have done some really bad things in the past so what Russia is doing now isn't that big a thing?

No. Do pay attention. I made clear several times that's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying the idea that "Russia bad us good" is naive. I'm arguing that it's silly taking sides when two bullies go head to head. Of course you'd know this if you actually read my posts instead of scanning and knee-jerking.

[Poopadoop]

Um, so if we didn't sell them arms they'd have nowhere else to buy them? You might as well blame the guy who owns the gun shop because someone got murdered.

And hey, we also buy things from other countries. Some of them are bad countries. Ergo, we're spreading evil. Instead we should refuse to trade with 99% of the world. Only Sweden and Switzerland. Maybe Iceland. Oh, but they took our cod a few decades ago so actually, they're evil too.

You understand we're a democracy right? You seem to think that's important when it comes to honouring referendums. Ukraine is also a democracy (or at least pretty close). So by supplying them with arms we're supporting democracy. You think we should send arms to Putin instead?

[Poopadoop]

So the two bullies are Russia, who invades country after country, and NATO, who doesn't. I mean if you're gonna use reductivo whataboutismo at least try to have a whataboutismo that makes some sense.

Is it ok to take Ukraine's side vs. Russia, or are you still gonna argue whataboutismo Nazis?

[OngBonga]

We armed Al Qaida and ISIS, and warlords in Africa. We're arming the Saudis so they can crush Yemen. We're so great.

[Poopadoop]

Ong, this is a thread on the war in Ukraine. If you want to shit on the West, we've got the MAGA and MEGA threads for that. We could merge them into the "all the reasons the West sucks thread" if you like.

[OngBonga]

It's like you've forgotten what we were talking about a week ago.

We don't invade countries like Russia. Rather, we provide funding, weapons and training for opposition forces. We prefer to destabilise sovereign states rather than outright breach their territory.

Do you think that makes us better than the Russians? I don't.

[OngBonga]

Um, so if we didn't sell them arms they'd have nowhere else to buy them? You might as well blame the guy who owns the gun shop because someone got murdered.

What a dreadful analogy.

Let's explore this. If a gunshop owner knew that his customer intended to use the gun to commit murder, and then sold the gun, then yes he's culpable. Further, if the gunshop owner knew that his customer had already murdered people, and was asking for more guns, and he sold them, then he's a complete fucking asshole who deserves to be in prison just as much as the murderer.

We are arming the Saudis knowing precisely what they intend to do with our weapons. They're dropping them on Yemen and we're selling them more. So no, this isn't innocently selling weapons on the international market, this is arming them so they can commit atrocities.

So by supplying them with arms we're supporting democracy. You think we should send arms to Putin instead?

No, and I'm not as bothered about us arming a country under invasion than I am about arming the Saudis. The fact that neo-Nazis are getting hold of our weapons is very much problematic, but Ukraine do need assistance. Let's just hope when all is said and done we don't have an Nazi ISIS on our hands.

[Poopadoop]

Like I said, if we didn't sell them arms someone else would. It's not like weapons are really hard to find.

Should we take a moral stand and not sell arms to deviant nations? Yes. Is selling arms to a deviant nation as bad as using the same arms yourself to murder innocent people? No.

[OngBonga]

The point was more like Russia probably murdered more people yesterday, Ukrainian and their own, than you can find examples of the west doing since WW2.

Are we just pretending that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the many other wars didn't happen now?

I don't like any wars, but some are more justifiable than others.

This is true. How do you decide if a war is justifiable? Who do you believe?

Here the list of wars the UK has been involved in since WWII that I consider "justifiable"...

Falklands
Serbia

Let me know what I missed.

Saying "Russia bad" doesn't mean "West good".

Ok, I'm glad you made that clear. But you did argue that you consider Russia to be the bullies and the west to be the bully-stoppers.

[CoccoBill]

Are we just pretending that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the many other wars didn't happen now?

No, we're just trying to stick to relevant topics. Yes, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was also bad. But is Ukraine a threat to the safety of the region or its own citizens? Did the West execute civilians in those wars?

This is true. How do you decide if a war is justifiable? Who do you believe?

A war sanctioned by the UN is probably as close to a justifiable one as it comes. I believe the mainstream media, unless there's substantial conflicting evidence from a credible source.

Ok, I'm glad you made that clear. But you did argue that you consider Russia to be the bullies and the west to be the bully-stoppers.

If by the west you mean NATO, then yes, in the interaction between Russia and the NATO, they are trying to be the bully-stoppers, but not very effective ones.

[Poopadoop]

No, we're just trying to stick to relevant topics. Yes, what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan was also bad. But is Ukraine a threat to the safety of the region or its own citizens?

Exactly.

Did the West execute civilians in those wars?

Off topic, but "execute" in the sense of lining them up and shooting them? Not so much. In the sense of indiscriminately killing civilians, yeah I think it's pretty clear that happened. That said, it was despicable then and it's despicable now.

Ong's reductio whataboutismo is a non-argument afaic.

If by the west you mean NATO, then yes, in the interaction between Russia and the NATO, they are trying to be the bully-stoppers, but not very effective ones.

I think NATO is doing about as much as it can without sending its own troops in. Arms and other aid to Ukraine, sanctions on Putin. What else do you think NATO can reasonably do?

[CoccoBill]

Off topic, but "execute" in the sense of lining them up and shooting them? Not so much. In the sense of indiscriminately killing civilians, yeah I think it's pretty clear that happened. That said, it was despicable then and it's despicable now.

Yeah I was careful choosing that exact verb. Civilian casualties always happen, and are never excusable. Drone strikes to targets where civilians are killed are not justified in any way, but there's still a big difference between them and carpet-bombing whole residential districts or lining up civilians on the street with their hands tied and administering headshots. Unless of course Craig disagrees.

I think NATO is doing about as much as it can without sending its own troops in. Arms and other aid to Ukraine, sanctions on Putin. What else do you think NATO can reasonably do?

I'm not so much criticizing them of their actions than of the outcomes, I'm not convinced this is ending anytime soon. A cease fire or a peace deal isn't changing anything either medium to long term, Russia's outlook on the world and their aspirations aren't changing. Germany was humiliated in WW1, which in a large part led to WW2. The difference is after WW2 Germany went through a reckoning, and I would say they are now one of the least likely countries to go full hitler. Russia never had that, they've never reconciled their past, the Stalin purges, the wars, the Soviet era. The propaganda machine and state control there is now comparable with North Korea, anyone with any sense left is either fleeing or detained. There's a large and increasing part of the population, not unlike in the US, who are buying into the propaganda that "west is bad". We should all be worried.

I'm thinking more and more favorably of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, anything less may just be delaying the inevitable escalation.

[OngBonga]

Your moral equivalence between providing and using weapons is lame whataboutism.

Ridiculous. You're basically arguing that if I wanted to kill someone, but not be guilty of murder, I just get someone else to do it for me. Of course, that isn't going to hold up in a court of law, not when it comes to murder. That's why people who hire hitmen get charged with murder, not a specific crime of hiring a hitman.

If we provide weapons to a country that isn't considered rogue, and becomes rogue later, that's different. But an international arms dealer has a moral responsibility to ensure that they are only selling arms to people who intend to use them responsibly... for defence.

[OngBonga]

btw, crying about "whataboutism" basically means "I don't want to talk about how shitty we are, only how shitty they are". You're only interested in judging the enemy. It's the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not so much criticizing them of their actions than of the outcomes, I'm not convinced this is ending anytime soon. A cease fire or a peace deal isn't changing anything either medium to long term, Russia's outlook on the world and their aspirations aren't changing. Germany was humiliated in WW1, which in a large part led to WW2. The difference is after WW2 Germany went through a reckoning, and I would say they are now one of the least likely countries to go full hitler. Russia never had that, they've never reconciled their past, the Stalin purges, the wars, the Soviet era. The propaganda machine and state control there is now comparable with North Korea, anyone with any sense left is either fleeing or detained. There's a large and increasing part of the population, not unlike in the US, who are buying into the propaganda that "west is bad". We should all be worried.

I'm thinking more and more favorably of a no-fly zone over Ukraine, anything less may just be delaying the inevitable escalation.

The best reasonably likely outcome to me, as bad as it seems, would be for it to drag on long enough that Putin gets taken out by his own side.

I think the no fly zone is tantamount to a declaration of war, which might goad him into going nuke. I might feel differently if I were in a neighboring country though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are we just pretending that Iraq, Afghanistan, and the many other wars didn't happen now?

Of course not.

But seriously, friend. Compare other facts in these cases. Compare body counts. Both of the invaders and the invaded. Compare the political motivations - both public and private. Compare the actual events on the ground that happened.

There are similarities. There are stark differences, too.


The whataboutism critique of your position seems apt, frankly.
Your position to quell criticism of the current situation in Ukraine with only comparisons to other similar actions by "the West" while not giving any sense that you are aware of the differences... it's provocative to say the least.
Frankly, it comes across as being a Putin apologist, despite your frequent denials thereof.

I think you are presenting yourself in such a way that it feels like you're excusing or justifying the mass murder of political opponents for personal gain.

Which, let's be clear... that's what Putin is doing. That's what he has done. That's why he's the leader of Russia. Not because of any moral semblance of earning the authority of his constituency. But by killing, coercing, and imprisoning his opposition and seizing authority. His modus operandi, if you like, is well established historically.


But whatever. My editorial on Putin as a person implying I'm better than him aside...


Past atrocities committed by anyone do not excuse current atrocities.

Putin is attempting a genocide of Ukrainian people. The towns Russia occupied and left in the past week are testament to his purpose. He's not trying to liberate anyone. He's not trying to end Nazi values in Ukraine. He's the one bringing Nazi values. Just because the actual Nazis did that on a larger scale doesn't mean what is currently happening is somehow OK.

Just because there are sparse instances of Cities being destroyed by NATO occupation doesn't mean that it was OK then, and it certainly doesn't mean ramping up the scale on previous bad actions is justifiable.

[OngBonga]

Like I said, if we didn't sell them arms someone else would.

Great. Become a heroin dealer buddy, lots of money in it.

Should we take a moral stand and not sell arms to deviant nations? Yes. Is selling arms to a deviant nation as bad as using the same arms yourself to murder innocent people? Yes.

FYP

At least, if you know this is what the deviant nation intends to do.

[Poopadoop]

At least, if you know this is what the deviant nation intends to do.

Shame the Nurenburg trials didn't include Krupp and Rheinmetal then. They made arms for the Nazis. The Nazis!

Stalin sold oil to the Nazis. Don't remember him being brought up on charges for it either.

Your moral equivalence between providing and using weapons is lame whataboutism.

[OngBonga]

Frankly poop I find it absurd that you're defending the west selling weapon systems to rogue states. If we were arming Russia, would you feel the same way?

[Poopadoop]

I just said we shouldn't be doing it. Reductio ad bananum to the nth degree there.

[CoccoBill]

https://twitter.com/francska1/status...98134481788930

[OngBonga]

Did the West execute civilians in those wars?

Yes. I've said it already but I personally knew someone who did exactly this. Beat a man to death with a gun, that was his way of executing a civilian. In front of his child.

I believe the mainstream media, unless there's substantial conflicting evidence from a credible source.

This is where we fundamentally differ.

If by the west you mean NATO, then yes, in the interaction between Russia and the NATO, they are trying to be the bully-stoppers, but not very effective ones.

The bully stopping the bully. I already made clear I consider NATO to simply be the military arm of USA + satellite states, so it's pretty hard to talk about NATO without it also meaning USA.

[CoccoBill]

This is where we fundamentally differ.

Yes, and I feel this is the main issue here. All reporting has some kind of editorial bias, either political partisanship or more commonly sensationalism. There are still actual news organizations that at least try to neutrally report current events (AP and Reuters come to mind), and then there are those that try to interpret those events through their own lenses. The first group is who I trust, since even though they too do make mistakes, they're actually trying to be journalists and have some integrity. They're still the best data source out there.

The second group is most of the rest of the news media, with varying degrees of bias. This doesn't mean they're outright lies, but the bias shows in their reporting. If you're aware of the bias, a lot of them are still perfectly credible sources. I'm sure a lot of, or at least some bloggers/vloggers/independent websites fall under this category too, but you might really have to do some digging to find out what their agenda is. There are things like these that may help in finding out.

Then there's a 3rd group, which consists of the bullshit machines. Nowadays anyone can be a publisher, and it shows. I wouldn't believe a word what some Craig says unless the sources are clearly cited and the data corroborated on other sites.

It's hard to know nowadays who is right, there's conflicting info about everything. This just means one should look at every source critically, I like the analogy of pretending it's always April 1st. Just being dismissive about all mainstream reporting and blindly accepting unverified alternative sources is about the worst thing one can do.

Well I haven't seen footage of this, and I don't really want to seek it out.

Being skeptical and being ignorant are different things. Don't be a полезный идиот.

[Poopadoop]

Still images are not really telling enough of a story, can easily be staged.

Yeah, look at that fake grief on Zelensky's face. What an actor.

Being skeptical and being ignorant are different things.

As Mortensen said, "And thus in his considered view, what did not fit could not be true."

[OngBonga]

Yeah, look at that fake grief on Zelensky's face. What an actor.

Fun fact - he actually is an actor.

Not that you'd need to act to show grief when people in your country are dying due to war, but still. He's a pretty good actor, yes.

[Poopadoop]

Fun fact - he actually is an actor.

Not that you'd need to act to show grief when people in your country are dying due to war, but still. He's a pretty good actor, yes.

You're an idiot.

[Poopadoop]

So, this Craig guy got found in contempt of court for giving out info on twitter that could have led people to identify victims of sexual assault. Showed up at the police station drinking a bottle of champagne. Seems like not an attention-seeker at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...egin-jail-term

[OngBonga]

You're an idiot.

Says this then goes on to mock Murray for getting stitched up by the state for journalism.

Here's some homework for you... actually look into that story.

[CoccoBill]

Hm nope. We can have a separate discussion about how someone else sucks, this thread is about Russia. There's not a single nation on the planet that hasn't done something shitty sometime in the past.

[OngBonga]

I think we can focus on the recent past, for example this century. All the wars we've been involved with this century, they have been acts of aggression, not defence. Afghanistan was in response to 9/11, even though it was mostly Saudis and no Afghans who flew those planes. Even though Bin Laden himself was a Saudi. Why didn't we go to war with Saudi Arabia? Because they sell us too much oil, it would have destroyed our economies. So we came up with some bullshit that the Taliban were responsible for harbouring terrorists, while pretending Pakistan weren't. Why did we go for Afghanistan? Geopolitics. Not remotely a moral position.

Iraq was a huge lie, based on the claim that they had weapons of mass destruction and they could deploy them and strike the UK within 45 minutes. That's how they sold the war to us. Of course it was a complete crock of shit. What was really happening, best I could tell, was Saddam was threatening to ditch the dollar as a petrocurrency. Unacceptable to the west.

This is relevant, at least to me. When we sit here and judge others for doing what we do, it makes us hypocrites.

If all you guys want to do is talk about how dreadful Russia are while ignoring how dreadful we are, just ignore me. Expecting me to stfu and take my comments to another thread isn't cutting it, sorry.

[Poopadoop]

If all you guys want to do is talk about how dreadful Russia are while ignoring how dreadful we are, just ignore me.

That's not what we've been doing. No-one even feels the need to point out the obvious moral culpability of this war.

Expecting me to stfu and take my comments to another thread isn't cutting it, sorry.

Fine, but expecting us to not to see your contributions as irrelevant whataboutism isn't cutting it either.

[OngBonga]

Compare body counts.

If we're talking about Putin vs any western leader here, ok. If we're talking about Russia vs USA/UK/France in the last 25 years, then I'm not so sure you're making the point you think you're making here. Not that you'll get reliable enough body counts to make a fair comparison, but a shit load of people died in Iraq and Afghanistan due to our intervention. And according to NATO, the body count from this invasion is much higher for the Russians, at 30-40k compared to 2-4k for Ukraine. Pinch of salt, obviously.

Frankly, it comes across as being a Putin apologist, despite your frequent denials thereof.

My issue is that we judge others when we're not in a position to be judging. You can call that being an apologist of you like, but it's not the way I see it.

I would like nothing more than to see the Russians get rid of Putin. I would like to see the Russian people take control of their country. Are those the words of a Putin apologist?

What I'd also like to see is NATO respecting the legitimate security concerns of Russia. I know that NATO are not going to invade Russia, that's not what I mean by security concerns. What NATO expansion does is cause Russia to invest more in their military, with a build up on the western front. It's causes an arms race. If there are missile systems too close to Russia, then they will want missile systems that make USA feel uncomfortable. NATO expansion causes a deterioration of global security.

Of course, Russian invasions also cause a deterioration of global security. It's a vicious circle. NATO expand, Russia responds, more countries want to join NATO, Russia feel even more isolated and vulnerable, where does this end? The way it's going, it seems like world war is inevitable. NATO are playing their part in this. This is the problem that military alliances cause. I'd feel a lot more safe if the UK were not a NATO member and were instead geopolitically neutral. As it is, we're one of the first that will get hit if this turns into a world war. And we're not the size of Russia, we get wiped off the map if this goes nuclear.

I think you are presenting yourself in such a way that it feels like you're excusing or justifying the mass murder of political opponents for personal gain.

Then you're failing to understand why this is an issue for me. Perhaps that last paragraph will help.

There is no excusing or justifying the mass murder of political opponents. But let's also be clear... that's none of our business. This is happening all over the world, so it's not like this is our problem with Russia. Our problem with Russia is we don't want to allow them to be as strong as NATO. We want NATO to be the dominant global military force. That's the status quo and we want to maintain it at all costs.

Putin is attempting a genocide of Ukrainian people.

This is hyperbole. Genocide is not a casual word. Killing a lot of people is not genocide. Attempting to kill a national, ethnic, racial or religious group within a country, that's genocide. What was happening in Kosovo was genocide. What is happening in Ukraine is not. Russia are attempting to force Ukraine's capitulation, they are not killing people simply for being Ukrainian.

If and when this does become a matter of genocide, that's a game changer. That's when this does become a matter of serious global interest, and probably means world war. We didn't stand by and watch Muslims getting slaughtered in Kosovo, we intervened and caused the collapse of the Serbian government, and ultimately brought Slobodon Milosovic and others to an international court. We would likely attempt the same if what is happening in Ukraine becomes, without doubt, a genocide.

He's not trying to liberate anyone. He's not trying to end Nazi values in Ukraine.

I know. He's trying to enforce his political will on Ukraine. That's his intent. If his intent was to kill Ukrainians for no reason other than being Ukrainian, that's genocide. If you have evidence that this is what is happening, do share. Leaving a city in ruins is not evidence enough.

[Poopadoop]

If we're talking about Putin vs any western leader here, ok. If we're talking about Russia vs USA/UK/France in the last 25 years, then I'm not so sure you're making the point you think you're making here.

France???

My issue is that we judge others when we're not in a position to be judging. You can call that being an apologist of you like, but it's not the way I see it.

If this forum were made up of Tony Blair, GW Bush, and Putin, you might have a point. None of us here have done or sanctioned anything like aggressive war afaik. So using the word "we" here to describe "us" is making "you" look disingenuous.

What I'd also like to see is NATO respecting the legitimate security concerns of Russia. I know that NATO are not going to invade Russia, that's not what I mean by security concerns. What NATO expansion does is cause Russia to invest more in their military, with a build up on the western front. It's causes an arms race. If there are missile systems too close to Russia, then they will want missile systems that make USA feel uncomfortable. NATO expansion causes a deterioration of global security.

You're missing the point of what NATO means to Europe. Forget the US for now. The reason European countries are in NATO is because Russia. Russia invading a neighboring country every few years just makes NATO more attractive to everyone who isn't Russia.

You want NATO to respect Russia's security concerns when Russia isn't respecting anyone else's security concerns. Let Russia be peaceful for 25 years and then we can talk. Right now, NATO has the security concerns of Poland, Finland, Sweden, Romania, the Baltics, Turkey, etc.. to think about. Why should Russia get special treatment? Because they keep attacking other countries? That's not how it works unless you're Neville Chamberlain.

Of course, Russian invasions also cause a deterioration of global security. It's a vicious circle. NATO expand, Russia responds, more countries want to join NATO, Russia feel even more isolated and vulnerable, where does this end?

It ends when Russia finally gets the message war is not a viable option for them.

Also, despite protestations to the contrary, you keep doing the Putin apologist thing (bolded). Russia is not a passive player in this, responding only to NATO's moves. You understand the difference between aggressive war and joining a defensive pact...

The way it's going, it seems like world war is inevitable.

If by "world" you mean NATO v. Russia, I doubt it. That war would be very one-sided. Russia is struggling to take over Ukraine, how are they going to fight NATO?

NATO are playing their part in this.

Again, blaming a defensive alliance for another country starting wars. Just stop and think about what you're saying.

This is the problem that military alliances cause. I'd feel a lot more safe if the UK were not a NATO member and were instead geopolitically neutral. As it is, we're one of the first that will get hit if this turns into a world war. And we're not the size of Russia, we get wiped off the map if this goes nuclear.

Yeah, let's make ourselves weaker because that will make it less likely other countries will attack us.

Our problem with Russia is we don't want to allow them to be as strong as NATO. We want NATO to be the dominant global military force. That's the status quo and we want to maintain it at all costs.

No, our problem is they keep invading other countries and killing people. They'll never be as powerful as NATO, that's not even an issue.

This is hyperbole. Genocide is not a casual word. Killing a lot of people is not genocide.

I agree, but there are other war crimes that aren't genocide. He's certainly been committing those.

[MadMojoMonkey]

There is no way to enforce a no-fly-zone over Ukraine aside from starting WWIII.

You can't enforce such a thing without shooting at / killing Russian pilots.

***
Putin's deluded view of NATO is not really what NATO is.

NATO is opposed to Putin, and the ideologies he manifests (totalitarianism and expansionism), not against Russian culture or Russian people.

The past decades of open trade and tourism between the West and Russia are proof of the fact that the people of the West want to celebrate Russian culture and its awesome contributions to the world.


We can agree the currently set national borders shouldn't be expected to stay the same forever. We can also agree that when the cause of the changing borders is murder and worse... that's fucked up and should not be condoned by anyone.


Biden criticizing Putin as a War Criminal is laughable. Biden's written and passed more legislation that limits human rights than I can wave a stick at. Sometimes, he even still brags about that shit.

Me, on the other hand... not committed anything remotely close to a war crime, have criticized my own nation's actions when invading other nations over the past 30 years, and have every right to not be called a hypocrite for calling out the same bad behaviors in others halfway around the world that I see in others a few thousand miles away in Washington DC.
I have every right to call out Putin's BS, as I call out my own nation's BS, too. So you can take the whole angle of "The West has no moral high ground." where it's not a non-sequitur. I am not speaking for "The West" or representing anyone but myself.

As if we don't drone on about the inadequacies of our own gov'ts all the damn time. As if anyone posting on FTR is some fanatical patriot, blind to the shit our nations do in the world. As if criticizing this current evil means we weren't criticizing our own nations' evils for years.

We're pretty consistent, here for the past few years. Invasion is bad. Increasing world commerce is good. Cheap stuff is good. Expensive stuff is bad. Happy people is good. Sad people is bad. It's not really a hard line to follow.

[OngBonga]

NATO is opposed to Putin, and the ideologies he manifests (totalitarianism and expansionism), not against Russian culture or Russian people.

No, NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russia military alliance. It's the very reason it was created, to oppose the Soviets.

The past decades of open trade and tourism between the West and Russia are proof of the fact that the people of the West want to celebrate Russian culture and its awesome contributions to the world.

Very much true. There certainly was a softening of policy towards Russia after the collapse of the USSR, and this continued after Putin rose to power, at least for a while. There's been rhetoric, but for the most part I brushed it off as mutually beneficial posturing in order to justify large military budgets. I always assumed it suited both parties and that neither actually wanted war.

We can also agree that when the cause of the changing borders is murder and worse... that's fucked up and should not be condoned by anyone.

Agreed. How do borders change without bloodshed? At the ballot. Ukraine is not recognising the right of self determination for the people in the regions that want the borders changed. Bloodshed is inevitable in these circumstances.

Of course, Russia didn't recognise the right of Chechnya to self determination, but Chechnya are not strong enough to fight the Russians. Interestingly, they are now allied to Russia in the fight again Ukraine. Strange. You'd think they'd be allied to Ukraine.

I am not speaking for "The West" or representing anyone but myself.

Fair. I know nobody here condones war, we're all nice guys and it goes without saying. Nobody wants to see war, whether it's them or us being the aggressor. But there's a lot more noise, both here and from the general public, now that Russia is the aggressor. You can see this, right? Was there a Syria thread? I don't remember it.

The Russians were exterminating everyone. They were murdering people in the streets who had their hands tied.

Well I haven't seen footage of this, and I don't really want to seek it out. Still images are not really telling enough of a story, can easily be staged. Not that I think such images are staged, but there's always propaganda when there's war. Further, for it to be genocide, this has to be happening because of direct orders, not because some rogue soldiers went crazy as they retreated. You can't just throw the word "genocide" around like Twitter throws the word "racist" around. You need evidence not just of atrocities, but also that it's policy.

I don't use the phrase "ethnic cleansing" lightly when I talk about the Chagos Islands. It was British policy to evict inhabitants of these islands so they could be used as a military base. That's ethnic cleansing. On the other hand, our actions in Iraq caused a refugee crisis, people fleeing war. That wasn't the intent, so this isn't ethnic cleansing. You have to be careful how you use these words. Same with "war criminal".

I'm going to go with, "You choose not to fire weapons at civilians, no matter where the enemy hides."

Yeah, this isn't how war works though. With this policy, you actively encourage the enemy to use civilians as a shield. Our bombs hit hospitals and schools. Do you think our missiles aren't that accurate? Or do you suppose the enemy was using these places as a base and we did what we felt was necessary?

You don't get to claim you're the good guys fighting the bad guys when you go shooting at civvies, man.

It's bad guys fighting bad guys. Nearly every war is. It doesn't surprise me that people use civilians as a human shield, and it doesn't surprise me that these civilians end up hurt. It saddens me a great deal, but doesn't surprise me.

We can't both be the bad guys.

Sadly we are.

As for war crimes, they happen in every war. The vast majority of people who commit war crimes do not face justice. That's just how it is. Nothing will change that. The international courts will only prosecute those they have the motivation to prosecute, which is why the likes of Blair will never see the inside of an international court.

[MadMojoMonkey]

No, NATO is by its very existence an anti-Russia military alliance. It's the very reason it was created, to oppose the Soviets.

If that were the case, NATO would have a very different structure and purpose. There's only opposition to that military being used for the purposes of invading its neighbors. There's no general opposition to Russia having a military.

That second sentence is bunk and I know you know it. Not that it's false, but that it belies the continued existence of NATO after the soviet collapse and the staunch refusal of NATO to entertain Russia as a member state. There are things NATO has done to perpetuate a less than friendly relationship with Russia. However, "anti-Russia military alliance" is a scandalous mischaracterization of NATO.

Sadly we are.

How on Earth was the sarcasm of that comment lost on you. I even invoked Hitlerpoleon (they/them) for you to make it clear.
SMH my head

As for war crimes, they happen in every war. The vast majority of people who commit war crimes do not face justice. That's just how it is. Nothing will change that. The international courts will only prosecute those they have the motivation to prosecute, which is why the likes of Blair will never see the inside of an international court.

No. War Crimes can only be prosecuted if the court that wants to do so has jurisdiction over their alleged war criminals.
Tony Blair will not face international court either because they don't have enough evidence to pursue anything or because they do not have jurisdiction over UK politicians. Either is enough.

People throw the words "War Crimes" around in situations where there simply are no authorities to impose those laws. Ergo, those laws don't actually exist aside from lip service for the purpose of virtue signalling.

I prefer the term "crimes against humanity" as it at least sounds as unenforceable as it actually is.

[OngBonga]

The first group is who I trust, since even though they too do make mistakes, they're actually trying to be journalists and have some integrity.

I believe AP and Reuters are the best of the MSM, but far from perfect. I appreciate real journalism when I see it, it's just difficult convincing me that what I see is real journalism. This is why I trust Craig Murray, his interest is truth. I mean, he's a socialist, I don't sit on the same political side as he does, but when it comes to foreign policy and global affairs, I respect his journalism. He actually investigates, isn't afraid of being called a conspiracy nut, while at the same time is critical of many conspiracy theories. He won't entertain 9/11 debate on his forum. I think I read him say once that he believes the official story, and that he respects those who don't, but he doesn't want the flame wars on his forum that comes with it, so he'll just delete any such comments. It's not like the guy is a sensationalist trying to get follows from people like me. It's also clear his motivation isn't money, since his pension in the foreign office would have been far more than he can make selling books and asking for donations. He blew that pension due to his conscience.

Just being dismissive about all mainstream reporting and blindly accepting unverified alternative sources is about the worst thing one can do.

I don't blindly accept anyone. I did my research into the guy and his story about being a former ambassador checks out. I have witnessed over the last few years the British state attempt to crush this guy, he recently spent time in prison for attempting to be a journalist. The British state do not like this guy, because he is highly critical of British policy, and given his position as a former employee of the state, he has a lot of respect within the alternative media community.

MSM on the other hand, they are all motivated by money. All of them. Their job is to sell stories, while Murray's job is to tell stories. Big difference. And those who are motivated by money don't care about truth.

An example of how the MSM works in today's world was clear when Murray was reporting on the Julian Assange case. In the gallery at court, Murray was sat with other members of the press. Only Murray was taking notes, nobody else was. All of those journalists present simply took the press notes from the case and copy/pasted them into their work. Is that real journalism? MSM journalists won't publish anything that will risk their job. That's why independent journalists are much more trustworthy than MSM journalists. Independent journalists do not fear their editor firing them and other consequences of truthful journalism.

I think trusting MSM is insane. You have to dig around, find the bloggers, put your faith in someone who seems like they are interested in truth.

And btw, this doesn't mean I believe everything he says. He might sincerely get stuff wrong, or get given bad information. It's not like I read his stuff and think "that's the truth". I read and and I think "this is what Craig thinks is the truth". I trust his sincerity, not necessarily his accuracy.

[Poopadoop]

I don't blindly accept anyone. I did my research into the guy and his story about being a former ambassador checks out.

Yeah a former ambassador would never lie. Just because their job irl was to be a professional liar.

I have witnessed over the last few years the British state attempt to crush this guy, he recently spent time in prison for attempting to be a journalist.

Need more info here. What was the actual charge? I'm pretty sure "attempted journalism" is not a crime, even in the UK.

The British state do not like this guy, because he is highly critical of British policy,

Amazing. You'd think they'd be all in favour of a sharp critic.

MSM on the other hand, they are all motivated by money. All of them. Their job is to sell stories, while Murray's job is to tell stories. Big difference. And those who are motivated by money don't care about truth.

How sure are you his motives are pure? Do you know where he gets his income from? Is it possible he's just butthurt because he lost his job?

[CoccoBill]

"Independent journalists do not fear their editor firing them and other consequences of truthful journalism."

You do realize that this is at least equally true:

"Independent journalists do not fear their editor firing them and other consequences of false journalism."

[OngBonga]

"Independent journalists do not fear their editor firing them and other consequences of false journalism."

Sure, there are obviously tons of "journalists" out there posting dodgy "news". I don't just believe any blogger who claims to be independent. In fact there's very few bloggers, if any, that I hold in the same regard as Murray.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Dear Lord Poopy His Most Gloriously Excellent,

Oi. Knock it off with the "idiot" talk.
We're all idiots, here. Hasn't anyone ever told you it's impolite to point out a persons short-comings?

Disagree respectfully.
You're actually good at it, which is refreshing.


-monke

[OngBonga]

poop, you're looking at the judgement instead of the circumstance, and drawing conclusions from that. This means you're in a position of ignorance.

The British legal system is not as perfect as you like to think. This is the same legal system still holding Julian Assange in prison, and the same legal system that prosecutes plebs like you and I for covid breaches while letting Boris off the hook. You know our system is flawed, yet here you are cheerleading the judgement of a court that threw a man in prison for journalism.

And for no reason other than an attempt to discredit the guy who I trust the most in media. It's personal to you. It's weak as fuck.

If you're not interested in this case, fine. I don't blame you, you have no interest in the guy. But don't think you can rely on the integrity of our legal system, because it's lacking. Not as much as some places, but we do not treat people equally.

I can demonstrate this because I read this guy's blog, and nothing, literally nothing that he has said has ever led to me being able to identify any of the women who made complaints (disproven complaints) about Alex Salmond. The BBC, on the other hand, did publish an article that had me think "so that's one of them". Did that journalist get thrown in prison for contempt? Did he fuckity fuck.

[OngBonga]

I'm quite happy for poop to call me an idiot. It only serves to weaken his position as he attempts to gain any moral or intellectual high ground. Such insults will be one way traffic and will not remotely bother me. Ignore it mojo.

[Poopadoop]

Well in the first instance, I was calling you an idiot for your apparent complete lack of social intelligence by making jokes about Zelensky's reaction to mass murders of his own people by the Russians. I'm not surprised it doesn't bother you though.

As for Craig, first of all, it's the police who set the fines for covid breaches. The police are idiots and total suckups to the gov't, there's no doubt about that.

Second, the judiciary is a separate entity than the police. That's why they work in different buildings. Judges tend to be pretty independent. Judges have ruled against the gov't plenty of times. The Good Law project has successfully got a number of decisions against the gov't. But here, the judges ruled for the gov't and now they're suddenly all corrupt toadies of the establishment in your little world.

Bringing up the Assange case is another example of you being ignorant of how the law works. Is it illegal to reveal classified gov't secrets? Yes. Does it somehow become legal if those secrets are embarrassing to the gov't? No. Judges follow the law, not what you think is right or wrong. The judge can't say "yeah well he broke the law but he was sticking it to the man at the time so let's forget the law and let him go."

And third, your main argument defending Craig isn't based on any verifiable facts, but on anecdotal evidence: "I read his blog and I couldn't identify his victims, but I read the BBC and I could." Like your biased n=1 sample should hold more weight to me than high court judge's opinions.

[OngBonga]

btw, actually reading his blog is relevant, because the accusation was the he used "jigsaw identification" to identify the accusers. Funny how those who read his blog have no idea who the accusers are.

It's incredible how these accusers can basically be proven in court to have been lying, yet still get the protection of the state. And it's incredible how someone who failed to identify these people goes to prison while "respectable" journalists don't. I'm not aware of a single person who was even able to identify what constituted the "jigsaw identification" he was accused of, let alone who the accuser(s) are. Literally the only thing I know is that at least one of the accusers is a member of the SNP.

[Poopadoop]

btw, actually reading his blog is relevant, because the accusation was the he used "jigsaw identification" to identify the accusers. Funny how those who read his blog have no idea who the accusers are.

But he was charged and found guilty of it. The court of appeals upheld his conviction. So either a) they know something you don't; or b) they're all toadies of the establishment. With all due respect to your investigative chops, I'm going with a) above.

It's incredible how these accusers can basically be proven in court to have been lying,

Finding someone not guilty of what you accused them of != proving you to be a liar.

yet still get the protection of the state. And it's incredible how someone who failed to identify these people goes to prison while "respectable" journalists don't. I'm not aware of a single person who was even able to identify what constituted the "jigsaw identification" he was accused of, let alone who the accuser(s) are. Literally the only thing I know is that at least one of the accusers is a member of the SNP.

If they're found to be lying in court, they should face perjury charges. Then they can and will be exposed. Until then their anonymity has to be respected. Again, it's not about what you think about the case. The law is the law.


Damn, the more I learn about this guy the more of an attention-seeking crank he seems to be.

Seems he got thrown out of the SNP for trying to be in the SNP and run for another party at the same time.

An insider said Murray would no longer have met the criteria for being an SNP member in March when he said he was a Holyrood election candidate for a rival pro-independence party.

[OngBonga]

Oh and Assange was being held in prison for a charge that Sweden dropped. So yeah, you're the one showing ignorance on this matter.

[Poopadoop]

Oh and Assange was being held in prison for a charge that Sweden dropped. So yeah, you're the one showing ignorance on this matter.

Right, I know nothing about why he was in jail. You have all the facts, I have none.

[OngBonga]

I mean, you're saying it's ok to make jokes about Zelensky being an actor if it's a sarcastic reply, but it's not ok to makes jokes about him being an actor if it's a sarcastic reply to your sarcastic reply.


This is the state of affairs right now poop.

[OngBonga]

Well in the first instance, I was calling you an idiot for your apparent complete lack of social intelligence by making jokes about Zelensky's reaction to mass murders of his own people by the Russians. I'm not surprised it doesn't bother you though.

YOU made a joke about it, referring to his acting skills.

[Poopadoop]

Give it up.

I made a sarcastic comment in response to your claim that the stills could have been faked. You went on to say "hurr durr he is an actor."

[OngBonga]

Give it up.

I made a sarcastic comment in response to your claim that the stills could have been faked. You went on to say "hurr durr he is an actor."

I responded to your comment about him being an actor. You said "hur dur he's an actor" before I did.

[Poopadoop]

I responded to your comment about him being an actor. You said "hur dur he's an actor" before I did.

Ok you win. I was making light of massacred Ukranians and you were just tagging along.

[OngBonga]

Finding someone not guilty of what you accused them of != proving you to be a liar.

You probably need to read up on the case before assuming that I was implying that Salmond being found not guilty is the same as proving the women lied. One of the women claimed she was at a party with Salmond, which he denied, and nobody could verify that she was there. Nobody saw her, nobody spoke to her, it was a party and everyone in attendance was interviewed, as you'd expect for such serious accusations. She was lying. Actually lying. Yet we still don't know who she is, and if you find out and print her name, it's you going to prison.

If they're found to be lying in court, they should face perjury charges.

Yes. Yes they should.

[Poopadoop]

The law ensuring anonymity is there to protect innocent victims of abuse from having their name dragged through the mud in public. If a woman makes a vexatious complaint, she foregoes that protection and will be named. There's nothing wrong with that system.

Further, it's not up to Craig to decide the women are all lying and give enough info to allow them to be id'd, as the court ruled he had done. So fuck him, he basically acts like he's above the law this guy.

Starts to make sense why he's popping a bottle of champagne at the police station now. It's a pattern of very arrogant behaviour.

[Poopadoop]

Maybe you should.

here's some things I dug up in 10 minutes that dispute what you just said.

The first witness was "Woman H", who gave an account of how Salmond allegedly tried to rape her in Bute House after a private dinner in June 2014.[10][11] She had not mentioned this incident when she first talked to police in 2018. The defence suggested that she fabricated the allegations, which the witness rejected.[10] A second witness present at the dinner in question gave evidence stating that "Woman H" was not even present at Bute House on the night in question.

Sounds like 'he said, she said' to me. One person said she wasn't there. She said she was. There's no mention of an entire crowd of people being interviewed.

Another report:

Jurors were shown a recording of a police Skype interview of a guest who had been there on the night in question. When asked who had been at the dinner, he said there were four people – himself, Salmond, a woman involved in Scottish business, and Woman H, he thought. Salmond’s defence argued Woman H had never been at the meal.

The defence called the Scottish businesswoman as a witness.

She told the court she was friends with Woman H but had no “recollection” of her being there.

And yeah, this guy was no saint from the sounds of it.

Salmond claimed the second complainer had a “legitimate grievance” but there was never any intention to take things further than a “sleepy cuddle”

What does that mean exactly? He perved on her while she was asleep?

[OngBonga]

I'll come back to this post when I've refreshed myself properly on the details, I'm not going through this now, but based on my memory this is not anywhere near the full story. I'd be interested to know where you're getting this from, the author of these comments presumably was in court.

Who knows what "sleepy cuddle" means, but there's a heavy implication that this woman was in bed with Salmond by choice.

[OngBonga]

btw, there's a lot of missing context. There's evidence that there was an active plan within the SNP to ruin Salmond's reputation with sleaze claims, and that Nicola Sturgeon herself is very much neck deep in this messy situation. I'll expand on that tomorrow.

[Poopadoop]

The impression I get is that he routinely crossed the line with women. Whether that was to the point of a "serious" sexual assault or more grabby-assy kind of stuff, it's better to get him out sooner rather than later if that's how he's behaving. Unless he's a Tory who went to Eton of course, in which case sexual misconduct is obligatory.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Whoa.
In 2 consecutive votes in the US Senate, they voted 100-0 (unanimously) to
A) end permanent normal trade relations with Russia and Belarus
then
B) ban the import of Russian oil and gas


The partisan US Senate voted unanimously with all members present.
Twice.
Just WTF.


Apparently "unanimous consent" is a thing in parliamentary democracy, but I've never heard of it happening in the US Senate.
I couldn't find a list of when / how often it happens, though. So I may just be ignorant on this one.

When truth is stranger than fiction.


If Hollywood tried to put some movie out where the Senate shows up all 100 members to vote and they all vote the same, I'd be all... Sorry, but my willing suspension of disbelief just checked out.

[OngBonga]

I'll come back to this post when I've refreshed myself properly on the details,

I lied, I'm too busy this week to be bothering with actual research. It's not like I'm trying to sell anything. Murray is a man of conscience, getting thrown in jail for contempt isn't changing that. He did nothing immoral and I've seen no evidence to show he did anything illegal either. Even if I found something I felt was compelling, you would just argue about it and we'd get drawn into an argument about it.

You can think what you like about the guy, he's not my Dad. Insult him all you like.

[OngBonga]

USA are very well placed to ban Russian energy, since USA has plenty of oil and gas of their own. I think it's something like 5% of USA's energy needs imported from Russia, a figure that American energy companies can easily cover. Europe isn't quite so fortunate, there aren't that many gas reserves.

The UK is instead going to build more nuclear reactors and invest more in solar and wind. Oh and we're also going to dig more oil and gas from the North Sea, which has outraged the Greta Thunberg cult. Still, if it's coming from the North Sea instead of Siberia, that's less transportation, so slightly greener.

[Poopadoop]

Sweden and Finland reputed to be fairly certain to be heading into NATO, according to guy on the radio.

[MadMojoMonkey]

They officially announced they will be requesting membership this summer, IIRC.

[OngBonga]

I think this is really bad, but I hope I'm wrong. Hopefully this won't result in Russia taking preventative measures before it's allowed to happen.

NATO or not, I don't think the west can tolerate a Russian attack on Finland or Sweden. So if Russia do respond with military actions, then that seriously escalates this conflict.