Political Musings

Sinny

Community Member
MBTI
INTP
Enneagram
8w7
So the USA have been bitching at Russia these last couple of days, (nothing new there then), due to a close fly by of two Russian Jets of an American Destroyer ship, the USS Donald Cook. Of course they are quick to mention how dangerous and hostile such maneuvers were...

[video=youtube;5deRj1umjM0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5deRj1umjM0[/video]

CNN Report:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/04/13/politics/russian-fighter-jet-us-destroyer/index.html

But Russia's collective response made me giggle the most:

Watch this video:
https://www.facebook.com/inthenowrt/videos/607951272688579/

Additional RT report:
https://www.rt.com/news/339507-aggressive-interactions-russian-jets/
 
Last edited:
I feel like US will always construe anything Russia does as aggressive, even if they just happened to fart near a NATO member's borders. Russia isn't an innocent player, as none of them are, but the American propaganda machine's consistent portrayal of Russia as a baddie is so transparent it's ridiculous.
 
Activists were preventing war crimes by blockading world’s biggest arms fair – judge

Eight activists standing trial for disrupting the world’s biggest arms fair, held in London last September, have been found not guilty. The court ruled they were acting to prevent a greater crime, according to an anti-arms trade group.
In his ruling, the judge said there was clear, credible and largely unchallenged evidence of wrongdoing at Defence & Security Equipment International (DSEI), according to Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT).

He said there is “compelling evidence” that arms sold at DSEI are used for repression and human rights abuses
https://www.rt.com/uk/339716-arms-fair-protesters-trial/

Ha, win!
 
I think the constant political bitch-slapping between Putin and Obama is mostly passive-aggressive and comes across as rather childish to me.

However, there is another side to this. Putin is not just sending his war-planes to fly next to US aircraft carriers to provoke a reaction. On several occasions over the last two years he has sent his old soviet bombers into United Kingdom airspace (knowing full well this is a serious violation of the basic rules of sovereign territory), provoking the reaction of our intercepting Typhoons. He's also sent his submarines circling the Baltic states in and around those particular oceanic territories. Most defence experts speculate this to be a form of testing one's opponent's reaction times. Not much is actually known about the Putin administration because nobody has the balls to go looking themselves, because when they do, they may get shot by 'private contract killers' when they actually visit Russia. We all know Putin is corrupt on some level, but to what extent his military is being used for such purposes is yet to be investigated without an assassination attempt. I just wish people would understand that the US navy has every right to be concerned, considering the flying was indeed unprofessional given the context of the training and war experience of Russian pilots which was learned from the conflicts during the Cold War. It is clearly Putin trying to see how far he can push our buttons in order for his military advisers to be in a comfortable position to give President Putin a real summary of what American military power means in a global 21st Century landscape.
 
Last edited:
I think the constant political bitch-slapping between Putin and Obama is mostly passive-aggressive and comes across as rather childish to me.

The Americans and the British frequently reveal their childish natures, yes... Although, I find Putin himself to be rather more diplomatic , and rather more consistent.

However, there is another side to this.

Multiple, in fact.

Putin is not just sending his war-planes to fly next to US aircraft carriers to provoke a reaction. On several occasions over the last two years he has sent his old soviet bombers into United Kingdom airspace (knowing full well this is a serious violation of the basic rules of sovereign territory),

UK fighter jets scrambled to intercept Russian bombers

Published time: 29 Jan, 2015 10:34

Two Russian Bear long-range bombers flying close to UK airspace were intercepted by RAF Typhoon fighter jets, according to Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The Typhoons were scrambled from bases at Lossiemouth in Scotland and Coningsby in eastern England on Wednesday after the Russian bombers were detected flying over the Channel to the south of the UK, the MoD said.

"The Russian planes were escorted by the RAF until they were out of the UK area of interest,” the ministry’s Thursday statement said, Reuters reported. “At no time did the Russian military aircraft cross into UK sovereign airspace."

Later on Thursday, Britain said its civil aviation had been disrupted after Russian military planes flying near UK airspace forced authorities to divert civil aircraft. The country has summoned the Russian ambassador to explain why the long-range bombers flew over the English Channel, Reuters reported.

"We summoned the Russian ambassador to account for the incident which disrupted civil aviation," a Foreign Office spokeswoman told the news agency.

Two TU-95 strategic bombers (dubbed 'Bear' by NATO) have taken off from Russia's Engels air base on the Volga River on Thursday, and have successfully completed their tasks according to an air patrol plan, Russian Air Force spokesman Colonel Ivan Klimov said in a statement.

The flight route passed above neutral waters of the Barents and Norwegian seas, as well as the Atlantic Ocean, the colonel said, adding that the flights lasted for over 19 hours, with two midair refueling operations carried out during the mission.

The bombers were accompanied by Russian Air Force MiG-31 supersonic interceptor aircraft. At some stages, the patrolling aircraft were escorted by UK, Norwegian and French fighter jets, Klimov said.

Russia's Air Force spokesman said that the air patrol flights were carried out according to an approved plan, and were conducted in strict compliance with international regulations of the use of airspace above neutral waters, without violating other countries' borders.
https://www.rt.com/uk/227355-british-typhoons-russian-bombers/

Anyway, I hardly think Britain can take any moral high ground when it comes to observing the rules of sovereign territory...

provoking the reaction of our intercepting Typhoons. He's also sent his submarines circling the Baltic states in and around those particular oceanic territories. Most defence experts speculate this to be a form of testing one's opponent's reaction times.

You don't need to be an expert to point out the obvious..

Not much is actually known about the Putin administration because nobody has the balls to go looking themselves, because when they do, they may get shot by 'private contract killers' when they actually visit Russia.

lol

We all know Putin is corrupt on some level, but to what extent his military is being used for such purposes is yet to be investigated without an assassination attempt.

lol

I just wish people would understand that the US navy has every right to be concerned

And so do Russia:


http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

considering the flying was indeed unprofessional given the context of the training and war experience of Russian pilots which was learned from the conflicts during the Cold War.

Could you expand on that context?

It is clearly Putin trying to see how far he can push our buttons in order for his military advisers to be in a comfortable position to give President Putin a real summary of what American military power means in a global 21st Century landscape.

I don't blame him, considering the increasingly hostile and subversive attitudes/activities of the USA and NATO.

NATO missile defence system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_missile_defence_system

Missile Defence related:
[video=youtube;8ux3oiWELIQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ux3oiWELIQ[/video]

Missile Defence related:
[video=youtube;YpcrIqfx5n8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpcrIqfx5n8[/video]

Missile Defence related:
[video=youtube;pBGXCQD7QsE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBGXCQD7QsE[/video]

Global Security:Uni-polar vs Multi-polar World

[video=youtube;0dFasfILYAc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dFasfILYAc[/video]

To mention that Putin is now named America's number one enemy, according to the MSM.
 
Last edited:
I think the constant political bitch-slapping between Putin and Obama is mostly passive-aggressive and comes across as rather childish to me.

However, there is another side to this. Putin is not just sending his war-planes to fly next to US aircraft carriers to provoke a reaction. On several occasions over the last two years he has sent his old soviet bombers into United Kingdom airspace (knowing full well this is a serious violation of the basic rules of sovereign territory), provoking the reaction of our intercepting Typhoons. He's also sent his submarines circling the Baltic states in and around those particular oceanic territories. Most defence experts speculate this to be a form of testing one's opponent's reaction times. Not much is actually known about the Putin administration because nobody has the balls to go looking themselves, because when they do, they may get shot by 'private contract killers' when they actually visit Russia. We all know Putin is corrupt on some level, but to what extent his military is being used for such purposes is yet to be investigated without an assassination attempt. I just wish people would understand that the US navy has every right to be concerned, considering the flying was indeed unprofessional given the context of the training and war experience of Russian pilots which was learned from the conflicts during the Cold War. It is clearly Putin trying to see how far he can push our buttons in order for his military advisers to be in a comfortable position to give President Putin a real summary of what American military power means in a global 21st Century landscape.

I believe every country should mind their own damn business, and politicians should do their dang jobs and reduce tentions, strike mutually benificial deals and do what is best for their countries.
All these issues we're seeing is because the wrong people get into the wrong office leaving those who are in the right place with no other choice but to join in on throwing a tantrum.

Between the two forces you named, I believe russia's government's foreign conduct over the past years makes me believe they hold the moral highground over the US government who in my eyes is throwing said tantrum.
 
Dodgy Dave n Shit

[video=youtube;d77ozkHF8ao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d77ozkHF8ao[/video]


Panama Papers tell how political class got there

[video=youtube;tJVKzvCEcio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJVKzvCEcio[/video]





Bullshit jobs

[video=youtube;E-tIAlRgNpc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-tIAlRgNpc[/video]


Keiser Report: Secrets of TTIP & TPP


[video=youtube;-dHZEjJbz0c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dHZEjJbz0c[/video]
 
Last edited:
Dodgy Dave n Shit

[video=youtube;d77ozkHF8ao]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d77ozkHF8ao[/video]


Panama Papers tell how political class got there

[video=youtube;tJVKzvCEcio]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJVKzvCEcio[/video]





Bullshit jobs

[video=youtube;E-tIAlRgNpc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-tIAlRgNpc[/video]


Keiser Report: Secrets of TTIP & TPP


[video=youtube;-dHZEjJbz0c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dHZEjJbz0c[/video]

I like the Keiser Report. "We are what we hide" SO true.
 
My local MP, a 'neoconservative labour' representative.
I was only musing on this forum just the other day over how similar New Labour and the Conservatives have become. Bloody Blair and his neoconservative fiends. (ah, a fitting typo).​



Gisela Staurt (Labour MP)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisela_Stuart

She's a German born in '55, moved to England in '74 and became my local MP in '97. She's served on a number of committees, most relating to the Blair cabinet.

Parliamentary career

In 1995, Stuart was selected as Labour's prospective parliamentary candidate for the Birmingham Edgbaston constituency, which had been held by the Conservative Party for 99 years. On 1 May 1997, Stuart was elected as the first ever Labour MP for the seat, making it one of a succession of traditionally conservative seats to succumb to the landslide Labour victory. Stuart's victory was the first televised Labour gain of the evening.

During the first Tony Blair premiership, Stuart served on the Social Security Select Committee and in 1998 as PPS to Home Office Minister of State Paul Boateng, before joining the Government in 1999 as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. Stuart left the Government in the reshuffle that followed the 2001 General Election.[4] Her election agent in that election was John Clancy, who in 2015 became leader of Birmingham City Council.[5]

In Blair's second term, Stuart was appointed as one of the UK Parliamentary Representatives to the European Convention, which was tasked with drawing up a new constitution for the European Union. In this capacity, Stuart also served as one of the 13 members of the Convention's Presidium - the steering group responsible for managing the business of the Convention.

The experience of drawing up the Constitution had a significant impact upon Stuart's views of the European Union. When the draft Constitution finally emerged, Stuart was amongst its most trenchant critics, stating that it had been drawn up by a "self-selected group of the European political elite" determined to deepen European integration. She subsequently expounded upon these views in a 2004 Fabian Society pamphlet, "The Making of Europe's Constitution". Consequently, she has argued in favour of leaving the European Union, thus becoming one of the leading figures in Labour's eurosceptic wing.[6]

Between 2001 and 2010, Stuart also served as a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.[7]

She held Birmingham Edgbaston for Labour at the 2005 General Election but her majority was exactly halved in both percentage and numerical terms. Despite the predictions of the pundits, Stuart went on to retain the seat at the 2010 general election, against a national tide of Labour defeat.[8] Her successful campaign has been seen as a model for a new style of community-based Labour politics. It also earned her the title of Survivor of the Year at The Spectator magazine’s 2010 Parliamentarian of the Year awards, which was presented to her by the new Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron.[9] She retained her seat at the 2015 General Election with a majority of 2,706, more than double her majority from 2010.[10]

She is a signatory of the Henry Jackson Society principles, which promote the spread of liberal democracy across the world and the maintenance of a strong military with global expeditionary reach.[11] Following the election[which?], she joined the Commons Select Committee on Defence.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gisela_Stuart

Henry Jackson Society: Project for Democratic Geopolitics

The Henry Jackson Society Project for Democratic Geopolitics is a British neoconservative think tank and political action committee (PAC) which is supported by key US neocons and by two of Prime Minister David Cameron's closest advisers and ministers. It was launched in Cambridge on 11 March 2005 and in the Houses of Parliament on 22 November 2005. [1] The manifesto for the society was published by the Social Affairs Unit.

According to Marko Attila Hoare, Matthew Jamison organised the first meeting of the embryonic Henry Jackson Society at Peterhouse, Cambridge, in the autumn of 2004.[3]

According to its own account the Henry Jackson Society was launched online on 11 March 2005, ‘after several months and much hard work.’ [4] Its online launch was announced in a press release drafted by the ‘Organising Committee’ – the body which ran the Society before its registration as a UK charity. The Organising Committee consisted mainly of academics affiliated to Peterhouse, a conservative college at Cambridge University. They were led by Brendan Simms and Alan Mendoza, the Society’s co-founders. [5] Brendan Simms, a Cambridge historian, was then best known for his book Unfinest Hour: Britain and the Destruction of Bosnia, a highly critical account of British (non-interventionist) policy during the Bosnian War. Mendoza had written his PhD thesis on British policy during the conflict.

The HJS’s homepage originally displayed the following message:

The Henry Jackson Society is a non-profit organisation that seeks to promote the following principles: that liberal democracy should be spread across the world; that as the world’s most powerful democracies, the United States and the European Union – under British leadership – must shape the world more actively by intervention and example; that such leadership requires political will, a commitment to universal human rights and the maintenance of a strong military with global expeditionary reach; and that too few of our leaders in Britain and the rest of Europe today are ready to play a role in the world that matches our strength and responsibilities. [6]
The HJS was launched in Cambridge on 15 June 2005. At the launch event Gary Kent of Labour Friends of Iraq spoke about ‘The Left and Iraq’. That was followed by a drinks reception in the Fellow's Garden in Peterhouse and a formal dinner in Clare Hall. [7] The Society’s Westminster launch took place on 22 November 2005 in the Jubilee Room of the House of Commons. It was hosted by Michael Gove and Gisela Stuart.
http://powerbase.info/index.php/Henry_Jackson_Society:_Project_for_Democratic_Geopolitics


Couldn't make this shit up.
 
Last edited:
"Fraternal Advice"

Mr Hammond

The relationship between President Assad and President Putin is a subject of great speculation among colleagues on the International Syria Support Group circuit, but I am clear that the situation is the same as it has always been. I have said this in the House before. President Putin could have ended all this years ago by a single phone call to President Assad, offering him some fraternal advice about his future health and wellbeing.
https://hansard.digiminster.com/Com...ndThePeaceProcess#contribution-16031546000227

Continued:

Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we should be cautious about these latest developments, but does he believe that Assad is now in a stronger position than he was six months ago?

Mr Hammond

In military terms, certainly. The Russian intervention has prevented the collapse of regime forces, has restored morale among regime forces, has allowed the regime to take ground, consolidate positions, move forces around in a strategically significant way, and has damaged and demoralised opposition groups. There is ​no doubt at all about that. If there is a genuine withdrawal of Russian air cover, the question is how long that improvement can be sustained, because we know that the Syrian regime forces are fundamentally hollowed out after five years of civil war, and without the Russians there to stiffen their spine it is not clear how long they will be able to maintain the initiative.

Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)

Assuming that the Russian withdrawal does take place—I understand there is no certainty in that—will UK and US air forces take over Russian targets against Daesh with the intention of ensuring that there is no reduction in the intensity of action against Daesh as a result of Russian withdrawal?

Mr Hammond

I do not think I can comment at the Dispatch Box on what will drive US and UK targeting decisions, but I can say this. The Russian air force operates largely within a part of Syria that is heavily protected by the Syrian integrated air defence system. The Russians can fly there because they are operating in what is for them a permissive environment, not least because Russian technicians control the Syrian air defence system. It would not be the same for US, UK and other coalition partners. I do not think there can be an assumption that western members of the coalition will be able to take over all the targeting activity against Daesh that is currently being carried out by the Russians.


...


Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)

The intervention by Russia in Syria was a surprise to the west, and this withdrawal, if it is genuine, is also a surprise. Russia’s interventions have been unhelpful but influential. Can my right hon. Friend advise me what steps we can take and are taking with our allies to stop Russia setting the agenda in Syria?

Mr Hammond

That is a good question and a very difficult one to answer. All the western partners in this enterprise play by the rules of the international system and are transparent about their intentions. We had a debate in this Parliament—a discussion that went on for a couple of years before we got to the point of deciding to engage in airstrikes in Syria. The entire world knew about the debate in the UK and where the fault lines were in that debate. Unfortunately, Russia is a state in which all power is concentrated in the hands of one man. There is not even a politburo any more, just a single man. Decisions are made apparently arbitrarily, without any advance signalling and, as we are now seeing, can be unmade just as quickly. That is not a recipe for enhancing stability and predictability on the international scene. It makes the world a more dangerous place, not a less dangerous place.

Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)

The Foreign Secretary is right not to seek to spin Putin’s announcement, but to wait for sound evidence. If, however, it does serve to recondition some of Assad’s assumptions about the negotiations, and if it also means that elements in the opposition feel a bit more encouraged about the worth of their purpose in the negotiations, should we not take the opportunity to make the dialogue more inclusive, not least in respect of women? I note that the UN special envoy met the women’s advisory group at the weekend.

Mr Hammond

Yes, our intention is that the dialogue should be inclusive, representative of all faith groups and all ethnicities within Syria, and also representative of civil society including, of course, women. We should not forget that before this horror started, Syria was, bizarrely, one of the most “liberal” countries in the middle east in terms of tolerance of religious minorities, tolerance of secular behaviour, and the role of women and their participation in society, the professions and employment. We would certainly need to get back to that as Syria re-normalises in the future
 
Last edited:
 
‘Unprecedented’: UK activist fearing US extradition, 99yr sentence awaits landmark court ruling

UK authorities have hijacked a civil suit launched by a cybersecurity expert from Suffolk accused of hacking into the Federal Reserve, in a move that has sinister implications for journalists and others who rely on encrypted data storage and communications.

Gifted programmer and human rights activist Lauri Love, 31, stands accused of intercepting online systems operated by the Fed, NASA, the FBI, the US Department of Defense and the US Environmental Protection Agency, among others.

The US Department of Justice (DoJ) is pursuing him with three extradition orders, claiming he and several collaborators violated millions of US networks between 2012 and 2013, landing US tax payers with a multimillion dollar damages bill.

The series of political protests, dubbed “#OpLastResort,” was orchestrated by online activist network Anonymous to decry the US criminal justice system’s draconian persecution of the late Aaron Swartz. Facing $1 million in fines and up to 35 years in prison, the talented programmer and entrepreneur eventually took his own life in 2013. He was just 26 years old.

Information War

Love is suing Britain’s equivalent of the FBI, the National Crime Agency (NCA), for the return of multiple electronic devices seized from him during a 2013 police raid. He was arrested in October of that year for alleged offenses under Britain’s Computer Misuse Act, supposedly relating to #OpLastResort.

Following his arrest, the NCA snatched a range of computers, drives and other devices from Love's family home and handed him an order under Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to surrender his encryption keys. The NCA had hoped to sift through his data to ensure it was solely his.

Love flatly refused to comply, and was later released on bail. His police bail expired nine months later and the NCA’s probe appeared to have ground to a halt. However, the law enforcement body held on to six of his devices which investigators had been unable to decrypt.

When Love later launched a civil suit to regain access to these devices, the NCA retaliated. In a sinister twist of events, the law enforcement body attempted to use his civil suit as a mechanism to push for the erosion of privacy rights. Love’s supporters criticized the manoeuvre, branding it a defacto power grab that could see his Fifth Amendment rights violated if the British government extradited him to the US.

Legal back door
During a hearing at Westminster Magistrate’s Court last month, District Judge Tempia heard arguments from Love’s legal counsel and the NCA. Judge Tempia reserved her final ruling until May 10.

Love is due to return to Westminster Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday morning, where the judge will decide if the NCA can use his civil property suit to force him to hand over his encryption keys. The NCA is adamant that Love must surrender the passwords to secure the return of his property, despite the fact no charges have been brought against him. This would enable the law enforcement body to scrutinize his private data without evidence of wrongdoing.

Love, who is a passionate privacy rights advocate and social justice campaigner, says he is unable to assist with the NCA’s request.

The case casts a glaring spotlight on the global debate concerning the sanctity of encrypted data and governments’ right to penetrate it. It also raises deep concerns about the continued erosion of privacy rights and state sovereignty in a cross-border climate of mass snooping.

Lawyers, journalists, privacy rights campaigners and hackivists worldwide are outraged at the treatment Love is receiving, arguing that his civil suit has been manipulated to violate his human rights and the privacy rights of UK citizens at large.

The Courage Foundation, which offers support to those who risk their life or freedom to make serious contributions to the public record, is backing Love’s refusal to hand over his keys. It is also raising funds to help fight his extradition battle.

The group’s campaign officer, Naomi Colvin, says the judge’s decision on Tuesday could set an ominous precedent for anyone in Britain who relies on encrypted data.

“A decision in favor of the NCA tomorrow would be breaking new ground. While the UK does have a key surrender law, this would make it much easier for police to compel people to hand over their passwords, bypassing the safeguards that Parliament stipulated back in 2000,” she said.

“That prospect should worry anyone in the UK with an interest in communicating or storing information securely. Since developments in the UK are watched with interest by other governments, the ramifications could well end up being felt internationally.”
 
 
I feel like US will always construe anything Russia does as aggressive, even if they just happened to fart near a NATO member's borders. Russia isn't an innocent player, as none of them are, but the American propaganda machine's consistent portrayal of Russia as a baddie is so transparent it's ridiculous.

American propaganda machine... no. Call it what it is. The liberal propaganda machine. Putin essential has and is calling Obama a little bit@h and all Obama does about it is cry..via said propaganda.
 
American propaganda machine... no. Call it what it is. The liberal propaganda machine. Putin essential has and is calling Obama a little bit@h and all Obama does about it is cry..via said propaganda.

Omg, please take your 'liberal' gripe elsewhere... You bore the fuck outta me.
 
Omg, please take your 'liberal' gripe elsewhere... You bore the fuck outta me.

Then.... I will continue to bore you.
 
Omg, please take your 'liberal' gripe elsewhere... You bore the fuck outta me.

Constantly shitting on liberals is a prime example of shadow projection. Shadow projection can become very predictable, boring, annoying, and even dangerous. It is a primary cause of many conflicts and even wars in my opinion (and Jung's). The Germans projected their collective shadow onto Jews and other people they deemed inferior. The results were obviously disastrous. Until people become aware of the power of defense mechanisms they will continue to engage in divisive relations. Blaming liberals, conservatives, or any political group for all of the problems in your life, country, or the world is foolish. Saying the same thing over and over and over again does not make it so. I tend to prefer nuance, complexity, and balance to extremism or groupthink. I think I have made my point. Some may agree. Others may disagree. To me, what I am saying is pretty reasonable and even obvious. At the end of the day it comes down to a simple issue. Do you want to know the truth, or do you simply want to argue your position indefinitely without any concern for truth or desire for growth. To each his own. Personally, I would rather be wrong and learn something than to hurl ad hominems at those who don't share my perspective. People are still just people. Unfortunately.
 
 
 
Back
Top