America's Russia Derangement Syndrome

Well, I don't know "all the little lefties" or when they, whoever you imagine they are, are rapturous, but I guess you do.... lol....Also, please don't presume to tell me what I do and do not know....That's pretty silly also..

 

Oh no, I wasn't imagining how excited liberal "journalists" were once the missiles started going off.

Brian Williams refers to this Pentagon video of missiles going to kill people as "beautiful" 3 times in 30 seconds

https://twitter.com/trevortimm/status/850243379115941890

 

She should be referred to as Bill Clinton's wife because it provides more
information than using her first name (that has 2 L's like hell) It tells us
that had she not been married to a president she'd never had been a
senator, secretary of state or had run for president because she'd been a
virtual unknown.

 

The only time I have watched Brian Williams is when he used to go over to the Letteman Show after getting tanked up at PJ Clarke's on Broadway and 64th...I really don't follow all the little leftys or all the little rightys blabbing away on the idiot box. I actually have a life. I am more interested in Baseball and my Pittsburgh Pirates right now than this clown show of a political scene. I just come on here once in a while for fun to counterpunch some of the more idiotic posters who live here 24/7/365.

 

If Trump's daddy hadn't given him $200,000,000 he'd probably be tending bar in Kew Garden....The Austin Ale House...Bragging his ass off and boring everyone until the left...lol

 

Good for you!

 

Oh well, I see where you're coming from and its hopeless, I don't have Putin's offshore bank statements, he's probably a man of peerless integrity. If you tell me your sources on your dirt on David Cameron's father and Iceland's prime minister's I might check it for anything they've got on your beloved Putin.

 

I'm amazed at the amount of ignorance displayed in this article. "America" is not responsible for "the ignorance, insanity and stupidity that grips the vast multitude of talking heads and so called reporters as they opine on the upcoming summit", it is the MSM controlled by the Left and the Democrats. Others have been complaining about this for years and suddenly this Col. catches on and considers it something new???

The leftist media is a problem in all the world democracies and America is no different. The next time you hear someone repeating this foolishness you might considering the idea that you're being used.

 

No ... for the US, the rating if rogue or not, is depending on how far they are friends with the US and do not endanger the interests of the US ... so please do not twist the thing!
The difference to the German assessment is that it depends only on how far in the country democracy is, an independent legal system exists, no arbitrariness, human rights are respected and how the country behaves towards its neighbors .... but unlike you, regardless of how far a regime crawls in our asses!

{QUOTE]It certainly didn't seem that you knew much about that war. Your opinion, like many Europeans, always seems to revolve around the USA.[/QUOTE]

I've done 2 works for my master degree in history ... 1 x on the American Revolutionary War - focused here on the Battle of Cowpens as the actual turning point of the war with justifications etc ... and 1 x on the Korean War with the focus on the trigger and why China joined. Both got an "A"!

Maybe I focus here on my answers to the US in the negative sense ... I do not want to betray ... but for a good simple reason: In the US, there is often an incredibly idiotic sense of history where the US is always the good guys and the others are always the bad guys ... and if, like here, there are sub-aspects that do not make the US look so great, then they are ignored, disputed, or even nicely talked about. The fact is that the UN mandate only went up to 38 ° C, the US ignored any Chinese warning to ignore it, and then in the winter at Yalu got a hefty Chinese kick in the ass!

Of course we have embassies there and of course we do trade ... but restricted and supervised and especially with weapons not at all or only very limited.

Both, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have on their wish list the German Leopard 2A7 Main Battle Tank at the top of the wish list ... the Saudis even want to replace the M1A1 / A2 fleet. They do not get the tank and guess why ... eh? See above how Germany rates a rogue state!

You really managed to read through this section 3 times and to be totally speechless about such twisted and idiotic story-making and ignoring facts, but believing in dreadful CIA lies.

There was not even a hint of the danger of a civil war in Chile as the socialist Salvador Allende won the democratic election ... You want to know the truth ... even if it hurts you now? You're welcome ...

The United States has been involved in Chilean domestic politics since at least the early 1960s with its CIA foreign intelligence service. Thus, the US regularly supported the right-wing Partido Nacional and also Eduardo Frei's presidential campaign in 1965 - without his knowing it. When Richard Nixon was elected President of the United States in 1969 and Henry Kissinger became his almighty security adviser, the direct and illegal influence in the name of "Realpolitik" became much stronger throughout Latin America - including Chile. After the US did not prevent the election of Allende in 1970 despite campaigning for more than 7 million US dollars, they tried before the inauguration of the military to the coup to move, but failed. She used both official means and massive pressure from the Ambassador on the Christian Democrats (Track One) as well as massive CIA (Track Two) secret operations.
The top-secret operations, known internally as Project FUBELT, should cost up to $ 10 million. Neither Secretary of State William P. Rogers nor Defense Secretary Melvin Laird, nor the US Ambassador to Santiago, Edward M. Korry nor the CIA leadership in Chile were informed. CIA Director Richard Helms later said about the operation: "Never in my career as a CIA chief have I experienced such secrecy and never had such unlimited power." Project FUBELT culminated in the first political murder in Chile since the assassination of Diego Portales in 1837. The Commander-in-Chief of the Army, René Schneider, was friendly to the United States, but in keeping with a long tradition of Chilean military, he was constitutionally loyal (the so-called Schneider Doctrine). On October 22, 1970, he was shot in a kidnapping attempt by Juan Luis Bulnes Cerda, Diego Izquierda Menéndez and Jaime Megoza Garay and died three days later. Involved in the murder were numerous high Chilean military such as Army General Camilo Valenzuela and Roberto Viaux, the machine guns and tear gas grenades came from the CIA.

Sources for this? For example Hitchens’ Book The Trial of Henry Kissinger!

And the victims?
For the period immediately following the coup, the reports of the crimes committed are often incomplete or entirely absent. By about 1976, however, the crimes are relatively well documented. The estimates of the total victim numbers therefore vary greatly.
An updated 1996 final report documents 3,197 murders with biographical data. The number of victims of the military regime should therefore be between 3,200 and 4,000. Of these, the vast majority were murdered within the first days and weeks after the coup.

 

Yes well, colour me unsurprised by you deploying ad homs and insults. Either one has to agree with you or they are tarred as guilty of being paid trolls, traitors or worse. This has been the go to reasoning of unintelligent and irrational men for many hundreds of years

For the record, I don't love Putin. I don't actually like (actually I intensely dislike) politicians as a class. They're all (mostly anyway) corrupt and lie to their citizens for a living. I haven't voted in an election for over 40 years (although I did vote in the Brexit vote).

What I care for are facts and accuracy and the concept of innocent until proven guilty -- clearly a fast disappearing and "old-fashioned" concept these days.

So, I'll leave you and others to apply a guilty charge based on opinion engendered in your mind by the media, as clearly you are easily swayed by group-think.

Good day to you, Mr. Newt.

 

Unreasonable to you maybe. But then you don't have the gravitas that Laing has. Nor his background, nor his insight.

I'll take him any day over your dreamy and politically partisan and prejudiced opinions. Laing is not swayed by the media driven group-think that clearly effects you.

 

I don't see where I insulted anyone, is it because I thought disputing something with you seemed hopeless or because I referred to the tyrant you advocate for here as your beloved? You clearly refer to me as "unintelligent and irrational" (which is quite clearly an insult for which I take offense).

You demanded evidence Putin had any offshore money, I cited the Panama Papers and you questioned the veracity of what those papers say about Putin, then you note what they disclose about David Cameron's father and Iceland's prime minister. How can these papers be a credible source for claims against some but not others?

You don't see how a reasonable person might think debating with you is hopeless?

Doesn't it seem to you citing the Panama Papers as evidence of the corruption of David Cameron's father and Iceland's prime-minister, but disputing their evidence of Putin's offshore banking is contradictory?

 

This article assumes that all 'talking heads' are the same and therefore all Americans are the same. It's silly just on the face of it and anyone reading it should know it.

 

See what I mean?

For the record, I am not going to be waltzing with you on this subject in perpetuity. Clearly you don't understand what the word "evidence" means. You are far from being unusual in that on this forum. Sadly.

So, for the last time, the Panama Papers provided zero, nada, nix, no proof whatsoever that Putin had offshore money. None whatsoever.

I asked you to show me what you'd got and it was nothing. If there is decent evidence it would sway me. My position of cynicism is that all politicians feather their beds in one way or another. Corruption amongst politicians world-wide is rife. Better you start taking care of your house than starting on the houses of others don't you think? But that wouldn't serve your political chicanery, I guess.

Moving on:

The Panama Papers were widely regarded at the time as being a tainted (prejudiced) politically inspired dump because they included no names of the over 400 Americans who had money with (or through) the Panamanian company the papers were obtained from. No one knows exactly who hacked these papers from Mossack Fonseca, but the finger is pointed towards America because of the lack of info published about the involvement of Americans. And also because the hack recovered an estimated 2.6 terabytes of data of which only a fraction has been published anyway (2.6 terabytes equates approx to 2, 600,000 pages btw).

On the contrary, if you say you have facts but can't provide any, but rather prefer to indulge yourself with rhetorical statements... "you don't see how a reasonable person might see debating with you is hopeless?"

Doesn't it seem to you citing the Panama Papers as evidence of the corruption of David Cameron's father and Iceland's prime-minister, but disputing their evidence of Putin's offshore banking is contradictory?[/QUOTE]

There was no Putin offshore banking evidence. Try to get this into your mind.

 

Take it up with your fellow countryman Laing then. For my tuppence worth I'm inclined to agree with him about media talking heads in general. For me they are largely mouthy members of the club known as Group Think, which is why the media employ them as talking heads --- to spin their agenda.

I don't think for a second that all Americans are the same and I'm certain Laing doesn't either, so I don't know where this tidbit derives from ---- other than you perhaps?

 

True, as The Guardian article noted:

If you read the article, which is only about the money trail from Putin you will see it is replete with very wealthy friends and relatives of Putin's and their very questionable transactions, but ultimately Putin himself is not on any of the records and it is conceivable being his relative or close friend has nothing to do with the billions these people have offshore.

 

I read numerous article on it at the time and checked out the journalist group that published the Papers too. The whole affair was clearly a propaganda exercise imo, which is why I find the charges so dubious and untrustworthy. Throw mud and some always sticks. It's as old as the hills.

There are very wealthy friends and relatives of Putin who are his deadly enemies too. As I said earlier, presenting this contortion as evidence in a trial would be thrown out by the judge on day one. No one in the world can be found guilty of having dirty friends and relatives. Or did the world change?

Thus I keep reverting to the give me firm evidence and I'll change my mind argument.

Meanwhile you need to explain to me why you appear so fixated about this? Isn't is far more sensible to chase some of the corrupt scumbag politicians who sit in the House in Washington who are stealing your tax-dollars, rather than focus on a foreigner? What's the deal; what is it that's motivating you?

Please don't tell me it's because Russia meddled in a US election though. Or that the US has to go to war with Russia (as one poster has recently done) or I'll laugh my head off. Or cower in a corner at the prospect of the rebirth of Dr. Strangelove.

Btw, The Guardian has become a neocon newspaper. It has a neocon agenda today. It will go to any extremes to destroy Putin and also, Trump. I really don't care for it and certainly do not take it seriously anymore (once I did, back in the days of Rusbridger was the editor).

 

Trump is, Manafort and Page's money laundering is commonly imputed to the President.

I'm not fixated about anything, I responded to your challenge I find anything on Putin's offshore banking, Googled "Putin AND offshore" and found this two year-old article from The Guardian (ridiculously branded as "neocon"). Evidently what you consider "neocon" is not quite what I do.

 

Well, that's a couple minutes of my life I'll never get back.

It's difficult to imagine how someone can be so wrong about so many things - Vladimir Putin wasn't a KGB thug?



And so it is with the mythical "Russia Derangement Syndrome" that allegedly exists in this country...

 

"Imputed" isn't evidence.

You haven't found any evidence of Putin's offshore banking.

On the Guardian. Until 2008, when The Scott Trust, which had owned the newspaper since 1948, was replaced by The Scott Trust Ltd, the newspaper was a very decent British newspaper that could largely be relied upon to report fairly accurately. Glen Greenwald published the Edward Snowden Files story there, for example. He left after Rusbridger bowed to British security and allowed the Snowden hard drive to be destroyed. So far as I can tell, that was the turning point for the newspaper. It is now quite widely regarded as untrustworthy and pushing the neocon agenda. Eric Zuesse's article last year (HERE), openly said what many had observed for themselves.

 

In Colorado in the Capitol building, a picture of US President Donald Trump was replaced with a portrait of Vladimir Putin.



Photo-confirmation posted in his Twitter senator Steve Feinberg. The publication is accompanied by a hashtag "Putin - US President" https://twitter.com/SteveFenberg/st...https://ria.ru/world/20180728/1525522888.html

American congressmen scold Trump, but slowly prepares to meet the Red Army with flowers.

 

Forces far more powerful than the Red Army already occupy much Inside The Beltway.....

They have been working against the American people and constitutional governance for several generations now.

 

Which supporter of Cindy Sheehan is cheering for war?
Against whom?
Please cite posts and list the names of each one.