Russian Poison?

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,041
I've not followed the skripal stuff closely (mainly because, honestly, I simply don't care that much). I've no reason to doubt that Russia's behind it all.

But on the other hand, I've no reason to get all Russia-hatey. They've not been gun-toting around the planet for god knows how long killing people mostly for oil.

I'm ambivalent in feelings on both sides of the equation. But it doesn't detract from I'm generally anti-war too. So what if Corbyn hasn't been hammering on denouncing the Russians for a botched assasination attempt? He is probably wrong on that count. But the fact that he was bang-right on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya (which resulted in ISIS) should count for something.

Our warmongering has done a lot more damage than good recently.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
16,033
That's a terrible false equivalence. Why should Ukraine and Georgia have to accept being dominated by Russia and have puppet governments and stolen territory when they don't want it? If they want to join an alliance against Russian aggression then that's their choice. Russia is the one that gives the absurd narrative of a multi polar world where the US can boss it's neighbors around as long as Russia can boss it's neighbors around.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Russia would say EXACTLY the same about us in the middle east :)

Saudi Arabia - why are we supporting them?

Iraq - Western friendly government for cheap oil?
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,966
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Russia would say EXACTLY the same about us in the middle east :)

Saudi Arabia - why are we supporting them?

Iraq - Western friendly government for cheap oil?
I'm not the one with double-standards. The tankies are. Normal people can be against both the Iraq war and Russia invading Ukraine. The likes of Seumus Milne only oppose one of those things.

See also:
US in Afghanistan apparently to act against terrorists = BAD
Russia in Syria apparently to act against terrorists = GOOD

Even though Russia is funding and arming actual terrorists in Afghanistan now. That's an inconvenient narrative to be ignored.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,966
But on the other hand, I've no reason to get all Russia-hatey. They've not been gun-toting around the planet for god knows how long killing people mostly for oil.
Russia under Putin (never mind the old USSR days) has invaded and stolen the sovereign territory of two of its neighbours.

I'll take the equivalence if the US invades Canada and Mexico (admittedly that doesn't seem quite so impossible under Trump).
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,041
Russia under Putin (never mind the old USSR days) has invaded and stolen the sovereign territory of two of its neighbours.

I'll take the equivalence if the US invades Canada and Mexico (admittedly that doesn't seem quite so impossible under Trump).
The US moved into the middle east because of oil - who cares if it's next door to their own country or not - it's still an invasion for economic reasons - and the fallout has been way way worse than Russia annexing Crimea.

In todays globalised world insisting on a false equivalency of being next door to a country when casting your military strongarm for economic or political gain is a bit rich. Military might can be cast much further than it could historically - and the US and it's lackeys are doing just that.

The fact is, both sides are shit.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,966
The US moved into the middle east because of oil - who cares if it's next door to their own country or not - it's still an invasion for economic reasons - and the fallout has been way way worse than Russia annexing Crimea.

In todays globalised world insisting on a false equivalency of being next door to a country when casting your military strongarm for economic or political gain is a bit rich. Military might can be cast much further than it could historically - and the US and it's lackeys are doing just that.

The fact is, both sides are shit.
I refer you back to this when thinking of the attitude of Corbyn and his fellow travellers:

US in Afghanistan apparently to act against terrorists = BAD
Russia in Syria apparently to act against terrorists = GOOD

Do you support that view or maybe think it's a bit rich (like a butcher's turd)?
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,041
US in Afghanistan apparently to act against terrorists = BAD
Russia in Syria apparently to act against terrorists = GOOD
Is that Corbyn's view? Or just the more extreme of his followers?

Plus - you're not even asking a question based on reality. You don't believe this: "US in Afghanistan apparently to act against terrorists". We've been in Afghanistan on and off since the 1830's - ostensibly to stop Russia invading India, though that was bullshit, and we've been at it ever since.

At war. In Afghanistan. For nearly 200 years.

War - the thing that Corbyn is attempting to change. And nobody else.

So yeah, maybe he's a bit of a shithead. But I won't condemn him just because he's refusing to carry on like everyone has been carrying on for fucking ever. There's the hippy definition of madness which is trying to get different results from trying the same thing over and over again. At least Corbyn is attempting to offer something different to the current western industrial war machine.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,966
War - the thing that Corbyn is attempting to change. And nobody else.
He doesn't oppose all wars. Just western wars. He pathetically mumbles platitudes about wars started by Russia / Iran and proxies.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
16,033
He doesn't oppose all wars. Just western wars. He pathetically mumbles platitudes about wars started by Russia / Iran and proxies.
Probably more that he's got an attitude of why are we so happy to support our dubious wars and then heavily condemn others?
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,041
He doesn't oppose all wars. Just western wars. He pathetically mumbles platitudes about wars started by Russia / Iran and proxies.
I've not seen him do that @Wij. I've not read any quotes from him given actual context.

I've read an awful lot of shit attributed to him, which wasn't actually him though.

I'm open to changing my mind. But I'd need to see him, actually him, saying and doing the things he's accused of. And I'd also weigh it against the fact that his anti-war stance would have meant we didn't go into Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan etc. etc. - and therefore we'd have had much more global stability, much less terrorism than we do today.

And I'd still put pollution and emissions of noxious gasses and particulates as a higher priority for government to fix than most of that anyway - because it's killing people in the UK now, it's making us dumber, and nowt's being done about it.
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,041
After the second Iraq war, which Mr Cook resigned over, Britain has no appetite for open-ended or hubristic military interventions. Equally, punting every international threat off to the UN, inviting grinding global indecision, is not moral let alone political leadership. It means sitting on your hands, a green light to despots and dictators to savage their own citizens, and exposing Britain to greater risk from the likes of Isis and other international terrorist groups.
That there is an argument for punting things off to the UN. It is our gun-toting warmongering that lead to the exposure of "greater risk(s) from the likes of Isis and other international terrorist groups".

Despots and dictators are always going to come and savage their own citizens - because they're fucking human and we're a bunch of cunts - and I don't discount that happening in any country, including our so-called "developed" ones.

However, unilateral action makes unilateral action more likely - and given the fallout of our unilateral actions has clearly been to make us demonstrably less safe, make the world demonstrably more likely to pitch into conflict, then perhaps part of the price of that is adhering to rules that prevent us going to war.

People die in war too. Lots and lots of people. Yes, people die in atrocities - but our interventions have not always been as successful as Kosovo. ISIS is testament to that. The clusterfuck that is the middle east is testament to that. The EU's migration crisis is testament to that.

War. Keeping things stable tho, eh?

The script needs to change...
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,966
That there is an argument for punting things off to the UN. It is our gun-toting warmongering that lead to the exposure of "greater risk(s) from the likes of Isis and other international terrorist groups".

Despots and dictators are always going to come and savage their own citizens - because they're fucking human and we're a bunch of cunts - and I don't discount that happening in any country, including our so-called "developed" ones.

However, unilateral action makes unilateral action more likely - and given the fallout of our unilateral actions has clearly been to make us demonstrably less safe, make the world demonstrably more likely to pitch into conflict, then perhaps part of the price of that is adhering to rules that prevent us going to war.

People die in war too. Lots and lots of people. Yes, people die in atrocities - but our interventions have not always been as successful as Kosovo. ISIS is testament to that. The clusterfuck that is the middle east is testament to that. The EU's migration crisis is testament to that.

War. Keeping things stable tho, eh?

The script needs to change...
You buy the narrative that the Iraq war caused ISIS and that Putin and Assad had nothing to do with it? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
16,033
You buy the narrative that the Iraq war caused ISIS and that Putin and Assad had nothing to do with it? I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.
I'd say the West had far more to do with the unintentional creation of ISIS than Russia.
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,041
I've already said he was wrong on Kosovo, but right on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

Corbyn and McDonnell signed this EDM which doesn't so much justify the slaughters in Kosovo as deny they ever happened:

Early day motion 392 - JOHN PILGER AND KOSOVO

But I'd not read this piece before
- which the EDM was about - so that link was of use. Thanks.

the International War Crimes Tribunal...announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's "mass graves" was 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army
Which, whilst still atrocious, those official death toll figures are orders of magnitude less than the slaughters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and it doesn't come with the resultant fallout of us being duped into those wars.

And how we were duped eh? - if you look at that story:
"Lies as great as those told by Bush and Blair were deployed by Clinton and Blair in their grooming of public opinion..."we've now seen about 100,000 military-aged [Albanian] men missing" ..."225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59" may have been killed"...Blair invoked the Holocaust and "the spirit of the Second World War"...Clare Short compared to Nazi propagandists those ... who objected to the bombing of defenceless people"
Regardless of the right and wrongs of going into Kosovo (and I personally think we should have) - the shit that was told to get us there was the same WMD-level shit that got us into Iraq.

The idea that we should be unilaterally going to war, that we shouldn't be "hamstrung" by the UN is, in my opinion, hugely wrong - and history has shown it.

And again - Corbyn backs that principle. Hence him signing that EDM. And I've yet to see a single thing that says that that principle - that we should only go to war in the direst of circumstances, and with international consensus - is wrong.

But us enlightened westerners are flouting that principle. And we're killing people. Lots of people. We've made our world a worse, not a better, place.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,966
I've already said he was wrong on Kosovo, but right on Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.



But I'd not read this piece before
- which the EDM was about - so that link was of use. Thanks.



Which, whilst still atrocious, those official death toll figures are orders of magnitude less than the slaughters in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and it doesn't come with the resultant fallout of us being duped into those wars.

And how we were duped eh? - if you look at that story:


Regardless of the right and wrongs of going into Kosovo (and I personally think we should have) - the shit that was told to get us there was the same WMD-level shit that got us into Iraq.

The idea that we should be unilaterally going to war, that we shouldn't be "hamstrung" by the UN is, in my opinion, hugely wrong - and history has shown it.

And again - Corbyn backs that principle. Hence him signing that EDM. And I've yet to see a single thing that says that that principle - that we should only go to war in the direst of circumstances, and with international consensus - is wrong.

But us enlightened westerners are flouting that principle. And we're killing people. Lots of people. We've made our world a worse, not a better, place.
Jesus Christ. You do not read Pilger for information. His articles are bollocks. He's a propagandist.
 

Scouse

HERO!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,041
edit: You're actually quoting Kosovo trutherism. Give yourself a long shower and stay away from Infowars.
I actually linked to, and quoted, from The New Statesmen (which was the link in the Early Day Motion you gave). I understand the New Statesmen to be reputable. Do you think New Statesman has a duty to check the facts before printing them more than a guy on a forum?

If I'd quoted from John Steel at The Guardian, effectively saying the same thing, that there were less than 3000 deaths, would that be better?

But just to check the facts because I'd hate to feel like I'd been suckered in (even if it was by the New Statesman) - I went to have a look at what the United Nations said. And although Carla Del Ponte says there is uncertainty about the exact numbers - it's not the 100,000 bullshit that we were duped into war with. And, in fact, happen to be the numbers we're talking about.

I've only ever visited Infowars on the links that you've provided to make us laugh - mainly at @Job. But if the figures are good enough for the UN's chief prosecutor, they're good enough for me.

Fair enough?


Edit: I'm actually running a bath, but it's nothing to do with feeling dirty, or duped.
 

Job

The Carl Pilkington of Freddyshouse
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
20,224
Nothings changed in Kosovo..the entire thing was caused by immigration of toothless muslims and the feelings are still there, but now everyones involved, if they dont sort that shit out..which they wont...youll be looking at Kosovo 2.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,966
The UN said it wasn't digging up bodies to try to come up witha definitive body count but to gather enough evidence for a war crimes conviction, which it got. At least 3000 were killed (probably many more) and 700,000 were turned into refugees due to ethnic cleansing. Just because someone said it might be 100,000 dead doesn't invalidate any of that. It's s bullshit narrative. The fact that in his 2004 article Pilger calls the war crimes trial a show trial but the 2011 update at the top notes that they were indeed convicted tells you everything you need to know about Pilger. He makes his living talking to RT now.

He is an apologist for any crimes not committed by the west.
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
16,033
By the way. Quoting John Steel would not help. He's a fucking ghoul:

View: https://twitter.com/OzKaterji/status/1043099926933266433

View: https://twitter.com/alexjrowell/status/1043097595609010182


Former apologist for Stasi in not changing spots shocker.
Isn't he kind of like 100% correct though?

I mean, continuing to arm the rebels poorly and giving them more of a reason to fight seems somewhat silly considering they're being absolutely decimated.

Unless we do more, ofc.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,966
Isn't he kind of like 100% correct though?

I mean, continuing to arm the rebels poorly and giving them more of a reason to fight seems somewhat silly considering they're being absolutely decimated.

Unless we do more, ofc.
If arming the rebels was the only alternative we could imagine then maybe I might agree but it would still mean condemning Idlib citizens to slaughter, jail and torture.

The point is though that Steel has been lobbying for Assad from day 1.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
13,966
I thought the point was ending the war and the best way to bring about that.
Um no. If you remember how this started we were discussing 'anti-war' people who are against western intervention but say next-to-nowt about Russian or Iranian intervention.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom