@chuckutzman

With Bolton advising Trump, what could possibly go wrong?

[comment:body]

@MrWebster

He had previously argued against Russian involvement in the Skripal case. Did the "thought" police get to him?

PETER HITCHENS: The 'patriotic' thought police came for Corbyn. You are next
18 March 2018 12:01 AM

Is this a warning? In the past few days I have begun to sense a dangerous and dark new intolerance in the air, which I have never experienced before. An unbidden instinct tells me to be careful what I say or write, in case it ends badly for me. How badly? That is the trouble. I am genuinely unsure.

I have been to many countries where free speech is dangerous. But I have always assumed that there was no real risk here.

Now, several nasty trends have come together. The treatment of Jeremy Corbyn, both by politicians and many in the media, for doing what he is paid for and leading the Opposition, seems to me to be downright shocking.
...
I sense an even deeper and more thoughtless frenzy over Russia, a country many seem to enjoy loathing because they know so little about it.

I have already been accused, on a public stage, of justifying Moscow’s crime in Salisbury. This false charge was the penalty I paid for trying to explain the historical and political background to these events. I wonder if the bitterness also has something to do with the extraordinarily deep division over the EU, which has made opponents into enemies in a way not seen since the Suez Crisis.
...
Last week there was a mugging on the secluded, picturesque path I often take on my way home. It wasn’t the first. For me, such places, away from crowds and noise, are one of the great joys of life. And, for all the time since I was born until very recently, it never crossed my mind that seclusion might also mean danger. Now it does. How very dispiriting and sad.
...

The only thing that makes sense is the Skripal poisoning was a false flag. Peter Hitchens made much more sense with his previous reporting that it was NOT to Russia's benefit to publicly poison Skripal and his daughter. He has now done a complete 180. I think he now fears for his life.

A column by Peter Hitchens (yes, the brother of..) He makes a very frighten point when one considers the implication. Basically, maybe some powers within the Kremlin did in fact arrange for the nerve agent poisoning. Why?

We're goading Russia into a 'dirty war' we CANNOT win
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5486149/PETER-HITCHENS-goading...

But the more I look at it, the more I think that the message from this outrage is as follows.

If Britain really wants a war with Russia, as our Government seems to, then Russia will provide that war.

...

If the attack on Sergei Skripal was also a Kremlin operation, then it was done to tell us this: If we want to play tough guys with Moscow, we had better be prepared for the worst.

....

But what the Skripal case tells us is that, long after the Cold War ended, we still choose to treat Russia as the sort of country where we should continue active, aggressive spying and efforts to bring down the government.

Not only did we pay Colonel Skripal a lot of money for the names of Russian agents in the West, we financed opponents of the Russian government (and we complain that they mess around in our politics!). Why do we do this?

...

They are much angrier with us now than they were then. Yes, what they apparently did in Salisbury is a filthy, inexcusable thing.

But it is the face of modern combat, in a war our government chose to fight. What answer do we have to it that will not make it worse

Maybe the Russians discovered a UK plot to disrupt the World Cup and this is their warning to the Brits that there will be serious relatiation? The Saudis threatened to send Chechen terrorists to Sochi, and never head of them--I image when the Saudis threatened Putin, they came to regret it. But given the utter arrogance and stupidity of the neocons in the UK and the US, maybe Russia is sending a message--"do not fuck with us".

Shit is going to hit the proverbial fan.

@MrWebster

As an acquaintance at Quora noted:

After the collapse of the USSR. The U.S. was in charge of the chemical warfare labs and storage in Uzbekistan for a short time. They were supervising its destruction. This is where Novochok was born.

Unlike what the UK is trying to portray, just about everyone has the ability to make Novichok or has their hands on it. One of the creators of Novichok defected to the US. and published a book putting the formula in it. Access to the formula was wide-spread, and in the case of the US, they had access to Soviet made Novichok. Of course they took some.

The double agent was wasting in Russian prisons for years before he was exchanged. Nobody killed him then. Now suddenly Russians remembered him just before the Russian elections and world cup?

The more likely suspect in my opinion is the UK itself. No one is talking of brexit anymore are they?

Happened near their military chemical warfare station. The Novichok probably did not have far to travel.

Now the UK can shut down RT and Sputnik, Russian propaganda or not. if you want to hear what goes on in the west that the mainstream media refuses to cover, you watch RT. The British had tried every trick in the book to take RT off air without it looking like suppression of freedom of the press.

RT has a very large following in the US, as well, with a full line-up of American talent. It has more subscribers on YouTube than CCN, FOX, and several U.S. mainstream outlets, combined. Americans, certainly, will lose what access to news they have at first opportunity. Even more reason for a false flag.

A column by Peter Hitchens (yes, the brother of..) He makes a very frighten point when one considers the implication. Basically, maybe some powers within the Kremlin did in fact arrange for the nerve agent poisoning. Why?

We're goading Russia into a 'dirty war' we CANNOT win
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5486149/PETER-HITCHENS-goading...

But the more I look at it, the more I think that the message from this outrage is as follows.

If Britain really wants a war with Russia, as our Government seems to, then Russia will provide that war.

...

If the attack on Sergei Skripal was also a Kremlin operation, then it was done to tell us this: If we want to play tough guys with Moscow, we had better be prepared for the worst.

....

But what the Skripal case tells us is that, long after the Cold War ended, we still choose to treat Russia as the sort of country where we should continue active, aggressive spying and efforts to bring down the government.

Not only did we pay Colonel Skripal a lot of money for the names of Russian agents in the West, we financed opponents of the Russian government (and we complain that they mess around in our politics!). Why do we do this?

...

They are much angrier with us now than they were then. Yes, what they apparently did in Salisbury is a filthy, inexcusable thing.

But it is the face of modern combat, in a war our government chose to fight. What answer do we have to it that will not make it worse

Maybe the Russians discovered a UK plot to disrupt the World Cup and this is their warning to the Brits that there will be serious relatiation? The Saudis threatened to send Chechen terrorists to Sochi, and never head of them--I image when the Saudis threatened Putin, they came to regret it. But given the utter arrogance and stupidity of the neocons in the UK and the US, maybe Russia is sending a message--"do not fuck with us".

Shit is going to hit the proverbial fan.

@MrWebster

And what could possibly be gained by Russia doing that? Nothing positive, and it seems very out-of character.

The US PTB and their military deliberately target 'non-combatants', (wouldn't surprise me if the British PTB allied with them did as well, apparently being accepting of such random murders, and their spies and Porton Down scientists have certainly committed/condoned such/similar crimes) even just to get their 'terrorist kill' numbers up or in 'drone games' killing pedestrians, villages-full and funeral/wedding groups, not, as far as I've ever heard, Russia under Putin; the US PTB are known to routinely use terrorism and False Flags, as far as I know, not Russia under Putin; why and how would Russians smuggle a (claimed, but evidently not really) nerve agent into an area only a few miles away from Porton Down in order to - what - try to turn the people of other countries against themselves by using an insanely stupid method of assassination with a gas that didn't even kill the victims outright, as any military grade nerve gas would? (Were they perhaps simply drugged for removal, and used for this so far seemingly evidence-free claim?)

Every indication I've encountered so far says that this is a False Flag, apart from the propaganda stories out of the propaganda Press and the various PTB. And if a Consultant in Emergency Medicine who would have handled any such case says the NIH says that nobody had - or has ever - been treated in Salisbury by the NHS for exposure to a nerve agent, why would he lie? Have there ever been any verified and reliable reports of the victims in their hospital beds, or have they simply disappeared?

Regarding the following, I (and various of the commenters I read, a number of comments also being potentially of interest) fail to see any ambiguity in the statement as to the fact of there having been no patients in Salisbury treated for nerve agent exposure. Also, unless I've missed it, there's no mention in that article of where the doctor specified that those '3 victims ever' he mentioned were those claimed to have been poisoned in that incident? He carefully seems to have not done so, so if anyone knows where he has, that'd be great. My searches seem to suck rather badly on this and I lack the energy to dig.

Going by the reference to a phrase in the letter, (immediately below this comment) they do seem to be referring to the letter itself, rather than an interview or other communication, in any event seemingly unmentioned and with no direct quotes of the doctor using these terms?

In fact, since Skripal might be considered to be 'a member of the public' after, apparently, 8 years of British residence if he's been there since 2010 (according to dates given in the 2nd article quoted from, below), the statement that '...No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved. ...' seems to potentially indicate that either he and his daughter were not poisoned or not brought to/treated at that hospital. However, quite apart from food and 'household poisonings' - Porton Down is nearby; 'ever' in the doctor's closing statement that: '...there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning.' does not seem to indicate 3 recent occurrences.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/03/21/what-did-the-salisbury-physician-mea...

Published on March 21, 2018
Comments 69
What did the Salisbury physician mean by “no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning”?

Updated with link to Times article, March 21, & again with additional link & to correct date, March 23

... On March 16 Steven Davies, “Consultant in Emergency Medicine” at Salisbury hospital, wrote the following letter to the Times in response to an article that had appeared there two days earlier.This is the text of the letter:

“Sir, Further to your report (“Poison Exposure Leaves Almost 40 Needing Treatment”, Mar 14), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.

STEPHEN DAVIES, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust”

(our emphasis)

The article he is attempting to correct alleges “nearly 40 people have experienced symptoms related to the Salisbury nerve agent.” ...

Davies’s letter completely contradicts the claims attributed in the article to the “national head of counterterrorism” about “38 people who required hospital treatment,” and is clearly intended to do so. This is significant enough. It seems the Times accepted Davies’s correction, or at least published it in a follow-up article on March 16:

Dozens of patients who went to hospital after the Salisbury poisoning were unaffected by the nerve agent, a doctor has revealed.

As Theresa May visited the Wiltshire city and declared it “open for business”, Stephen Davies, a consultant in emergency medicine at the Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, said that no one other than Sergei and Yulia Skripal and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey had needed treatment.

But the phrase that puzzled us, and which has apparently been puzzling many others, is “no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning.”

As a consultant in emergency medicine, Mr Davies would certainly have been involved in assessing and treating the Skripals and any other casualties when they were admitted to Salisbury hospital. He would seem to be in a position to know better than most how many were treated and what they were treated for. In the current situation where there is virtually no solid information available about what happened that day in Salisbury, this letter has assumed huge proportions, which of course may be unwarranted. ...

Haven't been keeping up on this aspect. Has there been much change from here, a week and a half ago?

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/03/14/pers-m14.html

The Skripal poisoning: What lies behind UK-US ultimatums against Russia?
14 March 2018

... But London and NATO have neither produced physical evidence of Kremlin involvement, nor established a motive for a hypothetical Russian attack. Nor has London explained why, if the Kremlin wanted Skripal dead because he spied for Britain in the 1990s and early 2000s, it did not execute him after convicting him of spying in 2006, and instead sent him to Britain four years later in exchange for Russian spies jailed by London. ...

... To those who say it is obvious that Russia poisoned Skripal, it is worth recalling the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, in which a deadly strain of anthrax was mailed to many US officials in Washington, killing 5 people and infecting 17 more, shortly after the September 11 attacks. There again, media immediately blamed the attacks on obvious targets of US-UK war threats—the Iraqi regime’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program and its alleged ties to Al Qaeda. These all proved to be lies, serving Washington’s foreign policy interests as it sought to go to war in Iraq.

And, after the US invaded and occupied Iraq, as it became clear that Iraq had no WMDs and was not responsible for the attacks, it emerged that the particular anthrax strain used in the attacks had in fact been created by Washington’s own WMD program at Fort Detrick, Maryland. A US scientist, Steven Hatfill, was rumored to be responsible, investigated, and ultimately cleared.

It still remains unclear to this day which US officials were involved in carrying out the anthrax attacks. The FBI closed the investigation in 2010 after pinning the blame on another scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, who had committed suicide in 2008. However, the US National Academy of Sciences found in 2011 that the US government did not have sufficient scientific evidence to definitively assert that the anthrax used in the attacks came from Ivins.

In the Skripal attack, it is unclear how Moscow would benefit. The attack took place shortly before this weekend’s elections in Russia, and as the NATO powers ramp up a confrontation with Russia over their failed war for regime change in Syria that has seen US forces attack and kill Russian military contractors in Syria in recent weeks. The Skripal attack hands Putin’s enemies inside NATO an ideal diplomatic and political weapon to use against him.

The benefits flow to sections of the British and European ruling class who are stoking war hysteria against Russia, and sections of the American ruling elite, particularly around the CIA and the Democratic Party, working with them to discredit Trump as a supposed agent of Russia. The Skripal attack allows these factions to place enormous pressure on rival sections of the European ruling class, notably in the French and German governments, who are calling for a European military policy independent from the United States and closer ties to Russia. ...

... London has based its allegations against Russia entirely on the shifting analyses of its Porton Down biochemical warfare facility, located coincidentally only 10 miles from Salisbury. Initially, London alleged that Skripal had been exposed to fentanyl, a synthetic opioid more powerful than heroin. On March 7, however, British officials alleged that the poison was a nerve gas like sarin or VX, without explaining why Porton Down, a facility that has for decades specialized in producing nerve gases, failed to correctly identify one after it was used.

On Monday, May alleged that the nerve gas in question is in fact “novichok,” a special chemical weapon initially produced by the Soviet government. However, London has refused Moscow’s requests to actually provide it with samples of the substance used in the Salisbury attack for analysis, as required by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). As of now, at least, the case against Russia is based on the say-so of the Porton Down facility.

Porton Down is not a reliable source, however. It has a long record of illegal or covert testing of biological and chemical weapons on British citizens. These include the 1942 contamination with anthrax spores of Gruinard Island, which the British government was compelled to decontaminate in 1986; the unlawful death of Ronald Maddison in 1953 during trials of sarin gas on British servicemen; and the 1963-1975 spraying of biological weapons in Lyme Bay. The British government paid out 3 millions pounds to victims of such tests in 2008, without admitting liability. ...
Alex Lantier

Dunno but there are such a lot of areas in which I'd disagree with the author you quoted that we'd obviously have completely different perspectives:

(Emphasis mine, on some of the most damaging-to-others areas - including the fact that he believed Thatcher to be right on the Cold War and was doubtless affected by the 'Communist Threat' scaremongering even after Russia was no longer (gasp) 'Red'.)

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

Peter Hitchens

...He was a member of the International Socialists (forerunners of the modern Socialist Workers' Party) from 1969 to 1975[8] (beginning at age 17), and was introduced to the organisation by his brother, Christopher Hitchens.[9] In 2010 he dismissed the "cruel revolutionary rubbish" he promoted as a member as "poison",[8] but later commented that "it was a reasonable mistake to have made. I'm glad I made it, because unlike people who've been vaccinated against a disease, I've actually had the disease and therefore I'm totally immune from it in a way that a mere vaccination couldn't possibly provide. ... It taught me how to think, in a lot of ways. So I don't regret the experience at all; I think everybody should have it."[9]

He joined the Labour Party in 1977, but left it in 1983 when he became a political reporter at the Daily Express, thinking it wrong to carry a party card when directly reporting politics.[10] This also coincided with a culmination of growing personal disillusionment with the Labour movement.[11] In 2009, Hitchens wrote of this period, "Against the Labour Party, which I knew to be penetrated by all manner of Marxists, and soaked in the ideas of the revolutionaries, it was increasingly necessary to support the Tories. This was partly because of the strikers' lies, but much more because of Poland and Czechoslovakia. On the Cold War, I knew she (Thatcher) was right and the Left were wrong."[12] ...

... A regular on British radio and television, he has been described as "a formidable interview subject, with a hostility simmering just beneath the surface – perhaps because, in his words, he is used to having to 'hit hard' whenever he is given the chance to air his unfashionable views."[40]

In 2011, Hitchens was booed by the audience for a Question Time programme, on which he appears regularly, when he said that the expansion of sex education had been followed by increased numbers of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.[42] During the same programme, chairman David Dimbleby quoted to Hitchens comments made by John Bercow that The Mail on Sunday was "a bigoted, sexist, homophobic comic strip."[43] After his appearance, Hitchens wrote "Is there any point in public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to think, while millions have been taught what to think?"[44] Hitchens is also heard on Any Questions?,[45] This Week,[46] The Daily Politics[47] and The Big Questions.[48] ...

... Political views

Hitchens joined the Conservative Party in 1997, but left in 2003. He challenged Michael Portillo for the Conservative nomination in the Kensington and Chelsea seat in 1999, accusing Portillo of "washy moderation".[53] However, he says that he had "no interest in securing the nomination" and "no chance" of doing so, his real reasons having been to gain book publicity and "to draw attention to Michael Portillo's non-conservative politics".[54]

Hitchens believes that no party he could support will be created until the Conservative Party disintegrates, an event he first began calling for in 2006.[55] From 2008, he claimed that what would facilitate such a collapse would be for the Conservative Party to lose the 2010 general election.[56] In 2012, Hitchens announced he was once more considering standing as a Member of Parliament[57][58] and called for British citizens to form "small exploratory committees in existing constituencies, under the Justice and Liberty motto".[59]

Hitchens mainly comments on political and religious issues, and generally espouses a social conservative viewpoint. He is deeply pessimistic about recent, present and future Britain and sees himself as Britain’s obituarist, writing about what he sees as the death of Britain for future historians to look back on.[60] In 2010 Michael Gove, writing in The Times, asserted that, for Hitchens, what is more important than the split between the Left and the Right is "the deeper gulf between the restless progressive and the Christian pessimist",[61] and in 2010 Hitchens himself wrote "in all my experience in life, I have seldom seen a more powerful argument for the fallen nature of man, and his inability to achieve perfection, than those countries in which man sets himself up to replace God with the State."[62]

In 2009, Anthony Howard wrote of Hitchens, "the old revolutionary socialist has lost nothing of his passion and indignation as the years have passed us all by. It is merely the convictions that have changed, not the fervour and fanaticism with which they continue to be held."[63].
Beliefs
Morality and religion

While Peter Hitchens used to be an atheist like his older brother Christopher Hitchens,[64] he became a Christian later in his life. He became a member of the Church of England and is now an advocate of moral virtues founded on the Christian faith and institutions such as marriage.[65] Today Hitchens defends the use of the Church of England's 1662 Book of Common Prayer and of the King James Bible. Of the latter, he has written "it is not simply a translation, but a poetic translation, written to be read out loud... to lodge in the mind and to disturb the temporal with the haunting sound of the eternal."[66] He argues Christianity has been systematically undermined by social liberals and cultural Marxists. "The left's real interests are moral, cultural, sexual and social. They lead to a powerful state. This is not because they actively set out to achieve one," Hitchens writes.[67] "It is because the left's ideas – by their nature – undermine conscience, self-restraint, deferred gratification, lifelong marriage and strong, indivisible families headed by authoritative fathers."[67] He also believes that the First World War is the cause of the demise of Christianity in Europe.[68]

Himself a former Trotskyist, Hitchens now says that he is "in character, puritanical, and glad of a reason to be so."[69] He describes his political philosophy as "a conservative position flowing directly and inevitably from a theist position. I'm not saying you can't be a conservative without being a theist – it seems much more difficult, I'm not certain I can work out why you would want to be."[69] ...

... Liberty, security, crime, drugs and health

Hitchens advocates a society governed by conscience and the rule of law, which he sees as the best guarantee of liberty. He believes that capital punishment is an element of a strong justice system,[96][97] and he was the only British journalist to attend and write about the execution of Nicholas Ingram in America in 1995.[98] Economically, he sees himself as a Keynesian, although he concedes that it "must be adapted to deal with modern conditions."[99] ...

...Hitchens has criticised human rights laws and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), citing that "habeas corpus, the answerability of the sovereign to the law, jury trial, the right to silence, the rule against double jeopardy, the prohibition of torture, the freedom to bear and keep arms, the inviolability of property, the prohibition of search or arrest without proper warrant, the enforcement of open trials" are things "worth having", while the ECHR is "a counterfeit currency of fake liberty. And worse, it is a licence for judicial interference". Also, he believes that "‘Human Rights’ not only don’t protect us...they can be used by Judges to reduce our freedoms".[105] Hitchens has expressed support for reintroducing capital punishment, saying that "I think it is a great pity that we no longer have this powerful deterrent against cruel violence".[106]

Hitchens is well known for his anti-cannabis views,[107][108] and is opposed to the decriminalisation of recreational drugs in general.[109] He argues that the legal prohibition of drug use is an essential counterweight to "pro-drug propaganda."[110][111] He has stated that attempts to combat drug use by restricting supply and prosecuting drug dealers are futile, unless possession and use are also punished.[112] In 2012, Hitchens gave evidence to the Parliamentary Home Affairs Select Committee as part of its inquiry into drugs policy,[113] and called for the British government to introduce a more hardline policy on drugs.[114] Hitchens describes drug addiction as a "fantasy", stating that drug abuse is a choice.[115] ...

... Hitchens supports Israel and denies the notion of occupied Palestinian territory, viewing the British exit from Mandatory Palestine as having left a legal vacuum. He also praises Israel's "European" culture, which he says makes Israel "the permanent ally, in the Middle East, of the world's lawful and free countries", and which he suspects is the main reason for the perceived hostility of the Arab governments. However, he condemns past Jewish terrorism and some Israeli military actions.[133] ...

... Hitchens has been a skeptic of anthropogenic climate change at least since 2009.[141] Since that time his position has hardened, at times referring to climate science as a "cult",[142] "intolerant faith-based orthodoxy",[143] and "an obsessive, pseudo-scientific dogma."[144] ...

... LGBT issues

In 2002, Hitchens wrote a column criticising Sir Alan Duncan after he became the first Conservative MP to come out as gay. Hitchens wrote that as a "private homosexual," Duncan "needed and deserved the tolerance of those, like me, who think his choice is wrong but believe he had the right to make it." However, he continued, by "asking for open acceptance of his choice as normal," he had undermined the position of "heterosexual marriage" as the "ideal and right form of sexual partnership," and made a "gesture of contempt" to millions of people.[153]

He now argues that it is futile to express "conservative" opinions on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, as to do so merely ensures that one will immediately be accused of bigotry and the "subjectively defined thoughtcrime"[154] of homophobia, against which, he argues, it is impossible to defend oneself. For Hitchens, the same-sex marriage debate is a "Stalingrad" and a "diversion" from the more important issue of the general breakdown of marriage in British society, exemplified by the increased prevalence of divorce and single-parent families.[155][156][157]

In 2016, he wrote a column[158] criticising the outcome of the Northern Irish 'Gay Cake' case, in which the owners of a cake shop were successfully sued by a gay couple for refusing to bake a cake with the words "support gay marriage" written in icing. In a later radio discussion, he called the ruling "outrageously totalitarian," saying, "Where people can be forced to publish things with which they disagree, there is no freedom."[159] ...

So yeah, the (admittedly) peanut(brained) gallery occupant has grave doubts about the objectivity in certain areas of the great Peter Hitchens and begs to profoundly differ.

Putin has already made the point that no war will again be fought on Russian soil; Putin, unlike the US PTB, is known for keeping his word. if the delusional US and other PTB aren't capable of grasping even that, why the hell would Putin pull some pointless, pathetic, dumbass thing like sending an assassin all the way to Britain to (apparently fail to?) kill two people (purportedly with an (ineffective,) hand-sprayed? purportedly military grade nerve gas? Unobtrusively wearing a hazmat suit, the assassin passed unnoticed as he stood before his unwitting victims in a public place, spraying them with the deadly gas, and silently vanished without a soul becoming aware of his presence) just to lose support right before an election and while actively trying to avoid Mutual Assured Destruction being fanatically pursued by psychopathic ignoramuses accustomed to bullying the highly vulnerable lacking the capacity to defend themselves against illegal and immoral invasions and attacks? What kind of weak, petty 'message' would that be imagined to actually send? Guess I'd have to ask Peter about that, but I doubt that he'd find random internet commenters worth answering, lol.

As far as I'm concerned, you just can't always trust brand names anymore...

Apologies for typos/anything/everything I've got backwards; too tired to see straight still/again, but the number of people who feel the need to somehow or another work out a scenario where they feel that RUSSIA!!! might have 'Dun' It!!! is terrifying and a good brain and famous name is no guarantee of not swallowing at least some of the propaganda we're inundated in to the point where it's rather hard not to. And of course, we may not be able to see whether we have or not ourselves... oh, well...

But if there was any proof of Putin/Russia doing any of the everythings they've been accused of, TPTB'd be waving it like a (False) Flag, as it likely would again be proven (edit: promptly to be) by independent experts.

And re-edited to remove an unnoticed extra letter creating the wrong word...

A column by Peter Hitchens (yes, the brother of..) He makes a very frighten point when one considers the implication. Basically, maybe some powers within the Kremlin did in fact arrange for the nerve agent poisoning. Why?

We're goading Russia into a 'dirty war' we CANNOT win
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5486149/PETER-HITCHENS-goading...

But the more I look at it, the more I think that the message from this outrage is as follows.

If Britain really wants a war with Russia, as our Government seems to, then Russia will provide that war.

...

If the attack on Sergei Skripal was also a Kremlin operation, then it was done to tell us this: If we want to play tough guys with Moscow, we had better be prepared for the worst.

....

But what the Skripal case tells us is that, long after the Cold War ended, we still choose to treat Russia as the sort of country where we should continue active, aggressive spying and efforts to bring down the government.

Not only did we pay Colonel Skripal a lot of money for the names of Russian agents in the West, we financed opponents of the Russian government (and we complain that they mess around in our politics!). Why do we do this?

...

They are much angrier with us now than they were then. Yes, what they apparently did in Salisbury is a filthy, inexcusable thing.

But it is the face of modern combat, in a war our government chose to fight. What answer do we have to it that will not make it worse

Maybe the Russians discovered a UK plot to disrupt the World Cup and this is their warning to the Brits that there will be serious relatiation? The Saudis threatened to send Chechen terrorists to Sochi, and never head of them--I image when the Saudis threatened Putin, they came to regret it. But given the utter arrogance and stupidity of the neocons in the UK and the US, maybe Russia is sending a message--"do not fuck with us".

Shit is going to hit the proverbial fan.

@Daenerys

Please know that you're not alone but that you're also wise to have anxiety about this. Let other people know what you're concerned about and explain the reality of it. I think most of this mayhem has to do with the fact that so many Americans, pundits, average persons, politicians, and even military leaders, do not know what nuclear war is or what it would do. When the American people understand what we're dealing with here, this crisis will evaporate, that is, if we bring our crackpot warmongers to justice, which we can do.

I'm so frustrated and angry and sad.

@earthling1 typically refer to Russia and China as not technologically advanced as the US.

These countries aren't stupid. They know the only way for their own security is parity (or better) with the US.

I find it interesting how the Russians keep talking in specifics about how much damage the US has done throughout the world. I don't recall this happening in the past--maybe it did, but I don't recall.

has been milking the taxpayers dry and eventually cranking out an already obsolete collection of junk, Russia has been leaping forward with breakthru after breakthru in advanced weapondry at a tenth of the cost.
Russia has achieved what should scare the living shit out of our military leaders, Nuclear Primacy, the ability to not only strike first, successfully, but to launch multible strikes thereafter.
World ending it would still be. But the Russian population are a much more prepared nation than the western world is, primarily because we are considered expendable by TPTB.
It will be TPTB that face the wrath of the Russian/Chinese invasion force.
Hitler and Emperor Hirohito feared the Russians more than anything else, subsequently surrendering to the allied powers in near panic.
Heads on pikes come to mind.

@The Wizard @The Wizard

and they all have the brights not to go along with it...

Edit: it goes without saying that I think you've nailed it all in that comment, but then I thought perhaps I'd better say it, after all, lol.

I believe that Russia is not scared of Western aggression. Russia has been through far worse and they have an enormous faith in Mother Russia and of course her guide, Vladimir Vladimirovich. The US in particular has been threatening Russia to the extreme and using the threat that the US has powerful marketing capabilities to shut down Russia in world opinion. Pretty much all of the claims against Russia are bogus marketing strategies towards that end. President Putin has adequately prepared for the Western military challenge with Russia's own military buildup, but has to take a different strategy with sanctions and negative marketing towards Russia. That strategy consists of refocusing Russia's economic trading advantage towards friendly counties, especially in the East, Eurasia and Middle East. The incessant bad press is not a factor there, they just don't believe anything that comes out of the West as they are sometimes the targets also. As far as the US marketing campaign is concerned in the West, that's why Russia has built RT. As long as RT stays reasonably symmetrical with other state owned news organizations I think that she is OK. The other problem that the West has with marketing is that none of these outrageous claims ever amount to anything. The House Intelligence committee (an oxymoron) decided that there was no collusion with Trump and that Russia did not effect the outcome of the 2016 election. The claims were totally outrageous and always accompanied by the "proof" that the head of so and so agency agrees with the claim. That's the tip off that there is no proof.

There is a serious threat emerging. I hate to talk about this but it is what it is. The Russian military has notified the US military that any deaths of Russian soldiers in Syria will be met with an instantaneous reaction. This means that Russia will shoot down US and other "coalition" warplanes and sink ships that fired the Tomahawks -- in retaliation. This will result in the loss of US military personnel. Russia has demonstrated more than adequately that she has the means to do this. I believe that this is a certainty given US recklessness in Syria.

After the collapse of the USSR, the U.S. was in charge of the chemical warfare labs and storage in Uzbekistan for a short time. They were supervising its destruction. This is where Novochok was born.

The US walked away, with out a doubt, with samples and formulas for Novochok and shared them with MI5/6. Russia does not posses any of this nor has it ever. The US not only has samples and formulas but has reproduced quantities. Russia is in compliance with CW treaties, the US is not. This is way too clever to not have been a CIA/MI6 op. Information about US possession of Novichok-like CW agent has suddenly gone missing. Remember what I said at the beginning about marketing warfare against Russia. This is it. The US and the UK are attempting to portray Russia as a barbaric, aggressive, uncivilized country and Putin as a thug with no ethics. Once again, projection but based on a false flag. The one topic that the Deep State loves to recycle over and over is chemical weapons. Somehow it's not barbaric when the US blows the arms and legs off of 5 year olds with bombs, but much worse to gas someone. Given the success of this ridiculous war mongering marketing strategy expect to see this over and over, especially accompanied with false flag events. One hint is that the UK is in a hurry to get other countries behind this as fast as possible. It's outrageous that they have gotten this far, but at the Foreign Ministers meeting the UK was told in no uncertain terms to provide proof before any other European nation agrees to sanctions, but they did agree to be outraged. As this thing falls apart they will get desperate, and demand action against Russia based on their "facts".
The UK/US best hope is that the truth never comes out and they can rush other countries into sanctions against Russia. Sound familiar?