Machine Guns, Bloody Lipstick, Google Secret Agents & Dirty Dossiers: The Big Story under the radar

a reply to: cavtrooper7

I'm still not sure the context you're suggesting, applied to what exactly?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The current situation, in it's execution, almost entirely.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: jimmyx

That isn't about Russia.

It's about US. The costs of empire.

Note I didn't include the likes of WW1 WW2 or Korea.

But essentially every other conflict since the Spanish American War was all about imperial ambitions. The freedom to dominate is the "freedom" they're talking about when they say fighting for freedom.

so...how have YOU been "dominated" by America's freedoms?

Well... let's see...

Since 1995... between HUD and DOD... there are about 21 TRILLION dollars of undocumented adjustments. 21 Trillion... and that's only 2 agencies.

This money that they have no idea what happened to it.

That's just money. As someone else said... then there's our foreign adventures... who knows how many black projects (where SOME of the 21 Trillion certainly went), Operation Gladio... etc etc etc...

It is a LONG long list. It's not freedoms any one is worried about being dominated by... it is the risk and blowback from shenanigans and lawlessness that eventually catches up to nation states.

From Venezuela to ancient Rome... it IS possible to wreck thriving nations over time.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

See, heres the thing IgnoranceIsntBliss...

There are some things about what you wrote in your response to me that are absolutely accurate, and other things that are not.

I dont disagree per se... but what I'm seeing is essentially everyone on the 'left' in total utterly embarassing denial about ObamaHillayCo. being more of the same as BushCo.

Well, I am as lefty as you can get, and although I believe their package was more refined than that of Bush and friends, I agree with you one hundred percent on that, especially when it comes to foreign affairs. The methodology was identical when you really boil it down, but again, the packaging was different. Also, the way internal policy was being crafted was different, had a different overt motivation, but in most of the ways that really matter, I totally agree.

Now if it weren't for all of their bush is [every flavor of tyrant and the like] mania a decade ago, then I could actually let them off the hook to some degree.

Bush WAS every flavour of douche though. Just because what came afterward was, qualitatively no better, does not take anything away from that fact.

Because you see I was with them in that vein. Daily would I run his nuts through the ringer, especially in my own blog spots.

Part of all of that was their astute observations about his supporters, which they never seemed to get enough of harping insults about how stupid they must be to be so blind, kind of stuff.

Again, you note the astuteness of the observation, and I would say that the only thing to add to that, is how daft it was to continue to support Obama after he made no proper attempt to gut the intelligence community and end their moves to take over control of foreign affairs, by way of narrative dictation, instead aiding and abetting them in stealing control of the Republic, from the people whose votes and taxes keep it running.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I did talk quite a bit about that too, although I didnt have the left/right bias driving me to loathing as they did, I more spent my time trying to understand the psychology of groupthink blind loyalty yada yada.

Seems like nothing much has changed in that regard either, especially now.

My work began around 2005 when their bush adoration was peak. There were holdouts and they took hell from every direction for it, but at least by his final days most were ready to move on past him. Bad memory.

Then comes Obama with his alleged "socialized medicine", and oh boy did that get conservative types going out their shia'ite. And right then came the 'if you criticize obama that proves youre a racist bs', and that was my breaking point of acknowledging either camp (2011-2016).

Which was a ridiculous thing to suggest. It would have been more accurate to say, that if you criticise Obama's policies on equality, you might have some deep seated phobias relating to sex and gender, since he did very little as it happens, about the issue of xenophobia, and a great deal about the issue of homophobia and phobic behaviour more generally. More to the point, his alleged socialised medicine, as you are no doubt aware, was nothing of the sort. It still required private companies to insure the patient, and still permitted hospitals to be run as businesses, not as public services. This was fundamentally wrong of him, but on this specific point, was all he COULD get passed, in the time he had to pass anything at all. Obamacare was far from perfect, but more people were insured under that system than under any other, and I suppose that if one is not going to be able to banish the corporate sector from medicine, because the pushback would be too severe in congress, then one has to make some allowances. I would have, personally, being ideologically driven in that regard, insisted on FULLY socialised medicine, or no medicine at all, but thats just me.

The point were I got into the game of trying to wake up bush maniacs, seeing the 'Obama Honeymoon' I already knew full well he'd get re-elected and that until his true colors truly came out in full (what they all do the year of re-election) there's was no point in eve trying to get thru to anyone.

I expected I'd tune back in around 2014 and get back to the same work I had to do with the Bush people in 2005... and that wasn't possible.

So last year finally circumstances happened me back into the fold and my mind was blown. The SJW BS oh yeah that, but equally disturbing was ObamaHillaryCo. ultimately did the same broken campaign promise BS and more importantly did the same amount of destruction across the ME as Bush ever did.

Indeed they did. Which is one major reason to doubt their lefty credentials, but more importantly, a reason to question why it is that centre right actors like themselves, seem as bad from a foreign affairs point of view, as Bush, who one would EXPECT (being Republican, therefore into private contracting and privatisation) to be a shill for the MIC. The answer one would reasonably come to, is that neither Hillary, nor Obama, were ever anything other than corporatists, which traditionally makes them the enemy, from a leftist perspective.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

And yet Obama was still the Saint. Hillary 'mother of ISIS' was the cats meow. The MSM 'blood riders' were the holy apostles. Etc.

And heres one of the parts that you may have allowed yourself to get caught up in a small amount of bias on. Hillary is not the Mother of ISIS, nor even a distant relative. IS is a construction which was well under way before her husband had even become President, before she had any control over a damp fart, leave alone the state department. Lets be real here, IS and their origins go way back, to programs directed and controlled by the CIA and other agencies, over DECADES and DECADES! Their current format is new, but they are in and of themselves, not a new creation, just a different brand, by the same "company" which has always promoted terrorist actions in the Middle East, and other places in which it has interests it ought not have.

10 years ago I rarely acknowledged the classical left/right road to nowhere 'Moral Emotional Wedge Issues' (abortion, stem cells, gay marriage etc).

I seriously didnt care for such issues, they just didnt matter to me, and I loathed the way each side was exact polar opposites across the board on that stuff, too busy foaming at the mouth over that stuff to sit down together about the stuff everyone agrees on.

Gay marriage in particular, I could see the conservative logic of not wanting them out raw parading everywhere kind of thing. I think a lot of them probably dont ultimately care what they do behind closed doors but are weary of it being toooo socially acceptable and it being a "Pride" (supremacist) thing. But on that I'd say 'eff it give it to them and that's one less wedge issue to divide & distract. Well they got the rights. And sure enough they got even louder about the pride crap.

But even more alarming is they got a bunch of other milestones along those sorts of lines, and yet were out in force even to teh degree of screaming for white cishet genocide... even thought hey already had everything they 'ever wanted'.

What I believe you mean by that, is the most vocal minorities within that group, made such suggestions. But that was no where near the standard across the board, since the majority of people that those advances affected in the slightest, were simply happy to be free to express and declare their love for one another, and be treated as equals by the government and the citizen alike, which they had every right to expect all along. If you did not mean that, well... Its what actually happened.

I insist this SJW trend wasn't some naturally occuring, organic movement, that at its heart this stuff was the results of decades of hardcore social engineering all come to outward fruition in one fell swoop... with Obama 'being elected'.

This identity politics is the most hardcore Mind Control via Influence possible, I declare.

Naaah... look, I am not denying that there are elements of identity politics which are very dangerous, and I have been the innocent victim of such, so I know whereof I speak. However, what we are seeing now is no where near as powerful as the decades old programming which still sees people wander off to war, thinking they are doing something noble, when there has not been a war in which the United States or the UK has been involved, since the 1940s, which either needed fighting at all, or was not their own creation from the beginning.

Now many lib's will look at this and gasp and jerk their knees etc. Thoughts will race thru their head trying to rationalize my argument into me being some nutter...

Not at all. Theres a difference between being so nuts you make the squirrels jealous, and simply being slightly wrong about something. Again, identity politics is a problem, but its a blip. The older, deeper programming is far more insidious and dangerous, and has yet to be addressed adequately. Its a bigger, older problem, whose consequences are much worse than those of the ID politics issue ever are.

An idea I can see many churning up against my notion is 'well the right was so down on the ropes after Bush why would the Dem's have to mind control us?'. Logic like that, about motives is one key avenue I could see their abject doubts about my rants being centered.

Now the WAR that was my kind of philosophical terrain, and I stood with the lib's then.

Yet in 2016 I see the left screaming and howling about any criticisms of Hillary's Arab Spring, Obama's drone strikes, the CIA's Al Qaeda operations, the drug war in Mexico their open borders policy has enabled, and so on.

Again though, its important to understand that these were merely continuations of old systems, developed outside of Washington, by shady characters whose names we are not permitted to know, for the reason of fluffing the pockets of some of the largest military industrial players ever to exist on this world. These systems have been running, their creations operating, for waaaaaay longer than most of this membership have even been ALIVE! They did not do anything to STOP those programs, which WAS wrong, but its only as wrong as Bush was, as Trump still is, as Clinton was when he was President, and as wrong as everyone including Reagan was to continue it (and, in his case, for being an anti-union, pro banking, pro-corporate, anti-worker piece of filth).

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

And then the other facet is this is the Information Age. With the Internet our elite masters for the first time didnt have a monopoly on Truth. The longer it plays out without extreme measures on their part the more of it and everyone are a threat to their power.

And you know what, maybe they wouldn't necessarily care all that much if se this one only had one billion dollars instead of three, or that one owned majority stock in 27% market share in [insert industry here] instead of se 34% market share.

But as we intend to be liberated via cyberspace, they intend to gain immortality via cybernetics.

Where if they can get such tech today, that means everyone will be able to afford it in 'a few years'.

And that, to these overpopulation Machiavellian control freak monopoly men maniacs just has to be the ultimate threat.

So with this in mind, looking back on the advent and rise of the Internet, it was about the first year the Internet was actually 'a thing', here comes Ted Kaczynski with his manifesto which ended up being one of the first internet sensations ever. Then the likes of Bill Cooper, Alex Jones, and related anti-NWO OG CT'ers, here comes alternative news sources that anyone anywhere can instantly connect to, here comes Napster, here comes bitorrent, here comes streaming internet video, here comes..........

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.


Go back to bed America, your government is in control again.

But wait, here comes the anti-war movement, here comes the 9/11 Truth Movement, here comes the anti-Federal Reserve / IRS movement, etc, all overlapping and coming to a head.

So then here comes the Great Recession, Obama and Identity Politics.

Mass Internet censorship now in vogue. Global military imperialism now again whats hot. Everyone too busy arguing to see thought eh facade and rise up as one. The masses on track to be too broke to ever afford the looming life extension technologies.

And so on.

And yet none of what you post above, is anything to do with, or preferred by those with leftist ideology. The MIC being more powerful than the people, ANY corporate entity having more or better access to representation, or straight up having control of any facet of the underpinnings of a nation, either financially or in terms of physical control of resources or services, goes against the very fabric of the beliefs of the leftist, because they want the people to control all aspects. They want control over the means of producing wealth, and a share in the wealth which is equal to their sacrifices toward its production, which are always greater than those of executives, because they actually spend blood and sweat on it, not the mere and frankly inconsequential efforts of the golf enthusiasts who occupy high office. Leftists want the people to own the government, and have control of their fate by way of control of the government, in short, they do not want to BE governed, but to govern THEMSELVES, which is right and proper, since no few people of low moral character, ever ought to have a say in the affairs of the many decent, hardworking and honourable persons in a nation.

What you seem to have failed to account for, in your musings, is that every single part of the United States which fails, are parts which are run for profit. Your military fails, because it is used for ill purpose, for actual evil, regardless of who happens to be commander in chief on the day. Your healthcare system is used for evil, because rather than being purely for the treatment of sickness and injury, it has been permitted to be a business instead. I will let you in on a secret here IIB. A for profit hospital is precisely as evil as a privately owned MIC. It has no business existing, and those who benefit from it are doing so at the expense of lives, regardless of protestations to the contrary, which are nothing but smokescreens to keep the people underinformed and docile.

In short, given that no actual leftist wants things done for reasons of profit, instead preferring that things be done because they must be instead, by people who only want to eat their daily bread, not own yachts and hire ladies of questionable honour to sniff narcotics off their netherparts while aboard them, given also that it IS the preference of those on the right, that hospitals and insurers be as free as birds to stiff the people at every turn, given that their beliefs about economy mean that the MIC can never be controlled, and given that a percentage of right wingers also believe that they have a DUTY to the MIC to keep it going (seriously, those morons are out there), given these things, its pretty damned clear to see that no matter how reasonable some of your assertions are, the fact that you accept Hillary or Obama as a part of the left at all, shows how skewed up things have become.

This is why I always say that there IS no left in American politics. There really isn't, unless you count Bernie Sanders of course. Hes just about the only person in the ENTIRE stable of US politicians, who even remotely counts as a left leaning influence of any note, and most of his worth in that regard comes of longevity of his service to the people thus far, because he has been doing it for so long.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Again, you note the astuteness of the observation, and I would say that the only thing to add to that, is how daft it was to continue to support Obama after he made no proper attempt to gut the intelligence community and end their moves to take over control of foreign affairs, by way of narrative dictation, instead aiding and abetting them in stealing control of the Republic, from the people whose votes and taxes keep it running.

Yeah.

Same thing with the War On Drugs. Obama paid lip service against it, yet didn't do a damned thing to uproot it. Sure he did ease back a bit on medical marijuana, or did he.........



Tomato Tomato

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Which was a ridiculous thing to suggest. It would have been more accurate to say, that if you criticise Obama's policies on equality, you might have some deep seated phobias relating to sex and gender, since he did very little as it happens, about the issue of xenophobia, and a great deal about the issue of homophobia and phobic behaviour more generally. More to the point, his alleged socialised medicine, as you are no doubt aware, was nothing of the sort. It still required private companies to insure the patient, and still permitted hospitals to be run as businesses, not as public services. This was fundamentally wrong of him, but on this specific point, was all he COULD get passed, in the time he had to pass anything at all. Obamacare was far from perfect, but more people were insured under that system than under any other, and I suppose that if one is not going to be able to banish the corporate sector from medicine, because the pushback would be too severe in congress, then one has to make some allowances. I would have, personally, being ideologically driven in that regard, insisted on FULLY socialised medicine, or no medicine at all, but thats just me.

Right. If anything Obama caused the xenophobia. Lets blow up the Middle East, and then turn around and insist on outright importing (on the tax payer dime) people from there with the highest probablity for both having an axe to grind with American AND of being radical Islamists, to the tune of an intended hundreds of thousands, and scream that trying to screen them for such dark sides as "racist" etc. All knowing full well pretty much everyone but the DNC base will crawl out of their skins over such an agenda and then turn around and shout them down as xenophobes.

It could be argued that was "Obama's" approach to American politics in a nutshell.

Then that "socialized healthcare", that was classic textbook Corporate Fascism. I was calling it out from day one as I saw what they cooked up. Which is some kind of sick now seeing antifa and their ilk out shouting people down for being "fascists" when Textbook Fascism is literally what they're screaming and beating people down for.

Given what ACA really is, and how its sapping people's income en masse I'd probably sooner support actual socialized medicine because we're already getting the tax but not the cake.

And the best part of all, it was sold on "cant have a for profit system", and the same month they were ramping up that front they privatized NASA turning the entire space industry into... For Profit Space.

So I can see your logic of 'there's no true left in the US' to certain degrees. What it is is that is true regarding the political parties (they're the same damn thing in function), although we're seeing a true marxist left in the streets ala this anti-capitalist cultural revolution BS SJW whatever.

And that's the bitch, in the offices we have the worst of Crony Corporatism, but in the streets we're seeing the Democrat's prop up an appeal to hardcore Communism. The actual politicians I soppose for them they're just wielding it in the Divide & Rule agenda that's always been the Two Party Politics game, althought taken to ever increasing 21st Century extremes, and that combined buffet is as dangerous a meal anyone could try to force down peoples throats regardless of where it ultimately ends up.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Indeed.

And yet all the real lefties out there, want rid of the war on drugs, because they know what it does to their communities and do not appreciate it.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

See, you are misaligning things again, and you really mustn't.

First of all, antifa is not an actual thing. The group is actually several different groups, occasionally coming together to operate against the right, because they naturally see the right as being a threat to the peace and freedom of everyone else, which it absolutely is, especially the far right elements, which include everyone further to the right than the Democrats (who are centre right corporatist apologists at best, and operatives of the corporate world at worst). Theres nothing wrong with not liking Clinton or Obama because of their policies, as long as not liking them for not being liberal enough is the problem you are having, because from a lefties point of view, they are fascists, and everyone more right than that is basically Hitler or someone who might have voted for him (which is actually pretty accurate, if the Trump thing is anything to go by... which it is).

As for Obamas asylum and refugee policy, its pretty much the only responsible thing he could have done, having destroyed several nations during his Presidency. If I destroy someones house, I owe them. Sure, he did not have the right to make that choice on the behalf of the country, but those who voted for him, and those who refused to unseat him, refused to fight the military, refused to stop the war (which is something the staunchly pro-military right would never have gotten involved with, by the way) have no leg to stand on, when complaining that Obama's actions lead to more foreign people on their turf.

Yes, that is the price you pay for permitting war to be made in the name of your nation, against people who largely speaking did not a damn thing wrong. Rather than whining about it and getting angry, preventing your government from ever sending men to war without the permission of more than eighty percent of your nations people again, would be wise. Getting het up because there are more Muslims in your country than there used to be, which is the fault of the electorate as much as the President, is not valid. In short, you all made your bed, and its right to insist that you shut up and learn how to sleep in it!

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Indeed.

And yet all the real lefties out there, want rid of the war on drugs, because they know what it does to their communities and do not appreciate it.

Late to the story guys...

But a lot more than just lefties feel that way about the war on drugs crap, TrueBrit.

The DEA types appear to be like anteaters and the "possum on the half shell" armadillo's here in America, they do take some elements out but they create new colonies of drug dealers too because of the lucre the young thugs can make. Only sports pays better here for the middle and lower class. The anteater won't destroy the whole ant colony or there will be no food the next meal is the connection I see with the DEA. Keeping the gravy train rolling while not solving the problem at all. They offer more laws and reduce freedoms of the innocent in the process too.

Society should, and I hope would vote to legalize Marijuana for a start. I think the drug addicts in harmful stuff could hae a place to go get properly treated or even to be allowed to continue their use as long as they are not high when they leave and they do their drugs in a safe environment. If they insist on overdosing, I don't know what we should do if not a psychologist. The crack heads have hurt more than themselves getting the money to obtain that next high in the neighborhoods here.

a reply to: Justoneman

The thing with drugs like crack, meth, angel dust, that stuff that can be lethal in one dose, the stuff that drives people to mug grannies for their pensions, do home invasions to get things to pawn off for money, is that I do not think people would be doing those things, if they were able to access cannabis legally.

Think about it. Cannabis is difficult to transport on the person, without the smell seeping out, and making it obvious what you have on you. This means that purely in terms of carriage on the person, its less risky to carry the more powerful, lower volume drugs. Crack, meth, angel dust, all that mad stuff, pills and the like... that stuff is easy to transport without giving oneself away. It does not have a distinct or powerful and persistent aroma, as does strong weed. Also, it takes up a great deal less space than some fluffy, bountiful herb. Its volume is smaller, its effect much more powerful. Cocaine is similar in this regard. A small container can easily get its carrier a great deal of money, or very, very wasted, depending on their priorities.

Also, someone seriously tweaking out on weed is VERY rare, and requires the individual suffering that side effect to have pre-existing mental conditions which would have come out in the wash at some stage anyway. But all these other drugs? People all know the risks involved with these things. Pills have killed young people, tragically and with high degrees of publicity, kids just trying to party that little bit harder, unaware of what it was they were being given, or why they ought not take it, perhaps not thinking clearly, and all of a sudden they are dying of a brain aneurysm at the age of eighteen, on their first night out. PCP puts people in a state where they might accidentally cut their guts open, and be carrying their innards around and petting them like a kitty cat.

Weed has never put anyone in that situation.

Most folks, absent some serious mental impediment, can see the benefit of smoking a joint here and there, for myriad reasons, but virtually no one looks at PCP and thinks "You know what? The benefits outweigh the risks". People who do it may think "Damn the risks, I no longer care, give me oblivion or give me death!", but those folks are, with respect, mental cases to begin with, and need help, not incarceration.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Bush and the Neocon's started poking them with the missile shield stick.

Which Obama was criticized for backing out of remember?

Obama abandons missile defence shield in Europe
Romney: Obama stopped missile defense shield 'as a gift to Russia'

And it wasn't just Romney, the supposedly "different" Trump was still talking about this past summer:

Trump is wrong: Obama wasn't weak on missile defense

Then Obama was on the way in ready to carry the same BS policy of imperialist expansion and the Russian agitation the Neocon's had bundled with it

Actually no. Remember that whole "Russia Reset" thing that started in 2009 and ran until about the end of 2011 when the State Department criticized parliamentary elections in Russia? From there, it went downhill fast. Also, your narrative is in conflict with that of right-wingers who claim that Obama, Clinton and the entire administration conspired to hand over just about everything to Russians from top secret tech to uranium.

Google was essentially a CIA NSA NSF NASA DARPA startup from the beginning.

Interesting. I've read that the CIA and NSA provided funding for Google a few years after it started in a garage. I don't know if I'd connect all the dots you are here though. You know who else was funded by In-Q-Tel? Palantir. Peter Thiel was so tight with Trump that he was rumored to be under consideration for a cabinet position. Something to keep an eye I guess?

Also of note, remember Palantir and HB Gary plotting the destruction of Wikileaks?

Since Hillary, the CIA, Obama and McCain sent Al Qaeda and ISIS in to overthrow Assad immediately after the Arab Spring, it's not too far of a stretch that they were involved from the rip.

What I think your grand theory here is lacking is any addressing of the geopolitics, the agendas, the *why*. From the narrative you lay out, there's no real explanation except something about continuing neocon imperialism. That's not a reason. More importantly, it ignores absolutely everything that Russia has been up to.

One prevailing theory is that the reason behind overthrowing Assad is to thwart Russian energy hegemony, particularly in Eastern Europe where, among other things, Russians control a large chunk of the natural gas supply via pipelines. Guess where those gas pipelines run? Ukraine. (that's a link to the Wikipedia entry for the Ukraine gas disputes, it's a jumping off point at least)

There's reason to believe this is incorrect though as I read that the Bush admin was funding anti-Assad propaganda efforts to the tune of millions as early as 2005-6.

Other theories are that it has to do with the US military posture in the ME but I've yet to read one that was particularly convincing. "Imperialism" just seems like vague filler. Like the nougat of CT. Aside from location, Syria doesn't have much worth having. It's a *minor* exporter of oil and in terms of mineral wealth, much better pickings to be found in other places.

For example Afghanistan. I'll spare you the spiel here but I'm sure you know what's been going on with this new completely "different" regime regarding mining in Afghanistan and proposals for armies.

Now all the sudden it was all Russia's fault.

Now Russia did come to play into their hands it seems, although I'm still a bit fuzzy on the whole back story and covert shenanigans that went on there.

In November 2013 the political situation went haywire in Ukraine, and come March 2014 Russia annexed the long disputed territory of Crimea.

You should take some time to read up on Ukraine. I know it doesn't have the radical Islamist angle that's fascinating you currently but the goings on there are integral to understanding current US-Russia relations. The political situation has been # since at least 2004. You want to talk about election meddling? This is some real SVR-style election meddling here:



You know how good Manafort is at getting people elected? He got THAT guy's opponent elected after his election was tossed out for massive vote fraud. The guy who brought Manafort in was Rinat Akhmetov. At the time, he had just fled to Monaco, following the Orange Revolution because the government was opening investigations into his involvement with organized crime an murder. On the books, he was the major backer of PoR and when they came to power, he got significantly richer.

Now I'm never one to play apologist for imperialist expansions, but

Maybe not wittingly but by ignoring basically anything about Russia's actions, ignoring significant geopolitics and ascribing vague motivations to the US government, you're doing something akin to that imo.

it was always framed as "Russia was trying to help Trump", but in terms of motives effectively never was it "Russian was trying to hurt Hillary". They even had a long ideological set they apparently cooked up to explain the motives to "help Trump";

Really?

Why Putin hates Hillary
Vladimir Putin's Bad Blood With Hillary Clinton
DNC Email Hack: Why Vladimir Putin Hates Hillary Clinton
Former ambassador to Russia: Putin wanted 'revenge' against Clinton

Hell, didn't Comey say that he thought Russian meddling was about Putin hating Hillary? I can blitz you with a couple dozen mainstream and not-so-mainstream articles from summer of 2016 through yesterday that in fact attribute Putin's motivation to his hatred of Hillary. Just search "Putin hates Hillary." The above are a few from 2016 from Politico, TIME, NBC News and The Hill.

a reply to: theantediluvian

What I think your grand theory here is lacking is any addressing of the geopolitics, the agendas, the *why*. From the narrative you lay out, there's no real explanation except something about continuing neocon imperialism. That's not a reason. More importantly, it ignores absolutely everything that Russia has been up to.

One prevailing theory is that the reason behind overthrowing Assad is to thwart Russian energy hegemony, particularly in Eastern Europe where, among other things, Russians control a large chunk of the natural gas supply via pipelines. Guess where those gas pipelines run? Ukraine. (that's a link to the Wikipedia entry for the Ukraine gas disputes, it's a jumping off point at least)

Assad's regime strictly opposed the installation of a central bank with a western reserve currency, that's why we sent the Islamic State et al into Syria.

That natural gas pipeline looked pretty convenient, too.

a reply to: ketsuko

We had Saddam as our SOB for a long time, and he had to go finally because he wasn't worth it.

He only was "let go" because he had an ideal of creating a Gold backed Dinar (a sentiment echoed by Qadaffi) to trade; a threat to the Saudi/US petrodollar.

"We cant have that" the Rothschilds screamed and he was publicly executed

a reply to: DanteGaland

hadn't seen you for a while - I thought you were driving Hillary in her latest book tour?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I just wanted to add a bit more about Ukraine from my own research.

ArcelorMittal Kryvyi Rih aka Kryvorizhstal is one of Ukraine's largest companies. It's the largest provider of steel rebar and wire rod among all former Soviet Countries.

In 2004, it was privatized in an unimaginably sweet heart deal where it was sold to Rinat Akhmetov and Viktor Pinchuk. Pinchuk is one of the other richest men in Ukraine and Kuchma's son-in-law — Kuchma was President at the time and Yanukovych was his chosen successor (and the then Prime Minister). Pinchuk has a lot of connections to the West, including the Clintons. In fact, I'm pretty sure Pinchuk donated several million dollars to the CF.

Anyway, they get this company for $800 million approximately.

Then there is this election disaster, allegations of massive fraud, voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, etc. Actually, a couple months before the election, Yushchenko (the opposition candidate) is poisoned with an insane amount of dioxin and somehow survives. Then comes the election and Yuschenko narrowly defeats Yanukovych but neither get the majority of votes so there's a runoff which is widely proclaimed as rigged (November). This kicks off the Orange Revolution protests in which Yulia Tymoshenko (Yushchenko's bloc and hers were allied) and Yushckenko of course figure prominently.

In December, Ukraine's supreme court invalidates the run-off. Long story short, Yushchenko becomes President, Tymoshenko becomes PM. One of her first acts as PM (her whole platform was basically cleaning up corruption from the Kuchima years) is to kill the Kryvorizhstal deal. Understand, at the time this company was *netting* like $350-400 million. So then in October of 2005, it's sold to Mittal for nearly $5 billion.

Think there was some animosity? Anyway, I'm getting tired but you're probably familiar enough with the broad strokes of the rest but if not:

Manfort ultimately gets Yanukovych elected in 2010. One of his first orders of business is to trump up corruption charges and have Tymoshenko tossed in prison. Then he starts enriching the # out himself and his cohorts. He had a galleon built in a LAKE on one of his $80 million estate and IIRC, in that galleon he placed a restaurant.

Enter the Euromaidan protests in 2013, a bunch of protesters being shot dead in Kiev, purportedly by snipers under the orders of Yanukovych. Parliament votes to oust him. He flees to Russia. Tymoshenko gets released from prison.

a reply to: Sillyolme

"and so few words"...says a lot about you even attempting to read the thread. You have been called out before in other threads