On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:36:42 PM UTC+11, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 23:21:39 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:57:09 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > Couple this with the self-evident absurdity of his thesis -- that the President of the United States was a Russian plant/stooge/puppet -- and yes, I'm more than happy to call bullshit.
> > I will snip the rest until you attempt to have an good-faith discussion..
> "The rest," conveniently, includes my point about the basic incoherence of Russiagate. "Conveniently," because it seems unanswerable: Trump, who did more than any post-Cold War President to exacerbate tensions with Moscow, is supposed to have been Moscow's man.† Care to square the circle?
>
> Nor do you address, or even acknowledge, the five points which precede "the rest" you say you find insincere:
>
> 1 "We've had no supporting evidence for any of its central claims. We've been waiting almost half a decade."

What do you think the central claims are?

> 2. "The Mueller Report rejected it."

"The investigation found there were at least 170 contacts between Trump or 18 of his associates with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, though the contacts were insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy."
"We [the SCO] were aware of the Steele dossier, obviously. We were aware of some of the efforts that went into its verification ... we did not include Steele dossier reporting in the report. ... [T]hose allegations go to the heart of things that were in our mandate—but we believed our own investigation. The information that we collected would have superseded it, and been something we would have relied on more, and that's why you see what we did in the report and not the Steele dossier in the report."

> 3. "The Washington Post and The New York Times are retracting reportage based upon it."

Actually they've removed a couple of mis-attributed sources.

> 4. "*Steele himself* now acknowledges that 'not everything in the dossier is 100% accurate.'"
>
He never claimed it was, it was raw intelligence that hadn't been verified
iirc his estimate was that probably around 70% of it was true.

> 5. "A Democratic-controlled Justice Department is prosecuting his primary source."
>
The investigation started in 2019 under Trump and was raised to Special Counsel in Oct 2020 to ensure that it continued after Trump lost office.
for the record the person investigating ran investigations into CIA torture and destruction of evidence and recommended that no charges be laid.

charges he's laid are
charging a lawyer with lying when he said that he wasn't representing a client during a discussion with an FBI special counsel. The special counsel involved has stated that he was generally aware of the work the lawyer was doing
charges that one of the sources for the Steele Dossier misrepresented his sources for information.

> You might try to fulfill the opposite burden: Gimme one good reason to take this thing seriously. Until I get it, I'll continue to assume that you're clinging to it as a coping mechanism.
>
> Rodney
>
> † There's nothing disingenuous about this point, but you raise awkward questions about the goodness of your own faith when you decline even to read the material you're interrogating me about. This will suffice as a response to your other post, in which you reveal that you *still* haven't looked at the indictment.

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 00:08:50 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:00:08 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > You've demonstrated that you don't even know what the central claims are.
> > Actually, that's what you've done. You've cited it as a source for the Russian-interference narrative, when as any fule kno it's all about the Trump/Russia-collusion narrative.
> Again, for your benefit;
> ""The dossier describes two different Russian operations. The first was an attempt, lasting many years, to find ways to influence Trump, probably not so much "to make Mr. Trump a knowing agent of Russia", but most likely to make him a source the Russians could use. This operation utilized kompromat (Russian: short for "compromising material") and proposals of business deals. The second operation was very recent and involved contacts with Trump's representatives during the campaign to discuss the hacking of the DNC and Podesta""

The first, self-evidently, is necessary to prove the second. Steele gave no in-depth analysis of the social-media campaign, which is the context in which you cited it. I don't think you're stupid enough not to recognise this, so I have to wonder about these accusations of dishonesty. It's clear to me that you haven't read the document you're defending. For one thing, you haven't quoted it; for another, you haven't cited a single specific detail from it; for one more, you don't seem to know what's in it. Does that seem good-faith discussion to you?

> As I said, I'm done.

I note, with a glance downward, and a giggle, that you followed this self-important pronouncement (as you followed its predecessor) with yet another posting.

> Your remaining questions will remain unanswered until you learn to have an honest discussion.

Have I been dishonest? How so? What misrepresentation have I made? Are you projecting? I rather think you are.

Rodney

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 11:17:12 UTC+2, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:36:42 PM UTC+11, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 23:21:39 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:57:09 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > Couple this with the self-evident absurdity of his thesis -- that the President of the United States was a Russian plant/stooge/puppet -- and yes, I'm more than happy to call bullshit.
> > > I will snip the rest until you attempt to have an good-faith discussion.
> > "The rest," conveniently, includes my point about the basic incoherence of Russiagate. "Conveniently," because it seems unanswerable: Trump, who did more than any post-Cold War President to exacerbate tensions with Moscow, is supposed to have been Moscow's man.† Care to square the circle?
> > Nor do you address, or even acknowledge, the five points which precede "the rest" you say you find insincere: w
> > 1 "We've had no supporting evidence for any of its central claims. We've been waiting almost half a decade."
> What do you think the central claims are?

I thought you were "done." You seem to have as vague a conception of the meaning of that word as of the subject we're discussing.

Its central claims are precisely those you've been quoting (from Wikipedia, tellingly, not from the document itself).

> > 2. "The Mueller Report rejected it."
> "The investigation found there were at least 170 contacts between Trump or 18 of his associates with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, though the contacts were insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy."
> "We [the SCO] were aware of the Steele dossier, obviously. We were aware of some of the efforts that went into its verification ... we did not include Steele dossier reporting in the report. ... [T]hose allegations go to the heart of things that were in our mandate—but we believed our own investigation. The information that we collected would have superseded it, and been something we would have relied on more, and that's why you see what we did in the report and not the Steele dossier in the report."

Another way of saying that Mueller rejected it. Do you think saying the same thing verbosely is the same as not saying it at all?

> > 3. "The Washington Post and The New York Times are retracting reportage based upon it."
> Actually they've removed a couple of mis-attributed sources.

Wrong. Just wrong. Abjectly wrong:

"The Washington Post on Friday took the unusual step of correcting and removing large portions of two articles, published in March 2017 and February 2019, that had identified a Belarusian American businessman as a key source of the “Steele dossier,” a collection of largely unverified reports that claimed the Russian government had compromising information about then-candidate Donald Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-washington-post-steele-dossier/2021/11/12/f7c9b770-43d5-11ec-a88e-2aa4632af69b_story.html

In all, in fact, The Washington Post has corrected over a dozen articles on the dossier.

> > 4. "*Steele himself* now acknowledges that 'not everything in the dossier is 100% accurate.'"
> He never claimed it was, it was raw intelligence that hadn't been verified
> iirc his estimate was that probably around 70% of it was true.

You *do* recall correctly, but also conveniently: 70-90% is the number he gave Luke Harding in 2017. He had previously passed the dossier around to a number of journalists, with no such caveat.

> > 5. "A Democratic-controlled Justice Department is prosecuting his primary source."
> The investigation started in 2019 under Trump and was raised to Special Counsel in Oct 2020 to ensure that it continued after Trump lost office.
> for the record the person investigating ran investigations into CIA torture and destruction of evidence and recommended that no charges be laid.

Under which administration did he do that again? A rhetorical question, to be sure. I ask because, shamelessly, you're dropping this aside just moments after having made so much of his appointment by a Republican administration. Again, one has to wonder about your good faith.

> charges he's laid are
> charging a lawyer with lying when he said that he wasn't representing a client during a discussion with an FBI special counsel. The special counsel involved has stated that he was generally aware of the work the lawyer was doing
> charges that one of the sources for the Steele Dossier misrepresented his sources for information.

Liar. Read it:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/igor-danchenko-indictment/2295d0f34ade0528/full.pdf

Or just read the NYT summary:

"In a 39-page indictment obtained by the special counsel, John H. Durham, a grand jury accused Mr. Danchenko of five counts of making false statements to the F.B.I. about his sources for certain claims in the dossier."

I'd be astonished were you to attempt an explanation for this mendacity. Now, indeed, seems the perfect moment finally to follow through on your "done" threat.

Rodney

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 00:08:50 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, November 21, 2021 at 8:00:08 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > You've demonstrated that you don't even know what the central claims are.
> > Actually, that's what you've done. You've cited it as a source for the Russian-interference narrative, when as any fule kno it's all about the Trump/Russia-collusion narrative.
> Again, for your benefit;
> ""The dossier describes two different Russian operations. The first was an attempt, lasting many years, to find ways to influence Trump, probably not so much "to make Mr. Trump a knowing agent of Russia", but most likely to make him a source the Russians could use. This operation utilized kompromat (Russian: short for "compromising material") and proposals of business deals. The second operation was very recent and involved contacts with Trump's representatives during the campaign to discuss the hacking of the DNC and Podesta""

The first, self-evidently, is necessary to prove the second. Steele gave no in-depth analysis of the social-media campaign, which is the context in which you cited it. I don't think you're stupid enough not to recognise this, so I have to wonder about these accusations of dishonesty. It's clear to me that you haven't read the document you're defending. For one thing, you haven't quoted it; for another, you haven't cited a single specific detail from it; for one more, you don't seem to know what's in it. Does that seem good-faith discussion to you?

> As I said, I'm done.

"As I said." You wouldn't have to say it again if you'd followed through the first time.

> Your remaining questions will remain unanswered until you learn to have an honest discussion.

Have I been dishonest? How so? What misrepresentation have I made? Are you projecting? I rather think you are.

I note in passing that you never addressed the very basic point I made about how Trump *increased* geopolitical tensions with Russia. You know, the point I claimed as a slam-dunk. Your silence acquiesces in that assessment.

Rodney

On Sunday, 21 November 2021 at 11:17:12 UTC+2, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 7:36:42 PM UTC+11, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 23:21:39 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:57:09 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > Couple this with the self-evident absurdity of his thesis -- that the President of the United States was a Russian plant/stooge/puppet -- and yes, I'm more than happy to call bullshit.
> > > I will snip the rest until you attempt to have an good-faith discussion.
> > "The rest," conveniently, includes my point about the basic incoherence of Russiagate. "Conveniently," because it seems unanswerable: Trump, who did more than any post-Cold War President to exacerbate tensions with Moscow, is supposed to have been Moscow's man.† Care to square the circle?
> > Nor do you address, or even acknowledge, the five points which precede "the rest" you say you find insincere: w
> > 1 "We've had no supporting evidence for any of its central claims. We've been waiting almost half a decade."
> What do you think the central claims are?

I thought you, like JZ, were "done." You seem to have as vague a conception of the meaning of that word as of the subject we're discussing.

Its central claims are precisely those JZ has been quoting (from Wikipedia, tellingly, not from the document itself).

> > 2. "The Mueller Report rejected it."
> "The investigation found there were at least 170 contacts between Trump or 18 of his associates with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries, though the contacts were insufficient to show an illegal conspiracy."
> "We [the SCO] were aware of the Steele dossier, obviously. We were aware of some of the efforts that went into its verification ... we did not include Steele dossier reporting in the report. ... [T]hose allegations go to the heart of things that were in our mandate—but we believed our own investigation. The information that we collected would have superseded it, and been something we would have relied on more, and that's why you see what we did in the report and not the Steele dossier in the report."

Another way of saying that Mueller rejected it. Do you think saying the same thing verbosely is the same as not saying it at all?

> > 3. "The Washington Post and The New York Times are retracting reportage based upon it."
> Actually they've removed a couple of mis-attributed sources.

Wrong. Just wrong. Abjectly wrong:

"The Washington Post on Friday took the unusual step of correcting and removing large portions of two articles, published in March 2017 and February 2019, that had identified a Belarusian American businessman as a key source of the “Steele dossier,” a collection of largely unverified reports that claimed the Russian government had compromising information about then-candidate Donald Trump."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-washington-post-steele-dossier/2021/11/12/f7c9b770-43d5-11ec-a88e-2aa4632af69b_story.html

In all, in fact, The Washington Post has corrected over a dozen articles on the dossier.

> > 4. "*Steele himself* now acknowledges that 'not everything in the dossier is 100% accurate.'"
> He never claimed it was, it was raw intelligence that hadn't been verified
> iirc his estimate was that probably around 70% of it was true.

You *do* recall correctly, but also conveniently: 70-90% is the number he gave Luke Harding in 2017. He had previously given the dossier to a number of journalists, with no such caveat.

> > 5. "A Democratic-controlled Justice Department is prosecuting his primary source."
> The investigation started in 2019 under Trump and was raised to Special Counsel in Oct 2020 to ensure that it continued after Trump lost office.
> for the record the person investigating ran investigations into CIA torture and destruction of evidence and recommended that no charges be laid.

Remind me: Under which administration did he do that? A rhetorical question, to be sure. I ask because, shamelessly, you're dropping this aside just moments after your co-thinker made so much of his appointment by a Republican administration. Again, I do have to wonder about the good faith of my antagonists.

> charges he's laid are
> charging a lawyer with lying when he said that he wasn't representing a client during a discussion with an FBI special counsel. The special counsel involved has stated that he was generally aware of the work the lawyer was doing
> charges that one of the sources for the Steele Dossier misrepresented his sources for information.

Liar! Read it:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/igor-danchenko-indictment/2295d0f34ade0528/full.pdf

Or just read the NYT summary:

"In a 39-page indictment obtained by the special counsel, John H. Durham, a grand jury accused Mr. Danchenko of five counts of making false statements to the F.B.I. about his sources for certain claims in the dossier."

I'd be astonished were you to attempt an explanation for this mendacity. Now, indeed, seems the perfect moment finally to follow through on the "done" threat.

Rodney

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:11:03 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> "As I said." You wouldn't have to say it again if you'd followed through the first time.

I actually like you. I am extending you a courtesy I'd not extend many.

I'm done with replying to the bulk of your comments.

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:12:46 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> Its central claims are precisely those JZ has been quoting (from Wikipedia, tellingly, not from the document itself).

I can't for the life of me work out what's "telling", especially as you say Wikipedia is precise.

On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 05:27:01 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:11:03 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > "As I said." You wouldn't have to say it again if you'd followed through the first time.
> I actually like you. I am extending you a courtesy I'd not extend many.

Appreciated. I hope you're able in time to appreciate that I'm sincerely passionate about this issue. I think Russiagate has done a power of harm: It's heightened geopolitical tensions between the two best-armed nuclear states on the planet; turned well-meaning liberals into frothing hawks; undermined the credibility of mainstream news, with effects we're seeing more and more every day (lethal effects, in the case of vaccine hesitancy); and legitimised conspiracy theorising, which is never, ever healthy.

Rodney

On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 05:36:44 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:12:46 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > Its central claims are precisely those JZ has been quoting (from Wikipedia, tellingly, not from the document itself).
> I can't for the life of me work out what's "telling", especially as you say Wikipedia is precise.

Couple that with the suspicion, voiced in my post to you, that you haven't done your due diligence on the dossier.

Rodney

On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:48:14 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 05:27:01 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:11:03 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > "As I said." You wouldn't have to say it again if you'd followed through the first time.
> > I actually like you. I am extending you a courtesy I'd not extend many.
> Appreciated. I hope you're able in time to appreciate that I'm sincerely passionate about this issue.

Too passionate. So much so it lead you to misleading statements like "the Democratic-lead DOJ are investigating Da-whatshisname". I hope you one day see how loaded that statement was.

>I think Russiagate has done a power of harm: It's heightened geopolitical tensions between the two best-armed nuclear states on the planet;

How so? Assume every single thing in the SD was a lie. How has that lead to tensions between the USA and Russia?
It hasn't. And if it has, it's the smallest drop in the bucket.
If the USA is upset at Russia there's a billion other reasons to consider first; annexation of Crimea, Russian submarines and warplanes in naughty places, Russian interference in US elections (something the US is guilty of obviously, but being on the receiving end must smack), Russia murdering people in NATO countries, Russian's action leading up to the Magnitsky Act. Plenty, plenty more.

The SD is meaningless geopolitically.

> turned well-meaning liberals into frothing hawks; undermined the credibility of mainstream news,

That's not the SD's fault. As I said early on, Russiagate is a mainstream news invention. Anyone who says "Trump was controlled by Putin" has fallen for the mainstream news spin. One can't blame the SD for that.
If you want to complain about mainstream news, I'll help you sharpen your pitchfork.

>with effects we're seeing more and more every day (lethal effects, in the case of vaccine hesitancy); and legitimised conspiracy theorising, which is never, ever healthy.

as above

> Couple that with the suspicion, voiced in my post to you, that you haven't done your due diligence on the dossier.

Tell me what you think is the weakest claim in the SD, and I'll take a look.

On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 07:34:15 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:48:14 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 05:27:01 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:11:03 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > "As I said." You wouldn't have to say it again if you'd followed through the first time.
> > > I actually like you. I am extending you a courtesy I'd not extend many.
> > Appreciated. I hope you're able in time to appreciate that I'm sincerely passionate about this issue.
> Too passionate. So much so it lead you to misleading statements like "the Democratic-lead DOJ are investigating Da-whatshisname". I hope you one day see how loaded that statement was.

If he wanted to, Biden could fire Durham. And, as Hamish reminds us, Durham was an Obama-Biden appointee before he was a Trump one.

> >I think Russiagate has done a power of harm: It's heightened geopolitical tensions between the two best-armed nuclear states on the planet;
> How so? Assume every single thing in the SD was a lie. How has that lead to tensions between the USA and Russia?

I've already answered this question. The two paragraphs below are copied and pasted from earlier postings.

Hillary Clinton's first public response to allegations of Russian hacking was to announce that "as President, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses." The presidential nominee of the Democratic Party was threatening to go to war with a nuclear-armed state.

As for Trump himself, he withdrew from INF Treaty in the face of Putin's demand for an unconditional renewal, and sent to Europe (including the Russian border, against Russian protests) the largest American deployment in more than a quarter-century.

Want more? You certainly don't need it.

> It hasn't.

It has.

> And if it has,

It has.

> it's the smallest drop in the bucket.

It isn't. But even the smallest drop may be lethal. There have been dozens of nuclear near misses even in times of calm:

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

Your sanguinity is sickening.

> If the USA is upset at Russia there's a billion other reasons to consider first; annexation of Crimea, Russian submarines and warplanes in naughty places, Russian interference in US elections (something the US is guilty of obviously, but being on the receiving end must smack), Russia murdering people in NATO countries, Russian's action leading up to the Magnitsky Act. Plenty, plenty more.
> The SD is meaningless geopolitically.

American politicians and media personalities haven't threatened or urged war over those things. They've threatened or urged war over Russiagate.

> > turned well-meaning liberals into frothing hawks; undermined the credibility of mainstream news,
> That's not the SD's fault. As I said early on, Russiagate is a mainstream news invention. Anyone who says "Trump was controlled by Putin" has fallen for the mainstream news spin. One can't blame the SD for that.

The Steele Dossier is responsible for the pee-tape story: the single most lurid and compelling piece of evidence for the claim that Trump is controlled by Putin.

Rodney

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:34:20 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 07:34:15 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:48:14 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 05:27:01 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:11:03 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > "As I said." You wouldn't have to say it again if you'd followed through the first time.
> > > > I actually like you. I am extending you a courtesy I'd not extend many.
> > > Appreciated. I hope you're able in time to appreciate that I'm sincerely passionate about this issue.
> > Too passionate. So much so it lead you to misleading statements like "the Democratic-lead DOJ are investigating Da-whatshisname". I hope you one day see how loaded that statement was.
> If he wanted to, Biden could fire Durham.

This is NOT the defence you want to be making.
The left's (including the Dems) fault is we "play the game" the way we think it should be played. That means not interfering with justice-at-work.
Never mind that fact that Biden can't just fire Durham. Special Councils are, well, special. They can only be fired for "good cause" or "gross misconduct". Both of which could be challenged as high as SCOTUS, which is Republican-friendly.

> And, as Hamish reminds us, Durham was an Obama-Biden appointee before he was a Trump one.

Again, not the argument you should be making.
People change. Surely who appointed him last matters the most.
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/durham-special-counsel/7ff8599351b63336/full.pdf
Barr describes the elevation to SC as;
"In advance of the presidential election, I decided to appoint Mr. Durham as a
Special Counsel to provide him and his team with the assurance that they could complete their
work , without regard to the outcome of the election ."

Barr was not worried about Trump winning and ending the investigation. He was clearly worried about Biden winning.
Durham is a Republican weapon.
His job isn't really even to muddy the SD. It's to find out what the Dems know about the whole thing.

> > >I think Russiagate has done a power of harm: It's heightened geopolitical tensions between the two best-armed nuclear states on the planet;
> > How so? Assume every single thing in the SD was a lie. How has that lead to tensions between the USA and Russia?
> I've already answered this question. The two paragraphs below are copied and pasted from earlier postings.
>
> Hillary Clinton's first public response to allegations of Russian hacking was to announce that "as President, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses." The presidential nominee of the Democratic Party was threatening to go to war with a nuclear-armed state.

And what did Sen. Marco Rubio, say about the hacking allegations; “America must retaliate, and not just with sanctions.”

The Defence Dept already (back then), allowed for a military response to *some types* of cyberattacks. Written in black and white, and public, for all countries to see.
Clinton's words were meaningless.
Russia aren't a bunch of over-sensitive pussies. They've been playing these games with the USA for decades.

> As for Trump himself, he withdrew from INF Treaty in the face of Putin's demand for an unconditional renewal

Again, not the thing you want to be saying.
Trump withdrawing the USA from the INF *helped Russia*.

> and sent to Europe (including the Russian border, against Russian protests) the largest American deployment in more than a quarter-century.

What did more damage geopolitically? Clinton's cybersecurity threats or Trump sending troops to the Russian border? hmmmm....
Starting to wonder what side of the argument you're on...

> > The SD is meaningless geopolitically.
> American politicians and media personalities haven't threatened or urged war over those things.

They do, all the damn time.

>They've threatened or urged war over Russiagate.

As above.

> > That's not the SD's fault. As I said early on, Russiagate is a mainstream news invention. Anyone who says "Trump was controlled by Putin" has fallen for the mainstream news spin. One can't blame the SD for that.
> The Steele Dossier is responsible for the pee-tape story: the single most lurid and compelling piece of evidence for the claim that Trump is controlled by Putin.

I see you haven't read the SD, or have at least fallen for the media spin. The SD doesn't say "Trump is controlled by Putin".

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 03:12:47 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 4:34:20 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 07:34:15 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 2:48:14 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 05:27:01 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 22, 2021 at 4:11:03 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > > "As I said." You wouldn't have to say it again if you'd followed through the first time.
> > > > > I actually like you. I am extending you a courtesy I'd not extend many.
> > > > Appreciated. I hope you're able in time to appreciate that I'm sincerely passionate about this issue.
> > > Too passionate. So much so it lead you to misleading statements like "the Democratic-lead DOJ are investigating Da-whatshisname". I hope you one day see how loaded that statement was.
> > If he wanted to, Biden could fire Durham.
> This is NOT the defence you want to be making.

I'll be the judge of what I want to be doing.

> The left's (including the Dems) fault is we "play the game" the way we think it should be played. That means not interfering with justice-at-work.
> Never mind that fact that Biden can't just fire Durham. Special Councils are, well, special. They can only be fired for "good cause" or "gross misconduct". Both of which could be challenged as high as SCOTUS, which is Republican-friendly.

"Good cause" -- and probably "gross misconduct," too -- is amply covered by the Democratic theory of the case, which is that Durham is a Trump (and therefore presumably a Russian) stooge. I assume that's also *your* theory, or you wouldn't be so touchy about my very basic observations about Durham's record.

> > And, as Hamish reminds us, Durham was an Obama-Biden appointee before he was a Trump one.
> Again, not the argument you should be making.

I'll be the judge of what I want to be doing.

> People change. Surely who appointed him last matters the most.
> https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/durham-special-counsel/7ff8599351b63336/full.pdf
> Barr describes the elevation to SC as;
> "In advance of the presidential election, I decided to appoint Mr. Durham as a
> Special Counsel to provide him and his team with the assurance that they could complete their
> work , without regard to the outcome of the election ."
> Barr was not worried about Trump winning and ending the investigation. He was clearly worried about Biden winning.
> Durham is a Republican weapon.
> His job isn't really even to muddy the SD. It's to find out what the Dems know about the whole thing.

Oh, good. You've acknowledged your theory of the case. Clearly Biden has "good cause" to fire him.

> > > >I think Russiagate has done a power of harm: It's heightened geopolitical tensions between the two best-armed nuclear states on the planet;
> > > How so? Assume every single thing in the SD was a lie. How has that lead to tensions between the USA and Russia?
> > I've already answered this question. The two paragraphs below are copied and pasted from earlier postings.
> > Hillary Clinton's first public response to allegations of Russian hacking was to announce that "as President, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses." The presidential nominee of the Democratic Party was threatening to go to war with a nuclear-armed state.
> And what did Sen. Marco Rubio, say about the hacking allegations; “America must retaliate, and not just with sanctions.”

Not the argument you should be making. It doesn't refute my point about heightened Russo-American tensions that some Republicans have made these noises, too. Quite the opposite, in fact.

> The Defence Dept already (back then),

Under the Obama administration, of which Clinton was then a part. This, I note in passing, was at roughly the same time that it was launching the Stuxnet attack on Iran.

> allowed for a military response to *some types* of cyberattacks. Written in black and white, and public, for all countries to see.

Not the argument you should be making. To say that a Bad Thing has been a Bad Thing for a while doesn't make it any less a Bad Thing. The entrenchment of the badness makes it worse. It shows how pervasive, and therefore how dangerous, is the mania on this issue.

> Clinton's words were meaningless.

They seemed pretty coherent to me. What they meant was what they said: that as President she'd respond militarily to cyberattacks, in this case, specifically, Russian ones. I'd remind you again this these words were unlawful, probably criminal: The UN Charter forbids both the use and the threat of force.

> Russia aren't a bunch of over-sensitive pussies.

What has that to do with anything? My point wasn't about how Russia would react. It was about how the United States, through its presumptive leader, was threatening to act.

> They've been playing these games with the USA for decades.

Again, irrelevant -- and severely uncut by the fact that no-one plays these games like the United States.

> > As for Trump himself, he withdrew from INF Treaty in the face of Putin's demand for an unconditional renewal
> Again, not the thing you want to be saying.

I'll be the judge of what I want to be saying.

> Trump withdrawing the USA from the INF *helped Russia*.

It's telling that you decline to elaborate.

> > and sent to Europe (including the Russian border, against Russian protests) the largest American deployment in more than a quarter-century.
> What did more damage geopolitically? Clinton's cybersecurity threats or Trump sending troops to the Russian border?

Trump's sending troops to the Russian border, of course.

> hmmmm....

"Hmmmm"? Why "hmmmm"? You could only "hmmmm" if you thought this would be an uncomfortable question for me to answer. And you could only think this would be an uncomfortable question for me to answer if you thought that my purpose here was to defend Trump and the Republicans. (If it were, I wouldn't have mentioned the deployment in the first place. This pathetic line of "thought" would also explain your Rubio detour.) And you could only think my purpose here is to defend Trump and the Repbulicans if you thought no-one could doubt the Russiagate conspiracy theory for any other reason.

And you could only think *that* if *your* whole purpose here were to defend Clinton and the Democrats.

> Starting to wonder what side of the argument you're on...

Wow. You could not have written anything better calculated to prove the point I've just made.

> > > The SD is meaningless geopolitically.
> > American politicians and media personalities haven't threatened or urged war over those things.
> They do, all the damn time.

Examples?

> > > That's not the SD's fault. As I said early on, Russiagate is a mainstream news invention. Anyone who says "Trump was controlled by Putin" has fallen for the mainstream news spin. One can't blame the SD for that.
> > The Steele Dossier is responsible for the pee-tape story: the single most lurid and compelling piece of evidence for the claim that Trump is controlled by Putin.
> I see you haven't read the SD, or have at least fallen for the media spin.. The SD doesn't say "Trump is controlled by Putin".

I didn't say that it did. I said that it furnished "the single most lurid and compelling piece of evidence for the claim that Trump is controlled by Putin." You appear to have trouble with nuance.

I'd note, however, that there aren't many other "spins" you could give to that story, which is why Steele gives it himself:

"Steele told ABC News he believes the alleged tape 'probably does' exist -- but that he 'wouldn't put 100% certainty on it.' When Stephanopoulos asked him to explain why the tape, if it does exist, has not been made public, Steele replied that 'it hasn't needed to be released, because I think the Russians felt they'd got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president of the US.'"

https://abc7chicago.com/christopher-steele-dossier-donald-trump-russia/11139511/

Rodney

On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 8:58:25 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > Never mind that fact that Biden can't just fire Durham. Special Councils are, well, special. They can only be fired for "good cause" or "gross misconduct". Both of which could be challenged as high as SCOTUS, which is Republican-friendly.
> "Good cause" -- and probably "gross misconduct," too -- is amply covered by the Democratic theory of the case, which is that Durham is a Trump (and therefore presumably a Russian) stooge. I assume that's also
*your* theory, or you wouldn't be so touchy about my very basic observations about Durham's record.

The good causes need to be provable. Durham's scope is incredibly wide. He can do basically whatever he wants and say it's within scope.

> > His job isn't really even to muddy the SD. It's to find out what the Dems know about the whole thing.
> Oh, good. You've acknowledged your theory of the case. Clearly Biden has "good cause" to fire him.

As above. Biden would need to prove "good cause".

> > And what did Sen. Marco Rubio, say about the hacking allegations; “America must retaliate, and not just with sanctions.”
> Not the argument you should be making. It doesn't refute my point about heightened Russo-American tensions that some Republicans have made these noises, too. Quite the opposite, in fact.

The point is hawkish comments from US politicians aimed at Russia are legion. Anyone who thinks Clinton's remarks raised an eyebrow in Moscow is kidding themselves.

> > allowed for a military response to *some types* of cyberattacks. Written in black and white, and public, for all countries to see.
> Not the argument you should be making. To say that a Bad Thing has been a Bad Thing for a while doesn't make it any less a Bad Thing. The entrenchment of the badness makes it worse. It shows how pervasive, and therefore how dangerous, is the mania on this issue.

The argument is Clinton's words did nothing. What she said was already well known to Russia.

> > Clinton's words were meaningless.
> They seemed pretty coherent to me. What they meant was what they said: that as President she'd respond militarily to cyberattacks, in this case, specifically, Russian ones. I'd remind you again this these words were
unlawful, probably criminal: The UN Charter forbids both the use and the threat of force.

UN? Strawman.

> > Russia aren't a bunch of over-sensitive pussies.
> What has that to do with anything? My point wasn't about how Russia would react. It was about how the United States, through its presumptive leader, was threatening to act.

Russia didn't give a fuck about Clinton's words.

> > They've been playing these games with the USA for decades.
> Again, irrelevant -- and severely uncut by the fact that no-one plays these games like the United States.

Do you speak Russian? Read Russian news? Perhaps understanding English makes you think "no-one plays these games like the United States".
I would say China sabre-rattles more than anyone today.

> > Trump withdrawing the USA from the INF *helped Russia*.
> It's telling that you decline to elaborate.

In Putin's own words (paraphrased) - "the INF should be revisited to ensure Russian security, as it only restricted Russia and the US but not other countries".

> > > American politicians and media personalities haven't threatened or urged war over those things.
> > They do, all the damn time.
> Examples?

Name any 5 year span since 1991 and I'll find you some. Assuming my GoogleFu works.

> "Steele told ABC News he believes the alleged tape 'probably does' exist -- but that he 'wouldn't put 100% certainty on it.' When Stephanopoulos asked him to explain why the tape, if it does exist, has not been made public, Steele replied that 'it hasn't needed to be released, because I think the Russians felt they'd got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president of the US.'"

Trump was a bumbling idiot who greatly damaged the USA. Ofc Russia "got good value" out of Trump.

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:22:47 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 8:58:25 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > Never mind that fact that Biden can't just fire Durham. Special Councils are, well, special. They can only be fired for "good cause" or "gross misconduct". Both of which could be challenged as high as SCOTUS, which is Republican-friendly.
> > "Good cause" -- and probably "gross misconduct," too -- is amply covered by the Democratic theory of the case, which is that Durham is a Trump (and therefore presumably a Russian) stooge. I assume that's also
> *your* theory, or you wouldn't be so touchy about my very basic observations about Durham's record.
> The good causes need to be provable.

Quite! Funny thing about Russiagate: It never is.

> > > His job isn't really even to muddy the SD. It's to find out what the Dems know about the whole thing.
> > Oh, good. You've acknowledged your theory of the case. Clearly Biden has "good cause" to fire him.
> As above. Biden would need to prove "good cause".
> > > And what did Sen. Marco Rubio, say about the hacking allegations; “America must retaliate, and not just with sanctions.”
> > Not the argument you should be making. It doesn't refute my point about heightened Russo-American tensions that some Republicans have made these noises, too. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> The point is hawkish comments from US politicians aimed at Russia are legion. Anyone who thinks Clinton's remarks raised an eyebrow in Moscow is kidding themselves.

Why do you keep citing the reception of these remarks in Russia? Do the Russians have to be quaking in their boots for this to be cited as evidence that relations between the two countries have taken a dive? It doesn't always take two to tango.

Nor is it true to say that remarks like Clinton's represent no great departure. When during the 2012 debates Romney beclowned himself on matters Russian, Obama's response was celebrated: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War's been over for twenty years!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0IWe11RWOM

And the reception of Clinton's remarks in Russia *certainly* has no relevance to my assertion that Russiagate has broken the liberal brain.

> > > allowed for a military response to *some types* of cyberattacks. Written in black and white, and public, for all countries to see.
> > Not the argument you should be making. To say that a Bad Thing has been a Bad Thing for a while doesn't make it any less a Bad Thing. The entrenchment of the badness makes it worse. It shows how pervasive, and therefore how dangerous, is the mania on this issue.
> The argument is Clinton's words did nothing. What she said was already well known to Russia.

She threatened to go to war over social-media posts and the hacking of her campaign emails. What Russia thought about this is doesn't make it any less deranged.

> > > Clinton's words were meaningless.
> > They seemed pretty coherent to me. What they meant was what they said: that as President she'd respond militarily to cyberattacks, in this case, specifically, Russian ones. I'd remind you again this these words were
> unlawful, probably criminal: The UN Charter forbids both the use and the threat of force.
> UN? Strawman.

Incoherent. I can't even begin to imagine what you think this two-word response conveys, or how it works as a rejoinder.

Do you realise that the United States is a signatory to the UN Charter?

> > > Russia aren't a bunch of over-sensitive pussies.
> > What has that to do with anything? My point wasn't about how Russia would react. It was about how the United States, through its presumptive leader, was threatening to act.
> Russia didn't give a fuck about Clinton's words.

Is this all you have? Do you not get bored typing out the same response over and again? You've repeated it umpteen times now, determinedly oblivious to how irrelevant it is.

> > > They've been playing these games with the USA for decades.
> > Again, irrelevant -- and severely uncut by the fact that no-one plays these games like the United States.
> Do you speak Russian? Read Russian news? Perhaps understanding English makes you think "no-one plays these games like the United States".
> I would say China sabre-rattles more than anyone today.

And I would say they don't.

I'd also observe that they're a good deal more responsible in the far more important question of their sabre-usage. They haven't been to war in my lifetime. I've lost count of American wars in the same period.

> > > Trump withdrawing the USA from the INF *helped Russia*.
> > It's telling that you decline to elaborate.
> In Putin's own words (paraphrased) - "the INF should be revisited to ensure Russian security, as it only restricted Russia and the US but not other countries".

In other words, he wanted the regime *tightened* (or in another sense broadened) to include other powers. He didn't want it scrapped. Russia could never win an arms race with the United States. I'm astonished that I have to point this out.

Note also Putin's proposals since Trump's withdrawal:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-11/news-briefs/russia-expands-proposal-moratorium-inf-range-missiles

Does that sound like a man who got what he wanted?

> > > > American politicians and media personalities haven't threatened or urged war over those things.
> > > They do, all the damn time.
> > Examples?
> Name any 5 year span since 1991 and I'll find you some. Assuming my GoogleFu works.

Go on, then. 1991 to 1996.

> > "Steele told ABC News he believes the alleged tape 'probably does' exist -- but that he 'wouldn't put 100% certainty on it.' When Stephanopoulos asked him to explain why the tape, if it does exist, has not been made public, Steele replied that 'it hasn't needed to be released, because I think the Russians felt they'd got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president of the US.'"
> Trump was a bumbling idiot who greatly damaged the USA. Ofc Russia "got good value" out of Trump.

You are pretending not to understand the import of his words. You don't pretend very well.

Rodney

On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:22:47 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 8:58:25 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > Never mind that fact that Biden can't just fire Durham. Special Councils are, well, special. They can only be fired for "good cause" or "gross misconduct". Both of which could be challenged as high as SCOTUS, which is Republican-friendly.
> > "Good cause" -- and probably "gross misconduct," too -- is amply covered by the Democratic theory of the case, which is that Durham is a Trump (and therefore presumably a Russian) stooge. I assume that's also
> *your* theory, or you wouldn't be so touchy about my very basic observations about Durham's record.
> The good causes need to be provable.

Quite! Funny thing about Russiagate: It never is.

> > > His job isn't really even to muddy the SD. It's to find out what the Dems know about the whole thing.
> > Oh, good. You've acknowledged your theory of the case. Clearly Biden has "good cause" to fire him.
> As above. Biden would need to prove "good cause".
> > > And what did Sen. Marco Rubio, say about the hacking allegations; “America must retaliate, and not just with sanctions.”
> > Not the argument you should be making. It doesn't refute my point about heightened Russo-American tensions that some Republicans have made these noises, too. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> The point is hawkish comments from US politicians aimed at Russia are legion. Anyone who thinks Clinton's remarks raised an eyebrow in Moscow is kidding themselves.

Why do you keep citing the reception of these remarks in Russia? Do the Russians have to be quaking in their boots for this to be cited as evidence that relations between the two countries have taken a dive? It doesn't always take two to tango.

Nor is it true to say that remarks like Clinton's represent no great departure. When during the 2012 debates Romney beclowned himself on matters Russian, Obama's response was celebrated: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War's been over for twenty years!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0IWe11RWOM

And the reception of Clinton's remarks in Russia *certainly* has no relevance to my assertion that Russiagate has broken the liberal brain.

> > > allowed for a military response to *some types* of cyberattacks. Written in black and white, and public, for all countries to see.
> > Not the argument you should be making. To say that a Bad Thing has been a Bad Thing for a while doesn't make it any less a Bad Thing. The entrenchment of the badness makes it worse. It shows how pervasive, and therefore how dangerous, is the mania on this issue.
> The argument is Clinton's words did nothing. What she said was already well known to Russia.

She threatened to go to war over social-media posts and the hacking of her campaign emails. What Russia thought about this doesn't make it any less deranged.

> > > Clinton's words were meaningless.
> > They seemed pretty coherent to me. What they meant was what they said: that as President she'd respond militarily to cyberattacks, in this case, specifically, Russian ones. I'd remind you again this these words were
> unlawful, probably criminal: The UN Charter forbids both the use and the threat of force.
> UN? Strawman.

Incoherent. I can't even begin to imagine what you think this two-word response conveys, or how it works as a rejoinder.

Do you realise that the United States is a signatory to the UN Charter?

> > > Russia aren't a bunch of over-sensitive pussies.
> > What has that to do with anything? My point wasn't about how Russia would react. It was about how the United States, through its presumptive leader, was threatening to act.
> Russia didn't give a fuck about Clinton's words.

Is this all you have? Do you not get bored typing out the same response over and again? You've repeated it umpteen times now, determinedly oblivious to how irrelevant it is.

> > > They've been playing these games with the USA for decades.
> > Again, irrelevant -- and severely uncut by the fact that no-one plays these games like the United States.
> Do you speak Russian? Read Russian news? Perhaps understanding English makes you think "no-one plays these games like the United States".
> I would say China sabre-rattles more than anyone today.

And I would say they don't.

I'd also observe that they're a good deal more responsible in the far more important question of their sabre-usage. They haven't been to war in my lifetime. I've lost count of American wars in the same period.

> > > Trump withdrawing the USA from the INF *helped Russia*.
> > It's telling that you decline to elaborate.
> In Putin's own words (paraphrased) - "the INF should be revisited to ensure Russian security, as it only restricted Russia and the US but not other countries".

In other words, he wanted the regime *tightened* (or in another sense broadened) to include other powers. He didn't want it scrapped. Russia could never win an arms race with the United States. I'm astonished that I have to point this out.

Note also Putin's proposals since Trump's withdrawal:

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-11/news-briefs/russia-expands-proposal-moratorium-inf-range-missiles

Does that sound like a man who got what he wanted?

> > > > American politicians and media personalities haven't threatened or urged war over those things.
> > > They do, all the damn time.
> > Examples?
> Name any 5 year span since 1991 and I'll find you some. Assuming my GoogleFu works.

Go on, then. 1991 to 1996.

> > "Steele told ABC News he believes the alleged tape 'probably does' exist -- but that he 'wouldn't put 100% certainty on it.' When Stephanopoulos asked him to explain why the tape, if it does exist, has not been made public, Steele replied that 'it hasn't needed to be released, because I think the Russians felt they'd got pretty good value out of Donald Trump when he was president of the US.'"
> Trump was a bumbling idiot who greatly damaged the USA. Ofc Russia "got good value" out of Trump.

You are pretending not to understand the import of his words. You don't pretend very well.

Rodney

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:09:04 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:22:47 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 8:58:25 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > Never mind that fact that Biden can't just fire Durham. Special Councils are, well, special. They can only be fired for "good cause" or "gross misconduct". Both of which could be challenged as high as SCOTUS, which is Republican-friendly.
> > > "Good cause" -- and probably "gross misconduct," too -- is amply covered by the Democratic theory of the case, which is that Durham is a Trump (and therefore presumably a Russian) stooge. I assume that's also
> > *your* theory, or you wouldn't be so touchy about my very basic observations about Durham's record.
> > The good causes need to be provable.
> Quite! Funny thing about Russiagate: It never is.

No one can provide you with proof, sorry.
That's the nature of intelligence reports. Often they're only proven correct years/decades later.

> > The point is hawkish comments from US politicians aimed at Russia are legion. Anyone who thinks Clinton's remarks raised an eyebrow in Moscow is kidding themselves.
> Why do you keep citing the reception of these remarks in Russia? Do the Russians have to be quaking in their boots for this to be cited as evidence that relations between the two countries have taken a dive? It doesn't always take two to tango.

You said "It's heightened geopolitical tensions between the two best-armed nuclear states on the planet".
The reasoning behind this is what US politicians said about SD, eg Clinton's remarks re cybersecurity responses.
Of course Russia's receptions to her remarks have in impact on the tensions..
If they say "Hillary is in election mode, it's just talk", then there's no raised tensions.
If they say "Hillary's threats of war must be taken seriously, we're going to Defcon 4"... it's another matter.

> Nor is it true to say that remarks like Clinton's represent no great departure. When during the 2012 debates Romney beclowned himself on matters Russian, Obama's response was celebrated: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War's been over for twenty years!"

In this 2012 you highlight Romney's hawkish statements re Russia. Thanks.
Yes, it was lovely of Obama to take a different tack, but anti-Russian rhetoric was and is commonplace by both sides in the USA.

> > unlawful, probably criminal: The UN Charter forbids both the use and the threat of force.
> > UN? Strawman.
> Incoherent.

It's a Strawman as you seem to be the only person on the planet who took Hillary's words as a credible threat.
The UN charter allows for military response when attacked.
It's perfectly ok for the USA to say "we consider some types of cyberattacks as acts of war, and we'll kick your teeth in if you do them to us".

> Do you realise that the United States is a signatory to the UN Charter?

Strawman.

> > I would say China sabre-rattles more than anyone today.
> And I would say they don't.
> I'd also observe that they're a good deal more responsible in the far more important question of their sabre-usage. They haven't been to war in my lifetime. I've lost count of American wars in the same period.

Haven't been to war in your lifetime? Perhaps you don't understand what I meant by sabre-rattling.

> > > > Trump withdrawing the USA from the INF *helped Russia*.
> > > It's telling that you decline to elaborate.
> > In Putin's own words (paraphrased) - "the INF should be revisited to ensure Russian security, as it only restricted Russia and the US but not other countries".
> In other words, he wanted the regime *tightened* (or in another sense broadened) to include other powers. He didn't want it scrapped. Russia could never win an arms race with the United States. I'm astonished that
I have to point this out.

There were 3 INF outcomes;
a) ended
b) no change
c) expanded

One of these was bad for Russia, according to Putin.
2 of these were beneficial to Russia.
Ending the INF benefited Russia.

> Note also Putin's proposals since Trump's withdrawal:
> https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-11/news-briefs/russia-expands-proposal-moratorium-inf-range-missiles
> Does that sound like a man who got what he wanted?

Partially, yes.

> > Name any 5 year span since 1991 and I'll find you some. Assuming my GoogleFu works.
> Go on, then. 1991 to 1996.

brb

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 04:39:13 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 2:09:04 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 24 November 2021 at 15:22:47 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 24, 2021 at 8:58:25 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > > > Never mind that fact that Biden can't just fire Durham. Special Councils are, well, special. They can only be fired for "good cause" or "gross misconduct". Both of which could be challenged as high as SCOTUS, which is Republican-friendly.
> > > > "Good cause" -- and probably "gross misconduct," too -- is amply covered by the Democratic theory of the case, which is that Durham is a Trump (and therefore presumably a Russian) stooge. I assume that's also
> > > *your* theory, or you wouldn't be so touchy about my very basic observations about Durham's record.
> > > The good causes need to be provable.
> > Quite! Funny thing about Russiagate: It never is.
> No one can provide you with proof, sorry.
> That's the nature of intelligence reports. Often they're only proven correct years/decades later.

By your own admission, then, you subscribe to this theory -- this conspiracy theory -- on the basis of nothing. You like the vibes. It *feels* right to you. Yours is the touching faith that you'll be vindicated in a few decades.

> > > The point is hawkish comments from US politicians aimed at Russia are legion. Anyone who thinks Clinton's remarks raised an eyebrow in Moscow is kidding themselves.
> > Why do you keep citing the reception of these remarks in Russia? Do the Russians have to be quaking in their boots for this to be cited as evidence that relations between the two countries have taken a dive? It doesn't always take two to tango.
> You said "It's heightened geopolitical tensions between the two best-armed nuclear states on the planet".
> The reasoning behind this is what US politicians said about SD, eg Clinton's remarks re cybersecurity responses.
> Of course Russia's receptions to her remarks have in impact on the tensions.
> If they say "Hillary is in election mode, it's just talk", then there's no raised tensions.
> If they say "Hillary's threats of war must be taken seriously, we're going to Defcon 4"... it's another matter.

A point I pre-emptively addressed -- what a waste of time -- when I observed that "it doesn't always take two to tango." It needs only one side to get a bit skittish for humanity to be facing Armageddon. That's what almost all those nuclear near misses were about.

> > Nor is it true to say that remarks like Clinton's represent no great departure. When during the 2012 debates Romney beclowned himself on matters Russian, Obama's response was celebrated: "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War's been over for twenty years!"
> In this 2012 you highlight Romney's hawkish statements re Russia. Thanks.

Pleasure.

> Yes, it was lovely of Obama to take a different tack, but anti-Russian rhetoric was and is commonplace by both sides in the USA.

And openly mocked by the President who immediately preceded Russiagate. And before him, George W. Bush famously gushed about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing a good Christian. And Bill Clinton, before Bush, was so besotted with *his* opposite number that he openly intervened in a Russian election to get him elected. (Far more evidence for that one, incidentally, than anything produced in support of Russiagate.)

But you want me to believe that these three post-Cold War administrations were also threatening to nuke the country. I'm looking forward to seeing the examples you promise.

> > > unlawful, probably criminal: The UN Charter forbids both the use and the threat of force.
> > > UN? Strawman.
> > Incoherent.
> It's a Strawman as you seem to be the only person on the planet who took Hillary's words as a credible threat.

You can't even keep track of your own arguments. It was, as you point out, an articulation of existing US policy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-official-says-cyberattacks-can-trigger-self-defense-rule/2012/09/18/c2246c1a-0202-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_story.html

And now NATO policy:

https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/nato-warns-that-cyber-attacks-on-member-states-could-trigger-a-coordinated-military-response/

So *of course* it was credible.

> The UN charter allows for military response when attacked.
> It's perfectly ok for the USA to say "we consider some types of cyberattacks as acts of war, and we'll kick your teeth in if you do them to us".

No. It's not "perfectly okay." You're allowed under the UN Charter to respond with force to force. You're not allowed to respond with force when your emails are hacked, or when you don't like the Facebook advertising you're seeing.

Is it really so important to you to win an internet argument that you're prepared to make yourself look like a tool?

> > Do you realise that the United States is a signatory to the UN Charter?
> Strawman.

Ah, I see. You don't know what that expression means.

> > > I would say China sabre-rattles more than anyone today.
> > And I would say they don't.
> > I'd also observe that they're a good deal more responsible in the far more important question of their sabre-usage. They haven't been to war in my lifetime. I've lost count of American wars in the same period.
> Haven't been to war in your lifetime? Perhaps you don't understand what I meant by sabre-rattling.

Perhaps you ought to clear your mind next time you approach one of my ripostes. You're so eager to formulate these quarter-baked put-downs that you're not digesting the simplest points.

This one could hardly be clearer: Sabre-rattling is something we take seriously from parties inclined to sabre usage. China keeps its sabre sheathed. The US does not. This isn't complicated.

> > > > > Trump withdrawing the USA from the INF *helped Russia*.
> > > > It's telling that you decline to elaborate.
> > > In Putin's own words (paraphrased) - "the INF should be revisited to ensure Russian security, as it only restricted Russia and the US but not other countries".
> > In other words, he wanted the regime *tightened* (or in another sense broadened) to include other powers. He didn't want it scrapped. Russia could never win an arms race with the United States. I'm astonished that I have to point this out.
> There were 3 INF outcomes;
> a) ended
> b) no change
> c) expanded
> One of these was bad for Russia, according to Putin.
> 2 of these were beneficial to Russia.
> Ending the INF benefited Russia.

You've repeated your point without addressing my response. You're not paying attention. You're doing what I've noticed in Hamish: You're thinking of your reply before you've read the thing you're replying to.

I ask again: How does it benefit Russia to enter an arms race with the United States?

> > Note also Putin's proposals since Trump's withdrawal:
> > https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-11/news-briefs/russia-expands-proposal-moratorium-inf-range-missiles
> > Does that sound like a man who got what he wanted?
> Partially, yes.

So he's proposing a de facto renewal of the central provisions of a treaty he wanted scrapped? You'll have to forgive me, but I don't follow this. I'll forgive you in turn for your failure to elaborate. Both, after all, are born of the same cause: Your theory is incoherent.

> > > Name any 5 year span since 1991 and I'll find you some. Assuming my GoogleFu works.
> > Go on, then. 1991 to 1996.
> brb

Oh dear.

Rodney

On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:14:05 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > That's the nature of intelligence reports. Often they're only proven correct years/decades later.
> By your own admission, then, you subscribe to this theory -- this conspiracy theory -- on the basis of nothing. You like the vibes. It *feels* right to you. Yours is the touching faith that you'll be vindicated in a few decades.

How does any one of us ordinary folk know? We don't. I don't. You don't.
I believe most of the SD is true based on Steele's reputation, Trump's reputation, Trump's actions, Russian tactics.
Also, as I've said, some things in the SD have been proven true.
Not a single thing has been proven incorrect.

> > Yes, it was lovely of Obama to take a different tack, but anti-Russian rhetoric was and is commonplace by both sides in the USA.
> And openly mocked by the President who immediately preceded Russiagate. And before him, George W. Bush famously gushed about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing a good Christian. And Bill Clinton, before Bush, was so besotted with *his* opposite number that he openly intervened in a Russian election to get him elected. (Far more evidence for that one, incidentally, than anything produced in support of Russiagate.)

2017, James Clapper (former Director of many US intel agencies starting in 1991 under Bush Snr) said "the Russians are not our friends", because it is in their "genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed, to the United States and western democracies".

We can play this game all day.

The US political class, and the public majority, are opposed to Russia and have been since the early 1900s.

> But you want me to believe that these three post-Cold War administrations were also threatening to nuke the country

More intellectual dishonesty.

> > It's a Strawman as you seem to be the only person on the planet who took Hillary's words as a credible threat.
> You can't even keep track of your own arguments. It was, as you point out, an articulation of existing US policy:

Hillary's remarks were very early. And wrong. In hindsight, the email hacking was NOT enough to be considered an act of war (that justified a military response).
Her threat was election bluster, that you have swallowed.

>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-official-says-cyberattacks-can-trigger-self-defense-rule/2012/09/18/c2246c1a-0202-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_story.html
>
> And now NATO policy:
>
> https://www.cpomagazine.com/cyber-security/nato-warns-that-cyber-attacks-on-member-states-could-trigger-a-coordinated-military-response/
>
> So *of course* it was credible.
> > The UN charter allows for military response when attacked.
> > It's perfectly ok for the USA to say "we consider some types of cyberattacks as acts of war, and we'll kick your teeth in if you do them to us".
> No. It's not "perfectly okay." You're allowed under the UN Charter to respond with force to force. You're not allowed to respond with force when your emails are hacked, or when you don't like the Facebook advertising you're seeing.

You misunderstand the Charter.
Almost all countries, especially those with nukes, clearly threaten when they'll use such weapons.
It's always in the form "you do X, we'll do Y".
This is perfectly fine and normal.

> > > > I would say China sabre-rattles more than anyone today.
> > > And I would say they don't.
> > > I'd also observe that they're a good deal more responsible in the far more important question of their sabre-usage. They haven't been to war in my lifetime. I've lost count of American wars in the same period.
> > Haven't been to war in your lifetime? Perhaps you don't understand what I meant by sabre-rattling.
> Perhaps you ought to clear your mind next time you approach one of my ripostes.

China invasion count has zero to do with China's sabre-rattling count. The latter is the opposite of the former.

> > Ending the INF benefited Russia.
> I ask again: How does it benefit Russia to enter an arms race with the United States?

There are other threats than just the USA. Russia wanted out of the INF, they got it, thanks to Trump.

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 11:44:51 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:14:05 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > That's the nature of intelligence reports. Often they're only proven correct years/decades later.
> > By your own admission, then, you subscribe to this theory -- this conspiracy theory -- on the basis of nothing. You like the vibes. It *feels* right to you. Yours is the touching faith that you'll be vindicated in a few decades.
> How does any one of us ordinary folk know? We don't. I don't.
> You don't.

How can anyone know anything?

It's not about "knowing." It's about weighing up the evidence, and recognising that the burden of proof falls on those who make positive claims about the world. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidential standard.

That standard is not met by this:

> I believe most of the SD is true based on Steele's reputation, Trump's reputation, Trump's actions, Russian tactics.

Like I said, "vibes."

Note what you don't cite. You don't cite any positive, affirmative evidence for a single claim. Didn't you say you were going to?

> Also, as I've said, some things in the SD have been proven true.

Which things are those? Most of the provably true things in the Steele Dossier were proven true *before* it was written. From the left-liberal Nation magazine, whose reporter Aaron Maté won an Izzy for his coverage of Russiage:

"Despite his supposed high-level sources inside the Kremlin, it was only after Wikileaks published the DNC e-mails in July 2016 that Steele first mentioned them. When Steele made the headline-consuming claim that 'the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue' in exchange for Russian help, he did so only after a meaningless Ukraine-related platform change at the RNC was reported (and mischaracterized) in The Washington Post. When Steele claimed that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was offered up to a 19 percent stake in the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft if he could get Trump to lift Western sanctions, it was only after the media had reported Page’s visit to Moscow.

"In short, far from having access to high-level intelligence, Steele and his 'sources' only had access to news outlets and their own imaginations. It is for this reason that Russiagate’s key figures and incidents make no appearance in Steele’s dossier. Absent are George Papadapolous and Joseph Mifsud, whose conversations triggered the FBI’s collusion probe. Also MIA is the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russian nationals about potential 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton. The reason is obvious: These events did not get publicly reported until after Steele wrote his final, secret 'intelligence report.'"

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-russiagate-steele-dossier/

> Not a single thing has been proven incorrect.

What about the prosecution of Danchenko? Have you even looked into it? Have you read the indictment? Have you forgotten that you undertook to do so?

You're right, of course, to say that the Steele Dossier hasn't been refuted.. Nor has 9/11 Truth, nor the fake moon landings, nor the international Jewish conspiracy, nor David Icke's saurians, nor Bertrand Russell's orbiting teacup.

It's funny how I keep having to invoke that last example. It's funnier still how deaf are the ears it falls upon. I might as well be composing mandalas in the sand.

> > > Yes, it was lovely of Obama to take a different tack, but anti-Russian rhetoric was and is commonplace by both sides in the USA.
> > And openly mocked by the President who immediately preceded Russiagate. And before him, George W. Bush famously gushed about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing a good Christian. And Bill Clinton, before Bush, was so besotted with *his* opposite number that he openly intervened in a Russian election to get him elected. (Far more evidence for that one, incidentally, than anything produced in support of Russiagate.)
> 2017, James Clapper (former Director of many US intel agencies starting in 1991 under Bush Snr) said "the Russians are not our friends", because it is in their "genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed, to the United States and western democracies".
> We can play this game all day.

You play it badly. Clapper was speaking in June 2017 -- six months *after* the publication of the Steele Dossier and the rise of Russiagate. You cite him to prove a pre-Russiagate hostility. Do you have any idea how daft this makes you look?

Actually, it makes you look even dafter than that. Clapper made no threat of force, so his remarks aren't analogous to Clinton's. That's the case you were suppose to be making.

> The US political class, and the public majority, are opposed to Russia and have been since the early 1900s.

And now you remember part of that case. But you still think you've proven it with a remark from 2017!

> > But you want me to believe that these three post-Cold War administrations were also threatening to nuke the country
> More intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, really? Explain. And then give me an honest explanation for the gymnastics I've just cited. The only honest one I can think of would be pretty unflattering. I think I was too generous in casting it as daft.

> > > It's a Strawman as you seem to be the only person on the planet who took Hillary's words as a credible threat.
> > You can't even keep track of your own arguments. It was, as you point out, an articulation of existing US policy:
> Hillary's remarks were very early. And wrong. In hindsight, the email hacking was NOT enough to be considered an act of war (that justified a military response).
> Her threat was election bluster, that you have swallowed.

Make up your mind. Was it a simple articulation of existing US policy, or was Clinton idly blustering?

I note in passing that she's never seen a war she didn't like, so her bluster feels a lot less idle than most. See my earlier point (which you affected not to understand) about sabre usage.

> > > The UN charter allows for military response when attacked.
> > > It's perfectly ok for the USA to say "we consider some types of cyberattacks as acts of war, and we'll kick your teeth in if you do them to us".
> > No. It's not "perfectly okay." You're allowed under the UN Charter to respond with force to force. You're not allowed to respond with force when your emails are hacked, or when you don't like the Facebook advertising you're seeing.
> You misunderstand the Charter.
> Almost all countries, especially those with nukes, clearly threaten when they'll use such weapons.
> It's always in the form "you do X, we'll do Y".
> This is perfectly fine and normal.

You do realise that the onus is on you to explain misunderstandings when you allege them? Where does mine lie?

Here's the relevant provision (since we both know you haven't read it):

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." - Article 2(4)

What does this mean, and how do you square it with the reading you've put forward? What, specifically, does "threat" mean? Does it mean anything at all? If not, why not? And how do you square *that* with the views of the leading scholars in the field? I find no support for your position, and plenty for mine, in the likes of Romana Sadurska, Francis Grimal, Marc Weller, Ian Brownlie, Aidan O'Neill and Nikolas Stürchler, who have written at length on this topic.

> > > > > I would say China sabre-rattles more than anyone today.
> > > > And I would say they don't.
> > > > I'd also observe that they're a good deal more responsible in the far more important question of their sabre-usage. They haven't been to war in my lifetime. I've lost count of American wars in the same period.
> > > Haven't been to war in your lifetime? Perhaps you don't understand what I meant by sabre-rattling.
> > Perhaps you ought to clear your mind next time you approach one of my ripostes.
> China invasion count has zero to do with China's sabre-rattling count. The latter is the opposite of the former.

I explained what sabre rattling had to do with sabre usage -- astonishing that I had to -- but you've slyly snipped that out. You do that with a great many points you find unanswerable. Don't think I haven't noticed. It's hard not to, since I've diligently answered everything you put to me.

> > > Ending the INF benefited Russia.
> > I ask again: How does it benefit Russia to enter an arms race with the United States?
> There are other threats than just the USA. Russia wanted out of the INF, they got it, thanks to Trump.

Stop. You're embarrassing yourself. Again you've snipped out the bits you found unanswerable (in this case, the bits where I point out that what Putin wanted was a *tightening* of the INF regime, to include other nuclear states). I note with complacency that you've accused *me* of "intellectual dishonesty."

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 11:44:51 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:14:05 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > That's the nature of intelligence reports. Often they're only proven correct years/decades later.
> > By your own admission, then, you subscribe to this theory -- this conspiracy theory -- on the basis of nothing. You like the vibes. It *feels* right to you. Yours is the touching faith that you'll be vindicated in a few decades.
> How does any one of us ordinary folk know? We don't. I don't.
> You don't.

How can anyone know anything?

It's not about "knowing." It's about weighing up the evidence, and recognising that the burden of proof falls on those who make positive claims about the world. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidential standard.

That standard is not met by this:

> I believe most of the SD is true based on Steele's reputation, Trump's reputation, Trump's actions, Russian tactics.

Like I said, "vibes."

Note what you don't cite. You don't cite any positive, affirmative evidence for a single claim. Didn't you say you were going to?

> Also, as I've said, some things in the SD have been proven true.

Which things are those? Most of the provably true things in the Steele Dossier were proven true *before* it was written. From the left-liberal Nation magazine, whose reporter Aaron Maté won an Izzy for his coverage of Russiage:

"Despite his supposed high-level sources inside the Kremlin, it was only after Wikileaks published the DNC e-mails in July 2016 that Steele first mentioned them. When Steele made the headline-consuming claim that 'the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue' in exchange for Russian help, he did so only after a meaningless Ukraine-related platform change at the RNC was reported (and mischaracterized) in The Washington Post. When Steele claimed that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was offered up to a 19 percent stake in the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft if he could get Trump to lift Western sanctions, it was only after the media had reported Page’s visit to Moscow.

"In short, far from having access to high-level intelligence, Steele and his 'sources' only had access to news outlets and their own imaginations. It is for this reason that Russiagate’s key figures and incidents make no appearance in Steele’s dossier. Absent are George Papadapolous and Joseph Mifsud, whose conversations triggered the FBI’s collusion probe. Also MIA is the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russian nationals about potential 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton. The reason is obvious: These events did not get publicly reported until after Steele wrote his final, secret 'intelligence report.'"

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-russiagate-steele-dossier/

> Not a single thing has been proven incorrect.

What about the prosecution of Danchenko? Have you even looked into it? Have you read the indictment? Have you forgotten that you undertook to do so?

You're right, of course, to say that the Steele Dossier hasn't been refuted.. Nor has 9/11 Truth, nor the fake moon landings, nor the international Jewish conspiracy, nor David Icke's saurians, nor Bertrand Russell's orbiting teacup.

It's funny how I keep having to invoke that last example. It's funnier still how deaf are the ears it falls upon. I might as well be composing mandalas in the sand.

> > > Yes, it was lovely of Obama to take a different tack, but anti-Russian rhetoric was and is commonplace by both sides in the USA.
> > And openly mocked by the President who immediately preceded Russiagate. And before him, George W. Bush famously gushed about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing a good Christian. And Bill Clinton, before Bush, was so besotted with *his* opposite number that he openly intervened in a Russian election to get him elected. (Far more evidence for that one, incidentally, than anything produced in support of Russiagate.)
> 2017, James Clapper (former Director of many US intel agencies starting in 1991 under Bush Snr) said "the Russians are not our friends", because it is in their "genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed, to the United States and western democracies".
> We can play this game all day.

You play it badly. Clapper was speaking in June 2017 -- six months *after* the publication of the Steele Dossier and the rise of Russiagate. You cite him to prove a pre-Russiagate hostility. Do you have any idea how daft this makes you look?

Actually, it makes you look even dafter than that. Clapper made no threat of force, so his remarks aren't analogous to Clinton's. That's the case you were suppose to be making.

> The US political class, and the public majority, are opposed to Russia and have been since the early 1900s.

And now you remember part of that case. But you still think you've proven it with a remark from 2017!

> > But you want me to believe that these three post-Cold War administrations were also threatening to nuke the country
> More intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, really? Explain. And then give me an honest explanation for the gymnastics I've just cited. The only honest one I can think of would be pretty unflattering. I think I was too generous in casting it as daft.

> > > It's a Strawman as you seem to be the only person on the planet who took Hillary's words as a credible threat.
> > You can't even keep track of your own arguments. It was, as you point out, an articulation of existing US policy:
> Hillary's remarks were very early. And wrong. In hindsight, the email hacking was NOT enough to be considered an act of war (that justified a military response).
> Her threat was election bluster, that you have swallowed.

Make up your mind. Was it a simple articulation of existing US policy, or was Clinton idly blustering?

I note in passing that she's never seen a war she didn't like, so her bluster feels a lot less idle than most. See my earlier point (which you affected not to understand) about sabre usage.

> > > The UN charter allows for military response when attacked.
> > > It's perfectly ok for the USA to say "we consider some types of cyberattacks as acts of war, and we'll kick your teeth in if you do them to us".
> > No. It's not "perfectly okay." You're allowed under the UN Charter to respond with force to force. You're not allowed to respond with force when your emails are hacked, or when you don't like the Facebook advertising you're seeing.
> You misunderstand the Charter.
> Almost all countries, especially those with nukes, clearly threaten when they'll use such weapons.
> It's always in the form "you do X, we'll do Y".
> This is perfectly fine and normal.

You do realise that the onus is on you to explain misunderstandings when you allege them? Where does mine lie?

Here's the relevant provision (since we both know you haven't read it):

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." - Article 2(4)

What does this mean, and how do you square it with the reading you've put forward? What, specifically, does "threat" mean? Does it mean anything at all? If not, why not? And how do you square *that* with the views of the leading scholars in the field? I find no support for your position, and plenty for mine, in the likes of Romana Sadurska, Francis Grimal, Marc Weller, Ian Brownlie, Aidan O'Neill and Nikolas Stürchler, who have written at length on this topic.

> > > > > I would say China sabre-rattles more than anyone today.
> > > > And I would say they don't.
> > > > I'd also observe that they're a good deal more responsible in the far more important question of their sabre-usage. They haven't been to war in my lifetime. I've lost count of American wars in the same period.
> > > Haven't been to war in your lifetime? Perhaps you don't understand what I meant by sabre-rattling.
> > Perhaps you ought to clear your mind next time you approach one of my ripostes.
> China invasion count has zero to do with China's sabre-rattling count.

I explained what sabre rattling had to do with sabre usage -- astonishing that I had to -- but you've slyly snipped that out. You do that with a great many points you find unanswerable. Don't think I haven't noticed. It's hard not to, since I've diligently answered everything you put to me.

> The latter is the opposite of the former.

A known murder approaches JZ, armed to the teeth, and threatens to blow him to pieces.

Saith JZ: "Your record of murder has nothing to do with your threat of murder. The latter is the opposite of the former."

JZ is murdered.

Poor JZ.

> > > Ending the INF benefited Russia.
> > I ask again: How does it benefit Russia to enter an arms race with the United States?
> There are other threats than just the USA. Russia wanted out of the INF, they got it, thanks to Trump.

On Thursday, 25 November 2021 at 11:44:51 UTC+2, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, November 25, 2021 at 7:14:05 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > > That's the nature of intelligence reports. Often they're only proven correct years/decades later.
> > By your own admission, then, you subscribe to this theory -- this conspiracy theory -- on the basis of nothing. You like the vibes. It *feels* right to you. Yours is the touching faith that you'll be vindicated in a few decades.
> How does any one of us ordinary folk know? We don't. I don't.
> You don't.

How can anyone know anything?

It's not about "knowing." It's about weighing up the evidence, and recognising that the burden of proof falls on those who make positive claims about the world. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidential standard.

That standard is not met by this:

> I believe most of the SD is true based on Steele's reputation, Trump's reputation, Trump's actions, Russian tactics.

Like I said, "vibes."

Note what you don't cite. You don't cite any positive, affirmative evidence for a single claim. Didn't you say you were going to?

> Also, as I've said, some things in the SD have been proven true.

Which things are those? Most of the provably true things in the Steele Dossier were proven true *before* it was written. From the left-liberal Nation magazine, whose reporter Aaron Maté won an Izzy for his coverage of Russiage:

"Despite his supposed high-level sources inside the Kremlin, it was only after Wikileaks published the DNC e-mails in July 2016 that Steele first mentioned them. When Steele made the headline-consuming claim that 'the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue' in exchange for Russian help, he did so only after a meaningless Ukraine-related platform change at the RNC was reported (and mischaracterized) in The Washington Post. When Steele claimed that former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was offered up to a 19 percent stake in the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft if he could get Trump to lift Western sanctions, it was only after the media had reported Page’s visit to Moscow.

"In short, far from having access to high-level intelligence, Steele and his 'sources' only had access to news outlets and their own imaginations. It is for this reason that Russiagate’s key figures and incidents make no appearance in Steele’s dossier. Absent are George Papadapolous and Joseph Mifsud, whose conversations triggered the FBI’s collusion probe. Also MIA is the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russian nationals about potential 'dirt' on Hillary Clinton. The reason is obvious: These events did not get publicly reported until after Steele wrote his final, secret 'intelligence report.'"

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-russiagate-steele-dossier/

> Not a single thing has been proven incorrect.

What about the prosecution of Danchenko? Have you even looked into it? Have you read the indictment? Have you forgotten that you undertook to do so?

You're right, of course, to say that the Steele Dossier hasn't been refuted.. Nor has 9/11 Truth, nor the fake moon landings, nor the international Jewish conspiracy, nor David Icke's saurians, nor Bertrand Russell's orbiting teacup.

It's funny how I keep having to invoke that last example. It's funnier still how deaf are the ears it falls upon. I might as well be composing mandalas in the sand.

> > > Yes, it was lovely of Obama to take a different tack, but anti-Russian rhetoric was and is commonplace by both sides in the USA.
> > And openly mocked by the President who immediately preceded Russiagate. And before him, George W. Bush famously gushed about looking into Putin's eyes and seeing a good Christian. And Bill Clinton, before Bush, was so besotted with *his* opposite number that he openly intervened in a Russian election to get him elected. (Far more evidence for that one, incidentally, than anything produced in support of Russiagate.)
> 2017, James Clapper (former Director of many US intel agencies starting in 1991 under Bush Snr) said "the Russians are not our friends", because it is in their "genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed, to the United States and western democracies".
> We can play this game all day.

You play it badly. Clapper was speaking in June 2017 -- six months *after* the publication of the Steele Dossier and the rise of Russiagate. You cite him to prove a pre-Russiagate hostility. Do you have any idea how daft this makes you look?

Actually, it makes you look even dafter than that. Clapper made no threat of force, so his remarks aren't analogous to Clinton's. That's the case you were supposed to be making.

> The US political class, and the public majority, are opposed to Russia and have been since the early 1900s.

And now you remember part of that case. But you still think you've proven it with a remark from 2017!

> > But you want me to believe that these three post-Cold War administrations were also threatening to nuke the country
> More intellectual dishonesty.

Oh, really? Explain. And then give me an honest explanation for the gymnastics I've just cited. The only honest one I can think of would be pretty unflattering. I think I was too generous in casting it as daft.

> > > It's a Strawman as you seem to be the only person on the planet who took Hillary's words as a credible threat.
> > You can't even keep track of your own arguments. It was, as you point out, an articulation of existing US policy:
> Hillary's remarks were very early. And wrong. In hindsight, the email hacking was NOT enough to be considered an act of war (that justified a military response).
> Her threat was election bluster, that you have swallowed.

Make up your mind. Was it a simple articulation of existing US policy, or was Clinton idly blustering?

I note in passing that she's never seen a war she didn't like, so her bluster feels a lot less idle than most. See my earlier point (which you affected not to understand) about sabre usage.

> > > The UN charter allows for military response when attacked.
> > > It's perfectly ok for the USA to say "we consider some types of cyberattacks as acts of war, and we'll kick your teeth in if you do them to us".
> > No. It's not "perfectly okay." You're allowed under the UN Charter to respond with force to force. You're not allowed to respond with force when your emails are hacked, or when you don't like the Facebook advertising you're seeing.
> You misunderstand the Charter.
> Almost all countries, especially those with nukes, clearly threaten when they'll use such weapons.
> It's always in the form "you do X, we'll do Y".
> This is perfectly fine and normal.

You do realise that the onus is on you to explain misunderstandings when you allege them? Where does mine lie?

Here's the relevant provision (since we both know you haven't read it):

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." - Article 2(4)

What does this mean, and how do you square it with the reading you've put forward? What, specifically, does "threat" mean? Does it mean anything at all? If not, why not? And how do you square *that* with the views of the leading scholars in the field? I find no support for your position, and plenty for mine, in the likes of Romana Sadurska, Francis Grimal, Marc Weller, Ian Brownlie, Aidan O'Neill and Nikolas Stürchler, who have written at length on this topic.

> > > > > I would say China sabre-rattles more than anyone today.
> > > > And I would say they don't.
> > > > I'd also observe that they're a good deal more responsible in the far more important question of their sabre-usage. They haven't been to war in my lifetime. I've lost count of American wars in the same period.
> > > Haven't been to war in your lifetime? Perhaps you don't understand what I meant by sabre-rattling.
> > Perhaps you ought to clear your mind next time you approach one of my ripostes.
> China invasion count has zero to do with China's sabre-rattling count.

I explained what sabre rattling had to do with sabre usage -- astonishing that I had to -- but you've slyly snipped that out. You do that with a great many points you find unanswerable. Don't think I haven't noticed. It's hard not to, since I've diligently answered everything you put to me.

> The latter is the opposite of the former.

A known murder approaches JZ, armed to the teeth, and threatens to blow him to pieces.

Saith JZ: "Your record of murder has nothing to do with your threat of murder. The latter is the opposite of the former."

JZ is murdered.

Poor JZ.

> > > Ending the INF benefited Russia.
> > I ask again: How does it benefit Russia to enter an arms race with the United States?
> There are other threats than just the USA. Russia wanted out of the INF, they got it, thanks to Trump.

UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.

Another blow to Russiagate.

Rodney

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 12:12:57 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> UPDATE: I note that Putin chose to invade Ukraine in February 2022, and not any time between 2017 and 2020, when I'm assured he had a stooge in the White House.
>
> Another blow to Russiagate.
>
> Rodney

The Trump that suggested the US should pull out of NATO? Yeah.... Trump was Putin's bitch.