Classified reports have ‘damning evidence’ of Trump campaign’s coordination with Russ

[Colonel Hogan]

The middle east crisis has lots of intriguing details regarding who is fighting with whom and who their allies are.

Our allies are our friends in one theater and enemies in another. Russia has the same problems. Some of their allies in Syria are terrorists back home. The only distinction is which border they hide behind.

That's way too complicated for him to understand. Like how we could have an alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia at the same time.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes, he would, even with a Pub-majority Congress. It really is that complicated, but Trump lacks the mental capacity to understand anything complicated.

it is your limited mental capacity driving those ever-expanding boundaries of your own misunderstanding of unfolding events. That unfortunate limitation leaves you responding impotently with mythical personal attacks having no basis in fact.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Since I am, in fact, an 'operative' - although I won't say of whom/which State - and seeing that most of the actual narrative seeding about 'Russian' involvement in ANYTHING started right here in this website and on 4Chan from me(!), I like to look in from time to time on threads like this to see if anyone knows anything significant.

I can go into details about what directives were issued to a small group of professional journalists and advertising and 'other' executives via the Kremlin, and what this was really all about.

Some of you may recall that I voiced a mild complaint that a story re the Boston Marathon bombing that I posted, was not only entirely removed from this site, but it was (the related files were) totally (remotely) wiped clean from my own PC(!!) the actual morning of the incident in Boston itself - which was of some interest to me, that anyone (I wasn't directly advised of in advance) could actually do that from some remote location.

It's not really any secret that there are possible only two or three US government agencies involved in this kind of thing, and they don't co-ordinate with and nor do they appear to have the support of all the other Intelligence and Criminal Investigation agencies in the US or in fact anywhere. Which is why, I believe, I have never been openly warned by any official source, although on a different matter (not the Russian collusion thing) I HAVE been warned by the local Intelligence Services in a very 'soggy newspaper' kind of way.

At the moment I have no real fear of anyone interdicting what I am saying here.

If there is any genuine interest in knowing what is really going on and what the 'Classified' information about so-called 'Russian collusion' actually contains, and there are not too many people mindlessly and ignorantly responding here trying to gainsay who I am and what I can do, I will reveal it all here in a summary form...

 

[KingOrfeo]

Since I am, in fact, an 'operative' - although I won't say of whom/which State - and seeing that most of the actual narrative seeding about 'Russian' involvement in ANYTHING started right here in this website and on 4Chan from me(!), I like to look in from time to time on threads like this to see if anyone knows anything significant.

I don't think this is a forum where any government would plant leaks, so most of us just know what we get from the media.

 

[Rightguide]

I don't think this is a forum where any government would plant leaks, so most of us just know what we get from the media.

Those on the right, however, are steeped in vast knowledge and perspective with which we labor mightily to educate the damaged intellects of the triggered unwiped left.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Now that the charge is obstruction, we can put collusion to bed.



Democrats in the know know that the collusion charge is a hollow lie...



How long will it take for Kingo to catch on that he is chasing the shadow of a shadow?

 

[Rightguide]

Now that the charge is obstruction, we can put collusion to bed.



Democrats in the know know that the collusion charge is a hollow lie...



How long will it take for Kingo to catch on that he is chasing the shadow of a shadow?

He may have already reached the intellectual limits of his ruptured DNA.

 

[KingOrfeo]

John Oliver calls this "Stupid Watergate."

 

[KingOrfeo]

That's way too complicated for him to understand. Like how we could have an alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia at the same time.

Because they're not actually at war, I suppose. But there's still no good reason to be allied with either.

 

[HisArpy]

Because they're not actually at war, I suppose. But there's still no good reason to be allied with either.

Elucidate please.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Elucidate please.

Each is morally repellent in its way, and neither offers us much material advantage. In a post-Cold-War world, the only good reason for America to have alliances in the MENA at all is to get support in the GWOT, and that is really not as big a deal as it has been made out to be. Terrorists are weak, that's why they're terrorists -- bombing and hijacking and so on are all they have the means to do. As for oil, aren't we exporting it now, while at the same time developing alternatives?

 

[HisArpy]

What makes an alliance "morally repellent"?

We use our alliances as footprints to show that we have a presence in those areas. We use our alliances as stepping stones to ensure that our military has a place to land or launch from. We use our alliances as a port of safe haven for both military and civilians.

There is nothing "morally repellent" in those things. We are not taking advantage of anyone or any nation.

No material advantage? By being able to fly over Turkey in the event of need, having a base is Saudi Arabia to deploy troops, to port for liberty or fuel or supplies in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia or Israel we gain an advantage we don't have without the alliance.

All of these things have STRATEGIC material advantages. From preparatory for military actions, to patrolling against piracy, to peacekeeping, to aid in the event of a disaster.

So, tell me again why there is "no good reason" for having an alliance with a foreign nation?

 

[KingOrfeo]

What makes an alliance "morally repellent"?

Having it with a morally repellent government. There was entirely too much of that during the Cold War; it might have been strategically necessary or at least defensible, but allying with any dictatorship that was not Communist made the U.S. look hypocritical. Now that the Cold War is over, we can well afford to discontinue the practice.

We use our alliances as footprints to show that we have a presence in those areas. We use our alliances as stepping stones to ensure that our military has a place to land or launch from. We use our alliances as a port of safe haven for both military and civilians.

We don't need any of that in the MENA. Nor in most other parts of the world, either. We don't need a global military presence. We don't need global military hegemony. We don't need an empire.

 

[HisArpy]

Having it with a morally repellent government.



We don't need any of that in the MENA. Nor in most other parts of the world, either. We don't need a global military presence. We don't need global military hegemony. We don't need an empire.

Ok, now you're being silly again.

The alliance is "morally repellent" because it's with a "morally repellent government"?

AND

Because; "Alliances? We don't "need no stinkin' alliances"?

What is "morally repellent" about the government if Israel? Or Saudi Arabia? It's the government their citizens chose and, presumably, want. If that's the case, who are YOU to tell them otherwise on moral grounds? And, if we choose to have an alliance with them, doesn't that open the door to maybe helping them change their immoral evil ways?

As for the global presence, we are INVITED and REQUESTED to do those things by the participating nations. They (supposedly) pay for the privilege of having us be the world's policeman. We do this in cooperation with the UN (which member nations, BTW, also use those "alliances" of ours for the same purpose) to help keep the peace and ensure nations can continue to engage in trade. We use those alliances to provide staging areas so that supplies and aid can be flown in before being distributed to those in need - like say after a major landslide or flood or eruption or earthquake or...

So it's not whether you think we "need' those things or not, because we do. It's because you made a ridiculous statement and now need to support it somehow in any way possible. Even if it makes you sound silly.

You do that a lot. You probably should stop.

 

[KingOrfeo]

What is "morally repellent" about the government if Israel? Or Saudi Arabia? It's the government their citizens chose and, presumably, want.

Israel rules and oppresses a large number of noncitizens, who have no voice in the government, and whom it treats as hostile aliens. And in SA's government, the citizens choose nothing, it's an absolute monarchy without even a rubber-stamp parliament, and allows women few rights, and is highly intolerant in religious matters, and political protest is punishable by death.

I repeat: There was entirely too much of such alliances during the Cold War; it might have been strategically necessary or at least defensible, but allying with any dictatorship that was not Communist made the U.S. look hypocritical. Now that the Cold War is over, we can well afford to discontinue the practice.

Because; "Alliances? We don't "need no stinkin' alliances"?

Sometimes we do -- couldn't have won WWII without the USSR. But this is not such a time.

 

[HisArpy]

Israel rules and oppresses a large number of noncitizens, who have no voice in the government, and whom it treats as hostile aliens.

This is true. But it doesn't make their government "morally repellent". China mistreats Christians on religious grounds. They aren't "morally repellent". Most South American governments treat their citizens poorly and force them to live in poverty while the government leaders amass huge amounts of wealth. Those nations aren't "morally repellent". Haiti's government is totally corrupt, but it's not "morally repellent".

By your standard almost every government in the world is "morally repellent" (even the US) because at some point every government has to make choices that you don't personally agree with.

That doesn't make those governments immoral. Just your view of them making you see them as such.


And in SA's government, the citizens choose nothing, it's an absolute monarchy without even a rubber-stamp parliament, and allows women few rights, and is highly intolerant in religious matters, and political protest is punishable by death.


Not totally true. They chose their form of government. they chose their form of sectarian rule. They support that government by either choice or acquiescence. THEIR choice, not yours. You don't get to tell them they are immoral because of it.

I repeat: There was entirely too much of such alliances during the Cold War; it might have been strategically necessary or at least defensible, but allying with any dictatorship that was not Communist made the U.S. look hypocritical. Now that the Cold War is over, we can well afford to discontinue the practice.



Sometimes we do -- couldn't have won WWII without the USSR. But this is not such a time.

Oh? So the middle east isn't melting down to a point that it will involve the US even if we decided to pull back to only our own shores? Russia isn't on a campaign of aggression? ISIS isn't invading Europe? Illegal drugs aren't traveling the seas in huge amounts from port to port to port to eventually land here in the US?

Alliances have LOTS of reasons to exist besides military ones. But here's one example you may not have thought of; perhaps an alliance of some sort with China could help stop North Korea's nuclear conquest ambitions. That might be a good thing in this day of post cold-war events. Ever think of that?

 

[KingOrfeo]

This is true. But it doesn't make their government "morally repellent". China mistreats Christians on religious grounds. They aren't "morally repellent". Most South American governments treat their citizens poorly and force them to live in poverty while the government leaders amass huge amounts of wealth. Those nations aren't "morally repellent". Haiti's government is totally corrupt, but it's not "morally repellent".

Of course they are. Now, there is no reason why we shouldn't have friendly relations with such states; I consider Cuba's government repellent, but I've always favored ending sanctions and normalizing relations. But an alliance includes a commitment to defend the allied government from all threats foreign and domestic. Even a dictatorship is worth so defending under some circumstances, depending on what threatens to replace it; but we should make no commitments to defend them under all circumstances. America should never practice such cynical realpolitik save when circumstances make it urgently necessary, and present circumstances do not.

Oh? So the middle east isn't melting down to a point that it will involve the US even if we decided to pull back to only our own shores?

How would it? We can afford to largely ignore the MENA in military terms, and terrorism is a policing problem.

Russia isn't on a campaign of aggression?

Let the Euros worry about that. Russia's expansionist ambitions almost certainly end at the borders of the old USSR, and can easily be stopped further east than that.

ISIS isn't invading Europe?

ISIS isn't invading Europe. Infiltration and terrorism are not invasion, and can be dealt with by non-military means.

Illegal drugs aren't traveling the seas in huge amounts from port to port to port to eventually land here in the US?

Of course they are. SFW? That is not a matter that even deserves government or public attention. Any recreational drugs not produced domestically will find their way into this country so long as demand exists.

Alliances have LOTS of reasons to exist besides military ones.

None that cannot be satisfied by non-military treaties.

But here's one example you may not have thought of; perhaps an alliance of some sort with China could help stop North Korea's nuclear conquest ambitions. That might be a good thing in this day of post cold-war events. Ever think of that?

NK has no "conquest ambitions." Not even Kim is irrational enough to think he could ever try to conquer SK and survive. NK has nukes because the regime is paranoid for its very survival. And U.S.-Chinese alliance is really not in the cards; Taiwan complicates matters too much, for one thing, and so does Japan, and U.S. and Chinese geopolitical goals in East Asia are flatly incompatible -- China wants to restore its historic role as hegemon of the region, and America does not want to allow that. Now, I'm not against trying to talk China out of giving NK any support or even into subverting its regime -- probably not that difficult, NK is nothing to them any more but an embarrassing poor and crazy relative -- but we can do that without offering an alliance.

 

[KingOrfeo]

[Please do not post copyright material without citation, and then limit your excerpts to less than 5 paragraphs, per our forum guidelines.]

 

[KingOrfeo]

John Brennan testifies: There were at least known "contacts and interactions" between the Trump team and Russian agents.

Also, Trump asked the DNI and the NSA chief to publicly deny any evidence of cooperation between his campaign and the Russians.

There is some there there.

 

[Beco]

Congressman: Classified reports have ‘damning evidence’ of Trump campaign’s coordination with Russia.

and I have a 10" dick.....

 

[Beco]

The important thing is to keep this in the news. Right now everyone is focused on Trump's healthcare failure. That distracts people from the real issue of collusion with Russia.

and his Islamic ban....failed twice, unfortunately

 

[KingOrfeo]

and I have a 10" dick.....

And the average depth of a vagina is 3-4 inches. Expandable, of course, but not necessarily worth expanding if you're not filming porn.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/penises.png

 

[KingOrfeo]

and his Islamic ban....failed twice, unfortunately

Why unfortunately? It's a pointless, ugly, and unjust solution to a non-problem.

 

[HisArpy]

Of course they are. Now, there is no reason why we shouldn't have friendly relations with such states; I consider Cuba's government repellent, but I've always favored ending sanctions and normalizing relations. But an alliance includes a commitment to defend the allied government from all threats foreign and domestic. Even a dictatorship is worth so defending under some circumstances, depending on what threatens to replace it; but we should make no commitments to defend them under all circumstances. America should never practice such cynical realpolitik save when circumstances make it urgently necessary, and present circumstances do not.



How would it? We can afford to largely ignore the MENA in military terms, and terrorism is a policing problem.



Let the Euros worry about that. Russia's expansionist ambitions almost certainly end at the borders of the old USSR, and can easily be stopped further east than that.



ISIS isn't invading Europe. Infiltration and terrorism are not invasion, and can be dealt with by non-military means.



Of course they are. SFW? That is not a matter that even deserves government or public attention. Any recreational drugs not produced domestically will find their way into this country so long as demand exists.



None that cannot be satisfied by non-military treaties.



NK has no "conquest ambitions." Not even Kim is irrational enough to think he could ever try to conquer SK and survive. NK has nukes because the regime is paranoid for its very survival. And U.S.-Chinese alliance is really not in the cards; Taiwan complicates matters too much, for one thing, and so does Japan, and U.S. and Chinese geopolitical goals in East Asia are flatly incompatible -- China wants to restore its historic role as hegemon of the region, and America does not want to allow that. Now, I'm not against trying to talk China out of giving NK any support or even into subverting its regime -- probably not that difficult, NK is nothing to them any more but an embarrassing poor and crazy relative -- but we can do that without offering an alliance.

In an effort to be brief I'm not going to go line by line here. However, I do believe that your views on this are a bit simplistic.

On the one hand you espouse nonalliance with any other nation. Meanwhile, aggressor nations like Russia are free to do what they want because that's "someone else's problem".

This was the exact thinking which brought the world both World Wars.

On the other hand, you also espouse aiding those nations which need political or military assistance, irrespective of what political government they have, on a case by case basis.

The 2 views aren't exactly compatible. Rather, the 2 views are an ad hoc attempt to avoid responsibility and conflict while allowing others to do whatever they wish. Then transferring the promised obligation to defend the weak onto others through a denial of duty. All while propping oneself up as moralistic.

It doesn't wash. Sorry. It's cowardly and dishonorable and leaves a really bad taste in the mouth both politically and as part of the national character.

 

[KingOrfeo]

On the one hand you espouse nonalliance with any other nation.

No, with some nations. George Washington felt the same way only more so, he was against all "entangling alliances," he did not want America caught up in the diplomatic power-games that were practiced in Europe at the time; and in hindsight he probably was right for his time, but times are different now, the world is smaller, and some alliances may be necessary or at least defensible -- but not with regimes morally repellent to American liberal-democratic sensibilities.

Meanwhile, aggressor nations like Russia are free to do what they want because that's "someone else's problem".

This was the exact thinking which brought the world both World Wars.

American isolationism did not cause them and non-isolationism would not have prevented them.

On the other hand, you also espouse aiding those nations which need political or military assistance, irrespective of what political government they have, on a case by case basis.

The 2 views aren't exactly compatible.

Of course they are. It is formal alliance which commits America to defend an ally and precludes circumstantial case-by-case treatment; friendly non-alliance keeps options opens and allows case-by-case treatment. I want friendly American relations with Cuba, but I don't want America to defend its Communist regime unless it is against something even worse, like a fascist or theocratic movement.