The Latest Putin Kerfuffle

[What Would Jesus Do?]

They are trying to stir up a big fuss over the years-ago plutonium poisoning of Russian ex-KGB defector Litvinenko.

The only new news is that Putin gave the order. Except that they aren't really saying that. They are just saying that they figure he must have known or given the order. But they have zero evidence to back that up.

So there really doesn't seem to be any new news.

I mean, really - didn't we all assume it was a hit when we first heard about it?

Why is this news 9 years later?

 

[The Tradition]

The story resurfaced now because a British inquiry released a report that said Putin was probably involved.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The story resurfaced now because a British inquiry released a report that said Putin was probably involved.

Yes. That's what I'm talking about. What's the point of that? And even if there were a good reason for the Brit action, why is it getting air play when all it does is tell us what we already thought we knew?

 

[The Tradition]

Yes. That's what I'm talking about. What's the point of that? And even if there were a good reason for the Brit action, why is it getting air play when all it does is tell us what we already thought we knew?

It's similar to how the "Fast and Furious" scandal is back in the news thanks to a court decision and one of the .50 caliber rifles being found at El Chapo's hideout.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

I keep saying it will be at least 9 years till they nail obama for his crimes. This is how it works. They are just now hammering bill clinton for 20-40 year old crimes

 

[Nat Algren]

One guy is nothing. Obama and Bush had ordered the deaths of millions. Many civilians.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

One guy is nothing. Obama and Bush had ordered the deaths of millions. Many civilians.

That's sort of what I'm thinking. Not so much the mass slaughter angle, but do people think we've never taken out a traitor - either to shut him up or to teach a lesson? Do people think Obama or Bush or Clinton (and take it back as far as you want) order every such action?

Traitors take a risk. This guy was KGB and defected. He might have been a very nice guy or he might have been a monster. Who knows? But it's easy to imagine the KGB would be pissed. Just as it's easy to imagine the CIA or MI6 would be pissed if it was one of their operatives who defected.

 

[The Tradition]

That's sort of what I'm thinking. Not so much the mass slaughter angle, but do people think we've never taken out a traitor - either to shut him up or to teach a lesson? Do people think Obama or Bush or Clinton (and take it back as far as you want) order every such action?

Traitors take a risk. This guy was KGB and defected. He might have been a very nice guy or he might have been a monster. Who knows? But it's easy to imagine the KGB would be pissed. Just as it's easy to imagine the CIA or MI6 would be pissed if it was one of their operatives who defected.

Radioactive tea is a pretty awful (and reckless) way to take someone out, though.

 

[HawkEngineer]

Radioactive tea is a pretty awful (and reckless) way to take someone out, though.

But it sure makes a statement

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Radioactive tea is a pretty awful (and reckless) way to take someone out, though.

slow, painful death...message was sent

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That's sort of what I'm thinking. Not so much the mass slaughter angle, but do people think we've never taken out a traitor - either to shut him up or to teach a lesson? Do people think Obama or Bush or Clinton (and take it back as far as you want) order every such action?

Traitors take a risk. This guy was KGB and defected. He might have been a very nice guy or he might have been a monster. Who knows? But it's easy to imagine the KGB would be pissed. Just as it's easy to imagine the CIA or MI6 would be pissed if it was one of their operatives who defected.

Depends on the traitor I suppose. But I have to point out this guy didn't sound like he was any real threat to Russia other then speaking out against them.

Generally speaking we don't order hits on someone who's just out there speaking out against us. There has been no hit on Snowden that I know of and I doubt there ever will be unless he starts doing something that is a more direct threat.

Now that having been said I also acknowledge that we drop bombs on US citizens without trial because they are suspected terrorists. But we also drop bombs in just about any suspected terrorist without trial. It isn't the traitor thing so much as it's the suspected terrorism thing. And we also blow up civilians because they are near the suspected terrorist (who isn't always in the middle of no where but often in villages or cities) or they might be in a place where we suspected a terrorist *MIGHT BE*.

So I acknowledge that the US can't exactly claim innocence on a lot of levels but I don't remember any time in the modern era of us ordering a hit on a person who was only speaking out openly against the US.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Depends on the traitor I suppose. But I have to point out this guy didn't sound like he was any real threat to Russia other then speaking out against them.

Generally speaking we don't order hits on someone who's just out there speaking out against us. There has been no hit on Snowden that I know of and I doubt there ever will be unless he starts doing something that is a more direct threat.

Now that having been said I also acknowledge that we drop bombs on US citizens without trial because they are suspected terrorists. But we also drop bombs in just about any suspected terrorist without trial. It isn't the traitor thing so much as it's the suspected terrorism thing. And we also blow up civilians because they are near the suspected terrorist (who isn't always in the middle of no where but often in villages or cities) or they might be in a place where we suspected a terrorist *MIGHT BE*.

So I acknowledge that the US can't exactly claim innocence on a lot of levels but I don't remember any time in the modern era of us ordering a hit on a person who was only speaking out openly against the US.

I can't either. But we've locked them away. Even including well-recognized presidential candidates.

Something to keep in mind: we're supposed to be the good guys. Hardly anyone (over here) is saying Putin and Russia are the good guys.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I can't either. But we've locked them away. Even including well-recognized presidential candidates.

Oh we lock them away, we just don't have them knocked off.

Something to keep in mind: we're supposed to be the good guys. Hardly anyone (over here) is saying Putin and Russia are the good guys.

Everyone believes they are the good guys or aspires to be. Reality is that no one is. . . at least not all of the time.

Why do you think I'm a Christian.

 

[The Tradition]

So I acknowledge that the US can't exactly claim innocence on a lot of levels but I don't remember any time in the modern era of us ordering a hit on a person who was only speaking out openly against the US.

Do a little google search for Anwar al-Awlaki.

 

[N_fuego]

But it sure makes a statement

An 'easy to trace back to Moscow' statement too.