An important geopolitical link?

[Doc]

The link between:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/13/cnn-british-intelligence-provided-trump-russian-intercepts-to-us-agencies/

"CNN reported Thursday that their sources indicate British intelligence services provided U.S. agencies with intercepts they obtained between Trump campaign associates and the Russian government. "

- and -

https://www.rt.com/uk/387982-micheal-fallon-yemen-saudi/

UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon has claimed Saudi Arabia is just defending itself by bombing famine-threatened Yemen, arguing the Gulf state is entitled to ask its allies for help.

UK military personnel have been providing Saudi forces with airstrike and artillery training and Britain has sold billions of pounds’ worth of arms to the Gulf theocracy.

- might be important to note if one wants to understand the current state of affairs in Washington.

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

I'm not the biggest fan of The Blaze. Glenn Beck has kind of gone off the deep end recently.

RT is a propaganda site, better used to gauge the thinking of Russia rather than for real news. Though they do come up with interesting stuff from time to time. I wouldn't blow them off, but I would take RT with an ocean-sized grain of salt.

 

[Doc]

I'm not the biggest fan of The Blaze. Glenn Beck has kind of gone off the deep end recently.

I have no idea who Glenn Beck is apart from hearing his name in some "Soros is behind it"-video. I just googled "british intelligence" + "Trump" so to have something to quote as I remembered the story it self from several sources. There are thousands of hits less than 70 hrs old in a search like that. Do you doubt that MI6 said this? If so, why?

RT is a propaganda site,

Of course they are. So is everyone else. Either propagandists or unschooled enough to have bought into a narrative.

better used to gauge the thinking of Russia rather than for real news. Though they do come up with interesting stuff from time to time. I wouldn't blow them off, but I would take RT with an ocean-sized grain of salt.

In light of the above, will not a disclaimer like thisone be alot of work every time someone quotes anything at all? Or do you reserve them for Russian propaganda? I would actually think it more important for an english/american website that wants to remain enlightened to warn against CNN, The Sun and FOX as more westerners seem to be fooled by their narrative than the russian one?

To get this back on topic:

No matter the sources, if we accept that:

1) MI6 delivered intel on POTUS
2) MI6 works closely with Saudi

This makes for an interesting connection. Don't you agree? Or do you think those are huge disinformation campaigns by this Beck Dude and the Russians?

 

[Navarro]

The link between ... - might be important to note if one wants to understand the current state of affairs in Washington.

You have specified no link. This appears to be a weak argument by suggestion. On what grounds do you base your suggestion that there's a link between GCHQ, the Saudis and the "current state of affairs in Washington?" Are you in fact suggesting a link between GCHQ/Saudis and the present Comey affair? If so, I'd be interested to see you qualify your presently unsubstantiated suggestion.

No matter the sources, if we accept that:

1) MI6 delivered intel on POTUS
2) MI6 works closely with Saudi

This appears a fallacious argument unless you're able to substantiate. I intend no hostility of course, but I'd like to see your reasoning.

I'm not the biggest fan of The Blaze.

Irrelevant.

RT is a propaganda site, better used to gauge the thinking of Russia rather than for real news.

RT is absolutely foreign propaganda, but all major media outlets produce propaganda, be it intended for domestic or foreign consumption. Spin, obfuscation, misrepresentation - whatever furthers the local narrative. One would be a fool to believe Fox News is a reliable source and Russia Today not. Neither are reliable. In order to determine the truth, one must critically assess all reports, and verify any information which is verifiable, in an objective fashion. This is often easily accomplished, for anyone actually interested in facts and verification, rather than the maintenance of narrative.

Here's a report from the Independent on the subject, containing a video of Fallon making the "defending themselves" statement reported by RT:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michael-fallon-saudia-arabia-defend-itself-yemen-bombing-defence-secretary-friends-allies-a7729441.html

"Senior British military officers are providing targeting training to Saudi forces, including for cruise missile attacks, despite the kingdom’s airstrikes on neighbouring Yemen provoking an international outcry over civilian casualties."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/15/uk-army-officers-provide-targeting-training-saudi-military

The training statement:
"The UK has provided training courses for Royal Saudi Air Force personnel and artillery training for the Royal Saudi Land Forces." - Michael Fallon
https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-12-20/58373/

Requires only a very small effort, a desire to know the truth, a willingness to challenge one's preconceptions, and a willingness to accept the facts, however inconvenient.

 

[Capstone]

To get this back on topic:

No matter the sources, if we accept that:

1) MI6 delivered intel on POTUS
2) MI6 works closely with Saudi

This makes for an interesting connection. Don't you agree? Or do you think those are huge disinformation campaigns by this Beck Dude and the Russians?

1. I think MI6 delivered intel on Trump's campaign associates contact with Russia. That isn't shocking or anything necessarily new.

2. MI6 and most Western governments including the US work with Saudi closely and we've encouraged the proxy war in Yemen since everyone fears Iran is going to become a regional hegemon unless the Wahhabi states counter the growing power in Tehran.

I'm not sure what those things mean or why we might view them as being connected.

 

[Doc]

No matter the sources, if we accept that:

1) MI6 delivered intel on POTUS
2) MI6 works closely with Saudi

This appears a fallacious argument unless you're able to substantiate. I intend no hostility of course, but I'd like to see your reasoning.

That in itself is not an argument, but two statements.

It was done so, presisely because if such a link exists, it will of course be very hard to substantiate anything at all without shortly thereafter falling off London bridge in a bad shaving accident.

The link between ... - might be important to note if one wants to understand the current state of affairs in Washington.

You have specified no link. This appears to be a weak argument by suggestion. On what grounds do you base your suggestion that there's a link between GCHQ, the Saudis and the "current state of affairs in Washington?" Are you in fact suggesting a link between GCHQ/Saudis and the present Comey affair? If so, I'd be interested to see you qualify your presently unsubstantiated suggestion.

And I'd be interested in seeing my grandchildren graduate.

It is indeed a weak argument by suggestion. I do find it interesting that MI6 knows about alot of dirt on alot of people, including connections to Russia, yet never discloses much. They were silent during the election, yet at this particular point in time, they suddely choose a disclosure policy.
Do you think they just randomly at the monday morning sitdown found out that: "hey, lets go public about some head of state today! What about our closest ally? Can we f*ck up the week for them?

What is their agenda?

I propose one obvious explanation: the current administration is run by people who are in competition with the Saudis. (American oil). They have elected a president who is mentally challenged (measurable by verbal data). Surely it is possile that they would want to limit the power of their competitors? And if so, you would have to expect a pushback.

Short of releasing a medical examination of the president, releasing a connection to Russia that of course exists would be the best thing MI6 could do to protect their asset, The Al-Saudis and the Al-Wahhabis.

This is guesswork, of course. So feel free to present a better explanation to why MI6 suddenly started engaging themselves in American politics. (Please note also that noone cared that they did....)

 

[Navarro]

It was done so, presisely because if such a link exists, it will of course be very hard to substantiate anything at all without shortly thereafter falling off London bridge in a bad shaving accident ... And I'd be interested in seeing my grandchildren graduate ... I do find it interesting that MI6 knows about alot of dirt on alot of people, including connections to Russia, yet never discloses much. They were silent during the election, yet at this particular point in time, they suddely choose a disclosure policy. Do you think they just randomly at the monday morning sitdown found out that: "hey, lets go public about some head of state today! What about our closest ally? Can we f*ck up the week for them? What is their agenda? I propose one obvious explanation: the current administration is run by people who are in competition with the Saudis. (American oil).

Cunning and logical. I do however observe a significant flaw. The British are aligned with the Saudis because it's a convenient arrangement. Why should UK be primarily motivated by Saudi interests?

This is guesswork, of course. So feel free to present a better explanation to why MI6 suddenly started engaging themselves in American politics. (Please note also that noone cared that they did....)

I maintain that the western order desires to sabotage and to contain Trump, preventing him from normalizing relations with Russia. UK/Mi6 is motivated to maintain the current "Cold War." Trump was manipulated into firing Comey, in the midst of Comey investigating an alleged Trump-Russia conspiracy. The result was predictably self-sabotage. Trump's aids either didn't advise him of that obvious outcome, or they weren't motivated to be sufficiently influential and convincing. Either way, we arrive at the current circumstance where Trump's people advised him to terminate Comey, as documented and a matter of public record, though they now deny having ever offered that advise - an indisputable deception.

Where, Trump's termination of Comey came a day prior to Lavrov arriving in DC for talks with Tillerson and Trump. Two days prior to Lavrov's meeting in Fairbanks Alaska. Days after Trump and Putin had spoken on the phone about cooperation. Where, the western media had been surprisingly quiet about Lavrov's meeting in DC, the telephone conversation between Trump and Putin, the arranged meeting between Trump and Putin, seemingly releasing that information long after Russian media. Days, not weeks. They were then apparently awaiting the appropriate moment to do so - a moment which would have the greatest impact on the American public consciousness. In the midst of the present ongoing scandal. Thus, Trump is sabotaged and contained, unable to effectively pursue normalization of relations and cooperation with Russia. A very advantageous circumstance for those motivated by the interests of the order.

 

[Capstone]

Short of releasing a medical examination of the president, releasing a connection to Russia that of course exists would be the best thing MI6 could do to protect their asset, The Al-Saudis and the Al-Wahhabis.

This is guesswork, of course. So feel free to present a better explanation to why MI6 suddenly started engaging themselves in American politics. (Please note also that noone cared that they did....)

From my understanding, the Saudi leadership is very happy to have Trump instead of Clinton and detested Obama. The king appointed one of his son's as new ambassador to the US in an effort to bolster ties with Trump.

 

[Capstone]

I maintain that the western order desires to sabotage and to contain Trump, preventing him from normalizing relations with Russia. UK/Mi6 is motivated to maintain the current Cold War.

I think this is most plausible. Everyone from the military-industrial complex to the massive Cold War government bureaucracy has a stake in continuing massive military spending--even if that spending on weapons systems to fight a European land war isn't the best use of resources in the current geopolitical situation--and to do that we need a boogeyman. Putin fits the bill nicely. BONUS: because Democrats can't believe their horrible candidate lost to a bad GOP candidate, the Russians obviously must have rigged the election and now all those voters hate Putin and will support wars or spending or whatever to harm him.

 

[Doc]

Cunning and logical. I do however observe a significant flaw. The British are aligned with the Saudis because it's a convenient arrangement. Why should UK be primarily motivated by Saudi interests?

This goes back to the days of comeing war with the Ottoman empire. The Saudis and Wahhabists have been British intelligence assets since then. It is one of the more important remains of the British empire.

I maintain that the western order desires to sabotage and to contain Trump, preventing him from normalizing relations with Russia. UK/Mi6 is motivated to maintain the current "Cold War".

I agree, but the question is why? What do they need the Russian enemy for in your model as long as the world is scared shitless by their Wahhabists?

Trump was manipulated into firing Comey, in the midst of Comey investigating an alleged Trump-Russia conspiracy. The result was predictably self-sabotage. Trump's aids either didn't advise him of that obvious outcome, or they weren't motivated to be sufficiently influential and convincing. Either way, we arrive at the current circumstance where Trump's people advised him to terminate Comey, as documented and a matter of public record, though they now deny having ever offered that advise - an indisputable deception.

I agree. Rather obvious.

Where, Trump's termination of Comey came a day prior to Lavrov arriving in DC for talks with Tillerson and Trump. Two days prior to Lavrov's meeting in Fairbanks Alaska. Days after Trump and Putin had spoken on the phone about cooperation. Where, the western media had been surprisingly quiet about Lavrov's meeting in DC, the telephone conversation between Trump and Putin, the arranged meeting between Trump and Putin, seemingly releasing that information long after Russian media. Days, not weeks. They were then apparently awaiting the appropriate moment to do so - a moment which would have the greatest impact on the American public consciousness. In the midst of the present ongoing scandal. Thus, Trump is sabotaged and contained, unable to effectively pursue normalization of relations and cooperation with Russia. A very advantageous circumstance for those motivated by the interests of the order.

Good for saudi who had a finger in the last two administrations - and bad for those who bought the current presidency. Which was my original point.

 

[Doc]

I maintain that the western order desires to sabotage and to contain Trump, preventing him from normalizing relations with Russia. UK/Mi6 is motivated to maintain the current Cold War.

I think this is most plausible. Everyone from the military-industrial complex to the massive Cold War government bureaucracy has a stake in continuing massive military spending--even if that spending on weapons systems to fight a European land war isn't the best use of resources in the current geopolitical situation--and to do that we need a boogeyman. Putin fits the bill nicely. BONUS: because Democrats can't believe their horrible candidate lost to a bad GOP candidate, the Russians obviously must have rigged the election and now all those voters hate Putin and will support wars or spending or whatever to harm him.

Which is bad for Exxon Mobile. Who payed good money for the current presidency. Don't you think they want their investment to pay off?