W. Niederhut

European Parliament declares Russia a state sponsor of terrorism November 23, 2022 BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Parliament on Wednesday designated Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, arguing that its military strikes on Ukrainian civilian targets such as hospitals, schools and shelters violated international law. European lawmakers voted in favor of a resolution calling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. The move is largely symbolic, as the European Union does not have a legal framework in place to back it up. At the same time, the bloc has already imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. In the EU, the parliaments of four countries have so far designated Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, according to the European Parliamentary Research Service: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland.

Why the Nordstream 2 demolition was not an act of terrorism I. UN definition of terrorism / December 1994 (GA Res. 49/60) Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes II. The following types of violence or threat of violence usually fall outside of the definition of terrorism: Wartime (including a declared war) or peacetime acts of violence committed by a nation state against another nation state regardless of legality or illegality and are carried out by properly uniformed forces or legal combatants of such nation state Reasonable acts of self-defense, such as the use of force to kill, apprehend, or punish criminals who pose a threat to the lives of humans or property Legitimate targets in war, such as enemy combatants and strategic infrastructure that form an integral part of the enemy's war effort such as defense industries and ports

Ben, You, obviously, never read the Mueller Report or the U.S. Senate Intel Report on Russiagate. In fact, you didn't even read the Mueller Report summary that I posted for Mathew Koch! If you had done so, you would know that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence agent. And Kilimnik worked closely with Manafort in Ukraine, beginning in 2005, to install Putin's Kremlin puppet, Yanukovych, in the Ukrainian presidency. To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you're entitled to your own opinions about Russiagate, but not your own "facts."

Well, Ben, you could always ask our Kremlin expert, Jeff Carter. 🤓 Jeff assured us long ago that Manafort had a longstanding working relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik. But why did Manafort go to such great lengths to lie to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 campaign contacts with GRU agent Kilimnik, which included collusion--sharing polling data about the impending election? What was Manafort so desperate to hide from Mueller? The judge vehemently denounced Manafort for lying, before sentencing him to years in prison. (Of course, Manafort knew that Trump would pardon him for stonewalling Mueller's investigation.) I can clearly see that you're currently stuck in the MAGA-verse Russiagate-denial echo chamber, and that no contrary evidence will burst your Gerth-ian bubble. But posting redundant MAGA spam is no substitute for answering the hard questions about the damning evidence. Russiagate was no hoax. Are you aware that Trump's longstanding Russian mafia business associate, Felix Sater, bragged in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House?

Ben, The vapors appear to be mostly in your head. You need to do some remedial reading about Manafort, Kilimnik, the GRU, and Russian hacking of the 2016 U.S. election. Here's another interesting reference for you. (Bold italics mine.) TOP-SECRET NSA REPORT DETAILS RUSSIAN HACKING EFFORT DAYS BEFORE 2016 ELECTION A top-secret National Security Agency report details a months-long Russian hacking effort against the U.S. election infrastructure. NSA Report on Russian Hacking of U.S. Election (theintercept.com) June 5, 2017 Excerpt The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments. However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.

Well, it's gratifying to see John Cotter finally admit to Paul Brancato, albeit indirectly, that Putin has, in fact, committed war crimes in Ukraine. Hurrah! 🙄 Meanwhile, John, Chris, and Rigby never answered my question about the definition of terrorism-- while falsely claiming that it is "disingenuous." 🙄 As for Chris's question about ending the carnage in Ukraine, I have repeatedly expressed such a wish. Chris has either not read, or not understood, my comments on that subject. But is Putin willing to negotiate an end his terrorist campaign against Ukraine? Putin Goes All In: 140,000 Dead in Ukraine and He Won't Stop - 19FortyFive

Ben, You flunked Russiagate 101. You ducked all but one of the key questions. As for Manafort, I'm trying to help you connect the dots. It's, obviously, not working... 🥺 Why was Paul Manafort so desperately invested in lying to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 contacts with Russian GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik-- even committing perjury after striking a plea bargain deal? (And Manafort had worked with Kilimnik for years. He knew he was GRU.) What was Manafort so desperate to hide from Mueller? Are you aware that Manafort worked for the Kremlin prior to 2016 to manipulate Ukrainian elections for Putin? Next question. Did the Russian GRU hack any voter registration databases in U.S. states in 2016? Which states would GRU hackers have most likely targeted if they wanted to alter the outcome of the 2016 U.S. election? And how would GRU hackers have known where to concentrate their hacking efforts? Wouldn't they have needed expert intelligence from someone familiar with U.S. elections? Were there any anomalous vote counts in U.S. swing states in 2016--i.e., results that were markedly inconsistent with pre-election and exit-polling results? What were the unexpected vote differentials in the three states that gave Trump an improbable Electoral College victory in 2016-- Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- despite losing the popular vote by 2%? (Answer: Trump's unexpected EC victory hinged on a mere 80,000 votes in three states-- out of 150 million votes!) Were any legitimate ballots disqualified in swing states like Wisconsin in 2016-- based on post-election analyses? Why did Julian Assange Email Donald Trump, Jr. on election night in 2016, to advise Trump not to concede the election, based on preliminary results and exit polls from states that Trump was expected to lose-- e.g., Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania?

Ben, Let's hear your explanations for the following Russiagate facts. 1) Paul Manafort's 2016 contacts and sharing of polling data with Russian GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik. 2) Paul Manafort's perjury about his 2016 contacts with Kilimnik, even after he agreed to cooperate with Mueller's investigation. 3) Paul Manafort floating a Trump pardon to Rick Gates during Gates' interrogations by Mueller-- witness tampering that resulted in Manafort's placement in solitary confinement. 4) Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his December 2016 phone contacts with Kisylak. 5) Trump firing Comey (and McCabe) in order to obstruct the Flynn investigation. 6) Trump publicly denying in Helsinki the fact that Putin had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. 7) Trump lying about the fact that he was negotiating a Moscow Trump Tower deal in 2016 .

Yes, and, presumably, it's all NATO's fault... 🤓 As for your selective reading of the Prokop article, Ben, you left out the key part of Prokop's takedown of Gerth (bold italics mine.) As David Corn pointed out, Gerth's bogus revisionist history of Russiagate focused mainly on the Steele Dossier and Alfa Bank. And let's not forget about Paul Manafort and Roger Stone committing perjury and stonewalling Mueller's investigation-- after Trump floated pardons and later pardoned them. "A fuller recap of what the (Russiagate) scandal was all about would go something like this: What became the FBI’s investigation into Trump-Russia was opened in the summer of 2016 for reasons having nothing to do with Steele, Fusion, or Alfa Bank. That year, leading Democrats had seen their emails and documents stolen in hacks, later to surface on mysterious websites or to be published by WikiLeaks. Initial assessments blamed the Russian government for the hack (and Mueller’s team later confirmed those assessments, fleshing them out with much more detail). Trump viewed these leaks as highly beneficial to him, touting them constantly on the campaign trail, and even publicly calling on “Russia, if you’re listening” to find more Clinton emails. (He then claimed this was a joke, but in private, he urged his campaign advisers to try and get ahold of more Clinton emails.) While this was unfolding, the FBI received a tip that a little-known Trump foreign policy aide, George Papadopoulos, had been saying he knew Russia had damaging emails related to Clinton before any hack news was public. So the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation originally focused on a discrete question: Had the Russian government conveyed information about their plans to interfere in the 2016 election to someone on Trump’s team? This was, I would argue, an entirely reasonable question. And with hindsight, due to this investigation and reporting, we know that many shenanigans were indeed afoot. Trump’s longtime adviser Roger Stone was trying to get hacked Democratic emails from WikiLeaks in advance, while apparently informing Trump about his efforts. Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort was sharing the campaign’s polling data and strategy with an associate the FBI claims is tied to Russian intelligence. Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, had reached out to the Russian government to try to get a Trump Tower Moscow project going, though it didn’t end up happening. Donald Trump Jr. even welcomed an emailed offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton that was said to be “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” setting up a meeting with Manafort and Jared Kushner to discuss it. (They didn’t find the information useful.)

The question is the opposite of disingenuous, John, as are all of my posts. It's an honest question about the definition of the term, "terrorism." As for Mathew Koch and Chris Barnard's comments about my alleged "inconsistency," I'll refer them back to my criticism of the U.S. military industrial complex during the past half century (including an editorial I wrote for my school newspaper 50 years ago condemning Nixon's bombing of Cambodia.) Hopefully, Mathew and Chris will eventually figure that out. (I'm not holding my breath.)

Marina Yankina, Russian Defense Official, Falls From Window to Her Death (msn.com)

Paul, We are, certainly, involved in an erstwhile proxy war. Ukraine cannot defend its sovereignty without U.S. and NATO assistance. Contrary to what some confused forum members imagine, I, too, have long been a critic of both the U.S. military industrial complex (since WWII) and the post-WWII Soviet and neo-Soviet military industrial complex. I'm, basically, a progressive Social Democrat who opposed the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq (and the phony "War on Terror.") I'm also opposed to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and war crimes-- many of which seem calculated to terrorize and demoralize the Ukrainian people. My specific question for Chris has to do with the definition of terrorism. Is the strategic sabotage of military resources in time of war terrorism?

Nice fold. You, obviously, didn't read Prokop's article, or, if you did, you didn't understand it. It's extremely detailed and, essentially, unanswerable-- a knock out punch. I knew something was seriously wrong with Gerth when I first read his lengthy CJR article claiming that Russiagate was a hoax. At the time, I didn't know that Gerth had also been involved in promoting the phony Republican Whitewater pseudo-scandal to undermine Bill Clinton's Presidency.

Ben, Total cop out. Please dispense with the ad hominem non-rebuttal and respond to Prokop's detailed critique of Gerth's bogus CJR article. You, of all people, need to read Prokop's excellent analysis. Should I have posted Prokop's article in large print, as you have done with Gerth's Russiagate denial piece?

Chris, I'm re-posting my question, because it was immediately leap-frogged by Mathew Koch's deflective non sequitur (and ad hominem slur) about 9/11 and the Project for a New American Century. I have noticed that Mathew Koch frequently posts deflective non sequiturs immediately after my posts on this forum, usually in the form of YouTube videos. It's a form of t-r-o-l-l-i-n-g -- to disrupt dialogues. The subject under discussion, at present, is the demolition of the Nordstream pipeline in the context of the U.S. and NATO's response to Putin's invasion of Ukraine. My question about Ploesti has to do with the definition of "terrorism" vs. strategic military sabotage in time of war. 9/11 and the Project for a New America Century is a very important subject, but it has nothing to do with the subject of this debate.

Chris, Using your logic, do you and Paul Rigby consider the Allied bombing of the Ploesti oil fields during WWII to be an act of "terrorism?" Also, how many people were killed in the recent "terrorist" demolition of the Nordstream pipeline? Finally, are you and Paul Rigby troubled by Putin's "terrorist" bombings of residential apartment buildings, railroad stations, and playgrounds in Ukraine?

Not surprised. Apparently, Trump and the MAGAts are also angry about the "woke" Super Bowl last Sunday. MAGA Watched the Super Bowl and Didn’t Like What They Saw – Mother Jones I thought the hazmat suits in the half-time show were lame, but the Breaking Bad commercial was hilarious.

Hail, Brittania... 🤓 Apparently, our British government allies don't share the opinions of Chris Barnard and Paul Rigby about Putin's brutal, lawless invasion of Ukraine. Britain is ratcheting up sanctions against the Kremlin. I was especially surprised to read Chris's opinion (above) that the Nordstream pipeline was sabotaged to benefit non-Russian corporate interests-- rather than as an act of military strategy to de-fund Putin's war machine. Does anyone else really believe that? Putin Is Angry: Ukraine Sanctions Are Hitting the Russian Military Hard - 19FortyFive February 15, 2023

Andrew Prokop has just published a definitive takedown of Jeff Gerth's bogus CJR revisionist history article claiming that Trump's Russiagate scandal was a hoax. I didn't realize that Jeff Gerth was involved years ago in promoting the GOP Whitewater hoax about Bill Clinton. Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Jeff Gerth, and the Trump-Russia revisionists, explained - Vox

John, Huh? There I go again? So now you have taken to imitating Mathew Koch, by quoting Ronald Reagan's 1980 one-liner? I "misrepresented what I said?" Sure thing. You are gallantly "exposing my constant transgressions?" How noble. I nominate your latest post for the Education Forum Ad-Hominem-Projection-of-the-Year Award. As for "gaslighting," it's the diametric opposite of my modus operandi in communicating with people. Aside from the MAGA contingent and the Putin war crime deniers around here, I think most forum members will vouch for that. My focus has always been on discerning and telling the truth about history and current events-- including truths that some people, obviously, don't want to hear.

Mathew, Thanks for sharing the latest MAGA spam blaming Biden for the Ohio train derailment-- a tragic result of Trump deregulating "bomb" trains. It's reminiscent of the Deep Water Horizon eco-disaster on Obama's watch, which resulted from Bush & Cheney's deregulation of deep water drilling standards. It also complements Ben's persistent MAGA spam blaming Biden for Trump's 2020 surrender to the Taliban, and his precipitous post-election withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Notice that Ben also continues to blame Obama for Bush and Cheney's Afghanistan invasion/occupation boondoggle. You and Ben continue to provide a useful "service" to this forum, by keeping us all up-to-date on the GOP/MAGA propaganda of the day-- while ducking references and questions about the contrary evidence. Thanks again.

Have you read Robert Gates' memoir? Obama inherited a militarily-occupied Afghanistan in 2009 that was still quite unstable, and the thinking at the time was that a withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces would further destabilize the country and the region. Bush and Cheney had carpet-bombed any semblance of an Afghan government into rubble. It's an example of what Colin Powell called the "Pottery Barn Rule" in his efforts to dissuade Bush from invading Iraq in 2003-- "Mr. President, if you break Iraq, you own it." As Gates described, Obama went along, reluctantly, with the advice of the military "experts" and, ultimately, "made the right calls" in Afghanistan. The occupation dragged on. It was one of the few things Obama did as POTUS that greatly disappointed me-- i.e., his (reluctant) acquiescence in the Neocon "War on Terror." Withal, the Trump administration killed more non-combatant civilians in the Middle East during the first eight months of Trump's Presidency than the Obama administration killed in eight years, from 2009-17. And Trump's surrender to the Taliban in February of 2020 and precipitous, post-election withdrawal from Afghanistan in late 2020 and early 2021 resulted in the abrupt collapse of the Afghan government and Army.

No loss for words, John. But words are wasted on people who are determined to misconstrue them. My hunch is that many people who have attempted to converse with you have experienced this particular problem.

Newsflash, Ben. Obama didn't invade Afghanistan. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 2001-- more than seven years before Obama became POTUS. It was the first phase of their post-9/11 Neocon "Project for a New American Century." As for Trump's surrender to the Taliban in 2020, and his precipitous withdrawal of troops after losing the November 2020 election, (against the advice of his military advisors) see the article I posted for you (above.)