That is evidence of a poisoning, yes.
Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Evidence please.
All what stuff public?
A prominent ex-Russian spy is poisoned in the UK, and you think it's merely 'convenient' that this is in the news? It's in the news because it's a major story, no other reason.
That in itself is nothing more than a statement, it is not evidence.
Anyone 55 years old or older knows that this was Russia, they have a generations old paranoia about the West. Not that the West would not have liked to weaken the influence of the USSR. Russia today (not RT) still feels threatened and with the loss of its satellite states probably more so. It is still an autocracy whatever parliamentary reforms have been made. Putin is old school ex. KGB so would not have many qualms about an assassination even if it was messy so long as it was impossible to prove with 100% accuracy that it lay at his door. The internet provides useful interference as shown in this thread for these activities.
You cannot get even a simple fact right, why bother?
a) It was his daughter, a Russian citizen living in Russia who came to visit. Not his girlfriend.
b) He was exposed to dual compound nerve agents on his front door, walked to the shops and then to the pub and start feeling the effects of it at the bench after hours?
That is not how nerve agents work. They work instantly and should have been dead where he got exposed in matter of seconds.
Let alone after hours, and miraculously the ambulance carried the antidotes and injected them.....
We are talking here about military grade agent for heaven sake. Even how they work most cannot get the grip on....
Even though i will never stop being skeptical, i'm pretty sure there is a standard treatment for this, though i'm sure it's not fun without the actual anti-toxin.
http://ansm.sante.fr/var/ansm_site/storage/original/application/615fb48e3c861aed9ea8bc75fc772359.pdf
It would also seem that it was a severe reaction going by Appendix 2.
Reading a bit further, though it would appear you still need a specific anti-toxin or it won't matter, so unless MI6 is particularly good at what it does (you'd think it wouldn't you), it's not a new agent at all.
http://ansm.sante.fr/var/ansm_site/storage/original/application/615fb48e3c861aed9ea8bc75fc772359.pdf
It would also seem that it was a severe reaction going by Appendix 2.
Reading a bit further, though it would appear you still need a specific anti-toxin or it won't matter, so unless MI6 is particularly good at what it does (you'd think it wouldn't you), it's not a new agent at all.
Last edited:
OK I guess it needs further explanation.
Your bullet points are not evidence that Russia was responsible, only that they were capable.
However other countries have access to it. The fella at the UK lab said, and I'm paraphraing from memory, "it couldn't have been us, we have tight security" rather than "we don't even have that strain". I'm not saying the UK is responsible, but it negates your final point that 'Russia done did it'.
Pretty sure we wont get proof even if it exists in terms of CCTV, method and mode of transportation etc.
Even if no one knows for certain, ie the security services, there is balance of probabilities which can be more than enough and also present and past behaviours, known bad actors etc.
This is not a court of law with no reasonable doubt. The inspectors will conclude what it is and possibly where it originated or made but little else.
The problem is that, in your head, evidence is a large banner that says "THEY DONE IT!". The UK govt. points at Russia based on circumstantial evidence which is more powerful than direct evidence, in cases such as this one and contrary to what you may have seen in films and TV shows.
In example, the The Oklahoma City bombing conviction was based on circumstantial evidence:
However, Robert Precht, a defense attorney in the World Trade Center bombing and director of the Office of Public Service at the University's Law School, said the prosecution's use of indirect evidence is no cause for worry.
"The concern McVeigh was convicted on circumstantial evidence is misplaced," Precht said. "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."
https://web.archive.org/web/1999042...h.edu/daily/1997/jun/06-04-97/news/news3.html
Oops, that was a senior moment.
I already nailed this in a previous post.
* Novichok agents don't always kill immediately (Andrei Zheleznyakov, the first person exposed to Novichok, in 1987, took almost a year to die)
* Novichok agents are not always lethal (it depends on the concentration and mode of exposure)
* other victims did not come into direct contact with the original dose, and were therefore exposed to a far lower concentration
so the nerve agent experts at DSTL are wrong but we have a world leading expert right here on the forums.... hmmm..
have you considered perhaps that he didn't get as high a dose as expected? Like perhaps you might want to consider that the daughter is doing a bit better than him and in turn the police officer who perhaps only came into contact after via them not the original source (thus an even lower dose) is doing even better?
I mean lower dose = less effect?
nah
it's military grade they'd be dead instantly I tell thee... therefore conspiracy/black flag/petroyuan blah blah blah...
Yes, they are evidence that Russia was responsible. You can quibble about the strength of that evidence, but it does not point to any other country.
Give me the direct quote, in context. I'm not interested in a paraphrase.
This is what Theresa May has said:
(Source).
The point being made here is that however it happened, Russia is the source. As far as I'm aware, the UK has never held Novichok.
Last edited:
Things that I consider indisputable:
Factors that I consider relevant to how to interpret events:
What we have at the end of all this, is the following:
Proof? We're unlikely to get any definitive proof for years if at all. But you can make educated guesses as to which is most likely. At present it's the above or "Russia wanted to send a (somewhat weird) message".
- Novichok nerve agents were first produced in the Seventies.
- Novichok has been produced in Iran in cooperation with the OPCW (respected International organization) demonstrating you don't have to be Russian.
- Formulas and principles for Novichok nerve agents can be gotten hold of by any state actor easily.
- Given these three it is absurd to suppose that in the last forty years, the UK or USA have not developed the capability to create Novichok nerve agents themselves.
Factors that I consider relevant to how to interpret events:
- UK governments have previously lied about WMD in order to instigate war (Iraq).
- UK governments have previously lied about foreign actions in order to instigate war (Libya).
- UK are lying now when they say that ONLY Russia could produce it (because we know this is not true).
- Whoever poisoned Skirpal wanted this to be a very public and dramatic murder.
- The West is losing in Syria. We instigated that war and we're well on our way to losing it unless there's a dramatic change in policy and willingness to directly intervene.
- US interests stand to lose many billions and strategic influence if Russia and Germany are able to bring online the Nordstream 2 pipeline, which will make it MUCH harder for the US to compete with Russian oil.
- The USA has been pursuing a policy of nuclear primacy for over a decade (an attempt to invalidate MAD by establishing unrecoverable First Strike capability).
- Russia and China both looking to the new Petro-Yuan.
What we have at the end of all this, is the following:
- UK and USA - with an established history of lying - are insisting we take their word for it.
- UK and USA have established reason to want to sanction and vilify Russia.
- The murder was done in a deliberately provocative, dramatic way with a clear PR reason to point it at Russia.
Proof? We're unlikely to get any definitive proof for years if at all. But you can make educated guesses as to which is most likely. At present it's the above or "Russia wanted to send a (somewhat weird) message".
AFAIK there isn't one specific Novichok nerve agent so your conclusion based on some vague statement re: Iran is perhaps flawed there, DSTL however has identified a specific nerve agent.
The CT type nonsense re: the "petroyuan" is getting a bit silly, what does that have to do with this?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,346
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
This has probably been answered but could this very old nerve agent have been the agents and he mishandled it?
Multiple statements. Two quick examples: Boris Johnson saying only Russia could do this and May stating that the only options are Russia did it or Russia lost control of their nerve agents. Both Johnson and May stating as fact that only Russia could produce this.
No. The fact that other countries have produced Novichok nerve agents shows that it can be done. There's nothing uniquely impossible about one specific nerve agent. Your argument is akin to saying just because Germany produced a Mercedes (one type of car) doesn't mean that they could produce a different sort of car. Yes - it's all very similar technological capability. Oh, and to clear up your imprecision, Iran produced five example types for the OPCW, btw. The capability for other countries to produce these agents is demonstrated - this is a fact.
CT? Conspiracy Theory? If you think this is conspiracy theory then you have lack understanding of international politics. Maybe read the FT or the Economist sometime. That you refer to this actual and real thing that is being done right now and talked about widely as "conspiracy theory" indicates you don't pay attention. What it has to do with this is that it creates a real economic threat to US financial hegemony. If oil is no longer sold in dollars, that undermines the dollar significantly because the dollar is essentially backed by three things: oil, the ability to pay US debt in it and US military might. And the last one is used primarily to ensure the first, currently.
It's possible. The thing is, espionage is so messy that all sorts of things are possible right down to personal vendettas. You just can't tell from an isolated incident anything for certain. But I would be surprised by this scenario because it would imply Britain had re-activated this asset (remember, he was a spy for us, not for Russia). And as he's an entirely busted asset, I just don't see the value in that.
I don't know the life-expectancy of these nerve agents. If your suggesting he had some old stuff lying around, I don't know why or how he would or what would motivate him to get it out. Unless his daughter brought it over to kill him with and accidentally dosed herself. But then we're back to why would Russia want to do this vs. the more probable reasons why the UK/USA would, imo.