Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.

[Freakbro]

It's not wall of text

It is, and it's irrelevant to the topic in hand because...

The way some talk on here is if anything bad is the result of Russian intervention or direct action, yet, we are the doers of no wrong,

NO-ONE has said or thinks that and...

their information is lies and propaganda and ours is the truth and the only truth.

NO-ONE has said or thinks that.

That is just utter nonsense

Quite, it's lucky then that NO-ONE has said or thinks that

as I have shown as others have shown and will continue to show.

Which is why we say stop because a) we know already b) we don't think it's relevant in this situation

Occams razor

Instead of taking a backwards step and acknowledging that we have done wrong in the past,

We do, plenty and we will get plenty wrong in the future too, by accident and by design

We just put fingers in ears, head in sand and carry on down the same old beaten track only looking up to throw stones at people who are willing to challenge the status quo

And most of the time, you know what? It actually was the most obvious perpetrator who did it.

I don't need spurious links to wrong doing the CIA did 65 years ago as evidence to why they could have done various false flags now I need tangible reasons why the CIA would poison one of our ex-double agents now, who wasn't active, on our soil, in a method that endangered our civilians. To what end did they have that they needed to employ such a tactic?

Or you have the Russians, with form for this very such thing, and who have motive, means and opportunity. It's as simple as that.

 

[Freakbro]

Ok well that's a start Well you say that Russia are widely known as a corrupt entwined with organized crime based on western perception I take it?

No. https://www.transparency.org/

You do realize that the same could probably and has probably been said about the west, mp cookie jar scandal comes to mind but I sure I could find more examples.

This is always the ridiculous position to take. Who has said there is no corruption in 'The West'? Hmm...you might be able to guess the answer is NO-ONE.

Countries are rated on a scale, from least to most corrupt...not a binary choice of 0 corruption or 100% corrupt. And on that scale Russia comes 135 / 175 the UK comes 8 / 175

He has just won a landslide vote to govern his own people but they voted for him because they like it like that I suppose?

You mean that election where any credible opposition were banned, we have multiple video evidence of people stuffing ballot boxes with votes and the Russians restrict independent international observers who monitor countries elections. It was such a surprise Putin won with a landslide

Freedom in the World according to who?

Academic research done by institutions such as Freedom House (who have been around since 1941) and who's publications are the go to for people like Noam

The organization's annual Freedom in the World report, which assesses each country's degree of political freedoms and civil liberties, is frequently cited by political scientists, journalists, and policymakers. Freedom of the Press and Freedom of the Net,[8] which monitor censorship, intimidation and violence against journalists, and public access to information, are among its other signature reports.

And would China be a target of that too

Of course it is Every country is rated.

because I don't hear to much being said about them at the minute while Putin is the boogeyman of western choice.

Well, you won't find much discussion about China since this is a discussion thread about Russia....unless you think the Chinese poisoned the ex Russian double agent?

Russia is no longer a democracy umm ok refer back to the recent election won by Putin.

and morw accusations this time with a little more substance to back them I hope?

We are still waiting for the full report from the international election observers on the latest election, but we have the ones from the previous.

The interim report is pretty usual for a Russian election though

The 18 March presidential election took place in an overly controlled legal and political
environment marked by continued pressure on critical voices, while the Central Election
Commission (CEC) administered the election efficiently and openly. After intense efforts to
promote turnout, citizens voted in significant numbers, yet restrictions on the fundamental
freedoms of assembly, association and expression, as well as on candidate registration, have
limited the space for political engagement and resulted in a lack of genuine competition. While
candidates could generally campaign freely, the extensive and uncritical coverage of the incumbent
as president in most media resulted in an uneven playing field. Overall, election day was conducted
in an orderly manner despite shortcomings related to vote secrecy and transparency of counting.

https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/russia/375670

Anyway I'm not here to say that Putin or Russia or any of the non western backed leaders are white than white

Good

just trying to offer a little bit of balance and perspective to this media witch hunt.

Just something relevant would be good

Now let's get down to the good stuff. I've already posted plenty about Propaganda, it's use and methods of employment (just not by us only the "bad guy's

I'll start with this one I've only just come across but it fits the bill and should serve to offer some insight into the Cia.

I know all about the dodgy stuff the CIA have done and do, but what relevance is that to this poisoning? What evidence is there, circumstantial, direct...anything...that points to this being done by the CIA?

 

[Danny75]

I know all about the dodgy stuff the CIA have done and do, but what relevance is that to this poisoning? What evidence is there, circumstantial, direct...anything...that points to this being done by the CIA?

"Anything", as you requested, is quite easy.

Means: A-234 nerve agent patented in the US. BZ incapacitating agent (a new possibility, not yet confirmed or explained, indicating the need for patience and not discounting anything yet) stockpiles and exhaustive testing in the US. The US has not destroyed all its chemical weapons stockpiles. A multitude of assassination techniques, some known, some secret (an MI5 source told media that a mini-drone was suspected, two weeks after the poisoning, for example).

Motive (possible motive, of course): strategic goals in Syria, ensuring May would be provided with the necessary "wave of indignation and trust" to evade putting the military action to a vote in the Commons, like Cameron did unsuccessfully a few years back. Weakening Russia through further information and economic warfare, one obvious reason being to weaken their position viz-a-viz Syria, incrementally attempting to make it more trouble than it's worth for Russia to continue supporting the "monster" Assad and prevent the partitioning of Syria along the lines the US and others want it. And/or other motives.

Opportunity: definitely. The man wasn't living in a steel cage. US/UK 'cooperation' including US presence at Porton Down.

Form: you said you knew about the dodgy stuff.


Does this 'point to' CIA? No. It points to others also having means, motive and opportunity, as well as form, besides Russia. Do you agree?

 

[Tefal]

sooooo who killed Boris Nemtsov?

 

[Freakbro]

"Anything", as you requested, is quite easy.

Means: A-234 nerve agent patented in the US. BZ incapacitating agent (a new possibility, not yet confirmed or explained, indicating the need for patience and not discounting anything yet) stockpiles and exhaustive testing in the US. The US has not destroyed all its chemical weapons stockpiles. A multitude of assassination techniques, some known, some secret (an MI5 source told media that a mini-drone was suspected, two weeks after the poisoning, for example).

Touche, by putting anything I have made it rather easy

Motive (possible motive, of course): strategic goals in Syria, ensuring May would be provided with the necessary "wave of indignation and trust" to evade putting the military action to a vote in the Commons, like Cameron did unsuccessfully a few years back

That's not a credible motive, what "military action"? There has been no military action regarding this incident and none touted to be taken either.

The firing of a few missles into Syrian infrastructure that is going to have negligible effect on anything was done due to the "alleged" gassing of the civilians in Douma.

Weakening Russia through further information and economic warfare, one obvious reason being to weaken their position viz-a-viz Syria, incrementally attempting to make it more trouble than it's worth for Russia to continue supporting the "monster" Assad and prevent the partitioning of Syria along the lines the US and others want it.

Again, this incident had no effect on the Russian involvement in Syria, that is down to the "alleged" use of chemical weapons in Douma.

And/or other motives.

Well, you haven't cited any credible ones yet, not credible enough to lend authenticity to the CIA pulling off an extremely risky false flag operation on allied soil threatening allied civilians.

Does this 'point to' CIA? No.

Good, I'm glad we finally agree on something

It points to others also having means, motive and opportunity, as well as form, besides Russia. Do you agree?

I keep coming back to the statement, it's 'reasonable' doubt, not 'any' doubt. And so far, since no-one actually knows who did it, there has been no other credible alternative put forward other then the fairly obvious one of "The Russians did it"

 

[Danny75]

Touche, by putting anything I have made it rather easy

That's not a credible motive, what "military action"? There has been no military action regarding this incident and none touted to be taken either.

Okay, you disagree regarding how credible the motive is. And I don't wish to press you on that too much. Are the BBC and others wrong though, in calling it a military action? If you personally prefer calling it something else, that's fine. I personally have no issue with describing it as such.

Theresa May statement on UK military action in Syria

Britain took part in military air strikes in Syria because it could not wait to “alleviate further humanitarian suffering” caused by chemical weapons, Theresa May has told MPs.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-43789907/theresa-may-statement-on-uk-military-action-in-syria

Again, this incident had no effect on the Russian involvement in Syria, that is down to the "alleged" use of chemical weapons in Douma.

You can choose to see it as two separate incidents, as is your right, or you can choose to not discount it being possibly interconnected. One thing's for sure though - May most definitely mentioned "Salisbury" as part of her justification for authorizing use of force. She didn't need to, though, to give me the idea that it may be connected. But it's there, on the record.

Well, you haven't cited any credible ones yet, not credible enough to lend authenticity to the CIA pulling off an extremely risky false flag operation on allied soil threatening allied civilians.

I understand. And from that perspective, I would agree - very risky. There are other perspectives, including those which stem from acknowledging that it is still at present an assumption to believe the Skripals were meant to be assassinated with Novichok, given that they survived. Yes, it may be a reasonable assumption that it was a botched job. But if it wasn't, then it might not have been as risky an operation.

Good, I'm glad we finally agree on something

Not unpleasant that it happened, just don't make a habit of it okay?

I keep coming back to the statement, it's 'reasonable' doubt, not 'any' doubt. And so far, since no-one actually knows who did it, there has been no other credible alternative put forward other then the fairly obvious one of "The Russians did it"

Yes, most certainly it is the obvious one. Then again, it's something any decently scripted false-flag operation would incorporate, rather than making it difficult for the public to choose what to believe. It has to be made easy so they quickly become invested in the belief, which immunizes them to any revelations. In light of everything surrounding the strange case, many unanswered questions, and geopolitical and military events, leading to a situation last week where plenty were wondering if the third world war would break out, I'll personally wait and see.

 

[Freakbro]

Are the BBC and others wrong though, in calling it a military action? If you personally prefer calling it something else, that's fine. I personally have no issue with describing it as such.

You can choose to see it as two separate incidents, as is your right, or you can choose to not discount it being possibly interconnected. One thing's for sure though - May most definitely mentioned "Salisbury" as part of her justification for authorizing use of force. She didn't need to, though, to give me the idea that it may be connected. But it's there, on the record.

I didn't know she had said that, but even so, I can see it's a bit of a stretch she is using to jusitfy the military action we did against a fairly hostile grilling in the HoC yesterday. I'm not disputing the missiles fired was military action btw, just that they weren't in response to this poisoning, as we had already done our reaction to this incident, by expelling the Russian diplomats - and did we go for more sanctions? (I cant remember)

So if there hadn't been the "alleged" gassing in Douma incident then we wouldn't have taken military action on this alone.

Not unpleasant that it happened, just don't make a habit of it okay?

Yes, most certainly it is the obvious one. Then again, it's something any decently scripted false-flag operation would incorporate, rather than making it difficult for the public to choose what to believe. It has to be made easy so they quickly become invested in the belief, and immunizes them to any revelations. In light of everything surrounding the strange case, many unanswered questions, and geopolitical and military events, leading to a situation last week where plenty were wondering if the third world war would break out, I'll personally wait and see.

Tbh, wait and see is all any of us can do (while speculating in the mean time of course ) It's just I find very frustrating this attitude that somehow if something is said by "The West" (and by extension any organisation with links to "The West") is just portrayed as being intrinsicly untrustworthy.....they lied about the WMD in Iraq dontchaknow!!?!!

Yes, our guys lie, cheat and steal, and do dodgy stuff just like every other person/government in the world but they do also tell the truth. Now there are scales of how much Truth to Lie ratio Governments/people etc spout and I will take my entire lifetime of information to make the assessment that we tell the truth more often than the Russians, which seems to be backed up by the International Corruption Index and multiple other sources.

Now that may make me a gullible naive manipulated fool to some, but unless every other organisation who producing these reports is lying too, then there is evidence to back up my assumptions.

 

[ubersonic]

It's just I find very frustrating this attitude that somehow if something is said by "The West" (and by extension any organisation with links to "The West") is just portrayed as being intrinsicly untrustworthy.....they lied about the WMD in Iraq dontchaknow!!?!!

It's even more comical because the opposing narrative to the wests is being pushed by Russia, a country whose government is so historically untrustworthy it makes the west look like a bunch of Vulcans (first thing I could think of that's incapable of lying lol).

 

[Freakbro]

Precisely. Now, that's not to say they don't tell the truth or aren't telling the truth in this instance, but lets look at the narratives being pushed. Ours has been pretty consistent and unwavering - "The Russians did it"

The Russians so far have come up with

"Nothing happened"
"They did it themselves"
"It was food poisoning"
"The CIA did it"
"The UK did it"

and plenty of other outlandish claims. So not even consistent in their lies stories.

 

[jpaul]

Stephen Sackur is in Moscow for an exclusive interview with Russia's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. Stephen asks what Russia's next move is after confrontations with the US.

if you did not see it, Lavarov basically bullied by Sackur , using his native english prowess, lavarov repeats BZ accusation
Lavarov does a disservice to his cause with lack of good english, or alternatively an effective translator,
but realistically the translator can never communicate the voice nuances to be able to evaluate their case.
Has Putin discussed the Salisbury case much, directly in English. ? too see how inconsistant his msg is

coincidentally a resurgence of cyber crime accusations R4, cnet - cannot see, other than political, why this is suddenly back in the news.
(new too me R4 strawman theory from doctor in subterranean Douma clinic, that since population largely lives under ground with poor ventilation that with the warm weather, pictures of children in distress were in fact dehydration, heat stroke. )

 

[Danny75]

and did we go for more sanctions? (I cant remember)

I don't believe so, but on the US side the 'locked and loaded' Nikki Haley (cannot stand her) promised more US sanctions on Monday, only to apparently then be contradicted by Trump, which is a regular thing.

Precisely. Now, that's not to say they don't tell the truth or aren't telling the truth in this instance, but lets look at the narratives being pushed. Ours has been pretty consistent and unwavering - "The Russians did it"

The Russians so far have come up with

"Nothing happened"
"They did it themselves"
"It was food poisoning"
"The CIA did it"
"The UK did it"

and plenty of other outlandish claims. So not even consistent in their lies stories.

Yes, that's accurate. Also a tad unfair and propagandistic. The papers sourced all that speculation from individuals, including some not even in government like the cousin (fish*), so it's only natural. It's not Russia's official position.

* Even the cousin's venomous seafood theory, was based on unconfirmed reports by a British paper in the first place, regarding what the Skripals ate. She also said "if it's not that, then I think someone may have put the poison in Yulia's suitcase before she left". Which is surprisingly balanced.

I think the thing is, from looking at Russian sources (in English), is that no Russian doubts that their intelligence services could do this, but there is an extremely strong belief that in this particular case, there was no motive to do so and plenty of motive not to. So naturally, everyone is going to speculate on alternatives.

@ jpaul - watched that interview with Lavrov yesterday. He explains their position well, what it feels like to be in their shoes taking all this flak and how bizarre some attitudes are coming across, and the lack of cooperation and information. By the way, there's a full, unedited version of the interview elsewhere, on youtube.

 

[gettothechopper]

looks like they have released some more information

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43798068

Liquid form
Very small amount
hightest concentration at the house
9 sites around town contaminated
Doesnt evaporate or get washed away unless you use very caustic chemicals
several months and £millions to clear up

"The nerve agent does not evaporate or disappear over time, experts said, and intense cleaning with caustic chemicals is required to get rid of it."

wife and sons grave was not one of the sites affected

 

[Sankari]

So... remember when Russia claimed that a Swiss laboratory had vindicated their claim that the nerve agent used to poison Skripal was not Novichok but some other stuff made in the UK?

Turns out that wasn't true.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says a Swiss laboratory has found that the nerve agent used to poison former Russian spy Sergei Skripal in Britain could be a substance never produced in the Soviet Union or Russia. The Swiss lab has declined to comment on Lavrov’s claims.

Lavrov said he had received confidential information from the laboratory in Spiezexternal link which he said had analysed a sample of the poison. He said the documents pointed at a Western-designed nerve agent, the so-called BZ substance, as a likely cause of the poisoning, thus excluding Russian involvement in the attack on Skripal and his daughter on March 4. Both are recovering.

...Stefan Mogl, the head of the Swiss laboratory’s chemistry department, has previously told the Neue Zürcher Zeitungexternal link that he “had no doubt whatsoever” that the British scientists had correctly identified the Russian-developed nerve agent Novichok in the poison sample.

The laboratory declined to comment on Lavrov’s claims, tweeting that “as a designated Lab of the OPCW, we cannot independently comment on this”.

The institute added that “everything we can publicly say is in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung article”. In the same post, they retweeted the article in which Mogl said the UK’s findings were credible and the British laboratory’s reputation is “indisputable”.

(Source).

 

[dowie]

They're pretty desperate tbh... failed to cooperate when asked by the UK, then put out all sorts of conflicting narratives...

Of course it there is a slight hint at an alternative (courtesy of Russian propaganda) then certian poster in here who love that sort of thing jump all over it without question while remaining super skeptical of the UK side.

 

[Amnesia]

So... remember when Russia claimed that a Swiss laboratory had vindicated their claim that the nerve agent used to poison Skripal was not Novichok but some other stuff made in the UK?

Turns out that wasn't true.



(Source).

Think they said swiss labs confirmed another agent (BZ) being present ....doesnt mean novichock wasnt also present.

Lavrov claims russians never researched BZ

 

[Rroff]

Think they said swiss labs confirmed another agent (BZ) being present ....doesnt mean novichock wasnt also present.

Lavrov claims russians never researched BZ

I wonder at what concentrations this stuff can be detected at and how long it lasts in respect to whether proximity to Porton Down is a factor - the land beside my house is the site of a former WW1 chemical weapons facility and quarantine/experimental facility for Smallpox patients - apparently incredibly small amounts of certain stuff was still detectable in samples taken when surveys were done for a planned development back in 2005 or so and a certain part they've been told not to dig up just incase.

 

[Amnesia]

Lavrov also said the Swiss experts had found that the Skripals’ samples contained traces of A-234 – one of the nerve agents of the novichok group – “in its original form” and in considerable quantities.

Lavrov cast doubt on that conclusion, saying a big dose of that substance would have killed the Skripals.

So if all labs have confirmed novichock was present and even tiny amounts should kill, how did they survive it ?

 

[Rroff]

So if all labs have confirmed novichock was present and even tiny amounts should kill, a better question is how did they survive it ?

Amongst other reasons such as promptness of advanced medical aid - most variants of Novichok are designed so they can be transported in binary form and/or assembled from several precursors in the field - how well they are assembled into the final form impacts the efficiency.

 

[Freakbro]

So if all labs have confirmed novichock was present and even tiny amounts should kill, how did they survive it ?

That was covered quite well in an article previously posted.

The lethality of these agents is determined in laboratory conditions on animals with no medical intervention.
The agent is at it's most lethal when inhaled, much less efficacy when absorbed through skin as it takes a much longer period to take effect, which gives time for medical intervention to be applied.
The medical intervention is absolutely what kept them alive

So, no juicy conspiracy here either I'm afraid

 

[Amnesia]

So, no juicy conspiracy here either I'm afraid

Nobody claimed it but do carry on