Skripal poisoning: was it perpetrated by rogue elements in Russian security agencies.
If rogue agents have access to chemical weapons, it's scarier than previous suspicion of Russian gov't.
GL2 said:
If rogue agents have access to chemical weapons, it's scarier than previous suspicion of Russian gov't.
You don't exactly need a lot of nerve agent for a targeted killing.
I have it on good authority that no Russians were involved. It's another Deep State lie about WMD's.
https://twitter.com/paulsurovell/status/981391671526154241?s=12
I was just about to suggest there’s a Twitter account that gets into this a little bit.
DaveSchmidt said:
I was just about to suggest there’s a Twitter account that gets into this a little bit.
Don't go down that rabbit hole.
GL2 said:
tjohn said:
GL2 said:You don't exactly need a lot of nerve agent for a targeted killing.
If rogue agents have access to chemical weapons, it's scarier than previous suspicion of Russian gov't.
OK, I'll stop worrying that rogue agents may have access.
What I am saying is that it wouldn't surprise me if they could bribe a chemist to smuggle a small amount of poison out of a lab. Maybe I have watched one to many episodes of NCIS.
Oh, I thought you meant to downplay the seriousness. Sorry. I’m guessing no one does this stuff w/o Putin’s direction. Many talking heads see the poisonings as warning to other potential Russian expatriates. Not like this is the first attack.
New information on the Skripal poisoning narrative.
Former UK ambassador and whistleblower Craig Murray joins The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal to address revealing new developments in the strange Skripal poisoning saga that helped send Britain into a new Cold War frenzy.
Any little flicker of light to exonerate your idol from any evil act that he’s committed… you’re his biggest groupie aren’t ya…
Jaytee said:
Any little flicker of light to exonerate your idol from any evil act that he’s committed… you’re his biggest groupie aren’t ya…
I'm the biggest groupie of truth.
This case has so many unanswered questions that cannot be answered by those that just blame Russia for everything. It's an interesting mystery.
I just can't understand. Britain and the United States, according to Nan, have done everything in their power to start a new confrontation with Russia except to actually prepare for such of thing.
I guess this conforms to Nan's dogma which holds that the U.S. and British governments are simultaneously clever and clueless.
tjohn said:
I just can't understand. Britain and the United States, according to Nan, have done everything in their power to start a new confrontation with Russia except to actually prepare for such of thing.
I guess this conforms to Nan's dogma which holds that the U.S. and British governments are simultaneously clever and clueless.
What does any of this happy horseshit have to do with the Skripals?
nan said:
tjohn said:
I just can't understand. Britain and the United States, according to Nan, have done everything in their power to start a new confrontation with Russia except to actually prepare for such of thing.
I guess this conforms to Nan's dogma which holds that the U.S. and British governments are simultaneously clever and clueless.
What does any of this happy horseshit have to do with the Skripals?
Well, you posted a podcast from, I am sure, a reliable source talking about the Skripal poisonings and then wrote:
"Former UK ambassador and whistleblower Craig Murray joins The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal to address revealing new developments in the strange Skripal poisoning saga that helped send Britain into a new Cold War frenzy."
@DaveSchmidt, Was I on solid ground assuming there was a connection between Nan's contribution and my response? Asking because you are a journalist and read things carefully.
I did post from a reliable source.
I did not see Dave Schmidt's post on this thread which has been in the freezer since 2018.
I'm just giving an update.to a story I have always found interesting. It's still a mystery. There are no conclusions here, just more information.
Not one sentence here about the "revealing new developments," though. Hard to discuss.
mjc said:
Not one sentence here about the "revealing new developments," though. Hard to discuss.
Watch the video.
nan said:
mjc said:
Not one sentence here about the "revealing new developments," though. Hard to discuss.
Watch the video.
There's a good chance that anyone who isn't steeped in the lore promoted by Blumenthal, Murray, and their fellow travelers could miss whatever significance the "revealing new developments" have. Maybe what the "new developments" and their "significance" are could be identified, first, as an inducement to watch the video for the details.
nohero said:
There's a good chance that anyone who isn't steeped in the lore promoted by Blumenthal, Murray, and their fellow travelers could miss whatever significance the "revealing new developments" have. Maybe what the "new developments" and their "significance" are could be identified, first, as an inducement to watch the video for the details.
"lore" is exactly right.
I posted this video for informational purposes only. I have always been interested in this case and this was the first new discussion about it that I have seen so I decided to post it. (The Scott Horton Book also covers it FYI). I knew what the response would be from the MOL peanut gallery. I'm not going to write up a summary. I don't have time.
Either you watch it and find out what they have to say about the Skripal poisoning or you don't . I really don't care.
nan said:
I posted this video for informational purposes only. I have always been interested in this case and this was the first new discussion about it that I have seen so I decided to post it. (The Scott Horton Book also covers it FYI). I knew what the response would be from the MOL peanut gallery. I'm not going to write up a summary. I don't have time.
Either you watch it and find out what they have to say about the Skripal poisoning or you don't . I really don't care.
I am not sure what is interesting about this case. It has SVR fingerprints all over it. I can't imagine why MI5 or MI6 would have to bother trying to frame Russia for this attempted murder to create tensions with Russia when there are plenty of tensions right out in the open.
It isn't like the JFK assassination where it is at least plausible that some people - mob, CIA, whatever - wanted him dead and set up Oswald as the patsy.
tjohn said:
@DaveSchmidt, Was I on solid ground assuming there was a connection between Nan's contribution and my response? Asking because you are a journalist and read things carefully.
You flatter me with both clauses. I saw a tangential connection between your reply and nan’s reference to the new Cold War. Why nan, of all commenters, bridled at a tangential reference to Russian-Western relations, I don’t know.
mjc said:
Not one sentence here about the "revealing new developments," though. Hard to discuss.
The new developments are British hearings on the death of a woman who unwittingly used a perfume bottle containing Novichok that her partner said he had scavanged from a bin in the town where the Skripals were poisoned months earlier.
A typical excerpt from the podcast: Craig Murray scoffs at the hearings’ rejection of an officer’s testimony — about a barely conscious Yulia Skripal’s blinks to a doctor’s questions — as hearsay, because how can it be hearsay when the officer testified to it? (The officer’s testimony was based on notes he took after a phone conversation with another officer who told him about the doctor’s conversation with Yulia.)
tjohn said:
nan said:
I posted this video for informational purposes only. I have always been interested in this case and this was the first new discussion about it that I have seen so I decided to post it. (The Scott Horton Book also covers it FYI). I knew what the response would be from the MOL peanut gallery. I'm not going to write up a summary. I don't have time.
Either you watch it and find out what they have to say about the Skripal poisoning or you don't . I really don't care.
I am not sure what is interesting about this case. It has SVR fingerprints all over it. I can't imagine why MI5 or MI6 would have to bother trying to frame Russia for this attempted murder to create tensions with Russia when there are plenty of tensions right out in the open.
It isn't like the JFK assassination where it is at least plausible that some people - mob, CIA, whatever - wanted him dead and set up Oswald as the patsy.
They would if they wanted a false flag to pin on Russia to stir up hatred for Russia and start another Cold War. That's one reason.
nan said:
tjohn said:
nan said:
I posted this video for informational purposes only. I have always been interested in this case and this was the first new discussion about it that I have seen so I decided to post it. (The Scott Horton Book also covers it FYI). I knew what the response would be from the MOL peanut gallery. I'm not going to write up a summary. I don't have time.
Either you watch it and find out what they have to say about the Skripal poisoning or you don't . I really don't care.
I am not sure what is interesting about this case. It has SVR fingerprints all over it. I can't imagine why MI5 or MI6 would have to bother trying to frame Russia for this attempted murder to create tensions with Russia when there are plenty of tensions right out in the open.
It isn't like the JFK assassination where it is at least plausible that some people - mob, CIA, whatever - wanted him dead and set up Oswald as the patsy.
They would if they wanted a false flag to pin on Russia to stir up hatred for Russia and start another Cold War. That's one reason.
My point is that there was hardly any need for false flag operations when there were plenty of points of friction between NATO and Russia. Meanwhile, it is pretty clear that Putin is not overly fond of people who cross him.
tjohn said:
nan said:
tjohn said:
nan said:
I posted this video for informational purposes only. I have always been interested in this case and this was the first new discussion about it that I have seen so I decided to post it. (The Scott Horton Book also covers it FYI). I knew what the response would be from the MOL peanut gallery. I'm not going to write up a summary. I don't have time.
Either you watch it and find out what they have to say about the Skripal poisoning or you don't . I really don't care.
I am not sure what is interesting about this case. It has SVR fingerprints all over it. I can't imagine why MI5 or MI6 would have to bother trying to frame Russia for this attempted murder to create tensions with Russia when there are plenty of tensions right out in the open.
It isn't like the JFK assassination where it is at least plausible that some people - mob, CIA, whatever - wanted him dead and set up Oswald as the patsy.
They would if they wanted a false flag to pin on Russia to stir up hatred for Russia and start another Cold War. That's one reason.
My point is that there was hardly any need for false flag operations when there were plenty of points of friction between NATO and Russia. Meanwhile, it is pretty clear that Putin is not overly fond of people who cross him.
Skripal was sent back to the UK to live in some swap. If Putin wanted him dead he would have killed him a long time ago. He had been living in Salisbury for years. The evidence points more to his handler. There are lots of other clues including a lab, Porton Down close by that could have produced the poison. This whole thing is a big whodoneit. Putin is just the most obvious villain, which means it's probably not him. The other victim is difficult to explain also.
nan said:
Skripal was sent back to the UK to live in some swap. If Putin wanted him dead he would have killed him a long time ago. He had been living in Salisbury for years. The evidence points more to his handler. There are lots of other clues including a lab, Porton Down close by that could have produced the poison. This whole thing is a big whodoneit. Putin is just the most obvious villain, which means it's probably not him. The other victim is difficult to explain also.
And there you have it folks: The essential Nanism which states that the more obvious something appears to be, the less likely it is to be true.
DaveSchmidt said:
The new developments are British hearings on the death of a woman who unwittingly used a perfume bottle containing Novichok that her partner said he had scavanged from a bin in the town where the Skripals were poisoned months earlier.
Thanks. Using your information, and putting “Skripal” and “perfume” into the google, provided a link to a comprehensive BBC report summarizing the case, including the inquiry being discussed in the video.
tjohn said:
And there you have it folks: The essential Nanism which states that the more obvious something appears to be, the less likely it is to be true.
she has founded the Reverse Occam's Razor, where the more complicated something is, the more likely it is be true.
Most Western governments are acting on the assumption that Sergei Skripal was poisoned by Russian agents acting with Putin's approval. However, on NPR the other day, a plausible and more disturbing scenario was presented in which one of Russia's secret police forces (FBI or CIA equivalents) acted on their own initiative. If this is true, the Russians wouldn't really want to admit this any more than they would admit an officially sanctioned action.
While it is plausible that Putin wanted to inflame relations with the West on the eve of the Russian elections, he didn't really need to do this to win and he is and was perfectly capable of whipping up nationalist feelings even without an actual incident.