UK police find source of Novichok nerve agent in small bottle

[Brunolem]

3 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Is "Strategic Culture Foundation" some sort of credible independent news source?

 

I think not - Look at its list of authors ... https://www.strategic-culture.org/authors.html?l=A

Your question should rather be: is Craig Murray, the author, credible?...unless you imply that the website used his name without his consent to give credibility to a fake article?

 

Well, Craig Murray has some serious references that probably no TV member has...far from it...

[ChouDoufu]

10 minutes ago, Brunolem said:

As if on cue...this from the former UK ambassador to Russia...obviously he doesn't know as much as some TV members, but it is always interesting to know his position...

 

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/14/holes-in-official-skripal-story.html

but is that really the former ambassador?  having spent several years in the capital of international communism, surely putin must have at some time body snatched him and replaced him with a fully controlled clone, much like was done with trump while showering at the ritz in moscow. 

 

why not?  apparently with putin nothing is beyond belief.

[chickenslegs]

1 minute ago, Brunolem said:

Your question should rather be: is Craig Murray, the author, credible?...unless you imply that the website used his name without his consent to give credibility to a fake article?

 

Well, Craig Murray has some serious references that probably no TV member has...far from it...

I would not expect to find a balanced article in a publication which has such an overwhelmingly pro-Russian bias.

[Brunolem]

2 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

I would not expect to find a balanced article in a publication which has such an overwhelmingly pro-Russian bias.

If you don't like the facts, just ignore them!

 

Reminds me of the soviet attitude in the 60s and 70s.

 

But since then, the world has turned on its head...soviet dissidents, called traitors by the regime, were seeking refuge in the US, and nowadays US dissidents, called traitors by the regime, seek refuge in Russia!

 

Who would have though? Who could have thought?

 

[maximillian]

37 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Is "Strategic Culture Foundation" some sort of credible independent news source?

 

I think not - Look at its list of authors ... https://www.strategic-culture.org/authors.html?l=A

 

Is that a D-Notice to Strategic Culture Org ?

 

Joke aside. Craig Murray is the source. He is a retired former British diplomat who knows what he is talking about. Yes, he is credible. And Strategic Culture Org is more credible for me than Washington Post, New York Times, Sun, Mirror and Guardian combined.

[maximillian]

50 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

but is that really the former ambassador?  having spent several years in the capital of international communism, surely putin must have at some time body snatched him and replaced him with a fully controlled clone, much like was done with trump while showering at the ritz in moscow. 

 

why not?  apparently with putin nothing is beyond belief.

 

Putin Putin Superhuman, Trump Trump super d....

 

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, tumama said:

 

But they did reveal evidence, which they later used to get other countries to expel diplomats. Problem is, that evidence was made up. 

 

You have no idea what evidence was presented to other countries.

You made it up that it was made up.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, tumama said:

He's right though. There's no obligation for U.K to present any evidence before expelling diplomats. That can be done at whim. However, it's quite unprecedented to do it. You would expect a country like the U.K to wait to do that until they have evidence, and certainly not lie to its people and allies and say that they knew for sure it originated from Russia. Kudos to Porton Down for having the balls to call them out on their lie.

 

 

It is not "unprecedented" to expel diplomats without "evidence". Countries expel diplomats even in cases not involving any "evidence", but amounting to diplomatic confrontations. Sometimes said politicians got nothing to with it at all.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, manarak said:

 

yeah, indeed, why would *the Russians*...

but one or a small group of betrayed former Russian spies could have hired help.

 

 

You keep pushing this bit across multiple topics.

 

Such a hypothetical person (or group of persons) would either be in the Russian government's employment (which would imply Russia is accountable, if not responsible) or gone "rogue".

 

In the latter case, they'd need access to funds, facilities, personnel and know-how in order to manufacture the stuff. Regardless of comments made on this topic and others - not an easy undertaking, and not easy to keep covert. Buying it "off the shelf" would imply getting it from a state agency/facility, which loops back to the first line. Again, not too easy to  hide.

 

Add to this all them people exposed by Skripal are known to counter-intelligence services. Going about something like this personally would be very difficult to pull. Hiring others to do so, under relevant specifications - same thing.

 

 

 

[Scott]

Posts and replies removed.   Please stay on topic and stop with the bickering.  

 

[off road pat]

13 hours ago, smedly said:

I don't think there is anything to joke about 

oh yes there is,..you just have to see it !

 

[tumama]

3 hours ago, chickenslegs said:

I would not expect to find a balanced article in a publication which has such an overwhelmingly pro-Russian bias.

 

There's probably a reason it gets published only in a forum like that. Because main stream media has no interest in publicizing stories that don't fit the mainstream line. Even when the author is a former U.K ambassador.  

[tumama]

5 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

as to russian motive, why kill an ex-spy already traded?  wouldn't that go against the convention of exchanged spies being off limits?  that would preclude russia from ever exchanging spies in the future.  certainly more effective ways of getting the point across that won't result in sanctions or other negative consequences.

 

It certainly would yes. The motive that has been floated by government shills on this forum is that they wanted to send a message to all Russian traitors. But then why give the guy 18 years in prison and not life? 

 

[tumama]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

It is not "unprecedented" to expel diplomats without "evidence". Countries expel diplomats even in cases not involving any "evidence", but amounting to diplomatic confrontations. Sometimes said politicians got nothing to with it at all.

 

When I wrote that I couldn't think of a single time when this has happened. If you have an example of a similar incident, please do share.

[tumama]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

You keep pushing this bit across multiple topics.

 

Such a hypothetical person (or group of persons) would either be in the Russian government's employment (which would imply Russia is accountable, if not responsible) or gone "rogue".

 

In the latter case, they'd need access to funds, facilities, personnel and know-how in order to manufacture the stuff. Regardless of comments made on this topic and others - not an easy undertaking, and not easy to keep covert. Buying it "off the shelf" would imply getting it from a state agency/facility, which loops back to the first line. Again, not too easy to  hide.

 

Add to this all them people exposed by Skripal are known to counter-intelligence services. Going about something like this personally would be very difficult to pull. Hiring others to do so, under relevant specifications - same thing.

 

 

This whole thing reeks of amateurs. First the botched the assassination attempt, then they allegedly ditched the nerve agent used in a dumpster. That doesn't seem like a professional FSB hit. Sounds more like a an amateur job that a small nation who has an ax to grind against Russia, such as Ukraine. Besides producing the nerve agent, which would be difficult, targeting Skripal would however be easy as he made no effort to hide his identity. 

 

 

[chickenslegs]

11 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

There's probably a reason it gets published only in a forum like that. Because main stream media has no interest in publicizing stories that don't fit the mainstream line. Even when the author is a former U.K ambassador.  

I accept your reasoning for the article appearing in that particular publication. However, that does not make the "Strategic Culture Foundation" any more credible. It is a heavily Russia-biased publication.

[tumama]

13 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

I accept your reasoning for the article appearing in that particular publication. However, that does not make the "Strategic Culture Foundation" any more credible. It is a heavily Russia-biased publication.

 

I'm not familiar with this particular foundation. But I know who Craig Murray is. So if he wrote that, how about you attack him and not the foundation that published his article? But you opt not to do that because he's a former U.K ambassador.  

 

And I don't bitch about articles that appears in pro US publications like the BBC, CNN etc. So neither should you. 

[chickenslegs]

11 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

I'm not familiar with this particular foundation. But I know who Craig Murray is. So if he wrote that, how about you attack him and not the foundation that published his article? But you opt not to do that because he's a former U.K ambassador.  

I think you will find that I have never attacked or even questioned the qualifications of Craig Murray. I have simply stated that (IMO) the "Strategic Culture Foundation" is not a credible and independent source of information.

 

If you read just a few of their articles you may possibly come to the same conclusion.

 

Mr Murray, like everone else, has his own opinions to which he is entitled. Obviously, he has much more experience in diplomatic matters than the average TV member (such as you and I)  - but still,  they are just opinions.

 

Like every other commentator and theorist, he has no physical evidence to support his assertions. This is not surprising, as he/we are not privy to the details of the police investigation.

 

Please read his article and his blogs. If you find anything that would qualify as "evidence" please let me know.

[tumama]

16 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

I think you will find that I have never attacked or even questioned the qualifications of Craig Murray. I have simply stated that (IMO) the "Strategic Culture Foundation" is not a credible and independent source of information.

 

If you read just a few of their articles you may possibly come to the same conclusion.

 

Mr Murray, like everone else, has his own opinions to which he is entitled. Obviously, he has much more experience in diplomatic matters than the average TV member (such as you and I)  - but still,  they are just opinions.

 

Like every other commentator and theorist, he has no physical evidence to support his assertions. This is not surprising, as he/we are not privy to the details of the police investigation.

 

Please read his article and his blogs. If you find anything that would qualify as "evidence" please let me know.

 

I might come to that conclusion reading those articles. But that you even bring it up just show your anti-Russian bias. 

 

Murray is just reporting on the lack of evidence and motive that Russia was behind this. He's not accusing another nation of carrying out an attack. So obviously, the burden of proof is not on him. 

 

All you're proving is that a respectable person like Craig Murray only gets publicized in a "not credible" outlet, because western media is so biased that they refuse to. 

 

[chickenslegs]

4 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

I might come to that conclusion reading those articles. But that you even bring it up just show your anti-Russian bias. 

 

Murray is just reporting on the lack of evidence and motive that Russia was behind this. He's not accusing another nation of carrying out an attack. So obviously, the burden of proof is not on him. 

 

Mr Murray has his opinions - we all do.

The "Strategic Culture Foundation" article was quoted as some sort of evidence in support of the "UK government conspiracy" theory.

I simply stated that the "Strategic Culture Foundation" is not unbiased - in fact it is heavily pro-Russia.

That does not make me anti-Russian.

If I said that the Daily Mail is pro-British, would that imply that I am anti-British? Of course not.

[tumama]

25 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Mr Murray has his opinions - we all do.

The "Strategic Culture Foundation" article was quoted as some sort of evidence in support of the "UK government conspiracy" theory.

I simply stated that the "Strategic Culture Foundation" is not unbiased - in fact it is heavily pro-Russia.

That does not make me anti-Russian.

If I said that the Daily Mail is pro-British, would that imply that I am anti-British? Of course not.

 

I read both RT and western media. Unless you want your pre-conceived opinions confirmed, it's always good to read both sides and then determine what makes the most sense. 

 

It does make you anti-Russian because why else would you bring it up? You know the expression shoot the messenger? This is more like shoot the outlet. That Craig Murray is not getting publicized in the main stream media is the problem, not the outlet that publicized it. 

 

Obviously the Daily Mail is pro-British and biased. So is all western media across the board. Most of which is owned by the same companies that have a vested interest and owned by the same companies that are a part of the military industrial complex. At least RT is open about it.

 

"If I said that the Daily Mail is pro-British, would that imply that I am anti-British? Of course not."

 

That makes no sense whatsoever. Please elaborate. 

 

 

[Brunolem]

5 hours ago, chickenslegs said:

 

 

Please read his article and his blogs. If you find anything that would qualify as "evidence" please let me know.

It is quite difficult to present evidence showing that there is...no evidence!

 

Usually, the burden of proof, which includes presenting evidence, rests with the accuser...in this case those who accuse Russia, and not on Craig Murray who acts as if he was the lawyer of the defendant and is not accusing anyone.

 

If there was solid evidence, you can be sure that the UK government would be more than happy to have it plastered all over the news!

[ChouDoufu]

9 hours ago, tumama said:

....the botched the assassination attempt....

and how do we know this was indeed an assassination attempt?  by that i mean the commonly accepted definition (perhaps not websters, ) - the murder of a prominent person for political or financial gain, and in this case directed by a state.  like what we see in the movies, and this is getting awfully movie-scriptish.  too movie-scriptish.  was it really?  are there alternate explanations based on the same published evidence that are equally plausible?  [note:  some dude named boris speculatin' ≠ evidence.]

 

we can assume it was, and the various government officials can claim it was, but even starting with that assumption, there's nothing publicly available to point at whodunnit.

 

some believe russia done it because they want to believe russia done it.  evidence is not needed, cause....putin!

 

i've yet to see anyone claim russia did not do it, just those unwilling to take crazy conspiracy theories as fact without evidence.

[ChouDoufu]

10 hours ago, tumama said:

 

I'm not familiar with this particular foundation. But I know who Craig Murray is. So if he wrote that, how about you attack him and not the foundation that published his article? But you opt not to do that because he's a former U.K ambassador.  

 

And I don't bitch about articles that appears in pro US publications like the BBC, CNN etc. So neither should you. 

how about attack neither craig murray not the publication.

 

attack the article.  dispute the facts.

[tumama]

45 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

how about attack neither craig murray not the publication.

 

attack the article.  dispute the facts.

 

So true. I shouldn't drunk post. 

[Morch]

14 hours ago, tumama said:

 

When I wrote that I couldn't think of a single time when this has happened. If you have an example of a similar incident, please do share.

 

Yeah, kinda noticed how you feel others should supply facts and support for posts, while the same doesn't apply to your own musings. When facts are provided, you simply dismiss them on whatever inane pretext. Try harder.

[Scott]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, kinda noticed how you feel others should supply facts and support for posts, while the same doesn't apply to your own musings. When facts are provided, you simply dismiss them on whatever inane pretext. Try harder.

It's called trolling.   No need to respond, you can feel free to report members like that.  

 

[manarak]

On 7/14/2018 at 11:03 PM, Morch said:

 

You keep pushing this bit across multiple topics.

 

I don't "push" anything, at least not on the forum.

I'm just keeping an open mind for all possible scenarios.

As someone else already pointed out, the whole thing doesn't look like a professional operation. I just offered another angle that may explain the amateurism.

 

Regarding your counterarguments, they also present just an angle.

No facilities or personnel would be needed to use a "leftover" from whatever past test or past operation or even destruction job of the substance.  Someone involved could have logged that all was disposed of, when in fact he stashed it for later use.

Op could have been initiated by dear friends of the betrayed.

You also pointed out the difficulty of hiring people to do such a job, and that actually fits the scenario and could explain the mistakes made.

 

For these kind of stories it's important to not jump to conclusions and keep all possibilities open until the known facts fit nicely together.

I for one was surprised how quickly the UK affirmed Russia was responsible for the hit on Skripal.

Maybe the UK has an intelligence source where the information came from. But was it true? Or is there some sinister game on?

 

Other angles are possible too.

 

Who benefits from a spat between UK and Russia?

There is currently a lot going on with Brexit and NATO, Turkey...

Russian hackers are said to have given Trump the presidency, and there are reports they infiltrate other countries' electoral systems and use social media to influence opinion. This can be perceived as an attack on the atlantist bloc.

Does the Novichok story fit in somehow?

Does morale need to be galvanized against a new-old enemy which shall serve as a "negative integrator"?

It wouldn't be the first time such thing is done, there were many such ops in Europe during the cold war, carried out by atlantist covert organizations, similar in structure to the "stay behind" organizations.

 

And again, I'm not saying the above is what's happening, and no, I don't want to defend Russia.

I just refuse to be fed the mainstream story without asking questions, especially as there as some strange details about it.

[Ks45672]

35 minutes ago, manarak said:

I don't "push" anything, at least not on the forum.

I'm just keeping an open mind for all possible scenarios.

As someone else already pointed out, the whole thing doesn't look like a professional operation. I just offered another angle that may explain the amateurism.

 

Regarding your counterarguments, they also present just an angle.

No facilities or personnel would be needed to use a "leftover" from whatever past test or past operation or even destruction job of the substance.  Someone involved could have logged that all was disposed of, when in fact he stashed it for later use.

Op could have been initiated by dear friends of the betrayed.

You also pointed out the difficulty of hiring people to do such a job, and that actually fits the scenario and could explain the mistakes made.

 

For these kind of stories it's important to not jump to conclusions and keep all possibilities open until the known facts fit nicely together.

I for one was surprised how quickly the UK affirmed Russia was responsible for the hit on Skripal.

Maybe the UK has an intelligence source where the information came from. But was it true? Or is there some sinister game on?

 

Other angles are possible too.

 

Who benefits from a spat between UK and Russia?

There is currently a lot going on with Brexit and NATO, Turkey...

Russian hackers are said to have given Trump the presidency, and there are reports they infiltrate other countries' electoral systems and use social media to influence opinion. This can be perceived as an attack on the atlantist bloc.

Does the Novichok story fit in somehow?

Does morale need to be galvanized against a new-old enemy which shall serve as a "negative integrator"?

It wouldn't be the first time such thing is done, there were many such ops in Europe during the cold war, carried out by atlantist covert organizations, similar in structure to the "stay behind" organizations.

 

And again, I'm not saying the above is what's happening, and no, I don't want to defend Russia.

I just refuse to be fed the mainstream story without asking questions, especially as there as some strange details about it.

Seems very unlikely the FSB would hire a couple of unreliable semi homeless drug addicts to help/commit a murder of this type.... 

 

Will be very interesting and embarrassing if the poison turns out to be made in the UK lab and nothing can be pinned on Russia at all..... 

[manarak]

11 hours ago, Ks45672 said:

Seems very unlikely the FSB would hire a couple of unreliable semi homeless drug addicts to help/commit a murder of this type.... 

 

I never wrote that this was likely...