Topic: Was Sergei Skripal poisoned by the Russians? (Read 2238 times)

Interesting points. I would suggest

4. The British secret services do this in collusion with Russian secret services to pursue their obscure goals.
Like: give US pretext for sanctions which will (according to Bloomberg) cause flight of Russian-owned capital from US
with some dollars maybe sticking to City boys' hands.
Or discredit Theresa May and push harder for Brexit. Or whatever.
There could be a lot of intermediary moves between the poisoning and the desired effect.

According to ex-head of Israeli foreign intelligence Jacob Kedmi, there was.
A substance that causes heart attack and is not detectable in the body after a few hours. And which doesn't belong to military poisons class.
Don't you see chemical weapons - White Helmets fakes in Syria and missile attacks - alleged WMD in Iraq connection?
By all this talk of chemical weapons, US try to hide their bacteriological military bases in Georgia (ex-USSR) and probably other places.

Apart from that, whenever ISIS forces in Syria were under most threat, the Skripal story was fanned into fresh fire.
UK+US+EU invested a lot into ISIS, so losing this asset was a pain.

The latest twist in this case - an interview with the alleged perpetrators.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGNaHZmzMm8

You're letting your ego drive you far too much. I don't really care about internet ego, that's why I don't need to use derogatory labels in order to protect mine.



Well, you've said you lean towards believing the story the British police have put forward about Skripal. But their story doesn't make any sense; apparently, both Skripal and his daughter both touched the doorknob that had been sprayed with a fast acting nerve agent, when in reality it would be unlikely that both would close the front door to Skripal's house. That would be incredibly sloppy on behalf of those conducting an attack, depending on which of the 2 Skripals they were targeting. There's no way they could be sure which of the 2 would close the door! Then, having both used the front doorknob, they walked to a restaurant, where Sergei is reported by eyewitnesses to have been in an angry tirade, then went to the park. Only then, a few hours after being poisoned, did they succumb to a fatal and fast acting nerve agent.

This cannot be correct. You don't need a journalist to come along and say "the UK Police and Theresa May's government lied about the events of the Skripal case", as was the case with the Blair government's lies about Saddam Hussein's WMD, or about Osama bin Laden being protected by the Taliban (it's not even clear that this was a lie, I've never seen convincing evidence about exactly who was protecting Bin Laden or anywhere he lived subsequent to the September 11th attacks).

But I gt the feeling this is exactly how you're processing this: you're waiting for someone you trust to tell you what to think. This is not critical thinking about the facts, you're just following other's points of view if so. Feel free to prove me wrong, but you're not well known for using factual arguments at this stage.

Well this is where things go over your head because I was using your own twisted logic and dishonesty here, because according to you anything I say is a possibility or is more likely is taken as fact by you to build your own straw man even though I never said anything of the sort, but it's funny how it's perfectly acceptable for you to invent your own wild conspiracies and anyone who may lean towards something more based in reality and what the establishment are saying as opposed to baseless conspiracies is an 'unthinking cheerleader'. If I'm a unthinking cheerleader then you're surely a paranoid conspiracytard. Believing that two Russian spies may have been responsible for using a Russian-made poison to take out a known Russian double agent as opposed to some other wild conspiracy isn't exactly far-fetched or foolish, but the real idiots here are the fools who invent the baseless conspiracies whilst denouncing everyone else who may think or feel differently, which you are amongst.


I know you're still sore from the repeated spankings I gave you the other day but you're just making things up and outright lying now. For someone who is so against straw-men I'm surprised you resort to them so frequently. Again, please point to me where I've said all this, or please drop this dishonesty. I've literally said the exact opposite of what you're claiming, but you don't bother actually reading what I write because that doesn't fit in with your strawman you keep trying to build:



I don't trust the Russians. I don't trust the UK. I don't trust the media (Russian, US or UK), but this doesn't fit in with your strawman does it. I just happen to think this is more likely -- get that, more likely ie not a fact -- a Russian hit job, but apparently according to you that makes me a sheep for believing the narrative the media are also going with (but is it not possible that this might actually just be a Russian hit?), but those facts don't line up with your narrative and obvious biases of being so anti-state/media, so you'd be blind to the truth anyway and stick to inventing your own conspiracies instead.

If you're going to try pick apart or attack something I said please make sure I've actually said it first.

That's just their style, they don't care as much what the world thinks of them to put more effort, and it's not their first fuckup. What counts is that future would-be spies will think twice before betraying their governments.

Maybe it's you that needs to read before you talk; at no point do I suggest I know anything, hence use of conditions such as "probably" and "likely".

And curiously, you fall perfectly into the outcome I suggested: that of an unthinking cheerleader for whatever suits your personality and tribal loyalties. You're simply repeating what you've been told by people you trust, whereas history should demonstrate to you that trusting the corporate media on important matters is frequently a mistake.

All evidence points to Russia. There is no question about it among spies and their agencies. I am guessing they thought they were going to get away with it. Perhaps they have killed others and gotten away with it?

There is -- in my opinion -- and certainly more than this being a inside job, for which there is actually currently none apart from conspiracy theories from those who desperately want to believe the opposite of what is likely the truth.


Again, where did I say it wasn't?


They probably -- or possibly -- don't have enough evidence to successfully get a conviction in court yet, but that doesn't mean there isn't any evidence already that suggests Russian involvement or they don't already know exactly who did it. Sometimes you know who committed a crime but don't have all the evidence yet (or enough to convict or it's shaky/circumstantial). You need concrete and watertight evidence to get a conviction for obvious reasons, and you don't go guns blazing with the minimal amount you do have or wait until you collect more (or certainly before you make it public).


Can you point me to where I said I have more evidence than they do? Maybe you should go through all my posts in this thread and actually read what I've wrote instead of trying to attack me over something I haven't said. I've remained largely neutral in most of my posts and I already said I'm not convinced either way, but I do lean to what seems to be the most logical explanation based on the available evidence (no matter how little that may be), but you seem to ignore that.


Maybe, but who are you trying to fool with this theory:


Because we're going to need to see some sources and evidence for this as well, or is it just another wild idiotic conspiracy theory based on absolutely nothing? Or are you claiming you actually know more than both the Russian and UK security services combined?

https://www.wildknightvodka.co.uk/

Also available in perfume bottles for alleged Russian agents.

There's no evidence of that at all. Your preferred version of the story is also a theory, the British government announcements are actually very carefully written in a such a way that they don't make any direct accusations, although they strongly insinuate a Russian state intelligence role nevertheless.

But the British government still plainly state that they do not have adequate evidence, and yet you believe you have more evidence (from reading newspaper articles) than they do. "It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they've been fooled"

I think you're one of these people that assumes too much. I know what a conspiracy means:


Unless he does have some evidence leading the Skripal poising to this secret eugenics program and Richard Branson, but I'm all ears.

The version of the story offered by the website you linked to is an accusation of conspiracy too. You're one of these people who don't know what the word "conspiracy" actually means, but still use it anyway

I don't know how it was brought in for certain but it's not me that needs convincing of how it got here. I think you're just going to believe whatever you want to believe. There could be video footage of them committing the act and pictures of the two assailants sipping champagne with Putin on a yacht off the coast of Russia and you'd probably find some issue with it.


But we're not on the jury. If we were we'd have access to all the available evidence and could make a more informed decision based on the facts at hand. At the moment all we have to go on are sources from the media and it's not like they can't be biased with their own agendas as well.


Jet Cash obviously wants to believe the one that suits his agenda more hence the conspiracy he's already proposed. You can't trust the Russians just the same as the Brits, but in this case -- and in my opinion -- this is more likely to be a Russian-lead attack rather than a false flag committed by the UK.

It is really difficult to say whom that is responsible without facts. The skripal case as I understand involves a high degree of power game between the USA and Russia, with rhetorics and mutually playing the blame game. No one can say a thing in this issue without definite proof. No matter how one analyses pseudo-facts, the truth remains: the public has no idea who did it.

However, because the human brain is too apt to joining issues, even before or without concrete knowledge, I would like to throw my own opinion into the pool as well.
Observe: Closely looking at both super powers, and comparing fresh events of the past; in international treaties, trade, and diplomacy, between the two, who is more willing to foster peace and mutual cooperation, who is readily steered to pick up a fight with the other, even over trivial and insignificant events, who is aggressive and tends to domineer, who is more thoughtful and systemic in approach to matters; thus, who's a boy and who's a man, who is noisy, and who is more quiet? Lastly, and probably the best proof regarding this case: who has demonstrated the greatest scandalousness?

How does all these relate to Sergei Skripal's poisoning?
 The whole thing looks bizarre, and one may find it really difficult to arrive at a comprehensively logical picture devoid of damning errors. It is difficult because the possibilities are tenfold. In Wikipedia's article about (google keyword): "who poisoned skripal", Britain accuses the Russian state, and her nationals Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov of using a chemical lethal compound  (Novichok nerve agent) in Scripal's poisoning,and calls them suspects. While the Russian government has repeatedly denied any involvement.

But who looses more from a demised skripal; is it the UK/USA government or is it Russia? Or, was the incident a precedented scheme designed to further propagate Russia's already battered global image, with the aim of punishing Russia through more sanctions for "committing" such an act. What does Russia gain from the death of a former military intelligence officer, Is it fear of supplying UK/USA government with critical information about Russia's military intelligence, If so, how updated is skripal's intelligence about present Russia's military capabilities, does he still have any sound intelligence gathering network, hasn't he  done that already in times of his active years and double secret service to Britain and Russia, a practice I consider dishonourable and treasonable? Why should Russia kill him now, when he was already convicted in the past and punished, when Russia had all favourable opportunities to silence him for good? Or, does the British government believe that he was/is also sharing British intelligence with Russia as a spy?

It is said that the Novichok agent was "found in a body spray container by a man" who gave it to a lady, and the lady sprayed the "perfume" on her waist, and eventually died from contamination. This happened in Salisbury after skripal was poisoned. However, not much is said about the man who "found" the container.

 While this is right or wrong, the whole thing is a confusion and in disarray.

Were there no more clean and more lethal options for Russia to use other than the nerve agent? How many of such cases are recorded from the past that can be confidently traced to Russia, and if any, has the USA of UK government not in one way or the other involved in more atrocious deeds? Who can truthfully, and confidently say that he is cleaner than the other?

The way I look at it (my opinion) three things are involved:
1. The UK government collaborating the USA government, in a precedented effort, to frame the Russian government into more sanctions and economic/political marginalisation. Or,
2. The Russian government deliberately poisoning Sergei Skripal for fear of military intelligence sabotage.
3. The British government deliberately poisoning Sergei and his daughter(...) for fear of British intelligence sabotage.
All points are in order of preference.

There's no evidence to support that (and you'll probably never find any).

You're treating it very absolutely, that there are only 2 options: either one trusts the British establishment's interpretation. or the Russian establishment's interpretation. These are not the only 2 possibilities, however. You're right to distrust the British establishment, but the same reasoning can be equally applied to distrust the Russian establishment too.

The totality is that it is part of a fake initiative to discredit Russia, and the resurrection of the fake Skripal story is just an addition to prepare us for another (probably fake) chemical attack on Idlib by the British funded White Helmets. This may be followed by the killing of civilians by the UK and the US. It is particularly dangerous now, as Syria and Russia have synchronised the signatures of their fighter planes, and the risk of mistakes in target identification has increased. It won't take much to escalate into a major war, especially as China is joining the party.

It is no surprise to me that almost no-one in this discussion is interested in the totality of the actual evidence. You're mostly making assumptions and suppositions about what is true and what is false, and solely based on which story you prefer, not whether aspects of either story is or isn't credible. Both stories are flawed.

This Salisbury story is a part of a very serious trend in world events, your only loyalty ought to be to the truth. When no serious investigation is taking place on the part of those whose professional duty is to investigate cases like these, it is your responsibility to do the most objective job you can with the material you have available, i.e. as if you were the jury in an actual trial, where real people's real futures were at stake, which they are. It's sad, but that's not what's happening in this thread.

NO. If they had evidence then the UK would be involved wouldn't it?
It's more likely it came through in a suitcase or something in hold luggage - it's not screened for novichok.


Errrr. Alright.
Don't know why you'd drink English vodka though (is there such a thing)?



There isn't, that's true. They were also very fast to say it was Russia.

I agree there is no good case without solid evidence which in this case is lacking.

Such as Porton Down?

Didn't they state that they knew it was smuggled through customs, and they had the evidence?

The media would say they were Russian agents if they were seen drinking English made vodka.