Russian Foreign Policy Megamix

Gatling

charlie14 wrote: »

Yet now the latest theory appears to be that they were both sprayed with this nerve agent on the doorstep of their house.
How could this be even possible other than the person or persons spraying them wearing bio-hazard suits (highly unlikely) or having a death wish.

The current believe or line of investigation is that the nerve agent was applied to the handle of the front door ,
It might also have a watered down version of what was first developed ,it's safe to say it shows its development didn't stop as russia has claimed with the destruction of "Self Declared" chemical weapons stocks

How and when the nerve agent was used will have to wait for more information from the OPCW investigation

mcmoustache

charlie14 wrote: »

Yeah on that.
Do we actually have any idea as to what happened ?

Yep

charlie14 wrote: »

At the outset we were told that this nerve agent was so lethal that a chemist attempting to manufacture it in a laboratory would be killed instantly.

By whom? Different dosages get different results. The most common instance of people saying that the thing would kill instantly came from Russian sources.

charlie14 wrote: »

Yet now the latest theory appears to be that they were both sprayed with this nerve agent on the doorstep of their house.

No. Unless I'm missing something, nobody hypothesised that.

charlie14 wrote: »

How could this be even possible other than the person or persons spraying them wearing bio-hazard suits (highly unlikely) or having a death wish.

That question is based on a very faulty premise.

Franz Von Peppercorn

demfad wrote: »

They are right to refuse her. She will be used to pass on threats to the daughter. No doubt she is under threat and coercion herself. The Russian state really has fully regressed under Putin.

They’re refusing her because she’ll blow the neoconservative narrative out of the water.

Franz Von Peppercorn

cnocbui wrote: »

You can't come up with a single instance? I am not surprised.

I suppose you think mainstream western media wouldn't publish topless photos of Kate Middleton, either.

Must be very convenient for the murdering UK government that none of their spies have friends or family to report their murders.

Spies have licenses to kill. Nobody denies this.

Sir Richard Billing Dearlove, former head of the UK Secret Intelligence Service MI6, testified in court in 2007–2008's Diana, Princess of Wales inquest that it does grant a licence to kill, subject to a "Class Seven authorisation" from the Foreign Secretary, but that there were no assassinations conducted under Dearlove's authority

I wonder what you guys think spies actually do.

Gatling

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

They’re refusing her because she’ll blow the neoconservative narrative out of the water.

Based off what exactly ,

Viktoria has already claimed this is a simple case of bad fish , despite medical experts telling us that the skipals were both exposed to a chemical nerve agent ,
So we have a staged phone call and someone saying that they are going to the UK ,
Then you have russia saying that they would have two diplomats escorting Viktoria to see the skipals , despite Yulia not asking to see or to talk to Russia diplomats or consuler officials

What exactly will she Viktoria say that will change anything

Franz Von Peppercorn

And anybody who thinks that western spy agencies won’t kill their own people should click this link


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Now, that’s clearly the tip of the ice berg.

Not that the western agencies who concocted this attack were killing their own people.

cnocbui

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Spies have licenses to kill. Nobody denies this.

Sir Richard Billing Dearlove, former head of the UK Secret Intelligence Service MI6, testified in court in 2007–2008's Diana, Princess of Wales inquest that it does grant a licence to kill, subject to a "Class Seven authorisation" from the Foreign Secretary, but that there were no assassinations conducted under Dearlove's authority

I wonder what you guys think spies actually do.

I think they seek and gather information covertly, not run around like fictional Movie hit-men, James Bond stylie.

Your quote emphasis what I have said. It indicates assassinations are extraordinary actions that rarely take place with no evidence whatsoever that Uk spies have been assassinated as traitors.

cnocbui

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

And anybody who thinks that western spy agencies won’t kill their own people should click this link


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Now, that’s clearly the tip of the ice berg.

Not that the western agencies who concocted this attack were killing their own people.

You are a caricature of a Russian apologist, disinformation purveyor.

From your own link: "The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration"

Discodog

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

And anybody who thinks that western spy agencies won’t kill their own people should click this link


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Now, that’s clearly the tip of the ice berg.

Not that the western agencies who concocted this attack were killing their own people.

What has the situation in 60s Cuba got to do with Salisbury ? Just suppose the UK has killed a spy, at some time. What has this to do with what happened in Salisbury apart from supporting the premise that the Russians tried to kill them ?

All the what ifs & what abouts don't alter what actually happened.

cnocbui

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

They’re refusing her because she’ll blow the neoconservative narrative out of the water.

They are likely refusing her visa because her actions and statements are indistinguishable from those of a state employed propagandist / disinformationalist, making her motives and allegiance suspect. Another reason might be that Yulia doesn't want to see her.

Has Viktoria repeated the nonsense claim that Yulia was engaged to marry the son of female FSB officer, since Yulia regained consciousness? Didn't think so.

Franz Von Peppercorn

cnocbui wrote: »

I think they seek and gather information covertly, not run around like fictional Movie hit-men, James Bond stylie.

Your quote emphasis what I have said. It indicates assassinations are extraordinary actions that rarely take place with no evidence whatsoever that Uk spies have been assassinated as traitors.

The quote emphasises that extra judicial assassinations happen. You (or the other guy) said nothing about rarity or otherwise. The claim was that western spies don’t kill. As for providing evidence of covert operations, that’s not possible unless declassified. So I did that too.

The CIA planned to murder American citizens in 1962 to discredit Cuba. That we know officially of this plan is merely because it didn’t happen, or it would have gone to a much deeper level and never been declassified.

If it had happened as planned though it would still be dismissed as conspiracy theory regardless of evidence or motive.

There are other examples. The idea that western agencies don’t kill, don’t engage in false flags, or don’t control the narrative is not born out by events. It’s more imperative to control the narrative in democracies in fact, since you need some modicum of popular support or plausibility. So suez is invaded to thwart Israeli aggression (except it was planned with Israel), the Vietnam war is accelerated to respond to Tomkin (now known to be false), Saddam has WMD and Assad keeps stupidly using gas when he’s winning. Oh and russia increases its isolation from Europe by deliberately and openly (we are told) killing its own citizens and then getting really angry when accused of it. What it gets from this? Nothing.

The war states and war party depend on the gullibility of the masses, and luckily for them can rely on it.

cnocbui

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The quote emphasises that extra judicial assassinations happen. You (or the other guy) said nothing about rarity or otherwise. The claim was that western spies don’t kill. As for providing evidence of covert operations, that’s not possible unless declassified. So I did that too.

Have you ever got the wrong end of the stick: The allegation and topic was that UK authorities have on a number of occasions assassinated their own agents who were traitors.

I never said or suggested that spies don't kill.

mcmoustache

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

And anybody who thinks that western spy agencies won’t kill their own people should click this link


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Now, that’s clearly the tip of the ice berg.

Not that the western agencies who concocted this attack were killing their own people.

Ah, the "But America does it too" talking point. I didn't realise that we were past the "Russia didn't do it" one.

charlie14

mcmoustache wrote: »

Yep

By whom? Different dosages get different results. The most common instance of people saying that the thing would kill instantly came from Russian sources.

No. Unless I'm missing something, nobody hypothesised that.

That question is based on a very faulty premise.

Then perhaps you should let somebody know as the British don`t appear to with the latest hypothesis being that it was sprayed on a door handle.

The only people I have heard say that this nerve agent is so dangerous it could not be made by a chemist in a lab without killing the chemist were British scientists.
Based on that I do not see how the premise that whoever applied it would either need a bio hazard suit, or they had a death wish was faulty

What we actually do know is that two people were exposed to a nerve agent manufactured in the past by Russia.
Anything else is simply conjecture.

Discodog

charlie14 wrote: »

Then perhaps you should let somebody know as the British don`t appear to with the latest hypothesis being that it was sprayed on a door handle.

The only people I have heard say that this nerve agent is so dangerous it could not be made by a chemist in a lab without killing the chemist were British scientists.
Based on that I do not see how the premise that whoever applied it would either need a bio hazard suit, or they had a death wish was faulty

What we actually do know is that two people were exposed to a nerve agent manufactured in the past by Russia.
Anything else is simply conjecture.

No one ever said sprayed afaik. The consensus is that it was a binary powder mixed immediately prior to use & then smeared on the door handle. You couldn't spray without having a very visible hasmat suit & mask. It would be pointless as most of the spray would miss the handle. We are talking very small amounts.

The comments about it being too dangerous & difficult to manufacture outside of a highly specialised lab came from ex Russian scientists who worked on Novichok.

charlie14

Discodog wrote: »

No one ever said sprayed afaik. The consensus is that it was a binary powder mixed immediately prior to use & then smeared on the door handle. You couldn't spray without having a very visible hasmat suit & mask. It would be pointless as most of the spray would miss the handle. We are talking very small amounts.

The comments about it being too dangerous & difficult to manufacture outside of a highly specialised lab came from ex Russian scientists who worked on Novichok.

Well if the consensus now is that it was a binary powder mixed and then smeared on a door handle, it looks as if those ex Russian scientists were over egging the danger of manufacture outside of a highly specialised lab somewhat.

cnocbui

charlie14 wrote: »

Then perhaps you should let somebody know as the British don`t appear to with the latest hypothesis being that it was sprayed on a door handle.

The only people I have heard say that this nerve agent is so dangerous it could not be made by a chemist in a lab without killing the chemist were British scientists.
Based on that I do not see how the premise that whoever applied it would either need a bio hazard suit, or they had a death wish was faulty

What we actually do know is that two people were exposed to a nerve agent manufactured in the past by Russia.
Anything else is simply conjecture.

The UK government has more from intelligence sources, which they haven't revealed publicly, which was likely conveyed to allies, hence the coordinated expulsion of Russian spies.

I think the novichok was likely a liquid that had been micro encapsulated, which would make it more like a powder that could be safely smeared on surfaces as it would give the applier time to exit the scene, wash their hands, dispose of clothing and perhaps take a shower.

Discodog

charlie14 wrote: »

Well if the consensus now is that it was a binary powder mixed and then smeared on a door handle, it looks as if those ex Russian scientists were over egging the danger of manufacture outside of a highly specialised lab somewhat.

How ? Firstly they are incredibly difficult to make & if the method was easy, the likes of ISIS would be having a field day. Secondly they are incredibly dangerous circa 10 times more toxic than VX.

Discodog

cnocbui wrote: »

The UK government has more from intelligence sources, which they haven't revealed publicly, which was likely conveyed to allies, hence the coordinated expulsion of Russian spies.

I think the novichok was likely a liquid that had been micro encapsulated, which would make it more like a powder that could be safely smeared on surfaces as it would give the applier time to exit the scene, wash their hands, dispose of clothing and perhaps take a shower.

That sounds very plausible as the heat, sweat & pressure of a human hand would break the encapsulation & disperse the agent on the hand. This also ties in with the Times article that named the likely site of manufacture & said that it was specially formulated for assassination.

It would of felt like condensation, morning dew & wouldn't raise alarm.

Dohnjoe

charlie14 wrote: »

Well if the consensus now is that it was a binary powder mixed and then smeared on a door handle, it looks as if those ex Russian scientists were over egging the danger of manufacture outside of a highly specialised lab somewhat.

It's all layman internet speculation by non-experts

It carries a lot less weight that the consensus of scientists who actually developed this stuff

(Nothing wrong with speculation of course)

The Litvinenko case was similar - there was a lot of doubt and incredulity over the idea of Polonium tea until the facts and details later emerged

charlie14

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's all layman internet speculation by non-experts

It carries a lot less weight that the consensus of scientists who actually developed this stuff

(Nothing wrong with speculation of course)

The Litvinenko case was similar - there was a lot of doubt and incredulity over the idea of Polonium tea until the facts and details later emerged

But isn`t that all there is at present. Speculation.
Not just simple everyman speculation, but speculation driven by the same security services whose reports of Iraq having stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the end were nothing but speculation.
The upshot of that speculation being so wrong we are seeing to this day, and will for many more to come I`m afraid.

The pointing of fingers based on speculation in the schoolyard is relatively harmless.
States doing so while whipping up public opinion is another matter entirely, and can lead to a very dangerous game of one-upmanship.
Or worse as Iraq has shown

Discodog

charlie14 wrote: »

But isn`t that all there is at present. Speculation.
Not just simple everyman speculation, but speculation driven by the same security services whose reports of Iraq having stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the end were nothing but speculation.
The upshot of that speculation being so wrong we are seeing to this day, and will for many more to come I`m afraid.

The pointing of fingers based on speculation in the schoolyard is relatively harmless.
States doing so while whipping up public opinion is another matter entirely, and can lead to a very dangerous game of one-upmanship.
Or worse as Iraq has shown

Do you really think that the EU would of jumped to support May or Boris without evidence ? They are hardly flavour of the month & must of offered irrefutable evidence to convince so many countries.

Dohnjoe

charlie14 wrote: »

But isn`t that all there is at present.

In the public sphere we don't know that much at this stage

Privately, there are over 200 detectives working on the case and the UK would certainly appear to have a large amount of intelligence (apparently it's one of the largest dossiers of intelligence they've ever shared with allies and other nations) - it had an immediate affect

Iraq is an example of faulty or misled intelligence and was highly controversial from the moment it was released. It seems to be more of an isolated case and of course will be in the minds of those presenting current intelligence/information as well as in the minds of countries receiving the information

cnocbui

charlie14 wrote: »

But isn`t that all there is at present. Speculation.
Not just simple everyman speculation, but speculation driven by the same security services whose reports of Iraq having stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in the end were nothing but speculation.
The upshot of that speculation being so wrong we are seeing to this day, and will for many more to come I`m afraid.

The pointing of fingers based on speculation in the schoolyard is relatively harmless.
States doing so while whipping up public opinion is another matter entirely, and can lead to a very dangerous game of one-upmanship.
Or worse as Iraq has shown

Rather than bring up the Neo-Con con that was the Cheney driven Iraq WMD fiasco - how about bringing up the Litvinenko assassination and they way intelligence and investigation played out in that situation? The Litvinenko case is an exact parallel for the current situation, The Iraq war is not.

Also note, that the failings of the intelligence community in the case of WMDs, were exposed precisely because the west allows people to oppose and question the views expressed by government leaders and has a press which can investigate and report without fear of murder, beatings, arrest and other forms of intimidation. That is not the case in Russia where there is nothing to rein-in or question lies by the state, which are SOP.

Discodog

And with WMDs & banned weapons let's not forget it can work both ways. Governments may claim there are weapons that, in fact, don't exist. But they can equally claim they have no such weapons when the evidence shows otherwise.

Some of the Russian comment has suggested that Novichok was excluded from the chemical weapons treaty because it simply wasn't known about at the time. It was a secret & therefore the Russians saw no obligation to tell the OPCW about it.

jimmycrackcorm

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

And anybody who thinks that western spy agencies won’t kill their own people should click this link

Who have they actually killed?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

The CIA planned to murder American citizens in 1962 to discredit Cuba. That we know officially of this plan is merely because it didn’t happen, or it would have gone to a much deeper level and never been declassified.

There have been many bizarre proposals such as the French plan in the 1950s for Vietnam. A proposal is not policy.

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

If it had happened as planned though it would still be dismissed as conspiracy theory regardless of evidence or motive.

Like dismissing the Russians using nerve poison is a conspiracy?

johnnyskeleton

cnocbui wrote: »

You are a caricature of a Russian apologist, disinformation purveyor.

Mod note:

No personal attacks please.

Franz Von Peppercorn

mcmoustache wrote: »

Ah, the "But America does it too" talking point. I didn't realise that we were past the "Russia didn't do it" one.

You guys are floundering for responses. We’re not past the Russia didn’t do it claim. It’s part and parcel of the claim that America, or its jihadist allies were responsible.

It surely isn’t all that inconceivable that a country that had plan to bomb its own citizens in a well documented false flag would harm other citizens in a false flag.

I don’t think however that the Americans necessarily planned the Syrian attack at the highest level. The local jidhadi groups are well capable of lies and distortions. The British could be fooled by rogue agents.

The last syrian attack was by the way was admitted to have no evidence by the US secretary of defence.

https://www.apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5

And yet the media, and the people posting here, were certain.


With the crazed John Bolton now in a position of power - a man who wants regime change in Syria and Iran I don’t think we will see such measured responses in future.

Franz Von Peppercorn

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Who have they actually killed?

I don’t know because it’s classified. You know that of course.

There have been many bizarre proposals such as the French plan in the 1950s for Vietnam. A proposal is not policy.

I gave evidence of other false flags which were clearly policy.

Like dismissing the Russians using nerve poison is a conspiracy?

There are two competing conspiracy theories in this case, for sure.

johnnyskeleton

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I don’t know because it’s classified. You know that of course.




I gave evidence of other false flags which were clearly policy.





There are two competing conspiracy theories in this case, for sure.

Mod note:

This forum is for political discussion not conspiracy theories. You have brought the discussion well into the realm of conspiracy theories at this stage. Please refrain from posting on this thread unless you have strong and objective sources for what you are saying.