May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous
cells
MSM fake news industry uses projection as the major weapon
MSM allegations of "fake news" and attempts to discredit the opponent as a projection
of own misbehavior
For more and more Americans, the other side isn’t merely misguided in the extreme. It’s
evil in the absolute, and virtue is measured by the starkness with which that evil is labeled
and reviled. There are emotional satisfactions to this. There is also a terrible price.
Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more
lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who
want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right.
Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course.
The capacity to disseminate misinformation, in order to paint the
opposition in wildly negative light, suppressing any rebuttal is not standard tactic of US MSM
and that allows sharp polarization of the electorate.
Over the past decade in
particular, the internet and social media have changed the game. They speed people to like-minded
warriors and give them the impression of broader company or sturdier validation than really exist.
The fervor of those in the anti-vaccine movement exemplifies this.
Admirers of a responsible
politician or righteous noca can cause coalesce quickly (like was the case during Sanders run), but
the same is true for the opposite side. Web
sites with forums of likeminded people create echo camera effect, “create a whole new
permission structure, a sense of social affirmation for what was once unthinkable...” If
words can inspire, then they can also incite or debase .
That’s true whether those words are spoken from the right or from the
left, and the monetization of partisan combat spans the ideological spectrum.
As the result, people are surrendering
restraint and a socially important thing called tact. And this "verbal extremism" guarantees to
widen the divisions between us
Discrediting the opponent as a favorite tactic of neoliberals
Whataboutism is a nickname MSM have given that dirty the tactic of discrediting the
opponent, when the opponent questions the USA objectivity because it commited similar or worse
crimes in the past. Which, of course, if nor deprive, but greatly diminish the USA status as an
objective judge.
Neoliberal channels are ready to come up with numerous conspiracy theories, painting the
opponent, especially Russia, as ruthless canning opportunists, devoid of any moral principles. But
unfortunately this is true about the USA too.
But the key idea of this cynical post-modern media strategy, perfected by neoliberal political technologists
is to block/suppress/dilute all opposing views in the "neoliberal noise" (like air dominance in war
the US MSM practice full airwave dominance). That's why Putin interview is edited in such a wya as
to hide any substantial criticism of the US policy. And not only Putin. This is a universal
strategy of deciet. Its
goal of the US MSM is to confuse what’s true with what’s not, to the point that the truth vanishes. What it
undeniable is that over the past year neoliberals created an artificial reality that matches or
exceed the one that existed in the USSR. Along with demonization Russia they also greatly succeeded
in demonization of Trump.
This color revolution that Clinton and their supporters in several intelligence agencies launched
against Trump in election would be painfully familar to one who observed , for example, Uninian
Orange revolution. Templates are identical. just the goals are different (in case of Orange
revolution delegitimization of elections to the extent that new elections were called; in case of
anti-Trump color revolution the appointment of the Special Prosecutor (aka Grand Inqusitor)
was the goal.
This is what must be done by free thinkers if they are to counter and reverse the collectivist
nightmare of neoliberalism.
Try to avoid false trick of "shaming" under some artificial labels like communist or
racist: Social justice relies on shaming tactics, usually by slandering
an opponent with a label that does not really apply to him, in order to control his arguments and
behavior. If you don’t care about being called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a homophobe,
etc., then there is not really much that they can do to you.
Do not self-censor: This does not mean you should go out of your way to be antagonistic
or act like an ass, but the thought police have power only if you give power to them. Say what you
want to say when you want to say it, and do it with a smile. Let the PC police froth and scream until
they have an aneurism. neoliberals are generally weaklings. They avoid physical confrontation like
they avoid logic, so why fear them?
Demand facts to back claims: neoliberals tend to argue on the basis of opinion
rather than fact. Present facts to counter their claims, and demand facts and evidence in return.
Opinions are irrelevant if the person is not willing to present supporting facts when asked.
Do not play the game of "unconscious bias": If social justice cultists can't
counter your position with facts or logic, they will invariably turn to the old standby that you
are limited in your insight because you have not lived in the shoes of a - (insert victim group here).
I agree. In fact, I would point out that this reality of limited perception also applies to
THEM as well. They have not lived in my shoes, therefore they are in no position to claim I
enjoy "privilege" while they do not. This is why facts and evidence are so important, and why
anecdotal evidence and personal feelings are irrelevant where cultural Marxism is concerned.
Let neoliberals know their fears and feelings do not matter: No one is entitled
to have their feelings addressed by others. And, a person’s fears are ultimately unimportant. Whether
the issue is the nonexistent “rape culture” or the contempt neoliberals feel over private gun ownership,
their irrational fears are not our concern. Why should any individual relinquish his liberties in
the name of placating frightened nobodies?
Demand that banksters respect your inherent individual rights: Banksters message is that there is no such thing as inherent rights or liberties and that all rights
are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the group or the state. This is false.
I have
written extensively in the past on inherent rights, inborn psychological contents and natural
law, referencing diverse luminaries, scientists and thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas, Carl Gustave
Jung, Steven Pinker, etc., and I welcome readers to study my many articles on individualism.
Freedom is an inborn conception with universally understood aspects. Period. No group or collective
is more important than individual liberty. No artificial society has preeminence over the individuals
within that society. As long as a person is not directly impeding the life, liberty, prosperity and
privacy of another person, he should be left alone.
Maintain your rights as long as they do not hurt other people: PC cultists will invariably
argue that every person, whether he knows it or not, is indirectly harming others with his attitude,
his beliefs, his refusal to associate, even his very breathing. "We live in a society", they
say, "and everything we do affects everyone else...". Don’t take such accusations seriously;
these people do not understand how freedom works.
Say, for instance, hypothetically, that I refuse to bake a gay wedding cake for a couple and I
am accused of violating their rights in the name of preserving my own. I would immediately point
out that no one is entitled to a gay wedding cake, baked by me or anyone else and I have every right
to choose my associations based on whatever criteria I see fit. Now, a corrupt government entity
may claim I do not have that right. But the fact is I do, and no one — not even government — can
force me to bake a cake if I don’t want to. Also, I would point out that the gay couple in question
has every right in a free society to bake their OWN damn cake or open their own cake shop to compete
with mine. This is how freedom works. It is not based on collective entitlement; it is based on personal
responsibility.
Refuse to deny the scientific fact of biological gender: Gender is first and
foremost a genetic imperative. Society only partially determine gender roles; nature does the
most. A man who chops
up his body and takes hormone pills to look like a woman is not and will never be a woman. A woman
who tapes down her breasts and gets a short haircut will never be a man. There is no such thing as
“transgendered” people. No amount of social justice or wishful thinking will ever allow them to reverse
their genetic proclivities. Their psychological and sexual leanings do not change their inborn biological
reality.
By extension, we should refuse to play along with this nonsense. I will never refer to a man in
a wig and dress as a “woman.” I will never refer to a woman with identity issues as “transgendered.”
They are what nature made them, and we should not police our pronouns just to falsely reassure them
that they can deny nature.
Deny both neoliberal idea of "greed is good" and the illusion of Utopian equality:
"Greed is good" proved to be an effective instrument of destruction of the USA society in just 35
years. Now we have "Dis-united States of America." Not the "United States of America." Like
traffic light regulation perform a vital fuinction and removing vital regulations inflict a heavy
price of the society. Opposite is also true: too much regulations also inflict a price.
There is no such thing as pure social equality. It was never achieved in societies that try it,
such as early the USSR. Society is not a homogeneous entity, it is an abstraction built
around a group of unique individuals. Individuals can be naturally gifted, or naturally
challenged. But there will always be some people who are more apt towards success than
others and the success of the society depends of promoting such people to more important
roles. Financial remuneration actually can pray here secondary role, but different in status is
unavoidable. Primates-related concept of 'alpha male" is a precursor to social differentiation in
human societies.
I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of equality of opportunity, which is exactly what we
have in this country (except in the world of elitist finance which is purely driven by nepotism).
I do have a problem with the lie of universal equality through engineered means.
Standards of success should not be lowered in order to accommodate the least skilled people to
facilitate artificial parity. For example, I constantly hear the argument that more people
with victim group status should be given greater representation in positions of influence and regard
within our culture, from science and engineering, to media, to business CEO's, to politics, etc.
The key word here is "given", rather than "earned". There is nothing wrong with one group of
people excelling in a field more than another group, and there is nothing wrong with inequality when
it comes to individual achievement. We must begin refusing to reward people for mediocrity
and punishing success simply because the winners are not part of a designated victim group.
If you are a man, embrace your role: I am a man and cannot claim to know what
specific solutions women should take to counter cultural Marxism. I would love to read an article
written on the subject by a woman in the Liberty Movement. I will say that men in particular
have a considerable task ahead in terms of their personal endeavors if they hope to repair the destruction
of social justice.
For thousands of years, men have been the primary industrial force behind human progress. Today,
they are relegated to cubicles and customer service, to video games and Web fantasies, to drug addictions
and a lack of responsibility. If we have any chance of undoing the damage of cultural Marxism, modern
men must take on their original roles as producers, inventors, entrepreneurs, protectors, builders
and warriors once again. They should do this for their own benefit, and not for the validation of
others.
You don’t have to prove to anyone you do "manly things", just go out and do them. Most importantly,
become dangerous. Men are meant to be dangerous beings. That does not mean we are meant to be indiscriminately
violent (just as women aren’t meant to be indiscriminately violent), but we are supposed to be threatening
to those who would threaten us. Modern society has NOT removed the need for masculinity and I believe
people will begin realizing this the more our culture sinks into economic despair. Train in martial
arts, learn tactical firearms handling, go hunting and don’t take lip from people. In my opinion,
every man should know how to kill things, even if he never plans on using those abilities.
Resist neoliberal brainwashing of your children: It’s simple, if you don’t want your kids propagandized,
if you truly want them to be free from collectivist conditioning, then you will make the sacrifice
and extract them from public schooling. With the introduction of Common Core into U.S. schools in
particular, there is no other recourse but home schooling to prevent the brainwashing of cultural
Marxism. If you do not do this, you are relying on the hope that your children will escape with their
critical thinking abilities intact. Some do, and some don’t. Others turn into mindless social justice
zombies. You can give them an advantage by removing them from a poisonous environment, and that is
what matters.
The insane lie that neoliberals seem to have conned themselves and others into believing is that
their “activism” is somehow anti-establishment. In fact, social justice is constantly coddled
and supported by the establishment.
From politicians to judges to media pundits to the blogosphere, the overwhelming majority of
people in positions of traditional power (even in supposedly conservative circles) have been more
than happy to become the enforcers of the neoliberal agenda (including "fake democratization"
agenda). There is no establishment for the army of enforces of political correctness to
fight; the establishment bias works vastly more in favor of their ideology than any other. Neoliberals ARE the establishment.
The Blogmire
According to
an article in The Mail , the mother of Sergei Skripal, Yelena, has not heard from
her son since the incident on 4th March , and the last time she heard from her granddaughter,
Yulia, was on 24th July:
"Recalling her phone conversation with Yulia, Yelena told the Daily Mirror : 'The
last time I actually spoke to Yulia was on the 24th of July on my 90th birthday. She
rang - it was unexpected but it was so lovely to hear from her. She called and was actually
with Sergei. She told me: "I'm with daddy he is beside me but he can't speak as he has a pain
in his throat". She said he had been in some pain.'"
This is interesting for a number of reasons.
Firstly, we know that during the conversation on 24th July, according to a number of reports
(for example here
), Yulia told her grandmother that the reason Sergei was unable to speak was because his voice
was still weak due to a tracheostomy :
"Babushka, happy birthday, everything is fine, everything is perfect. I am in London with
papa. He can't speak because he's got a tracheostomy, that pipe, which will be taken off in
three days. Now when he speaks with that pipe, his voice is first of all very weak and
secondly, he makes quite a lot of wheeze. So babushka with your poor hearing you would really
struggle to understand him. He'll call after the tracheostomy is off. "
This was almost 3 months ago. So the tracheostomy was preventing Sergei from
speaking; but it was coming off in three days; yet nearly 3 months later and still no call from
Sergei? Is that not very odd? Indeed, especially given that Yelena states in the interview that
she and Sergei used to speak every week .
Secondly, the call on 24th July is itself very odd. Notice that Yulia uses the phrases
"everything is fine, everything is perfect." These are basically the same sorts of phrases that
she repeated over and over in
her call with her cousin Viktoria on 5th April :
"Everything is ok, everything is fine."
"Everything is fine, but we'll see how it goes, we'll decide later. You know what the
situation is here. Everything is fine, everything is solvable, everyone is recovering and is
alive."
"Everything is ok. He is resting now, having a nap. Everyone's health is fine, there are
no irreparable things. I will be discharged soon. Everything is ok."
She seems very keen - some would say overly keen - to emphasise that everything is
fine and okay and perfect etc. To me it sounds unnatural and forced. What do you think?
But more than this, imagine yourself in the same situation. Your father is next to you. He
can speak, but not very well, and so can't communicate through the phone to his mother. What
would you do? Well, I know what I would do. I would relay speech from the one to the other. "He
says he's getting better and misses you very much grandma." "She says she loves you, dad."
Isn't that what normal people would do in such circumstances?
But instead, Yulia speaks in a way that doesn't fill me with too much certainty that he was
actually in the room with her. It's all very medical and somewhat officious. And even if his
voice was a bit wheezy and hard to understand, his ears were okay, weren't they? Couldn't Yulia
have held the phone to her dad's ear so he could hear his mother speak to him? Again, that
would be what a normal person would do in such circumstances, wouldn't it? But of course they
don't do normal in SkripalWorld.
Thirdly, we have to reckon with the fact that since that call, in which Yulia indicated that
Sergei would call in as little as three days, there has been no communication at all . Not with
grandma. Not with Viktoria. Not with anyone (apparently even Mark Urban got the cold
shoulder).
Actually, that's not quite the case. We don't really have to reckon with this because the
heroic journalism of The Mail gives us the answer. In the same piece that it mentioned
a call between Yulia and her grandma, in which Sergei was apparently sat right next to Yulia,
we get this:
"Since that solitary phone conversation, she [Yelena] has not heard from her the two targeted
relatives as any contact could lead Russian forces to the pair."
Remarkable, isn't it? So according to The Mail , the reason that Sergei
Skripal cannot call his mother, is because Russian forces might be able to trace his
whereabouts and order a hit on him. Another one, apparently. And yet in the very same piece
they report on Yulia Skripal calling her grandmother on 24th July, with Sergei Skripal at her
side. See? It's obvious, isn't it?
Not for the first time in this case, I'm left scratching my head and wondering whether the
journalists who write this sort of thing believe their readers to be so dim that they won't
notice statements in the same article that utterly refute one another, or whether the
journalists themselves are so witless that they simply don't realise that they are
contradicting themselves in the space of a few sentences. Any thoughts?
The fact is that Yulia has phoned her cousin Viktoria a number of times since the beginning
of April, and in most, if not all of those calls, her father was said to be close by. She even
did a little film for Reuters in May, with her father apparently in the same compound. Why were
these allowed, since according to The Mail , it could have led Russian forces to the
pair? Or are we to believe that Russian forces have only just developed the capability to trace
phone calls since 24th July? Worse still, have British Security Services forgotten how to
prevent phone calls being traced by other intelligence agencies since 24th July, not to mention
also losing the ability to stop Russian forces from coming and getting them?
Or is it more likely that The Mail cannot be bothered to ask the obvious questions
that stem from their own report. Such as:
1. Why is the apparent victim in this case, Sergei Skripal, who is under the protection of
British (and possibly US) intelligence services, unable to phone his mother, whom he used to
speak to on a weekly basis?
2. Does this constitute a violation of his human rights?
3. Given that he has had no contact with his mother since 4th March, how can we be sure
that he is alive, and if he is, whether he is not being held against his will?
UK politicians in Skripal story behaved by cheap clowns. Their story with door knob was pathetic. They tried to invent
the legend with poisoning on the fly and that shows. There is definitely something else brewing here and Shamir proposed his
version with Skripal double dealings or something along those line is quite plausible.
We will never know, but I think British discredited themselves for the whole world in this story. Trump was not better will
using this tory to impose additional sanctions on Russia. This is just another proof that he is another neocon who during election
campaign like Obama played the role of isolationalist and then appointed Haley to UN and hired Pompeo as his Secretary of
state and Bolton as his security advisor -- a typical "bat and switch" operation in US politics.
Notable quotes:
"... Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly. ..."
"... As we had learned from videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home. ..."
"... There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan Bandera was. ..."
"... However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services. ..."
"... Such a massive operation against Russian agents and their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal their full knowledge of enemy agents. ..."
"... I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director and actors. ..."
Vrublevsky thinks that British intelligence convinced the GRU (probably we should say that
GRU is not called GRU anymore but GU, the Chief Directorate of the General Staff, but it hardly
matters) that Mr Skripal wanted to return home to Russia. Probably they were told that Mr
Skripal intended to bring some valuable dowry with him, including Porton Down data and the
secrets of the Golden Rain dossier. It is possible that Skripal had been played, too; perhaps
he indeed wanted to go back to Russia, the country he missed badly.
Two GRU agents, supposedly experts on extraction (they allegedly sneaked the Ukrainian
president Yanukovych from Ukraine after the coup and saved him from lynching mob) were sent to
Salisbury to test the ground and make preparations for Skripal's return. As we had learned from
videos and stills published by the Brits, the two men had been carefully followed from the
beginning to the end. Meanwhile, British intelligence staged a 'poisoning' of Skripal and his
daughter, and the two agents quickly returned home.
There is not a single man close to Russian intelligence who thinks that Skripal had actually
been poisoned by the Russians. First, there was absolutely no reason to do it, and second, if
the Russians would poison him, he would stay poisoned, like the Ukrainian Quisling Stepan
Bandera was.
However, by playing this card, the British secret service convinced the Foreign Office to
expel all diplomats who had contacts and connection to the exposed GRU agents. The massive
expulsion of 150 diplomats caused serious damage to the Russian secret services.
Still, the Russians had no clue how the West had learned identities of so many diplomats
connected to GRU. They suspected that there was a mole, and a turncoat who delivered the stuff
to the enemy.
That is why Vladimir Putin decided to dare them. As he knew that the two men identified by
the British service had no connection to the alleged poisoning, he asked them to appear on the
RT in an interview with Ms Simonyan. By acting as village hicks, they were supposed to provoke
the enemy to disclose its source. The result was unexpected: instead of revealing the name of a
turncoat, the Belling Cat, a site used by the Western Secret Services for intentional leaks,
explained how the men were traced by using the stolen databases. Putin's plan misfired.
The Russian secret service is not dead. Intelligence services do suffer from enemy action
from time to time: the Cambridge Five infiltrated the upper reaches of the MI-5 and delivered
state secrets to Moscow for a long time, but the Intelligence Service survived. Le Carre's
novels were based on such a defeat of the intelligence. However they have a way to recover.
Identity of their top agents remain secret, and they are concealed from the enemy's eyes.
But in order to function properly, the Russians will have to clean their stables, remove
their databases from the market place and keep its citizenry reasonably safe. Lax, and
not-up-to-date agents do not apparently understand the degree the internet is being watched.
Considering it should have been done twenty years ago, and meanwhile a new generation of
Russians has came of age, perfectly prepared to sell whatever they can for cash, it is a
formidable task.
There is an additional reason to worry. Such a massive operation against Russian agents and
their contacts could signal forthcoming war. In normal circumstances, states do not reveal
their full knowledge of enemy agents. It made president Putin worry; and he said this week: we'll
go to heaven as martyrs, the attackers will die as sinners. In face of multiple and recent
threats, this end of the world is quite possible.
Great story. If told many people would believe it. But now it is kind of late. So why it
wasn't told within few days or weeks of Skripal affair? Why it is the British media that has
initiative and Russian media is reactive and defensive? The story that Skripal wanted to
return and that two agents were lured in there should have been told right away and that it
turned out be MI5 provocation should have been insinuated. And the two agents should have
been interviewed on Russian media. Instead we get defensive inept and indolent Russian
reactions.
I do not know what is the truth. At this point I no longer care because we will never
know but it will be the British version that will be the most popular. I like most people
like good stories. Unfortunately for Russia the Brits have better script writers, director
and actors.
@utu " Instead we get
defensive inept and indolent Russian reactions."
The reaction 'if we want to kill somebody that somebody does not survive' I cannot see as
inept and indolent.
Excellent piece by Israel Shamir which I think gives the correct explanation of the Skripal
poisoning. This was a classic fishing, 'click bait' operation which produced a very valuable
haul for Western Intelligence. The only question is whether Skripal cooperated with it
– which I think he did – not knowing that both he and his daughter were meant to
die. Hence Putin's rage against Skripal a few weeks ago ( calling him a scumbag traitor etc,
etc) after the Russian operatives were identified because retired agents are supposed to stay
retired.
Russia made a very serious mistake with the RT interview with the 2 operatives. Better not
to say anything if you can't give the whole story. The GU weren't happy to show their
incompetence, but compounded the original mistake with obvious lying. That was a propaganda
gift to the Western media and has helped convince original disbelievers of Russian
perfidy.
Russia needs to step up its game especially in the media dept.
@Anatoly Karlin " British
or American human capital, but there are certainly consummate professionals relative to what
passes for today's Russian intelligence services. "
On what this 'certainly' is based, I see no argument whatsoever.
Already a long time ago, I must admit, the CIA director had to admit to senator Moynihan that
he had lied about the CIA not laying mines in Havana harbour.
A professional in espionage does not get caught.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 'Secrecy', New Haven 1998
Anyone acquinted with Sept 11 understands that the USA's secret army, the CIA, was
involved.
Another blunder.
As far as I know British secret services never get caught.
How clever the Russians are, suppose quite clever, I for one do not think that the stupid
stories about for example Skripal have any truth in them.
Until now the asserted Russian meddling in USA elections have not been proved.
Do not know of anything credible that Russian intelligence people are said to have done.
But of course Russian intelligence does exist.
"A related problem is that since there is now a free market economy, with many more
attractive career options for talented people, the high quality people go to work in other
spheres, leaving the intelligence agencies with the dregs;" .
A direct result of erasing ideology so as to erase personality cult towards highly
respected people in former USSR .When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with
your opponent, i.e free market .) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific
human capital to secret service officials, are out there in the global market for possible
selling to the best postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said,
almost everybody has a price .The challenge is finding out where that little bunch who have
not are ..Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage How to overcome this would be part of "what is to be done" ..
If the Russians wanted to kill them they would be dead. Period. It is all FN hoax.
The latest English came up with was that poison was smeared on the door handle and that both
touched the door handle. Give me a break. Such a idiocy. Just imagine the exit procedure
where both are touching the door knob.
And than both Russians went to garbage dump carrying the little bottle and thru it there.
What an exemplary citizen neat behavior by Russians,
All English story is such a stupid idiocy that it turns my stomach.
However, the presence of Russian spies in Salisbury can be explained by its nearness to
Porton Down, the secret British chemical lab and factory for manufacturing chemical weapons
applied by the White Helmets in Syria in their false-flag operation in Douma and other
places. It is possible that a resident of Salisbury (Mr Skripal?) had delivered samples
from Porton Down to the Russian intelligence agents. This makes much more sense than the
dubious story of Russians trying to poison an old ex-spy who did his stretch in a Russian
jail.
If Mr. Skripal has been poisoned by the stuff of which he himself took samples in Porton
Down, this would run completely parallel to the earlier poisoning of Mr. Alexander
Valterovich Litvinenko, who also became ill because of carrying poison (polonium) around.
If [Yulia Skripal] had not had the courage to make this call while slipping the
observance of British intelligence, she would probably be dead by now.
Both Skripals are most likely DEAD, murdered by British "intelligence"
services.
The formulaic and curiously uninterested treatment of the matter in the British media
seems inconsistent with the Skripals still being alive.
The article above suggests that the Skripals were unwitting or witting participants in a
sting to expose Russian intelligence agents. More importantly, Sergey Skripal appears to have
had a role in the creation of the DNC's "dossier" to undermine the Trump presidencey.
Whatever the background, Sergey Skripal became privy to important secrets that the Brits
and their seditious allies in the U.S. Deep State do not want exposed.
In the Skripal case the British have not explained why, after claiming to have found the
closest approach to a smoking gun in the form of traces of novichok in that hotel room, the
hotel was not then immediately quarantined.
And assuredly, with Putin's name on the line, the Russians have to do a better job if they
are to refute the standing accusations – the RT interview was something of a PR
disaster.
The Belloncat data, although superficially convincing, could so easily have been faked by
anybody with reasonable knowledge of Russian internet infrastructure and some proficiency in
Photoshop.
But I did not know about these massive intelligence security breaches in Russia. Wow,
that's huge. Even though it's not clear to me how this indicates Putin's plan misfired. If
anything he got exactly what he wanted: confirmation that the "West" had access to the entire
passport database. Knowing what your enemy has in intelligence is a huge win, now they can
work on correcting it (hard as it may be, it would be impossible without knowing).
But the fact is Russia has not really disputed the results so I am fairly confident that
not only was Belling Cat right, but Israel is right, and now we have the situation where
Russia knows that Western intelligence has full access to Russia's passport database.
@Tyrion 2 Had some
experiences with Chinese and Mossad spies, not to mention Russian Jewish hard-drug dealers.
Here are a few examples.
There was an AMES postdoc at UCSD, a Chinese applied-math brain who had a 10-plus female
handler. She'd stop by occasionally to check up on him. He always get extremely anxious when
she was around. Couldn't figure out if it was fear, sexual excitement, or a combination of
both.
There was an old Chinese man and his foxy young female protege, who enjoyed filming U.S.
military maneuvers along the San Diego coast. I observed their operation for days.
There was a swing-shift cleaning crew in a Southern California high-tech mfg facility that
was all Chinese, in an area that typically employed Latin American crews. Its head honcho was
a beautiful Chinese lady. They made it their job to sort through trash bins and save papers.
The feds busted them.
As far as the Mossad, I spent two years on a rental property in SD county, which was
occupied by them as well. Mostly Israeli kids using the property and a local Israeli-owned
vegetarian restaurant as their "scorpion den." Got fairly familiar with some of their
espionage work and methods.
I don't go looking for this stuff. I'm just able to recognize it. As an empath I can read
people, quite well. It's a natural gift.
Can't stomach Israel's insensitive nature. That's why you'll typically find me pointing
out their self-serving bullshit.
This is a pretty good article but also falls on its face at the end
Mr Shamir's 'inside' information confirms my own take on Petrov and Boshirov which I
published a few days after that RT interview with Ms Simonyan
I wrote this on Col Lang's blog on Sept 14
'Yeah those two 'tourists' do look the part don't they I would say they are probably GRU
or something similar but nobody 'poisoned' the Skripals that's total kabuki theater another
Potemkin village production from the reality masters
Something is afoot here though perhaps these two were lured to Salisbury as part of a
frame up plot, perhaps by Skripal himself or perhaps the Brits caught wind of their plans
to visit [on some standard spying mission, certainly not assassination] and put in motion
the elaborate hoax
Everybody there protested loudly including Andrey Martyanov [Smoothie] I also added
this
' I disagree with everyone here it seems these guys aren't tourists but they also didn't
try to kill anyone that's stupid
It's some sort of spy game
Here's one scenario double agent Skripal makes convincing noises about flipping back
someone at GRU [or some similar outfit] sends these two to Salisbury to check it out a very
stupid move which is why Putin is now miffed enough to display these guys publicly and
their field career surely over also a slap in the face to the silly Limeys for playing
dirty pool even in the cloak and dagger game there are unwritten rules '
This is now exactly the story that Mr Shamir is presenting here but he is a day late and a
dollar short
I also don't agree with his take that this is all somehow a big loss for Russian intel the
Brits are the ones who have painted themselves in a corner their Skripal story is a wet paper
bag waiting to fall apart the fact that they lured the Russians to Salisbury, under whatever
pretext, be it Skripal or Porton Down/white helmets etc was their only small tactical victory
because they could then later expose those two after months of Russian denials in order to
show the Russians were in fact somehow involved
But that exposure came months later all that time the Russians would have known that
Boshirov and Petrov had been captured on candid camera and would have had time to work on
their countermove
Mr Shamir writes this like the game is over that is ridiculous the Brits have no way out
of the Skripal hoax there was never any poisoning the original diagnosis of the Skripals in
the Salisbury hospital was opioid overdose that came out in the first BBC interview with the
hospital staff months after the 'poisoning'
It was not until 48 hours after the Skripals were admitted to hospital and the convenient
intervention of Porton Down that the medical diagnosis was 'changed' to nerve agent
poisoning
BUT this is an unsustainable story that WILL FALL APART the simple reason is medical and
chemical fact both nerve agents and agricultural pesticides are based on the exact
same chemical compound organophosphates
'There are nearly 3 million poisonings per year resulting in two hundred thousand
deaths.'
That is the simple reason why emergency doctors EVERYWHERE are trained to recognize and
treat this kind of poisoning especially in rural, agricultural areas like
Salisbury
That is why it took months for media to gain access to the medical staff at that hospital
the British spooks needed to do a lot of 'persuading' with medical professionals that would
have wanted no part in such trickery and fakery
But this is a ticking time bomb that is bound to blow up in the faces of the very stupid
Brits
So yes they pulled off a minor coup in luring those two to Salisbury but the game is very
very far from over
As for Skripal he is in on it for sure as I speculated in my original comment on the
matter..the Russian intel services are perfectly aware of this, yet Mr Shamir's supposedly
well connected source has zero knowledge of this which tells me this source is actually a
useless clown who 'knows' exactly what an internet commenter [myself] already knew two months
ago
PS the fact that the Brits supposedly have all kinds of database info on the Russian intel
apparatus and personnel files etc doesn't mean anything the author is a making a big deal out
of this, but his story lacks meat on its bones most 'intel' is open source material
anyway
As for sensitive stuff that may have been 'sold' by 'corrupt' bureaucrats one must ask if
such 'info' is actually real or a clever plant providing fake info is the oldest spy trick in
the book and this article simply takes for granted that such a trick would not have been
employed why not ?
@FB How would a fake
database leak include the real data on the two GRU agents that just happened to be sent to
UK? Maybe it was to make the data leak seem real?
In spycraft it is always impossible to know how deep the deception goes. That's why the
very article to which you are responding started with:
It is hard to evaluate the exact measure of things in the murky world of spies and
counter-spies, but it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the
subterranean battle.
I think that a clear strategy by the western "intelligence" services is starting to emerge
vis-a-vis the Russians. By accusing any Russian that they can get their hands on, of being a
spy, they want to scare the ordinary Russians from visiting the west, so afterwards any
Russian actually caught traveling to the west can be safely assumed to be a spy – since
by the calculations of the clever western intelligence – only someone who is actually a
spy while at the same time being Russian, would dare to travel to the west. How smart is
that?
Joking aside, it really is becoming unsafe for Russian nationals to travel to the west.
Even though the west reserves the generosity of calling somebody equal only for those that
are from the 3rd world – Russians clearly don't deserve such generosity.
Despite this, exceptions can be made and some unfortunate Russian soul could be accused of
being equal with those highly evolved westerners and against their will can be offered
protection from Mother Russia.
Pretty much like it happened to Yulia Skripal. She was only visiting her gastarbeiter
father in GB, who apparently expressed desire to return to Russia, against pretty much
everybody's wishes, and all of a sudden Yulia Skripal found herself bestowed with the western
generosity of being declared equal, and was disappeared from public eye in order to protect
her from those with whom she is clearly not equal – the Russians.
Thank God at least MI-6 proved equal to the task and discovered her equalness in a nick of
time and saved her. The moral of the story: Only democracy has the power to recognize who is
equal and who is not. Then, on the other hand, capitalism can keep acquiring new monikers
such as "democracy" – all they want, Russia still has better quality of equality,
despite ditching socialism.
@CalDre Yes I 'stubbornly'
refuse to take at face value this silly statement
it appears that the Western spies have had extraordinary success in the subterranean
battle.'
Because it's not backed up by anything other than hot air as for that supposed 'data'
about Petrov and Boshirov
that was put out by Bellingcat
Ie mickey mouse stuff as with everything these clowns do, it is meant only to bamboozle
the most utterly stupid bipeds
A very nice clue is the fact that a Russian website called 'The Insider' is Bellingcat's
acknowledged partner here
If you read the article in English they claim to have 'dug' up a lot of info from various
sources such the central Russian resident database and passenger check in data for their
flight to the UK
Big deal that Shamir is building a mountain out of a molehill is more than clear
In fact this entire Shamir tale appears to have one subtle purpose to publicize and
glorify the Bellingcat outfit
which irredeemably lost any credibility a few weeks back when illiterate poofter Eliott
Higgins refused a debate challenge by the distinguished MIT physicist and former presidential
advisor Ted Postol actually calling Postol an 'idiot' a move that astounded even those
willing to entertain Higgins on a semi-credible level
@Anatoly Karlin Be that as
it may, the "Western side" had (publicly known) Aldrich, Hanssen and Benghazi fiasco.
Boils down to, from the comment below:
When you have no ideology ( or worst, share ideology with your opponent, i.e free market
.) all what you have, from values to secrets, from scientific human capital to secret
service officials, are out there in the global market for possible selling to the best
postor .this is the principle of capitalism .. after all, it is said, almost everybody has
a price..
and
Obviously, in this scenario, the one who has the printing machine has a "little"
advantage.
And, on top of it, in West, since the fall of The Wall, we've been having "Cooking the
Intelligence to Fit the Political Agenda".
This commenter begs to differ with M. Karlin's assessment (8) of the relative competence of
Russian sovok and CIA. "consummate professionals relative to what passes for today's Russian
intelligence services"? Mais non.
CIA always gets caught. All they do is step on their crank, again and again. They depend
not on professionalism but on what Russ Baker describes as a strange mix of ruthlessness and
ineptitude. Both stem from impunity in municipal law.
For example: CIA torture and coercive interference got comprehensively exposed, worldwide,
in the '70s. What happened? Don Gregg gave the Church and Pike committees an ultimatum: Back
off or it's martial law. CIA got busted again in the '80s for the criminal enterprises under
the Iran/Contra rubric. By then CIA had installed Tom Polgar, Former Saigon Station Chief, as
chief investigator for the cognizant Senate Select committee, and Polgar assured Gregg that
his hearings would not be a repeat of the abortive Pike and Church flaps.
So CIA are clowns. They can afford to be clowns because they know they can get away with
it. Getting away with it is their only skill, and the only skill they need.
The persistent category error at this site is failing to realize that CIA is the state.
They rule the USA.
"... "The United States has that ability, with our Navy, to make sure the sea lanes are open, and, if necessary, to blockade ... to make sure that their energy does not go to market," ..."
The spoken word is known to be sticky. The quote tells us "Be careful with your words. Once they're said, they can only be
forgiven, not forgotten." Especially when it is the word of some high-ranking official. For example, the US Ambassador to NATO, which the day before, according to Reuters,
said the following, quoting the Agency: "If Russia does not stop the development of prohibited
weapons systems, the US will consider destroying them before they work."
How can you not believe Reuters? Okay there some dubious sources like NYT or WaPo, but it's the most respectable news Agency
in the world. The main provider of financial news on the planet -- the type of news
for the reliability of which people pay serious money. Because they make important decisions on their basis.
And now the whole world is holding its breath. Especially as days earlier the USA Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke proudly declared that
the USA can organize sea blockade of Russia (washingtonexaminer.com).
"The United States has that ability, with our Navy, to make sure the sea lanes are open, and, if necessary, to blockade ...
to make sure that their energy does not go to market," he said. To prevent the supply of Russian energy resources to the Middle East. It's
so scary. The impression is that WWIII is coming as a bunch of crazy lunatics in the USA are hell-bent on destroying Russia.
Suddenly, the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, wrote on Twitter that she's not mean. And said only
that if Russia will continue to develop their weapons, and the United States will also have to
get the same weapons. And on careful reading of the transcript, it becomes clear that she
really did not talk about any weapon destruction. But nobody checked.
And for some reason no onein MSM asked the
question, and why supplies of Russian energy to the middle East that the Minister of internal
Affairs of the United States trying to prevent are needed. Was he talking about gas supplies to
Qatar? Or oil to Saudi Arabia? Or whether former Navy SEAL and Congressman Ryan Zinke drink or smoke something really strong.
No, nobody checked anything. Everyone just believed what the media gave us. Because not only
is absolutely impossible not to believe Reuters. especially when the whole world is waiting for
such fake news. Such news seems natural to the world in light of what is happening. Humanity is
waiting for an aggravation, and the press gives mankind an exacerbation. Moreover, all know the
fake news are distributed only by the Chinese and the Russians. And the free Western media
cannot lie.
Science fiction, philosophers and futurologists have been trying for several decades to
predict how the WWIII can begin. And now you and I know how it can start. It can start with the
fact that some stupid or corrupt (or both )news agency decides to get more WEB traffic.
That's why probably the creator of WWW Tim Bernes Lee recently announced that he was going
to produce alternative which will destroy this old WWW.
And may be for MSM just silence in case you are not sure, and avoiding excessive concern
about profitability are somewhat safer. Actually safer for all of us, not just MSM.
Two disappearances, and two very different responses from Western governments, which illustrates their rank
hypocrisy.
When former Russian spy Sergei Skripal went missing in England earlier this year, there was almost
immediate punitive action by the British government and its NATO allies against Moscow.
By contrast,
Western governments are straining with restraint towards Saudi Arabia over the more shocking and provable case of
murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
The outcry by Western governments and media over the Skripal affair was deafening and resulted in Britain, the US
and some 28 other countries
expelling
dozens
of Russian diplomats on the back of unsubstantiated British allegations that the Kremlin tried to assassinate an
exiled spy with a deadly nerve agent. The Trump administration has further tightened
sanctions
citing
the Skripal incident.
London's case against Moscow has been marked by wild speculation and ropey innuendo.
No verifiable
evidence of what actually happened to Sergei Skripal (67) and his daughter Yulia has been presented by the British
authorities
. Their claim that President Vladimir Putin sanctioned a hit squad armed with nerve poison
relies on sheer conjecture.
All we know for sure is that the Skripals have been disappeared from public contact by the British
authorities for more than seven months
, since the mysterious incident of alleged poisoning in Salisbury
on March 4.
Russian authorities and family relatives have been steadfastly refused any contact by London with the Skripal
pair, despite more than 60 official requests from Moscow in accordance with international law and in spite of the
fact that Yulia is a citizen of the Russian Federation with consular rights.
It is an outrage that
based on such thin ice of "evidence", the British have built an edifice of
censure against Moscow, rallying an international campaign of further sanctions and diplomatic expulsions.
Now contrast that strenuous reaction, indeed hyper over-reaction, with how Britain, the US, France, Canada and
other Western governments are ever-so slowly responding to Saudi Arabia over the Khashoggi case.
After nearly two weeks since Jamal Khashoggi entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, t
he Saudi
regime is this week finally admitting he was killed on their premises – albeit, they claim, in a "botched
interrogation".
Turkish and American intelligence had earlier claimed that Khashoggi was tortured and murdered on the Saudi
premises by a 15-member hit squad sent from Riyadh.
Even more grisly, it is
claimed
that
Khashoggi's body was hacked up with a bone saw by the killers, his remains secreted out of the consulate building
in boxes, and flown back to Saudi Arabia on board two private jets connected to the Saudi royal family.
What's more, the Turks and Americans claim that the whole barbaric plot to murder Khashoggi was on the orders
of senior Saudi rulers, implicating Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The latest twist out of Riyadh, is an
attempt to scapegoat "rogue killers" and whitewash the House of Saudi from culpability.
The fact that 59-year-old Khashoggi was a legal US resident and a columnist for the Washington Post has no
doubt given his case such prominent coverage in Western news media. Thousands of other victims of Saudi vengeance
are routinely ignored in the West.
Nevertheless, despite the horrific and damning case against the Saudi monarchy,
the response from the
Trump administration, Britain and others has been abject.
President Trump has blustered that there "will be severe consequences" for the Saudi regime if it is proven
culpable in the murder of Khashoggi. Trump quickly qualified, however,
saying
that
billion-dollar arms deals with the oil-rich kingdom will not be cancelled.
Now Trump appears to be joining
in a cover-up by spinning the story that the Khashoggi killing was done by "rogue killers".
Britain, France and Germany this week issued a
joint
statement
calling for "a credible investigation" into the disappearance. But other than "tough-sounding"
rhetoric, n
one of the European states have indicated any specific sanctions, such as weapons contracts
being revoked or diplomatic expulsions.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was "concerned"
by the gruesome claims about
Khashoggi's killing,
but he
reiterated
that
Ottawa would not be scrapping a $15 billion sale of combat vehicles to Riyadh.
The Saudi rulers have even
threatened
retaliatory
measures if sanctions are imposed by Western governments.
Saudi denials of official culpability seem to be a brazen flouting of all reason and circumstantial evidence
that Khashoggi was indeed murdered in the consulate building on senior Saudi orders.
This week a glitzy international investor conference in Saudi Arabia is being boycotted by top business
figures,
including
the
World Bank chief, Jim Yong Kim, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and Britain's venture capitalist Richard Branson. Global
firms like Ford and Uber have pulled out, as have various media sponsors, such as CNN, the New York Times and
Financial Times. Withdrawal from the event was in response to the Khashoggi affair.
A growing bipartisan
chorus
of
US Senators, including Bob Corker, Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham and Chris Murphy, have called for the cancellation
of American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, as well as for an overhaul of the strategic partnership between the two
countries.
Still, Trump has rebuffed calls for punitive response.
He has said that American jobs and
profits depend on the Saudi weapons market. Some 20 per cent of all US arms sales are estimated to go to the House
of Saud.
The New York Times this week headlined: "In Trump's Saudi Bargain, the Bottom Line Proudly Stands Out".
The Trump White House will be represented at the investment conference in Saudi Arabia this week – dubbed
"Davos in the Desert" by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. He said he was
attending
in
spite of the grave allegations against the Saudi rulers.
Surely the point here is the unseemly indulgence by Western governments of Saudi Arabia and its so-called
"reforming" Crown Prince. It is remarkable how much credulity Washington, London, Paris, Ottawa and others are
affording the Saudi despots who, most likely, have been caught redhanded in a barbarous murder.
Yet, when it comes to Russia and outlandish, unproven claims that the Kremlin carried out a bizarre
poison-assassination plot, all these same Western governments abandon all reason and decorum to pile sanctions on
Russia based on lurid, hollow speculation. The blatant hypocrisy demolishes any pretense of integrity or
principle.
Here is another connection between the Skripal and Khashoggi affairs. The Saudis no doubt took note of the way
Britain's rulers have shown absolute disregard and contempt for international law in their de facto abduction of
Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
If the British can get away with that gross violation, then the Saudis probably
thought that nobody would care too much if they disappeared Jamal Khashoggi.
Grotesquely, the way things are shaping up in terms of hypocritical lack of action by the Americans, British
and others towards
the Saudi despots, the latter might just get away with murder. Not so Russia. The
Russians are not allowed to get away with even an absurd fantasy.
We are in "Pulp Fiction" aren't we? Any scenario is possible coming from the Saudis or
the Anglo media. The Skripal has been a successful one.
Thanks for completing the scenario with your own ideas of the beheading of witnesses that you
mistakenly attributed to me.
I would suppose that Saudis have something usually convincing to shut off talkative
people, like they will shut off Trump or even the Turks: Money
The Skripal hoax grew legs I never imagined possible. If people did quietly question it,
those people were deprived of a public counter-narrative in the mainstream Press to nurture
their skepticism. This could cause a dimwit to renounce natural suspicion and a sharpie to
know when to shut-up if he/she did not wish to be laughed at or worse.
They have so many of us dangling on a string. Thank b and others for MoA!
Cool down! We had TWO GRU murderers walk into Salisbury, with no CCCTV ecidense yet that they
were near Skripal's house, and no evidence from his house , which surely must have under
surveillance. Do you believe this? OK you believe the official story too.
And apart from that, Kashroggis probable demise is all cool, as he was a head chopping
advocate, a Wahabistst. Fuck him . Wahabists go in Class on camps which has on the entrance
"Arbeit mach frei" which of course is a general lie, but the whe get to kill them in a
humanely way (see instruction manual from CiA)
Or you just shoot them in the chest, less smatter and more blood. Headshots are messy, stuff
everywhere., sometimetimes, if you accidentially hit a weak point in the cranium , you have
brains everywhere , dont wan't that.
As another poster commented, something is missing...
It is like a well choreograhped drame, Skripals were the same, this also is tooooo nice
fitting together... Hmfr!
Qui bono? Who makes money on this? I certainly cannot answer that, but lets play safe : The
Russians did it!
They beamed up Kasshoggi to their base on the dark side of the moon, the re killed him in
civilized manner, fucking him to death with nice looking whores and spoonfeeding him Beluga
caviar and interjected wit sips of Russian Starka. He was then made to mush and beamed back
into the Saudi consulate making a real mess. Now poor headchop promoter is all over the
place! He must love that up in his muslum heaven with 72 old hags. There is no martyrdom in
being beamed to the moon and put through a garden shredder, that is nothing special.
So now the Saudi's has Khassoggi al over their faces (literally :)) and the Turks eye a new
way to betray someone (Putin, wake up!!). Ever since democracy was bestowed on these people,
they have made a mess of it.
Back in the day (when I was gung ho Army boy), it was OK for a Turk officer to shoot dead a
couple of conscripts a year, no problemo, the sentries with weapons had no live rounds hi-hi.
Turkey does not need a hard shove and it will crumble, and the Americans will intervene,
unless Russia is first.
This game is about Turkey, and not goat herders in Saudi Sodoma. They have hardly oil left
and the plebs are angry.
Jared Kushner's friendship/affair with previously merely progressive war criminal MBS, who
has progressed to now also beinted tainted with responsibility for the lurid butchery of an
offensive to MBS 'journalist' who was but days from marriage and the arms of his love, does
not elevate Kushner's already dubious standing in some circles.
Kushner, he who on one memorable occasion chatted til the early hours of the morning,
"cultivating a close friendship", with the mass murdering progressive MBS, who (thus
inspired?; coincidentally?) to Trumpian applause arrested and shook down many members of his
billionaire-cult family. But is this a busom buddy friendship born of equality, two young men
with so much in common?
MBS has been quoted as saying he has "Kushner in my pocket". Hmmm.
And then there's NYT's Tom Friedman's gushing rhapsody in purple over MBS: "... a genuine
reformer, mega-popular dude, and an all-around super awesome guy." Friedman's love was stoked
over what he presumed was a lamb dinner, but in the light of further developments, we are not
so sure....
He was most critical of the Saudi Royals and ;) 'pro-reform.' He was kidnapped in Geneva,
apparently as carried out or 'allowed' for a good part by the Saudi Ambassador.
He was, allegedly, 'rendered' back to KSA, drugged and tortured. Five masked men
knocked him unconscious, anesthetized him, taken him to a Boeing 747 waiting at the Geneva
airport, and flew him to the Saudi capital Riyadh
In F, closer to the events: Celui-ci s'éclipse de la pièce et peu
après, des hommes armés font irruption, frappent Sultan ben Turki, le
menottent, lui font une injection et le transportent inconscient jusqu'à
l'aéroport de Cointrin, où il est embarqué à bord d'un Boeing
médical arrivé plusieurs jours auparavant et toujours prêt à
décoller, selon le récit qu'il en a fait plus tard.
Prison > house arrest, > once freed - he was allowed to go to Boston for medical
treatment - he fled - back to Geneva! - and a court case took place (2016.) Pierre de Preux,
a well known lawyer here, represented him. Imho the state prosecutor (= DA) was brave to take
on this case. It was nevertheless shelved for lack of evidence.
Killing off critics / potential trouble makers / other / takes different forms in
different régimes.
In the US for ex. no big show is made, and the death is classed as suicide, car accident,
druggie death, mystery fall / drowning, etc. no matter how weird the circumstances. In other
lands, it is deemed necessary to demonstrate the power of the Overlords, who can organise 15
ppl, a stark warning is projected.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Oct 13, 2018 8:46:30 AM | 118
On one hand, the quantity of black flag incidents is increasing, and that leads to low
quality at many occasions. Ukrainians in particular excel in making most laughable incidents
and the British seem to be influenced. Babchenko was killed, his murder condemned by Her
Majesty Foreign Office and then got resurected. Brits seem to liked that, as exemplified by
heroics of Sir Gavin, the Lord Defender of the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland,
Island of Man etc. etc.) on the frontline of the Free Ukraine.
On the other hand, were Saudis innocent they should have means of proving it. Consulates
have security systems including cameras near the entry. While they are attacked less
frequently than convenience stores, they have a better budget for such systems. Thus it
should not be hard to show that either (a) Jamal Khashoggi actually did not enter KSA
consulate in Istanbul on the day in question or (b) he entered and exited. Barring the use of
hitherto unknown types of beam weapons, I would conclude that he entered and did not exit by
normal means.
That said, there were no reports on beam weapons capable of transporting material objects.
At worst, Russians could focus microwave weapons reducing people inside the consulate to
incontinent cricket hearing idiots, enter through the underground and get out carrying
whatever they please. KSA could be reluctant to release videos showing their people as they
looked like idiots who just pissed into their pants and worse. This is what I can imagine on
the basis of stories from American press that include at least two of "Russia,
consulate/embassy, microwave weapons", usually all three. If we restrict ourself to more
corroborated stories, Russians could drill holes and saturate the air with "military grade
fentanyl" and eschew microwaves. But it would be easier if it was done by Turks with the help
of Russian experts who botched something like that at least once, so they have data how to
drill, spray and calculate the dosage.
Surely, one should not deprecate the ability of Turks to concoct tales. For example, a
typical tale from Tales of 1001 Nights features a beautiful Turkish princess that falls from
one misfortune to another at the hands of a trio of bad characters: a Jewish merchant, a
Christian magician and a Kurdish leader of a band of robbers, only to be eventually rescued
by a dashing young Muslim Arab, and we may have such a tale suitable altered for the occasion
-- perhaps despicable Kurds will show up later.
But really, offering Starka to a prisoner? Because of long aging time and the demand, it
is surprisingly hard to buy, and it is hard to tell if it is popular in Russia at all, Poland
and the Baltics have more of Starka tradition.
"... He is just an agent of one Saudii faction against the MBS faction, a faction just as evil. ..."
"... After Lebanese prime minister, Saad Hariri, was kidnapped and taken to Riyadh to be re-educated (tortured) Khashoggi left Saudi Arabia . Khashoggi continued with his columns criticizing the Saudi regime, attacking its campaign in Yemen on Al Jazeera. ..."
According to an article in the Duran Khashoggi was an agent in the employ of Riyadh and
the CIA during the Soviet presence in Afghanistan.
Turki bin Faisal Al-Saud was Khashoggi's political protector. Turki bin Faisal Al-Saud was
at the center of relations between Washington and Saudi Arabia against the USSR while it was
in Afghanistan using fighters who later became known as Al Qaeda - armed and trained by
CIA:Pakistan and financed by the Saudis.
Faisal became the leader of Saudi intelligence. He was removed from his post on May 24,
2001, a few months before September 11, 2001 (convenient) .The connections he had with Osama
bin Laden led him to being sued by relatives of 9/11 directed at him and other Saudi
operatives.
In 2005, Turki bin Faisal was appointed Saudi ambassador to the US during the Bush
administration, with Khashoggi accompanying him as a media advisor. During Turki bin Faisal's
ambassadorship in Washington, Khashoggi assumed the position of head of press relations,
coming into direct contact with major national and international organs of US media.
During the Obama administration, Khashoggi supported the Obama administrations strategy of
color revolutions and the Arab Spring to extend US imperialist domination following the
disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. He was most likely a CIA asset, perhaps also Saudi
intelligence as well
When MBS became the strongman holding power in Saudi Arabia, he triggered a near war with
Qatar with Trumps blessing, and was unhappy over the role of Al Jazeera, which often hosted
Khashoggi and was increasingly critical of MBS.
So whatever the story is I am not losing any sleep over Khashoggi. He is just an agent
of one Saudii faction against the MBS faction, a faction just as evil. Kind of like the
pick between agents of the 2 factions duking it out in the US. Evil does vs Evil do. There
are no white knights here.
After Lebanese prime minister, Saad Hariri, was kidnapped and taken to Riyadh to be
re-educated (tortured) Khashoggi left Saudi Arabia . Khashoggi continued with his columns
criticizing the Saudi regime, attacking its campaign in Yemen on Al Jazeera.
What hypocrisy on display by the US. Unfuckingbelievable. Such concern for a journalist, such
outrage!
There is currently a case working its way through the court system (here in the US)
brought by two journalists, one of them an American, where they are pleading to have their
names removed from the US "kill list". They say their inclusion on the list is erroneous, and
ask that they be given a chance to show that they are not, in fact, terrorists before a drone
blows them into pieces. They are represented by Reprieve lawyers, and they joined their two
suits together as co-plainiffs, although it now appears that the foreign-born journalist was
basically told by the judge he was shit out of luck, having "no standing", since he didn't
sufficiently prove that he was on the list. (He had found his name listed as a "highest
scoring target" on some of Edward Snowden's leaked NSA materials, but that was not enough
"proof" for the judge.)
The American journalist is Bilal Kareem, and the other is a journalist from Pakistan named
Ahmad Zaidan. BTW, both these men were originally targeted under the Obama administration,
but their names remain on the list under Trump. And Trump has increased the use of these
targeted drone killings by 4 to 5 times the number of Obama's, who himself had increased the
assassination program 10 fold over Bush' numbers. Trump has also loosened the "rules" about
where these drone killings can take place, and who can be targeted. US drone warfare has
taken the lives of some 10,858 individuals since 2004, according to the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism (TBIJ).
The Washington Post and the Middle East Monitor both have good stories about the case, but
the best article by far is Matt Taibbi's article in Rolling Stone published on 19 July.
According to
NYT , Khashoggi "had expressed concern to a friend on Monday that he could be
kidnapped and returned to Saudi Arabia if he visited the consulate". He went in at
1:30pm , while his friend and fiancée were waiting outside till 9:00pm .
Isn't it a bit odd that his friend and fiancée, while fully aware the danger of him
being kidnapped insider the consulate, waited for 7:30 hours before alerting Turkish
authorities? Normally it takes 2 or 3 hours get a document, esp. already processed ones.
Why didn't his friend and fiancée alert the Turkish police earlier? Esp. "he
left his cellphone outside with Hatice, who had instructions to alert his friends if Mr.
Khashoggi did not return".
Mr. Khashoggi's wife had remained in Saudi Arabia while he was no longer able to return
freely. Their separation had led to a divorce, and he wanted to remarry to a Turkish woman.
Normally, you don't divorce your wife/husband because of one-year's separation. According
to this NYT article, Khashogg divided his time between the Washington, D.C., London and
Istanbul, how long did he come to know his fiancée? Isn't it a bit too
rush/risky for a 59-year old man suddenly decided to divorce long-year wife and marry a new
Turkish girl friend? Could it be a honey trap?
" Odd dates ?"
- Oct. 2, Khashoggi disappeared.
- Oct. 3, Trump told his supporters that Saudi could last two weeks without American
support.
- Oct. 6, MbS said Suadi could survive 2000 years without US help .
- Now full-blown MSM storm, State Deparment is closely monitor the whole affair, Turkish
government is feeding the media with all sorts of lurid details and claims. (Isn't it much
easier and simpler just to kidnap/shot him on the streets of Istanbul or London than
dismembering his body inside Istanbul consulate?)
Now Saudi is "willing to cooperate" with Turkey, American priest Brauson is set free, plus
MbS now has probably to purchase tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of US
armaments. What a "coincident" win-win situation for Erdy and Trump.
As another poster commented, something is missing...
It is like a well choreograhped drame, Skripals were the same, this also is tooooo nice
fitting together... Hmfr!
Qui bono? Who makes money on this? I certainly cannot answer that, but lets play safe : The
Russians did it!
They beamed up Kasshoggi to their base on the dark side of the moon, the re killed him in
civilized manner, fucking him to death with nice looking whores and spoonfeeding him Beluga
caviar and interjected wit sips of Russian Starka. He was then made to mush and beamed back
into the Saudi consulate making a real mess. Now poor headchop promoter is all over the
place! He must love that up in his muslum heaven with 72 old hags. There is no martyrdom in
being beamed to the moon and put through a garden shredder, that is nothing special.
So now the Saudi's has Khassoggi al over their faces (literally :)) and the Turks eye a new
way to betray someone (Putin, wake up!!). Ever since democracy was bestowed on these people,
they have made a mess of it.
Back in the day (when I was gung ho Army boy), it was OK for a Turk officer to shoot dead a
couple of conscripts a year, no problemo, the sentries with weapons had no live rounds hi-hi.
Turkey does not need a hard shove and it will crumble, and the Americans will intervene,
unless Russia is first.
This game is about Turkey, and not goat herders in Saudi Sodoma. They have hardly oil left
and the plebs are angry.
"... Journalist Glenn Greenwald hit out at those on the left who cheered Facebook and Twitter's coordinated 'deplatforming' of right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in August. "Those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political content...are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed," he wrote. "That's what has happened to every censorship advocate in history." ..."
"... "a wider war on dissident narratives in online media." ..."
Alternative voices online are incensed after Facebook and Twitter closed down hundreds of
political media pages ahead of November's crucial midterm elections. Facebook says they broke
its spam rules, they say it's censorship. Some 800 pages spanning the
political spectrum, from left-leaning organizations like The Anti Media, to flag-waving opinion
sites like Right Wing News and Nation in Distress, were shut down. Other pages banned include
those belonging to police brutality watchdog groups Filming Cops and Policing the Police.
Even
RT America's Rachel Blevins found her own page banned for posts that were allegedly
"misleading users."
Journalist Glenn Greenwald hit out at those on the left who cheered Facebook and Twitter's coordinated 'deplatforming' of
right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones in August. "Those who demanded Facebook & other Silicon Valley giants censor political
content...are finding that content that they themselves support & like end up being repressed," he wrote. "That's what has
happened to every censorship advocate in history."
In America, Conservatives were the first to complain about unfair treatment by left-leaning Silicon Valley tech giants.
However, leftist sites have increasingly become targets in what Blumenthal calls "a wider war on dissident narratives in
online media." In identifying enemies in this "war," Facebook has partnered up with the Digital Forensics Lab, an
offshoot of NATO-sponsored think tank the Atlantic Council. The DFL has promised to be Facebook's "eyes and ears" in
the fight against disinformation (read: alternative viewpoints).
"... The most flagrant case is Syria where a war was orchestrated by "proxy groups" by Western powers and the Petro monarchies of the Gulf States. Before the war, Syria was a country that could support itself in terms of food and industrialization with a well-developed population that enjoyed a modern health system. The "strategy of the chaos" imported hoards of mercenaries of which the Syrian government can hardly get rid of after 8 years of war (2011-2018). The imperialist intervention, meant to fight this state that refused to obey, has driven 5 million people from their homes" ..."
"... L'intervention and Libye, la pire erreur de ce début de siecle ..."
"... Propaganda Blitz. How the Corporate Media Distort Reality ..."
"... For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities of this dark world ... ..."
Living in Syria in the sixth-century Mar Yakub monastery in the city of
Qara, 90 kilometers north of the capital Damascus, Flemish Father Daniël Maes has been a
witness to the invasion of western-backed terrorists since the very beginning. To this day, he
and his friends continue to support the Syrian people by not only helping them directly, but
also by spreading the truth about what is truly going on in the country.
Each week, a newsletter written by Father Daniël
is published, in which he describes his experiences and thoughts on the situation in Syria.
With the help of much needed donations and NGOs such as Hand in Hand voor Syrië,
Father Daniël and others have been working tirelessly with the Syrian people liberated
from (formerly) terrorist-held areas.
Below, you can read his latest newsletter
, as published on September 28th, 2018, and as translated by Sott.net:
Dear friends,
It seems unlikely that the planned military escalation by Western forces to protect the
terrorists in Idlib and to risk a last chance to subvert Syria, will continue. The Abou
al-Dohour safe zone basically ensures that citizens can escape the terrorist-controlled
Idlib. This was largely guaranteed by the agreement between Russia and Turkey. And Putin
seems determined to impose a no-fly zone over all of Syria! Well done. Meanwhile, the Syrians
continue to work very diligently on the restoration of their country and society. After the
fantastic course of the 60th annual fair last Friday, a 'marathon of peace' was organized to
support those who work for the end of the war and the restoration of peace. This marathon was
held in Hama, Homs, Lattakia, Tartous and Sweida.
At the same time, a limited bicycle race was organized in Damascus for 200 cyclists from
the Ommayade mosque through the city.
In Qara there was one crossroad that was full of rubble for years. It was the place where
the hardest fighting took place in 2013. Well, the debris is finally cleared up. And between
the monastery and the Ante-Lebanon Mountains people have been working hard lately. The
so-called Qara 4 gas source is now operational. It delivers 120,000 cubic meters of gas and
100 condensed barrels every day. We pray and hope that there will be a definitive end to this
war and the Syrian people can fully develop their identity.
Father Daniël then goes on to sharing news about the community, his
reflection on the root causes of the refugee problem, and a warning with regard to the
"official fake news":
Preparation
We want to have a quiet retreat in the community and some preparation has been made for
this. On Monday, we visited Sadad and the Syrian Orthodox community with some sisters and a
guest, with whom we now maintain a close contact. We visited the "martyress" of the village
again, the old woman, who was all alone, was left behind by terrorists to die but recovered.
She received a shed that is now being converted into a two-room house, which she proudly
showed us.
We prayed together in the church and visited a number of villagers. The pastor abou
Michaiel and the Christians count on us that we also continue to help them financially. It is
mainly about the purchase of material for the reconstruction, they will do the work
themselves. Tuesday and Wednesday were still preparation days to start with a real quiet
retreat for the whole community on Thursday. Hopefully more about that next time. So, you
won't be getting a message about the war around us this time, we are committing to the
struggle in ourselves right now.
Ministerial visit
This week we were again visited by the Minister of Supply together with his wife. They
were with us before. He practically has the function of the patriarch Joseph in Egypt during
the famine. He asked mother Agnes-Mariam to help find the means to offer more people work in
agriculture so that they can provide themselves with their own food. In Aleppo we have been
able to help 5,000 families. He also asked in India (mother Agnes-Mariam will briefly give a
retreat in India) to find out whether material and prostheses can be shipped from there for
disabled people.
From our monastery MSJM (Saint Jacques le Mutilé) about 1,000 people are now
employed as paid workers in relief efforts throughout Syria. In the beginning we received a
lot of opposition and suspicion. Meanwhile, there is a strong and good spirit with five
responsible people, with mother Agnes-Mariam assuming the final responsibility. Now, big
organizations are coming to us to work with us. However, the first and foremost impulse
always starts with simple, sincere people who give their contribution with generosity. That
is why we would like to express our sincere thanks to all our benefactors.
Our wars, our refugees
The continuing flow of refugees from the Middle East and Africa to Europe is a
humanitarian drama for these people themselves and is also a threat to the countries in which
they seek refuge. In this regard, two attitudes are mainly present. Some respond from a
humanitarian point of view and want these people who are in need to be helped and taken care
of. The others want to defend the identity of their country to for example prevent a
Christian country from being flooded with Muslims who do not want to adapt and who create
their own areas where the authentic population can not even visit.
However, what is missing too often is the question about the actual cause and background
of the problem. When you return home and you see that the water is flowing out the front
door, do you first look for buckets and mops to remove the water from your house? No. You
first search for the cause of this flooding. And then you see, for example, that you have
left the faucet of the sink open while the stopper was in. So the very first thing you do is
close the tap.
There can be many causes that trigger a flow of refugees, but almost always they involve
rich Western countries who want to master the resources of other countries. Under the pretext
of "freedom and democracy" these countries are being disrupted, a change of government is
being worked on, and puppets are being appointed to ensure the interests of the West.
" The most flagrant case is Syria where a war was orchestrated by "proxy groups" by
Western powers and the Petro monarchies of the Gulf States. Before the war, Syria was a
country that could support itself in terms of food and industrialization with a
well-developed population that enjoyed a modern health system. The "strategy of the chaos"
imported hoards of mercenaries of which the Syrian government can hardly get rid of after 8
years of war (2011-2018). The imperialist intervention, meant to fight this state that
refused to obey, has driven 5 million people from their homes" . (Bruno Guigue, 23
september 2018: Link
)
The US and the Western powers proclaim that they no longer have colonial policies, that
they only want to ensure freedom and democracy, defend human rights and, finally, defend
their own national security and interests. Those who claim their sovereignty must also
recognize the sovereignty and interests of other countries. And that is precisely not the
case. The military intervention by Western countries is not the solution, but the problem
itself. It is the French troops in Mali, Niger (rich in uranium), Chad, Central African
Republic that ensure that the countries remain dependent and poor.
It is NATO that destroyed Libya with active participation from Belgium and France. After
the Belgian "aid" to Libya, there was hardly a bomb left in Belgium. No "mea culpa" came from
any country for this total devastation (Jean-François Kahn, L'intervention and
Libye, la pire erreur de ce début de siecle , Le Soir, 25/9/18; about this
well-known French journalist see: Link ). The invasions of Somalia
(1992), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003) destroyed these countries. The aggression of Saudi
Arabia with active support from the West against Yemen has killed 10,000 people since March
2005, causing a deadly cholera epidemic and famine for 8 million people.
Certainly, there are several causes of the refugee flow. However, the most important
remains the neo-colonial domination of Western powers who shamelessly and with military force
appropriate the richness of other countries. Subsequently, there is often a corrupt elite of
the country itself who have allowed themselves to be bribed to betray their own people.
Finally, there are Mafia bosses who set up an extremely lucrative business to get the
refugees across. Let's stop whining about the shortage of mops, pullers, buckets, and turn
off the tap. These are our wars and our aggression against other countries that are making
people flee. If we want to assert our sovereignty, we must also respect the sovereignty of
other countries and their interests.
Ready for the battle for your mind!
The spreading of false, incorrect or misleading information, 'fake news', is a problem.
The European Union is working diligently on a strategy to combat this ailment. The East
StratCom Task Force was already set up for this purpose in 2015. Certain guidelines have been
developed and at the end of this year we can expect more concrete actions.
However, there's a catch. Let's make it clear immediately. We are getting more and more
into a situation where fake news is imposed with great enthusiasm by government leaders,
politicians, official statements, authoritative media and acclaimed journalists, who conceal
reality, while the channels of honest researchers who bring the truth, are closed expertly.
The justification is then: We must defend European values. That free speech and the
obligation to tell the truth are also values, is then forgotten. Or real news and truthful
reporting are condemned as being a "conspiracy theory". Or, as we now experience with the
announcement of the criminal behavior of the Dutch government, which smoothly helps with the
slaughter of innocent Syrian people, says that it should not come to light because it is a
"state secret".
The example we know best is of course Syria. A very harmonious, prosperous and
particularly safe (albeit imperfect) society with a President who is supported by broad
sections of the population is suddenly presented as a terrible dictatorship with a gruesome
dictator. The CIA provided an abundance of false photos, films, reports, books, testimonies
of inhuman torture (the American prisons remain an inexhaustible source for this) that were
spread throughout the West. And everyone (including our "conflict journalist"!) "knew",
almost one day after another, how that terrible Syrian president strangled people all day,
tortured them to death and carried out chemical attacks.
Something like that makes the blood of every right-minded person boil and that makes a
heavy-handed military intervention more than justified. When someone dared to say that there
was no "popular uprising" in Syria and certainly no "civil war", that Syria had not committed
any chemical attacks at all, he was dismissed as unreliable, fake news. And so the US,
Israel, NATO and allies could continue to send their most fanatical terrorists to destroy the
country and take away oil, gas and sovereignty. In our own Flemish press I never read one
balanced article about the situation in Syria.
In the end it is about the loss of credible journalism. For England, this is now greatly
described by David Edwards and David Cromwell, Propaganda Blitz. How the Corporate Media
Distort Reality , Pluto Press, 2018, foreword by John Pilger. They show how the liberal
media give half-truths and whole lies or sometimes represent reality in reverse, in the
service of large interest groups. And the writers of this work are not even journalists but a
former professor and an oceanographer. It will become increasingly difficult to discover
reality, but it is not impossible. The Australian journalist and founder of WikiLeaks, Julian
Assange, is now imprisoned at the Embassy of Venezuela in London but in reality deserves a
monument to what he has made public. There are undoubtedly many more people than we suspect,
who are aware of the prevalent lies.
Anyone who has any insight into the ever-recurring anti-Russia, anti-Iran, anti-China,
anti-Brexit... hysteria on the one hand and on the other Western unlimited war propaganda,
justified by the most unlikely pretext to dominate the rest of the world, will soon find more
reliable sources. It is also necessary. " For our struggle is not against flesh and
blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities of this dark world ... "
(Ephesians 6, 12). And by our attitude, we are always either on the side of the murderers or
on the side of the innocent victims. We are called to be people of peace and not silly
servants of hatred and war, which we conveniently want to package in a message of peace.
Bahar Azizi lives in Europe, holds an MA in psychology, is an instructor in Éiriú Eolas meditation , and is a
keen animal lover. Bahar has been a contributing writer and editor at SOTT.net since 2012.
"... its russia and chinas job to assist america to reach the acceptance stage as peacefully as possible while allowing as much face saving as possible for washington and their ruling class. at the end of the day everyone wants to go on living. the next 15 years ought to be quite exciting. ..."
SKRIPALMANIA. Has now been completely outsourced to Bellingcat. Which tells the discerning observer two things: 1) there is
no evidence 2) the truth is probably the opposite. (And for those of you who take Bellingcat seriously: become discerning.)
To those of you who are like myself deeply sceptical about this story can I recommend this article in the UK Independent newspaper.
We should be asking for answers about the Skripals and Bellingcat – and not just from Russia. Mary Dejevsky.
Higgins has entered the polite academic space both in the Uk and the US in lightening speed. And as a result of that got special
attention by media. Not only that, but in the US he additionally joined an important cog of the EU-US think thank world. The Atlantic
Council made him a non-resident "Senior Fellow". As expert in digital forensics, open source and the future of Europe.
When the huge open source "gold rush" caught my attention in the early post 9/11 years, all the excited members I witnessed
more close up were quite system conform. That was after the Iraq war intelligence expertise. That's why it made me wonder. Thus,the
story of Eliot Higgins seems no outlier from my rather limited perspective.
And yes, I am with Paul Robinson, who a while ago noticed the same contradictions as Mary Dejevsky. On one hand the Russians
seem to be omnipotent, on the other they have all these bungling secret service members that are so easy to out. But notice not
by a bunch of laymen, but by a crowd led by a serious senior expert and academic. ;)
Higgins has entered the polite academic space both in the Uk and the US in lightening speed. And as a result of that got special
attention by media. Not only that, but in the US he additionally joined an important cog of the EU-US think thank world. The Atlantic
Council made him a non-resident "Senior Fellow". As expert in digital forensics, open source and the future of Europe.
When the huge open source "gold rush" caught my attention in the early post 9/11 years, all the excited members I witnessed
more close up were quite system conform. That was after the Iraq war intelligence expertise. That's why it made me wonder. Thus,the
story of Eliot Higgins seems no outlier from my rather limited perspective.
And yes, I am with Paul Robinson, who a while ago noticed the same contradictions as Mary Dejevsky. On one hand the Russians
seem to be omnipotent, on the other they have all these bungling secret service members that are so easy to out. But notice not
by a bunch of laymen, but by a crowd led by a serious senior expert and academic. ;)
I think some people here are actually taking Eliott Higgins far too seriously...he is still an uneducated underwear salesman...and
acts like it...case in point his recent twitter outburst at Ted Postol, calling him an 'idiot'...that just shows what a substance
free clown this guy is...
I briefly looked at that blog article linked to by snowflake and it is basically verbal diarrhea...bottom line is that Higgins
and that Bellincat 'outfit' are best simply ignored...not worth the time or mental bandwidth to even think about...
Atlantic Council has a very great Ph.D consultant, and strategists' strategist and tacticians' tactician, Dr. Blank. He, of all
places, taught in US Army War College. He taught, of course, about Russia, since he has Ph.D in Soviet/Russian "history" or whatever
passes as such in US "Russian Studies" field.
His strategic concepts are so devoid of even basic high school level knowledge of Russia (and her geography, BTW) that one
is forced to ask how is it even possible to have this kind of "experts"? Among many outlandish ideas Dr. Blank proposed in his
academic career dedicated to fighting evil Russians was to send US Navy to the Azov Sea to demonstrate the US Naval might.
This was one of the most profound facepalm moments of my life--I mean it. Not only Dr. Blank has no clue about Russia, he also
has no clue about US Navy. Yet, he is an expert, alright.
You left the best part out of that State Department policy statement. He announced a new position, the Senior Advisor for Russian
Malign Activities and Trends or SARMAT for short. That's straight out of the axis of evil mindset. How can we have a sober and
productive policy towards Russia with crap like this?
I thought that was from Duffleblog but you're right:
https://www.state.gov/p/eur...
Third para from the bottom. Part of that $380 million must be Bellingcat's budget.
I can't wait to see what awful person is selected for this role. Also, Sarmat is also the name for Russia's newest ICBM, which
makes one wonder what was on the back of their minds when they came up with this one.
washingtons foreign policy visa vie russia and china is as yet unable to reach the psychological stage of sublimation. frustrated,
angry and demoralised that they can not militarily atttack russia once and for all putting paid ....to who is the biggest dog
in the yard...... american elites lash out ineffectually using various media, economic and financial games to assuage their inability
to get their way.
each iteration of this plan becomes weaker and less effective than the previous one leading to more rage at being thwarted.
where the current crop of american ruling elites are concerned we are talking about 2 factors.... a profound lack of a really
good cosmopolitan education and a near total lack of appreciation for how weak the american industrial base has become the past
30 years (you can not intimidate powerful nations if your military technology is 1 or more generations BEHIND)
an apt understanding of washingtons dilemma is best grasped reading the kubler-ross stages of grieving over a dying loved one.
in this case the dying loved one is american exceptionalism and the l godlike power that goes with it for the 1/100 or 1%.
its russia and chinas job to assist america to reach the acceptance stage as peacefully as possible while allowing as much
face saving as possible for washington and their ruling class. at the end of the day everyone wants to go on living. the next
15 years ought to be quite exciting.
Christ was crucified because of the Russians. GRU and Putin conspired to poison him at the
Last Supper. The actual death on the Cross was staged to cover the poisoning.
"Highly Likely" Iran had a hand in it also. Judas was a 'Persian', of course, and would
have been a Shiite if he hadn't been suicidal and lived another 800 years or so.
Bellingcat is due with the official report shortly. Stay tuned.
The OPCW, like the Council of Europe, the OSCE, WADA and others have become deeply partizan
and anti-Russian organizations since the 1990s. A handful of members put out a 'report' on
whatever and claim that they have 'evidence' which they should be trusted on rather than
provide. The rest of them go along with it. The only reason that makes sense for the
attempted 'hack' on the OPCW is that Russia is being denied access to information. The
argument, like everything else bullshit from the West is ' You don't show the evidence to
the arsonist ' , sic MH17 because it has already been judged and found guilty.
So far WADA had to row back because of the Schimdt Report (which the media of course did
not report) and all the reinstated athletes, Russia has suspended payments and may well pull
out of the CoE because is it sick and tired of being bombarded with bs at every meeting as if
medieval Bear baiting has returned in a modern form (it has).
All these organizations are destroying themselves. If anything all this shows how weak the
West's soft power has become that they need to throw everything including the kitchen
sink at Russia. They don't like resistance, let alone pushback. They're more careful about
China of course and as we saw recently in the South Pacific the Chinese simply won't be cowed
or intimidated.
As for the allegations about China, we'll most of us have followed the Snowden revelations
about the USA and its Five Eyes global surveillance and infiltration, so its no surprise that
China has been running its own operations. It's what countries do, though apparently they're
not supposed to. Remember that back in 2002 it was discovered that the US bugged the 767
of then Chinese Premier Jian Xiao-Ping. * I think that all this reporting is a sign of
desperation by the powers that be because all else has failed so far and they need to keep
the narrative going.
By wrapping it all up together with a pretty pink bow it is to make it ' undeniable
' in the eyes of people who should know better.
The temptation by Russia will be to publicly burn western spies in Russia, but it is just
another in a long line of provocations to get Russia to respond angrily and make a big
mistake. I can imagine RT being banned and other measures if things start to spiral.
This whole G(R)U story was ready to go at an appropriate moment, and I suspect one of the
factors was Putin's recent comments about Skripal that had captured the world media's ear. By
piling their report on shortly afterwards, they hope to hijack and amplify their
narrative.
But, it's words, not meaningful actions. Either they will try and use this to kick off a
whole new level of sanctions that they haven't before (high value, sensitive stuff like
aerospace, tech etc.). It is possible the timing of this is a last ditch effort to try and
get U-rope on board to stop NordSteam II or anything they think they can squeeze through.
It's weakness through desperation and also to divert from their failures elsewhere.
Or burn western spies in other countries that are far less friendly
It is interesting that one of the groups doxxing Russian 'spies' claim to be volunteers
and patriots. No-one believes that in the slightest apart from morons. Like BellEnd cat, the
number of cut-outs/plausible denial groups has mushroomed and ebb and flow with need. The
volunteer claim is no protection.
How can you ask such a question. Holland is a US vassal and the US uses its vassals to give
its actions legitimacy by claiming that there is an "international" reaction to "Russian
aggression". This is why the US always attacks countries around the world as part of some BS
coalition of its own vassals. It is claiming its aggression is actually justified
international action.
The Dutch recently signed a big order to have 28 of their AH-64D Apache's 'upgraded' to the
'E' model which is really a re-manufactue and upgrade (from sand and heavy use in helping the
US bomb tribesmen far away), & their Patriots to be modernized too.
Because the so called chemical weapons watchdog, which the British government has recently
made judge, jury and exucationer as regards all incidences of alleged uses of chemical agents
as a weapon, namely it can now accuse and condemn whom it thinks are perpetrators of such
chemical attacks, is based in The Hague, where the wicked Russians have allegedly been
hacking etc. and, in general, up to their vile and nefarious deeds, as is, of course, in
their nature of doing things, because they are vile barbarians, subhuman even
I forget where I picked the following up ( from some Russian blog, because it is a
translation). I saved it but forget to put in the source:
September 14, 2018
THE DUBIOUS ROLE OF THE OPCW
(OPCW NEVER uses the word "Novichok")
Even those people who are skeptical about what the British government says (and rightly so)
tend to accept the „Novichok"-Psyop after they read that "OPCW confirms Novichok nerve
agent in Amesbury". But if you actually read what the (summary) of the OPCW says, you will
find the following:
"The team requested and received vials of biomedical samples COLLECTED BY THE BRITISH
AUTHORITIES for delivery to the OPCW laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW designated
laboratories for purposes of comparison and in order to verify the analysis conducted by the
United Kingdom. (S 1671, Paragraph 6.)
This VIOLATES THEIR OWN RULES about ensuring a forensic "chain of custody" because they
did not take bio-samples THEMSELVES but accepted the (2nd-hand) material that the
'authorities" had given them.
Regarding the "Premier Jour" perfume-story the OPCW has this to say:
"During the second deployment [6 weeks after Sturgess fell ill] the team collected a
sample of the contents of a small bottle that the police had seized as a suspect item from
the house of Charles Rowley in Amesbury" (P. 9)
In paragraph 10 they confirm that the results of the subsequent analysis "show that the
sample consists of a toxic chemical at a concentration of 97-98% therefore considered to be
"of high purity". (If Charly had got this on his skin he would not have survived )
Again, the chain of custody is non-existent: The OPCW did NOT collect the glass-vial in
Rowley's flat, and could not verify its condition at the end of June, but they accepted what
"the authorities" had told them about it and examined a sample of its content. There was
plenty of time to tamper with the bottle before the OPCW arrived in Salisbury (so malfeasance
cannot be ruled out).
(BTW, Sometimes you don't see the wood for the trees: WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would
transport a deadly nerve-agent in a GLASS-BOTTLE??????)
Again they accepted material from the British authorities (as if they were incapable of
any deception )
What former (Iraq) weapons-inspector Scott Ritter wrote about the OPCW „fact-finding"
mission in Syria is also to a certain extent relevant in the Skripal-Saga:
"The problem, however, is that the OPCW is in no position to make the claim it did. One of
the essential aspects of the kind of forensic investigation carried out by organizations such
as the OPCW -- namely the application of scientific methods and techniques to the
investigation of a crime -- is the concept of "chain of custody" of any samples that are
being evaluated. This requires a seamless transition from the collection of the samples in
question, the process of which must be recorded and witnessed, the sealing of the samples,
the documentation of the samples, the escorted transportation of the samples to the
laboratory, the confirmation and breaking of the seals under supervision, and the subsequent
processing of the samples, all under supervision of the OPCW. Anything less than this means
the integrity of the sample has been compromised -- in short, there is no sample."
(Article: Ex-weapons-inspector: Trump's Sarin Claims built on „Lie" by Scott
Ritter)
Here, Ritter was referring the fact that the OPCW was not able to actually visit the
(terrorist-controlled) "crime-scene" in Khan Sheikhoun but instead went to Turkey (!) where
they accepted testimonies and material given to them by the White Helmets and other
artificial "NGOs" ("highly likely" paid and organized by MI6, DGSE and the CIA). There they
were able to observe autopsies of the 3 alleged victims of the poison-gas attack.
"An NGO had delivered the bodies to the hospitals, though OPCW will not publicly comment
on the identity of the NGO. Samples from the bodies were provided to two separate
laboratories, which independently confirmed indications of sarin or sarin-like
substances.
In criminal proceedings, though, which are similar to the process followed by the UN in
determining a war crime, it is a fundamental principle that ALL EVIDENCE be under the control
of investigators AT ALL TIMES. That didn't happen in this case."
By the way, the OPCW-FFM in Syria (regarding the Douma-incident) was led by two BRITISH
"experts":
The work of the fact finding mission [FFM] was criticized by the Russian Permanent
Representative to the OPCW who complained on 14 April 2017 that:
"Under the mandate defined for [the FFM], its membership should be approved by the Syrian
government, and it should be balanced. For some time, these provisions were observed
somewhat, but then the mission was split into two groups. One [Team Bravo], led by Steven
Wallis from Britain, works in contact with the Syrian government, while the other one [Team
Alpha], headed by his fellow countryman Leonard Phillips, deals with the claims filed by the
Syrian armed opposition. THIS LATTER GROUP IS WORKING COMPLETELY NON-TRANSPARENTLY. ITS
MEMBERSHIP IS CLASSIFIED, AND NO ONE KNOWS WHERE IT GOES OR HOW IT OPERATES. They are
allegedly using the same methodology as Steven Wallis' group, but they are clearly working
mostly remotely, relying on the internet and the fabrications provided by Syrian opposition
NGOs, and never go to Syria. At least, we are not aware of a single such trip".
But the unspeakable "journalists" of the MSM (and RT is not much better the interview with
the suspects is a joke ) do not bother with such complicated details. They just write "OPCW
confirms use of Sarin" in Khan Sheikhoun (and "Novichok" in Salisbury) and ignore all
contradicting evidence and the MOTIVE the UK gov has for demonizing Russia (spoiling their
dirty game in Syria and "Sykes-Picot №2") so one can only agree with this comment:
"Professional journalism is now a wasteland. There is no public exposure of what we all
know has happened and the threat it represents to us all . They have been disloyal to us, so
we owe them no respect in return".
And finally – on the implied higher "morality" of UK politics:
The ECJ has just recently found that the UK's mass surveillance programmes, revealed by
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, did "not meet the 'quality of law' requirement" and were
"incapable of limiting 'interference' to what is 'necessary in a democratic society'"'.(P.387
of the judgement: Case of Big Brother Watch & others vs .UK)
The British evidently thought also about the lunacy of transporting a nerve agent in
sufficient quantity to kill dozens if not hundreds in a glass bottle; that's why Hamish de
Beegee chimed in with his article about how the FSB and the Kremlin had invested months of
work and thousands of pounds developing a ceramic bottle which looked just like the real
thing, but which you could stand a Volkswagen on top of. That's why I pointed out that they
had already used the excuse that it broke to establish how Rowley was exposed.
I suspect The Netherlands are being targeted because among other things the International
Court of Crimes and the International Court of Justice are based in The Hague. There may be
other reasons as well: the Dutch must have a fair few skeletons in their collective closet
and the US could very well target one of these and bring the entire wardrobe crashing down
and exposing all its sordid secrets. One of these bone-shakers is that The Netherlands is a
major corporate tax haven and as such competes with Britain and the US. http://www.nomoretax.eu/netherlands-tax-haven/
I forget where I picked the following up ( from some Russian blog, because it is a
translation). I saved it but forget to put in the source:
September 14, 2018
THE DUBIOUS ROLE OF THE OPCW
(OPCW NEVER uses the word "Novichok")
Even those people who are skeptical about what the British government says (and rightly so)
tend to accept the „Novichok"-Psyop after they read that "OPCW confirms Novichok nerve
agent in Amesbury". But if you actually read what the (summary) of the OPCW says, you will
find the following:
"The team requested and received vials of biomedical samples COLLECTED BY THE BRITISH
AUTHORITIES for delivery to the OPCW laboratory and subsequent analysis by OPCW designated
laboratories for purposes of comparison and in order to verify the analysis conducted by the
United Kingdom. (S 1671, Paragraph 6.)
This VIOLATES THEIR OWN RULES about ensuring a forensic "chain of custody" because they
did not take bio-samples THEMSELVES but accepted the (2nd-hand) material that the
'authorities" had given them.
Regarding the "Premier Jour" perfume-story the OPCW has this to say:
"During the second deployment [6 weeks after Sturgess fell ill] the team collected a
sample of the contents of a small bottle that the police had seized as a suspect item from
the house of Charles Rowley in Amesbury" (P. 9)
In paragraph 10 they confirm that the results of the subsequent analysis "show that the
sample consists of a toxic chemical at a concentration of 97-98% therefore considered to be
"of high purity". (If Charly had got this on his skin he would not have survived )
Again, the chain of custody is non-existent: The OPCW did NOT collect the glass-vial in
Rowley's flat, and could not verify its condition at the end of June, but they accepted what
"the authorities" had told them about it and examined a sample of its content. There was
plenty of time to tamper with the bottle before the OPCW arrived in Salisbury (so malfeasance
cannot be ruled out).
(BTW, Sometimes you don't see the wood for the trees: WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would
transport a deadly nerve-agent in a GLASS-BOTTLE??????)
Again they accepted material from the British authorities (as if they were incapable of
any deception )
What former (Iraq) weapons-inspector Scott Ritter wrote about the OPCW „fact-finding"
mission in Syria is also to a certain extent relevant in the Skripal-Saga:
"The problem, however, is that the OPCW is in no position to make the claim it did. One of
the essential aspects of the kind of forensic investigation carried out by organizations such
as the OPCW -- namely the application of scientific methods and techniques to the
investigation of a crime -- is the concept of "chain of custody" of any samples that are
being evaluated. This requires a seamless transition from the collection of the samples in
question, the process of which must be recorded and witnessed, the sealing of the samples,
the documentation of the samples, the escorted transportation of the samples to the
laboratory, the confirmation and breaking of the seals under supervision, and the subsequent
processing of the samples, all under supervision of the OPCW. Anything less than this means
the integrity of the sample has been compromised -- in short, there is no sample."
(Article: Ex-weapons-inspector: Trump's Sarin Claims built on „Lie" by Scott
Ritter)
Here, Ritter was referring the fact that the OPCW was not able to actually visit the
(terrorist-controlled) "crime-scene" in Khan Sheikhoun but instead went to Turkey (!) where
they accepted testimonies and material given to them by the White Helmets and other
artificial "NGOs" ("highly likely" paid and organized by MI6, DGSE and the CIA). There they
were able to observe autopsies of the 3 alleged victims of the poison-gas attack.
"An NGO had delivered the bodies to the hospitals, though OPCW will not publicly comment
on the identity of the NGO. Samples from the bodies were provided to two separate
laboratories, which independently confirmed indications of sarin or sarin-like
substances.
In criminal proceedings, though, which are similar to the process followed by the UN in
determining a war crime, it is a fundamental principle that ALL EVIDENCE be under the control
of investigators AT ALL TIMES. That didn't happen in this case."
By the way, the OPCW-FFM in Syria (regarding the Douma-incident) was led by two BRITISH
"experts":
The work of the fact finding mission [FFM] was criticized by the Russian Permanent
Representative to the OPCW who complained on 14 April 2017 that:
"Under the mandate defined for [the FFM], its membership should be approved by the Syrian
government, and it should be balanced. For some time, these provisions were observed
somewhat, but then the mission was split into two groups. One [Team Bravo], led by Steven
Wallis from Britain, works in contact with the Syrian government, while the other one [Team
Alpha], headed by his fellow countryman Leonard Phillips, deals with the claims filed by the
Syrian armed opposition. THIS LATTER GROUP IS WORKING COMPLETELY NON-TRANSPARENTLY. ITS
MEMBERSHIP IS CLASSIFIED, AND NO ONE KNOWS WHERE IT GOES OR HOW IT OPERATES. They are
allegedly using the same methodology as Steven Wallis' group, but they are clearly working
mostly remotely, relying on the internet and the fabrications provided by Syrian opposition
NGOs, and never go to Syria. At least, we are not aware of a single such trip".
But the unspeakable "journalists" of the MSM (and RT is not much better the interview with
the suspects is a joke ) do not bother with such complicated details. They just write "OPCW
confirms use of Sarin" in Khan Sheikhoun (and "Novichok" in Salisbury) and ignore all
contradicting evidence and the MOTIVE the UK gov has for demonizing Russia (spoiling their
dirty game in Syria and "Sykes-Picot №2") so one can only agree with this comment:
"Professional journalism is now a wasteland. There is no public exposure of what we all
know has happened and the threat it represents to us all . They have been disloyal to us, so
we owe them no respect in return".
And finally – on the implied higher "morality" of UK politics:
The ECJ has just recently found that the UK's mass surveillance programmes, revealed by
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, did "not meet the 'quality of law' requirement" and were
"incapable of limiting 'interference' to what is 'necessary in a democratic society'"'.(P.387
of the judgement: Case of Big Brother Watch & others vs .UK)
The British evidently thought also about the lunacy of transporting a nerve agent in
sufficient quantity to kill dozens if not hundreds in a glass bottle; that's why Hamish de
Beegee chimed in with his article about how the FSB and the Kremlin had invested months of
work and thousands of pounds developing a ceramic bottle which looked just like the real
thing, but which you could stand a Volkswagen on top of. That's why I pointed out that they
had already used the excuse that it broke to establish how Rowley was exposed.
Explosive. Nobody but Americans can be trusted to run international institutions, especially
when they are bought and paid for by the USA. Hey, that'd be a good job for Travis Tygart. He
has been chafing lately about the limits of his power to get at Russia from USADA.
The pace of events seems to be taking on momentum, as if it is leading up to something,
and there's that kind of stillness in the air, while sounds seem far away and tinny, like
just before a big storm breaks.
Alexander Mishkin, the second man accused of involvement in the Skripal assassination plot, was likely to have been sent
on the mission because he was a trained doctor capable of providing an antidote in case the novichok attack went wrong, according
to security sources.
Dr Mishkin, like the GRU colleague who travelled with him to Salisbury, was made a 'Hero of the Russian Federation' with
Vladimir Putin personally presenting him with the award, according to the investigative website Bellingcat.
The 'antidote' to nerve-agent exposure is atropine, which is broadly marketed to world defense forces in an auto-injector. Your
medical expertise in dispensing it is to remove the protective cap, and strike it against your thigh in the muscle, point-first
– the internal spring does the rest, right through your clothing. We used to practice it regularly in NBCD training, except the
fluid in training injectors is just water. Some crybaby pointed out the needle might pick up a fragment of cloth on its way in,
and cause an infection, so we stopped doing it with real needles, and now you just get a thump against your leg from the spring.
Military forces are also trained to administer atropine to stricken comrades who were overcome before they could react. Just
be sure to give him his own atropine and not yours, and push the needle through his pocket-flap afterward and then bend it over,
so that anyone happening on the scene after you have left will know he has already been given atropine and not administer another
dose. Atropine overdose causes its own set of problems.
I think it's pretty clear that it does not 'make eminent sense' to have a 'qualified military doctor along in case something
went wrong with the Novichok', since anyone can administer Atropine and there is an enormous worldwide base of soldiers and ex-soldiers
who could do it as well as anyone else. Horseshit piled on top of horseshit.
For some bizarre reason this UK fairy tale requires many Russians. One isn't enough to smear some alleged top secret nerve agent
on a door knob (at least in one of the dozens of contradictory theories spewed by Scotland Yard). Wearing gloves (e.g. store bought
nitrile ones which would stop this poison, unlike latex ones) is clearly considered too much intellectual effort for Russian untermenschen
and they need a doctor to tag along. This fictional doctor claim is patently absurd. A doctor without hospital facilities is nothing
but a paramedic and as you rightly describe no such person is needed to administer atropine.
The average media sap in the UK and NATzO apparently can't be bothered to do any thinking. The best assassination plot would
involve only a single agent and not a handful. Even freaking video games have the lone assassin meme repeated. One agent could
also have a well established cover story. A gang of assassins would essentially be evidence against itself. A whole specially
designed bottle of nerve agent is ridiculous and unnecessary. And having it disposed of in a way that it can be found by some
homeless junkies is simply not credible. Don't they have sewer grates in the UK?
Where would we be without solid, honest citizen journalism like this? Bellingcat has passed
the CIA, MI5, Scotland Yard and the FBI and never looked back. In fact, we have not heard
Peep One from any of them since Bellingcat burst on the scene, and the British press goes
straight to print from its reports, to hell with waiting for informed comment from the
intelligence services or law enforcement.
Come to think about it, what are their countries paying them for?
I'm looking forward to the first Bellingcat spin-offs.
Eliot Higgins – Special Invesigator featuring Tom Cruise and introducing Sparky his
lovable mongrel dog which miraculously survived the Salisbury Novichok Massacre and can sniff
out GRU agents a mile away.
And following temporary employment reviewing orders at a Leicester UK women's underwear
manufacturer, the unemployed Higgins then "dispensed with looking for another job so that he
could devote himself to blogging full-time" and has now pogressed to being a senior fellow in
the "Digital Forensic Research Laboratory" and the "Future Europe Initiative", projects run
by the Washington, D.C based "think tank" the "Atlantic Council".
Higgins hard at work researching
A "kept man"? His wife must bring home the bacon then.
Well, she would if she were not a Turk.
The then 32-year-old Higgins started blogging about the civil war in Syria from his home
as Brown Moses: "He had no formal intelligence training or security clearance that gave him
access to classified documents. He could not speak or read Arabic. He had never set foot in
the Middle East, unless you count the time he changed planes in Dubai en route to Manila, or
his trip to visit his in-laws in Turkey".
As far as I am aware, he still has no credentials for his chosen field, albeit he is now a
"fellow" of this and that. He has also since bursting into the bloggosphere considerably put
on weight:
Higgins belongs to an obsessive coterie of self-appointed military intelligence experts
who use social media to piece together critical details of faraway conflicts, often well
ahead of seasoned professionals. Frequently self-taught and operating far outside the
military-industrial complex, these amateur analysts have honed a novel set of sleuthing
skills that fuse old-fashioned detective work with new sources of intelligence generated by
cell phone cameras and spread by social networks. Syria's war, widely considered the most
documented conflict in history, has turned social media into a weapon of mass detection --
critical both for fighters on the ground and for faraway observers trying to make sense of
the conflict.
The mind boggles: he and his fellow "amateur analysts" are often well ahead of seasoned
professionals. Frequently self-taught and operating far outside the military-industrial
complex !!!
Once upon a time, nobody would dare to do what they are doing because of the danger of a
ruinous lawsuit. But so long as he continues accusing the right people, the west will
safeguard him from that as best it can. Maybe that's the way to go. They've left themselves
without a retreat, saying this and that are 'confirmed'. Sue the outfit.
Note how Bellingtwat states that it has "conclusively" established the real identity of
Petrov on evidence gleaned from "multiple open sources" and "testimony from people familiar
with the person" in question.
How do they do this?
First to the post again and well ahead of all the Western intelligence agencies, which are
obviously understaffed with incompetents and not in possession of state-of-the-art means of
gathering intelligence such as . errrr, Facebook?
A few days ago, that lying old slag May appeared on stage at the Conservative Party annual
conference with Abba's "Dancing Queen" playing in the bacground. May appeared to be trying to
dance to the Abba hit. What a cupid old stunt!
And yesterday at an EUSSR Brussels conference, EU chief-executive and piss-artist Juncker
appears to have been possibly trying to take the piss out of that old, lying bag May's
gyrations:
Yes, their resources really do beat all, don't they? Able to trawl through Russians' private
records at will, even those ominously marked, "Not for public release". But then, they have
lots of willing helpers inside Russia, which the western intelligence agencies officially
have not. Makes you wonder how Russia can miss catching them, innit, considering the
intertubes are strictly controlled in Russia and all their intelligence transactions are in
the public domain? I mean, with their troll farms and all their snoopy organizations?
Bellingcrap could have just mentioned its sources during the course of its article instead of
proclaiming that it's going to detail in another post to be supposedly published today (9
October 2018) the methodology it and The Insider Russia used and the information trail
established. Perhaps a sign that Bellingcrap is starting to feel some pressure to lift its
game to a level acceptable to its masters at The Atlantic Council?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. BellEndCat can only manage the former.
Still, it's good enough for the BBC who this morning spoke to a (former?) Georgian minister
who was saying that if the West was united and stopped Russia from invading Georgia in 2008,
then Ukraine, Crimea, Skripals etc. wouldn't have happened, followed by BBC correspondent
Norton who said that 'was about right'.
A research arm of the U.S. military is exploring the possibility of deploying insects
to make plants more resilient by altering their genes. Some experts say the work may be seen
as a potential biological weapon.
In an opinion paper published Thursday in the journal Science, the authors say the U.S.
needs to provide greater justification for the peace-time purpose of its Insect Allies
project to avoid being perceived as hostile to other countries. Other experts expressed
ethical and security concerns with the research, which seeks to transmit protective traits to
crops already growing in the field .
####
The rest at the link.
Using the US's own definitions that it has used to place sanctions on other countries,
this is clearly a dual-use technology, i.e. civilian with military applications (which
is just about the same as any fancy satellited up in space etc.). Conclusion? The US must
sanction itself!
The US has been using insects as bioweapons for decades (including attacking Cuba and the
USSR). The current development program is using this insect research as a cover. Its real
function is to develop targeted genetic weapons designed to exterminate ethic groups. These
weapons are beyond any "mass destruction" and are pure genocide devices. Anyone who thinks
that this sort of research is unlikely is a retard without a clue. There is a reason why
certain US companies were buying up Russian human bio-waste (e.g. amputated limbs, cadavers).
If anyone thinks that the US will care about collateral damage to neighbouring Slavic
countries, then they are full on retarded as well. In 1990 Americans could not tell the
difference between Ukrainians and Russians (and even Chechens). Now for purely political
reasons they pretend to see every microscopic difference. The US has no love for Poland,
Ukraine, or any other new Europe country. They are merely cannon fodder for its imperial
ambitions. The hate that Poles and other Slavic states have for Russia is pathological.
Poland is basically a German branch plant economy. Tell me why Poland should have more love
for Germany than for Russia? And don't invoke communism since Russians were not privileged
compared to Poles before 1991. It was, in fact, the other way around.
The US is always asking to be trusted with some fearsome new capability, on the grounds that
its values are a fail-safe – it is so innately good that it could never use such
capabilities for evil. And it seems obsessed with modifications to achieve super-plants so
that one potato will feed a family of eight, and suchlike – what's wrong with food the
way nature intended it to be?
If you would decide whether a technology or process should be viewed as a threat, just
imagine it was announced by Russia. The USA would scream its head off.
I can't help noticing as well that some of its changes seem geared toward not having to do
anything about global warming, continuing to rely on a petroleum-dominated energy policy and
so forth, by engineering a food supply that will flourish through as changing environment. If
it is successful in that aim it is assured global domination, as the food supply of other
countries could vanish if the country did not sign on to the US technology agenda. America
would not have to threaten anyone's crops with secret-agent bugs. It could just go on as it
is doing, and continue to contribute to global warming.
A suspected third member of the Kremlin hit squad behind the Salisbury nerve agent attack
has been named, according to a respected Russian news website.
Sergey Fedotov, 45, travelled to the UK on the same day as the two assassins already
charged by British authorities – and boarded the same flight home.
The Telegraph had previously reported the existence of a third member of the Russian
intelligence hit squad and a trawl of flight records by the Fontanka news agency matched it
to Fedotov.
According to Fontanka, Fedotov flew to the UK on a passport whose number differs by
only a few digits from those used by the two GRU military intelligence agents officially
wanted for the nerve agent attack.
It is almost certain Fedotov is not the passenger's real name but an alias. No traces
of Sergei Fedotov have been found in documentary databases or on social media. He has no
property, vehicles or telephone numbers registered to his name in Russia, according to
Fontanka.
No "alleged"in "Kremlin hit squad behind the Salisbury nerve agent attack but It is
almost certain Fedotov is not the passenger's real name but an alias.
"... The leading financial publications have misled their political and investor subscribers of emerging crises and military defeats which have precipitated catastrophic political and economic losses. ..."
"... Financial Times (FT) ..."
"... In this essay we will proceed by outlining the larger political context that sets the framework for the transformation of the FT ..."
"... The language of the FT ..."
"... The unanimity of the liberal and rightwing publications in support of western imperialism precluded any understanding of the enormous political and economic costs which ensued. ..."
"... When it became evident that US-NATO wars did not lead to happy endings but turned into prolonged insurgencies, or when western clients turned into corrupt tyrants, the FT ..."
These buttons
register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are
ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the
'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Introduction
The leading financial publications have misled their political and investor subscribers
of emerging crises and military defeats which have precipitated catastrophic political and
economic losses.
The most egregious example is the Financial Times (FT) a publication which is
widely read by the business and financial elite.
In this essay we will proceed by outlining the larger political context that sets the
framework for the transformation of the FT from a relatively objective purveyor of
world news into a propagator of wars and failed economic policies.
In part two we will discuss several case studies which illustrate the dramatic shifts from a
prudent business publication to a rabid military advocate, from a well-researched analyst of
economic policies to an ideologue of the worst speculative investors.
The decay of the quality of its reportage is accompanied by the bastardization of language.
Concepts are distorted; meanings are emptied of their cognitive sense; and vitriol covers
crimes and misdemeanors.
We will conclude by discussing how and why the 'respectable' media have affected real world
political and market outcomes for citizens and investors.
Political and Economic Context
The decay of the FT cannot be separated from the global political and economic
transformations in which it publishes and circulates. The demise of the Soviet Union, the
pillage of Russia's economy throughout the 1990's and the US declaration of a unipolar world
were celebrated by the FT as great success stories for 'western values'. The US and EU
annexation of Eastern Europe, the Balkan and Baltic states led to the deep corruption and decay
of journalistic narratives.
The FT willing embraced every violation of the Gorbachev-Reagan agreements and
NATO's march to the borders of Russia. The militarization of US foreign policy was accompanied
by the FT conversion to a military interpreter of what it dubbed the 'transition to
democratization'.
The language of the FT reportage combined democratic rhetoric with an embrace
of military practices. This became the hallmark for all future coverage and editorializing. The
FT military policies extended from Europe to the Middle East, the Caucasus, North
Africa and the Gulf States.
The FT joined the yellow press in describing military power grabs, including
the overthrow of political adversaries, as 'transitions to democracy' and the creation of 'open
societies'.
The unanimity of the liberal and rightwing publications in support of western
imperialism precluded any understanding of the enormous political and economic costs which
ensued.
To protect itself from its most egregious ideological foibles, the FT included
'insurance clauses', to cover for catastrophic authoritarian outcomes. For example they advised
western political leaders to promote military interventions and, by the way ,with 'democratic
transitions'.
When it became evident that US-NATO wars did not lead to happy endings but turned into
prolonged insurgencies, or when western clients turned into corrupt tyrants, the FT
claimed that this was not what they meant by a 'democratic transition' – this was not
their version of "free markets and free votes".
The Financial and Military Times (?)
The militarization of the FT led it to embrace a military definition of
political reality. The human and especially the economic costs, the lost markets, investments
and resources were subordinated to the military outcomes of 'wars against terrorism' and
'Russian authoritarianism'.
Each and every Financial Times report and editorial promoting western military
interventions over the past two decades resulted in large scale, long-term economic losses.
The FT supported the US war against Iraq which led to the ending of important
billion-dollar oil deals (oil for food) signed off with President Saddam Hussein. The
subsequent US occupation precluded a subsequent revival of the oil industry. The US appointed
client regime pillaged the multi-billion dollar reconstruction programs – costing US and
EU taxpayers and depriving Iraqis of basic necessities.
Insurgent militias, including ISIS, gained control over half the country and precluded the
entry of any new investment.
The US and FT backed western client regimes organized rigged election outcomes and
looted the treasury of oil revenues, arousing the wrath of the population lacking electricity,
potable water and other necessities.
The FT backed war, occupation and control of Iraq was an unmitigated disaster.
Similar outcomes resulted from the FT support for the invasions of Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria and Yemen.
For example the FT propagated the story that the Taliban was providing sanctuary
for bin Laden's planning the terror assault in the US (9/11).
In fact, the Afghan leaders offered to turn over the US suspect, if they were offered
evidence. Washington rejected the offer, invaded Kabul and the FT joined the chorus
backing the so-called 'war on terrorism which led to an unending, one trillion-dollar war.
Libya signed off to a disarmament and multi-billion-dollar oil agreement with the US in
2003. In 2011 the US and its western allies bombed Libya, murdered Gadhafi, totally destroyed
civil society and undermined the US/EU oil agreements. The FT backed the war but
decried the outcome. The FT followed a familiar ploy; promoting military invasions and
then, after the fact, criticizing the economic disasters.
The FT led the media charge in favor of the western proxy war against Syria:
savaging the legitimate government and praising the mercenary terrorists, which it dubbed
'rebels' and 'militants' – dubious terms for US and EU financed operatives.
Millions of refugees, resulting from western wars in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq fled
to Europe seeking refuge. FT described the imperial holocaust – the 'dilemmas of
Europe'. The FT bemoaned the rise of the anti-immigrant parties but never assumed
responsibility for the wars which forced the millions to flee to the west.
The FT columnists prattle about 'western values' and criticize the 'far right' but
abjured any sustained attack of Israel's daily massacre of Palestinians. Instead readers get a
dose of weekly puff pieces concerning Israeli politics with nary a mention of Zionist power
over US foreign policy.
FT: Sanctions, Plots and Crises: Russia, China and Iran
The FT like all the prestigious media propaganda sheets have taken a leading role
in US conflicts with Russia, China and Iran.
For years the scribes in the FT stable have discovered (or invented) "crises" in
China's economy- always claiming it was on the verge of an economic doomsday. Contrary to the
FT, China has been growing at four times the rate of the US; ignoring the critics it built a
global infrastructure system instead of the multi-wars backed by the journalist war
mongers.
When China innovates, the FT harps on techno theft – ignoring US economic
decline.
The FT boasts it writes "without fear and without favor" which translates into
serving imperial powers voluntarily.
When the US sanctions China we are told by the FT that Washington is correcting
China's abusive statist policies. Because China does not impose military outposts to match the
eight hundred US military bases on five continents, the FT invents what it calls 'debt
colonialism" apparently describing Beijing's financing large-scale productive infrastructure
projects.
The perverse logic of the FT extends to Russia. To cover up for the US financed
coup in the Ukraine it converted a separatist movement in Donbass into a Russian land grab. In
the same way a free election in Crimea is described as Kremlin annexation.
The FT provides the language of the declining western imperial empires.
Independent, democratic Russia, free of western pillage and electoral meddling is labelled
"authoritarian"; social welfare which serves to decrease inequality is denigrated as 'populism'
-- linked to the far right. Without evidence or independent verification, the FT
fabricates Putinesque poison plots in England and Bashar Assad poison gas conspiracies in
Syria.
Conclusion
The FT has chosen to adopt a military line which has led to a long series of
financially disastrous wars. The FT support of sanctions has cost oil companies
billions of dollars, euros and pounds. The sanctions, it backed, have broken global
networks.
The FT has adopted ideological postures that threaten supply chains between the
West, China, Iran and Russia. The FT writes in many tongues but it has failed to
inform its financial readers that it bears some responsibility for markets which are under
siege.
There is unquestionably a need to overhaul the name and purpose of the FT. One journalist
who was close to the editors suggests it should be called the "Military Times" – the
voice of a declining empire.
I read the weekly British "Economist" for years, which is a well known international news
magazine. It has good stories and insight, but they are always pro-war and pro-empire, and in
recent years push open borders. I tired of supporting this propaganda and canceled by
subscription four years ago.
We used to take the FT on a Saturday. We gave it up not on the grounds of its politics
– we hardly glanced at that sort of pish anyway – but because of the decline in
the standard of its Arts coverage. That was so sudden that I imagine that it corresponded to
a change in the editor of the section.
Otherwise – well what do you expect? I no longer watch the TV news or listen to the
radio. We haven't taken the local rag for years. We take a national morning paper during the
week only on my wife's insistence. We've given up the magazines we've taken in the past,
including the Economist. The last magazine we took – second-hand, as it happens –
was Quadrant, an Aussie publication. It was rather good. We stopped it only because our
supply dried up.
I know this is going to sound crazy, but that sounds just like the track record for the
New York Times . Come to think of it, the Washington Post as well. Wow, what
are the odds? Sounds like collusion.
@tiny Tim
FT is now owned by Japanese media group Nikkei Inc. , which bought Financial Times
from Pearson for £844m ($1.32 billion). Take a look of current Editor Lionel Barber cv:
Lionel Barber, 52, is the editor of the Financial Times. He has lived in Washington,
Brussels, London and New York during his 20-year career at the publication, covering the
end of the Cold War, the first Gulf War and several US presidential campaigns. He also
briefed George W Bush ahead of his first visit to Europe as president.
Peason PLC held a 50% shareholding via The Financial Times Limited until August 2015; at
that time Pearson sold their share in the Economist. The Agnelli family's Exor paid
£287m to raise their stake from 4.7% to 43.4% , while the Economist paid
£182m for the balance of 5.04m shares which will be distributed to current
shareholders. Aside from the Agnelli family, smaller shareholders in the company include
Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Layton and other family interests as well as a number
of staff and former staff shareholders.
"... As many, including Murray have pointed out, the story the UK is telling displays none of the tradecraft that one would expect from a sophisticated intelligence service. ..."
So little about the mutating, public narrative makes sense, including motive, whether Russian
or British. Some suggest that the British find it useful to paint an ongoing story for the
public of Russian depravity and duplicity. If that were the case, why paint Russia as the
gang that couldn't shoot straight - too inept to constitute a serious threat?
As many, including Murray have pointed out, the story the UK is telling displays none
of the tradecraft that one would expect from a sophisticated intelligence service.
Very convincing. This Israeli expert blows up the UK's narrative in a few well-chosen
one-liners.
"If the GRU acted, both the killers and the other participants in the operation would come
to the UK on the passports of other countries that have visa-free relations with it. Here, two
alleged GRU officers go to the embassy, leave their fingerprints there, get a
visa, stop at the hotel, pass under all the cells. This you will not find even in ladies'
detective novels."
An Israeli expert on international terrorism, writer Alexander Brass, shared his view on the
case of the Skripals poisoning in Salisbury. Brass draws parallels between the work of the
special services of Israel and Russia – he believes that if to compare the British
version with the practice of the special agents, then the absurdity becomes obvious.
"Alexander, so what, in your opinion, happened in Salisbury?"
-There was a rough provocation by the British special services. In my opinion, this is
obvious.
"There's a lot of stupidity on stupidity." The story with Petrov and Boshirov does not hold
up any professional peer review. According to the Brits, the Skripals were poisoned by GRU
agents (this is what the department is called, although this is now the Main Directorate of the
RF General Staff).
I want to explain how the special services work. If you need someone to eliminate, then this
is a very serious operation, which is being prepared for a long time. A very significant
material and human resource is allocated. We are talking about dozens of employees. On the
territory of this state, an "advanced command post" is being created.
In the operation, a technical support group, a logistic group, a cover group, an external
surveillance group and a group of performers are involved.
The performers themselves appear at the very last moment. They do not go anywhere, lighting
up on cameras, do not use public transport, but move on rented cars, which they do not rent
themselves. And the more they will not stop in hotels, but will live on safe houses provided by
the logistics group.
Such groups do not come under the passport of their country, do not go to the embassy for
obtaining a visa, leaving fingerprints. This is complete nonsense. Professionals do not work
that way.
If the GRU acted, both the killers and the other participants in the operation would come to
the UK on the passports of other countries that have visa-free relations with it. Here, two
alleged GRU officers go to the embassy, leave their fingerprints there, get a
visa, stop at the hotel, pass under all the cells. This you will not find even in ladies'
detective novels.
British intelligence services have a lot of things to explain now. But who will ask them ?
Notable quotes:
"... The nub of the British government's approach has been the shocking willingness of the corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made, even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that finding. ..."
"... What is certainly untrue is that only Russia has a motive. The obvious motive is to attempt to blame and discredit Russia. Those who might wish to do this include Ukraine and Georgia, with both of which Russia is in territorial dispute, and those states and jihadist groups with which Russia is in conflict in Syria. The NATO military industrial complex also obviously has a plain motive for fueling tension with Russia. ..."
"... There is of course the possibility that Skripal was attacked by a private gangster interest with which he was in conflict, or that the attack was linked to Skripal's MI6 handler Pablo Miller's work on the Orbis/Steele Russiagate dossier on Donald Trump. ..."
"... Plainly, the British governments statements that only Russia had the means and only Russia had the motive, are massive lies on both counts. ..."
"... Yet no motive has been adduced for an attack on Yulia or why they would attack while Yulia was visiting – they could have painted his doorknob with less fear of discovery anytime he was alone ..."
"... The incompetence of the assassination beggars belief when compared to British claims of a long term production and training programme. The Russians built the heart of the International Space Station. ..."
"... With Skripal being resettled by MI6, and a former intelligence officer himself, it beggars belief that MI6 did not fit, as standard, some basic security including a security camera on his house. ..."
"... Why did they both touch the outside doorknob in exiting and closing the door? Why did the novichok act so very slowly, with evidently no feeling of ill health for at least five hours, and then how did it strike both down absolutely simultaneously, so that neither can call for help, despite their being different sexes, weights, ages, metabolisms and receiving random completely uncontrolled doses. The odds of that happening are virtually nil. And why was the nerve agent ultimately ineffective? ..."
"... Why was the Detective Sergeant affected and nobody else who attended the house, or the scene where the Skripals were found? Why was Bailey only lightly affected by this extremely deadly substance, of which a tiny amount can kill? ..."
"... I am, with a few simple questions, demolishing what is the most ludicrous conspiracy theory I have ever heard – the Salisbury conspiracy theory being put forward by the British government and its corporate lackies. ..."
"... During a visit to Salisbury and Amesbury, the UK home secretary said: "We don't want to jump to conclusions." but they sure were with the first poisoning. Time will tell. ..."
Craig Murray: "The Holes in the Official Skripal Story"
... ... ...
" The nub of the British government's approach has been the shocking willingness of the
corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made,
even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that
finding. In fact, while the Soviet Union did develop the "novichok" class of nerve agents,
the programme involved scientists from all over the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, Armenia
and Georgia, as I myself learnt when I visited the newly decommissioned Nukus testing facility
in Uzbekistan in 2002.
Furthermore, it was the USA who decommissioned the facility and removed equipment back to
the United States. At least two key scientists from the programme moved to the United States.
Formulae for several novichok have been published for over a decade. The USA, UK and Iran have
definitely synthesised a number of novichok formulae and almost certainly others have done so
too. Dozens of states have the ability to produce novichok, as do many sophisticated non-state
actors.
As for motive, the Russian motive might be revenge, but whether that really outweighs the
international opprobrium incurred just ahead of the World Cup, in which so much prestige has
been invested, is unclear." Craig Murray
What is certainly untrue is that only Russia has a
motive. The obvious motive is to attempt to blame and discredit Russia. Those who might wish to
do this include Ukraine and Georgia, with both of which Russia is in territorial dispute, and
those states and jihadist groups with which Russia is in conflict in Syria. The NATO military
industrial complex also obviously has a plain motive for fueling tension with Russia.
There is of course the possibility that Skripal was attacked by a private gangster interest
with which he was in conflict, or that the attack was linked to Skripal's MI6 handler Pablo
Miller's work on the Orbis/Steele Russiagate dossier on Donald Trump.
Plainly, the British governments statements that only Russia had the means and only Russia
had the motive, are massive lies on both counts.
The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei
Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow.
In an effort to shore up the government narrative, at the time of the Amesbury attack the
security services put out through Pablo Miller's long term friend, the BBC's Mark Urban, that
the Russians "may have been" tapping Yulia Skripal's phone, and the claim that this was strong
evidence that the Russians had indeed been behind the attack.
But think this through. If that were true, then the Russians deliberately attacked at a time
when Yulia was in the UK rather than when Sergei was alone. Yet no motive has been adduced for
an attack on Yulia or why they would attack while Yulia was visiting – they could have
painted his doorknob with less fear of discovery anytime he was alone. Furthermore, it is
pretty natural that Russian intelligence would tap the phone of Yulia, and of Sergei if they
could. The family of double agents are normal targets. I have no doubt in the least, from
decades of experience as a British diplomat, that GCHQ have been tapping Yulia's phone. Indeed,
if tapping of phones is seriously put forward as evidence of intent to murder, the British
government must be very murderous indeed.
Their trained assassin(s) painted a novichok on the doorknob of the Skripal house in the
suburbs of Salisbury. Either before or after the attack, they entered a public place in the
centre of Salisbury and left a sealed container of the novichok there.
The incompetence of the assassination beggars belief when compared to British claims of a
long term production and training programme. The Russians built the heart of the International
Space Station. They can kill an old bloke in Salisbury. Why did the Russians not know that the
dose from the door handle was not fatal? Why would trained assassins leave crucial evidence
lying around in a public place in Salisbury? Why would they be conducting any part of the
operation with the novichok in a public area in central Salisbury?
Why did nobody see them painting the doorknob? This must have involved wearing protective
gear, which would look out of place in a Salisbury suburb. With Skripal being resettled by MI6,
and a former intelligence officer himself, it beggars belief that MI6 did not fit, as standard,
some basic security including a security camera on his house.
The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least
five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and
instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally
close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even
though the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the
Skripals because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain.
Why did they both touch the outside doorknob in exiting and closing the door? Why did the novichok act so very slowly, with evidently no feeling of ill health for at least five hours,
and then how did it strike both down absolutely simultaneously, so that neither can call for
help, despite their being different sexes, weights, ages, metabolisms and receiving random
completely uncontrolled doses. The odds of that happening are virtually nil. And why was the
nerve agent ultimately ineffective?
Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the
doorknob, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were
affected.
Why was the Detective Sergeant affected and nobody else who attended the house, or the scene
where the Skripals were found? Why was Bailey only lightly affected by this extremely deadly
substance, of which a tiny amount can kill?
Four months later, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were rooting about in public parks,
possibly looking for cigarette butts, and accidentally came into contact with the sealed
container of a novichok. They were poisoned and Dawn Sturgess subsequently died.
If the nerve agent had survived four months because it was in a sealed container, why has
this sealed container now mysteriously disappeared again? If Rowley and Sturgess had direct
contact straight from the container, why did they not both die quickly? Why had four months
searching of Salisbury and a massive police, security service and military operation not found
this container, if Rowley and Sturgess could?
I am, with a few simple questions, demolishing what is the most ludicrous conspiracy theory
I have ever heard – the Salisbury conspiracy theory being put forward by the British
government and its corporate lackies.
My next post will consider some more plausible explanations of this affair.
Has anyone considered if Rowley and Sturgess might in fact be the actual ones that put the
novichok on the Skripal's doorknob four months ago? Perhaps paid to do so by Israel or
Ukraine?
"Searches began on 6 July of Rowley's home and it was not until Wednesday (11th) that the
bottle was discovered by officers, who were battling searing sunshine and protective suits to
stop them being exposed to the lethal toxin." "...As a precaution Public Health England
continues to advise the public not to pick up any strange items such as syringes, needles,
cosmetics or similar objects made of materials such as metal, plastic or glass."
Obviously, the bottle was not simply lying around in plain sight. Would appear to be drug
related? Strange. Would be nice if the British were more forthcoming. Another interesting bit
is why are the British now, not jumping to conclusions?
"Sajid Javid has said there are no plans to impose fresh sanctions on Russia following the
latest nerve agent poisoning in Wiltshire.
During a visit to Salisbury and Amesbury, the UK home secretary said: "We don't want to
jump to conclusions." but they sure were with the first poisoning. Time will tell.
They are now saying it looked like a bottle of perfume. The story just gets weirder.
Novichok nerve agent that killed a mother-of-three in Salisbury was in a PERFUME bottle
she may have sprayed herself with, her poisoned lover's brother reveals
Charlie Rowley, 45, was left fighting for his life after he was exposed to Novichok
His partner Dawn Sturgess, 44, died after she was poisoned by the nerve agent
Matthew Rowley said the poison was in a perfume bottle his brother picked up ...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...
So how did the homeless woman's partner come into contact with, but, nobody else? How long
does Novochok last, once made up? Hours or months?
Bases on VX (the most similar nerve agent to Novochok) it would last days, except if kept
sealed.
It's beginning to look like someone from Porton Down is the source, unless the perfume
bottle was used to transport the Novochok into the country and then tossed.
The fundamental flaw in the reasoning of this article is that it assumes the poisoning was
meant to be kept secret. If you are going to poison someone with Polonium or Novichuk you are
sending a distinct message about where the poison came from.
You could kill someone with alflatoxin and no one would know. There a loads of ways a
state player can kill people in an untraceable way,
So the purpose of the poisoning was to send a message - not to eliminate a threat,
Once you see that as the purpose of the poisoning, the question becomes is who wants to
tell the world that they can kill at long range and little detection with sophisticated
neurochemical weapons. . . .
"... But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia was ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets. ..."
That the USSR was an existential threat to Western capitalism and colonialism and war
– of one kind or another – between these two camps was logical and inevitable. But
the Soviet Union is 30 years dead.
Indeed, Gordievsky through Macintyre can – if he's telling the truth – claim
that he helped bring about the (brief) end of history and the "final" victory. His claimed role
in the rise and rise of Gorbachev's relationship with Mrs Thatcher and, by extension, President
Reagan certainly hastened the downfall of the USSR.
But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia
was ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was
passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets.
Why was Britain still fighting the Cold War against Russia in 1996, and why is it still
fighting the Cold War against Russia now?
Just this week, the rather effete British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson – a
former fireplace salesman –
said he was sending 800 shivering British soldiers to the Arctic to be ready to fight
Russia there. Amidst the snow. And the ice.
As both Napoleon and Hitler must have said: " What could possibly go wrong? "
George Galloway was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He
presents TV and radio shows (including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned
orator.
"... And what about the possibility of MI5's involvement in, dare we use the term, false flag operations? ..."
"... As someone who abhors the premise of conspiracy theory on principle, the fact that more and more are turning to its warm embrace as an intellectual reflex against what is politely described as the 'official narrative' of events, well this is no surprise when we learn of the egregious machinations of Western intelligence agencies such as Britain's MI5. ..."
"... If any such investigation is to be taken seriously, however, it must include in its remit the power to investigate all possible links between Britain's intelligence community and organisations such as, let's see, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ? ..."
"... The deafening UK mainstream media and political class silence over the trail connecting 2017 Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi and MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence agency, leaves a lingering stench of intrigue that will not out. The work of investigative journalist Mark Curtis on this sordid relationship is unsurpassed. ..."
"... "The evidence suggests that the barbaric Manchester bombing, which killed 22 innocent people on May 22nd, is a case of blowback on British citizens arising at least partly from the overt and covert actions of British governments." ..."
"... "The evidence points to the LIFG being seen by the UK as a proxy militia to promote its foreign policy objectives. Whitehall also saw Qatar as a proxy to provide boots on the ground in Libya in 2011, even as it empowered hardline Islamist groups." ..."
"... "Both David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and Theresa May – who was Home Secretary in 2011 when Libyan radicals were encouraged to fight Qadafi [Muammar Gaddafi] – clearly have serious questions to answer. We believe an independent public enquiry is urgently needed." ..."
"... In words that echo down to us from ancient Rome, the poet Juvenal taunts our complacency with a question most simple and pertinent: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who will guard the guards themselves? ..."
An intelligence service given free rein to commit 'serious crimes' in its own country is an
intelligence service that is the enemy of its people. The quite astounding
revelation that Britain's domestic intelligence service, MI5, has enjoyed this very freedom
for decades has only just been made public at a special tribunal in London, set up to investigate the country's
intelligence services at the behest of a coalition of human rights groups, alleging a pattern
of illegality up to and including collusion in murder.
The hitherto MI5 covert policy sanctioning its agents to commit and/or solicit serious
crimes, as and when adjudged provident, is known as the Third Direction. This codename has been
crafted, it would appear, by someone with a penchant for all things James Bond within an agency
whose average operative is more likely to be 5'6" and balding with a paunch and bad teeth than
any kind of lantern-jawed 007.
The Pat Finucane Centre ,
one of the aforementioned human rights groups involved in bringing about this tribunal
investigation (Investigatory Powers Tribunal, to give it its Sunday name) into the nefarious
activities of Britain's domestic intelligence agency, issued a damning
statement in response to the further revelation that former Prime Minister David Cameron
introduced oversight guidelines with regard to the MI5 covert third direction policy back in
2012.
Cameron's decision to do so, the group claims, was far from nobly taken:
"It can be no coincidence that Prime Minister David Cameron issued new guidelines,
however flawed, on oversight of MI5 just two weeks before publication of the De Silva report
into the murder of Pat Finucane. The PM was clearly alive to the alarming evidence which was
about to emerge of the involvement of the Security Service in the murder. To date no-one within
a state agency has been held accountable. The latest revelations make the case for an
independent inquiry all the more compelling."
Pat Finucane, a Belfast Catholic, plied his trade as a human rights lawyer at a time when
the right to be fully human was denied the minority Catholic community of the small and
enduring outpost of British colonialism in the north east corner of Ireland, otherwise known as
Northern Ireland. He was murdered by loyalist paramilitaries in 1989, back when the
decades-long conflict euphemistically referred to as the Troubles still raged, claiming victims both
innocent and not on all sides.
Unlike the vast majority of those killed and murdered in the course of this brutal conflict,
Finucane's murder sparked a long and hard fought struggle for justice by surviving family
members, friends and campaigners. They allege – rather convincingly, it should be said
– that it was carried out with the active collusion of MI5.
Stepping back and casting a wider view over this terrain, the criminal activities of
Britain's intelligence services constitute more than enough material for a book of considerable
heft. How fortunate then that just such a book has already been
written.
In his 'Dead Men Talking: Collusion, Cover Up and Murder in Northern Ireland's Dirty War',
author Nicholas Davies "provides information on a number of the killings [during the
Troubles], which were authorized at the highest level of MI5 and the British
government."
But over and above the crimes of MI5 in Ireland, what else have those doughty defenders of
the realm been up to over the years? After all, what is the use of having a license to engage
in serious criminal activity, including murder and, presumably, torture, if you're not prepared
to use (abuse) it? It begs the question of how many high profile deaths attributed to suicide,
natural causes, and accident down through the years have been the fruits of MI5 at work?
And what about the possibility of MI5's involvement in, dare we use the term, false flag
operations?
As someone who abhors the premise of conspiracy theory on principle, the fact that more and
more are turning to its warm embrace as an intellectual reflex against what is politely
described as the 'official narrative' of events, well this is no surprise when we learn of the
egregious machinations of Western intelligence agencies such as Britain's MI5.
What we are bound to state, doing so without fear of contradiction, is this particular
revelation opens up a veritable Pandora's Box of grim possibilities when it comes to the
potential crimes committed by Britain's domestic intelligence agency, ensuring that a full and
vigorous investigation and public inquiry is now both necessary and urgent.
If any such investigation is to be taken seriously, however, it must include in its remit
the power to investigate all possible links between Britain's intelligence community and
organisations such as, let's see, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group ?
The deafening UK mainstream media and political class silence over the trail connecting 2017
Manchester Arena suicide bomber Salman Abedi and MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence agency,
leaves a lingering stench of intrigue that will not out. The work
of investigative journalist Mark Curtis on this sordid relationship is unsurpassed.
As Curtis writes,
"The evidence suggests that the barbaric Manchester bombing, which killed 22 innocent
people on May 22nd, is a case of blowback on British citizens arising at least partly from
the overt and covert actions of British governments."
In the same report he arrives at a conclusion both damning and chilling:
"The evidence points to the LIFG being seen by the UK as a proxy militia to promote its
foreign policy objectives. Whitehall also saw Qatar as a proxy to provide boots on the ground
in Libya in 2011, even as it empowered hardline Islamist groups."
Finally: "Both David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and Theresa May – who was Home
Secretary in 2011 when Libyan radicals were encouraged to fight Qadafi [Muammar Gaddafi]
– clearly have serious questions to answer. We believe an independent public enquiry is
urgently needed."
In words that echo down to us from ancient Rome, the poet Juvenal taunts our complacency
with a question most simple and pertinent: "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who will
guard the guards themselves?
Edward R Murrow
puts it rather more bluntly: "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves."
Sooner or later, people in Britain are going to have to wake up to who the real enemy
is.
John Wight has written for a variety of newspapers and websites, including the
Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and
Foreign Policy Journal.
"... There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out in my book The Myth of Homeland Security ..."
"... "The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance. ..."
"... One thing that did ..."
"... US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point. ..."
"... My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection." ..."
"... All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault 7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. ..."
"... the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET -- Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ] ..."
"... It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being prepared for cyberwar. ..."
"... it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools. ..."
"... My observation is that the NSA and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese? ..."
"... The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are much smaller operations? ..."
"... That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other processors have similar backdoors. ..."
"... There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at all. ..."
"... So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order to justify its actions and defend its budget. ..."
"... What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes. ..."
"... Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of same. ..."
Bob Moore asks me to comment on an article about propaganda and security/intelligence. [
article ] This is going to be a mixture of opinion and references to facts; I'll try to be
clear which is which.
Yesterday several NATO countries ran a concerted propaganda campaign against Russia. The
context for it was a NATO summit in which the U.S. presses for an intensified cyberwar
against NATO's preferred enemy.
On the same day another coordinated campaign targeted China. It is aimed against China's
development of computer chip manufacturing further up the value chain. Related to this is
U.S. pressure on Taiwan, a leading chip manufacturer, to cut its ties with its big
motherland.
It is true that the US periodically makes a big push regarding "messaging" about hacking.
Whether or not it constitutes a "propaganda campaign" depends on how we choose to interpret
things and the labels we attach to them -- "propaganda campaign" has a lot of negative
connotations and one person's "outreach effort" is an other's "propaganda." An
ultra-nationalist or an authoritarian submissive who takes the government's word for anything
would call it "outreach."
There has been an ongoing campaign on the part of the US, to get out the idea that
China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have massive armies of hackers that are constantly looking
to steal American secrets. The absurdity of the US' claims is pretty obvious. As I pointed out
in my book The Myth of Homeland Security (2004) [
wc ] claims such as that the Chinese had "40,000 highly trained hackers" are flat-out
absurd and ignore the reality of hacking; that's four army corps. Hackers don't engage in
"human wave" attacks.
"The Great US/China Cyberwar of 2010" is one cyberwar that didn't happen, but was
presaged with a run-up of lots of claims that the Chinese were hacking all over the place. I'm
perfectly willing to accept the possibility that there was Chinese hacking activity, but in the
industry there was no indication of an additional level of attack or significance.
One thing that did happen in 2010 around the same time as the nonexistent
cyberwar was China and Russia proposed trilateral talks with the US to attempt to define
appropriate limits on state-sponsored hacking. The US flatly rejected the proposal, but there
was virtually no coverage of that in the US media at the time. The UN also called for a
cyberwar treaty framework, and the effort was killed by the US. [ wired ] What's
fascinating and incomprehensible to me is that, whenever the US feels that its ability to claim
pre-emptive cyberwar is challenged, it responds with a wave of claims about Chinese (or Russian
or North Korean) cyberwar aggression.
John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence agencies in the
major powers would be the first to "express reservations" about such an accord.
US ideology is that "we don't start wars" -- it's always looking for an excuse to go to
war under the rubric of self-defense, so I see these sorts of claims as justification in
advance for unilateral action. I also see it as a sign of weakness; if the US were truly the
superpower it claims it is, it would simply accept its imperial mantle and stop bothering to
try to justify anything. I'm afraid we may be getting close to that point.
My assumption has always been that the US is projecting its own actions on other
nations. At the time when the US was talking the loudest about Chinese cyberwar, the US and
Israel had launched STUXNET against the Iranian enrichment plant at Natanz, and the breeder
reactor at Bushehr (which happens to be just outside of a large city; the attack took some of
its control systems and backup generators offline). Attacks on nuclear power facilities are a
war crime under international humanitarian law, which framework the US is signatory to but has
not committed to actually follow. This sort of activity happens at the same time that the US
distributes talking-points to the media about the danger of Russian hackers crashing the US
power grid. I don't think we can psychoanalyze an entire government and I think psychoanalysis
is mostly nonsense -- but it's tempting to accuse the US of "projection."
The anti-Russian campaign is about alleged Russian spying, hacking and influence
operations. Britain and the Netherland took the lead. Britain accused Russia's military
intelligence service (GRU) of spying attempts against the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague and Switzerland, of spying attempts against the British
Foreign Office, of influence campaigns related to European and the U.S. elections, and of
hacking the international doping agency WADA. British media willingly
helped to exaggerate the claims: [ ]
The Netherland [sic] for its part released
a flurry
of information about the alleged spying attempts against the OPCW in The Hague. It claims
that four GRU agents traveled to The Hague on official Russian diplomatic passports to sniff
out the WiFi network of the OPCW. (WiFi networks are notoriously easy to hack. If the OPCW is
indeed using such it should not be trusted with any security relevant issues.) The Russian
officials were allegedly very secretive, even cleaning out their own hotel trash, while they,
at the same, time carried laptops with private data and even taxi receipts showing their
travel from a GRU headquarter in Moscow to the airport. Like in the Skripal/Novichok saga the
Russian spies are, at the same time, portrayed as supervillains and hapless amateurs. Real
spies are neither.
There's a lot there, and I think the interpretation is a bit over-wrought, but it's mostly
accurate. The US and the UK (and other NATO allies, as necessary) clearly coordinate when it
comes to talking points. Claims of Chinese cyberwar in the US press will be followed by claims
in the UK and Australian press, as well. My suspicion is that this is not the US Government and
UK Government coordinating a story -- it's the intelligence agencies doing it. My
opinion is that the intelligence services are fairly close to a "deep state" -- the
CIA and NSA are completely out of control and the CIA has gone far toward building its own
military, while the NSA has implemented completely unrestricted surveillance worldwide.
All of this stuff happens against the backdrop of Klein, Binney, Snowden, and the Vault
7 revelations, as well as solid attribution identifying the NSA as "equation group" and linking
the code-tree of NSA-developed malware to STUXNET, FLAME, and DUQU. While the attribution
that "Fancy Bear is the GRU" has been made and is probably fairly solid, the attribution of NSA
malware and CIA malware is rock solid; the US has even admitted to deploying STUXNET --
Obama bragged about it. When Snowden's revelations outlined how the NSA had eavesdropped on
Angela Merkel's cellphone, the Germans expressed shock and Barack Obama remarkably truthfully
said "that's how these things are done" and blew the whole thing off by saying that the NSA
wasn't eavesdropping on Merkel any more. [ bbc ]
It's hard to keep score because everything is pretty vague, but it sounds like the US
has been dramatically out-spending and out-acting the other nations that it accuses of being
prepared for cyberwar. I tend to be extremely skeptical of US claims because: bomber gap,
missile gap, gulf of Tonkin, Iraq WMD, Afghanistan, Libya and every other aggressive attack by
the US which was blamed on its target. The reason I assume the US is the most aggressive actor
in cyberspace is because the US has done a terrible job of protecting its tool-sets and
operational security: it's hard not to see the US is prepared for cyberwar, when both the
NSA and the CIA leak massive collections of advanced tools.
Meanwhile, where are the leaks of Russian and Chinese tools? They have been few and far
between, if there have been any at all. Does this mean that the Russians and Chinese have
amazingly superior tradecraft, if not tools? I don't know. My observation is that the NSA
and CIA have been horribly sloppy and have clearly spent a gigantic amount of money preparing
to compromise both foreign and domestic systems -- that's bad enough. With friends like the NSA
and CIA, who needs Russians and Chinese?
The article does not have great depth to its understanding of the situation, I'm afraid. So
it comes off as a bit heavy on the recent news while ignoring the long-term trends. For
example:
The allegations of Chinese supply chain attacks are of course just as hypocritical as the
allegations against Russia. The very first know case of computer related supply chain
manipulation goes
back to 1982 :
A CIA operation to sabotage Soviet industry by duping Moscow into stealing booby-trapped
software was spectacularly successful when it triggered a huge explosion in a Siberian gas
pipeline, it emerged yesterday.
I wrote a piece about the "Farewell Dossier" in 2004. [ mjr
] Re-reading it, it comes off as skeptical but waffly. I think that it's self-promotion by the
CIA and exaggerates considerably ("look how clever we are!") at a time when the CIA was
suffering an attention and credibility deficit after its shitshow performance under George
Tenet. But the first known cases of computer related supply chain manipulation go back to the
70s and 80s -- the NSA even compromised Crypto AG's Hagelin M-209 system (a mechanical
ciphering machine) in order to read global communications encrypted with that product. You can
imagine Crypto AG's surprise when the Iranian secret police arrested one of their sales reps
for selling backdoor'd crypto -- the NSA had never told them about the backdoor, naturally. The
CIA was also on record for producing Xerox machines destined for the USSR, which had recorders
built into them So, while the article is portraying the historical sweep of NSA dirty tricks,
they're only looking at the recent ones. Remember: the NSA also weakened the elliptic curve
crypto library in RSA's Bsafe implementation, paying RSADSI $13 million to accept their tweaked
code.
Why haven't we been hearing about the Chinese and Russians doing that sort of thing? There
are four options:
The Russians and Chinese are doing it, they're just so darned good nobody has
caught them until just recently.
The Russians and Chinese simply resort to using existing tools developed by the
hacking/cybercrime community and rely on great operational security rather than fancy
tools.
The Russian and Chinese efforts are relatively tiny compared to the massive efforts
the US expends tens of billions of dollars on. The US spends about $50bn on its intelligence
agencies, while the entire Russian Department of Defense budget is about $90bn (China is
around $139bn) -- maybe the Russians and Chinese have such a small footprint because they are
much smaller operations?
Something else.
That brings us to the recent kerfuffle about taps on the Supermicro motherboards. That's
not unbelievable at all -- not in a world where we discover that Intel has built a parallel
management CPU into every CPU since 2008, and that there is solid indications that other
processors have similar backdoors.
Was the Intel IME a "backdoor" or just "a bad idea"? Well, that's tricky. Let me put my
tinfoil hat on: making a backdoor look like a sloppily developed product feature would be the
competent way to write a backdoor. Making it as sneaky as the backdoor in the Via is
unnecessary -- incompetence is eminently believable.
&
(kaspersky)
I believe all of these stories (including the Supermicro) are the tip of a great big, ugly
iceberg. The intelligence community has long known that software-only solutions are too
mutable, and are easy to decompile and figure out. They have wanted to be in the BIOS of
systems -- on the motherboard -- for a long time. If you go back to 2014, we have disclosures
about the NSA malware that hides in hard drive BIOS: [
vice ] [
vice ] That appears to have been in progress around 2000/2001.
Of note, the group recovered two modules belonging to EquationDrug and GrayFish that were
used to reprogram hard drives to give the attackers persistent control over a target machine.
These modules can target practically every hard drive manufacturer and brand on the market,
including Seagate, Western Digital, Samsung, Toshiba, Corsair, Hitachi and more. Such attacks
have traditionally been difficult to pull off, given the risk in modifying hard drive
software, which may explain why Kaspersky could only identify a handful of very specific
targets against which the attack was used, where the risk was worth the reward.
But
Equation Group's malware platforms have other tricks, too. GrayFish, for example, also has
the ability to install itself into computer's boot record -- software that loads even
before the operating system itself -- and stores all of its data inside a portion of
the operating system called the registry, where configuration data is normally stored.
EquationDrug was designed for use on older Windows operating systems, and "some of the
plugins were designed originally for use on Windows 95/98/ME" -- versions of Windows so old
that they offer a good indication of the Equation Group's age.
This is not a very good example of how to establish a "malware gap" since it just makes the
NSA look like they are incapable of keeping a secret. If you want an idea how bad it is,
Kaspersky labs' analysis of the NSA's toolchain is a good example of how to do attribution
correctly. Unfortunately for the US agenda, that solid attribution points toward Fort Meade in
Maryland. [kaspersky]
Let me be clear: I think we are fucked every which way from the start. With backdoors in the
BIOS, backdoors on the CPU, and wireless cellular-spectrum backdoors, there are probably
backdoors in the GPUs and the physical network controllers, as well. Maybe the backdoors in the
GPU come from the GRU and maybe the backdoors in the hard drives come from NSA, but who cares?
The upshot is that all of our systems are so heinously compromised that they can only be
considered marginally reliable. It is, literally, not your computer: it's theirs. They'll let
you use it so long as your information is interesting to them.
Do I believe the Chinese are capable of doing such a thing? Of course. Is the GRU? Probably.
Mossad? Sure. NSA? Well-documented attribution points toward NSA. Your computer is a free-fire
zone. It has been since the mid 1990s, when the NSA was told "no" on the Clipper chip and
decided to come up with its own Plan B, C, D, and E. Then, the CIA came up with theirs. Etc.
There are probably so many backdoors in our systems that it's a miracle it works at
all.
From my 2012 RSA conference lecture "Cyberwar, you're doing it wrong."
The problem is that playing in this space is the purview of governments. Nobody in the
cybercrime or hacking world need tools like these. The intelligence operatives have huge
budgets, compared to a typical company's security budget, and it's unreasonable to expect any
business to invest such a level of effort on defending itself. So what should companies do?
They should do exactly what they are doing: expect the government to deal with it; that's what
governments are for. The problem with that strategy is that their government isn't on their
side, either! It's Hobbes' playground.
In case you think I am engaging in hyperbole, I assure you I am not. If you want another
example of the lengths (and willingness to bypass the law) "they" are willing to go, consider
'stingrays' that are in operation in every major US city and outside of every interesting hotel
and high tech park. Those devices are not passive -- they actively inject themselves into the
call set-up between your phone and your carrier -- your data goes through the stingray, or it
doesn't go at all. If there are multiple stingrays, then your latency goes through the roof.
"They" don't care. Are the stingrays NSA, FBI, CIA, Mossad, GRU, or PLA? Probably a bit of all
of the above depending on where and when.
Whenever the US gets caught with its pants down around its ankles, it blames the Chinese or
the Russians because they have done a good job of building the idea that the most serious
hackers on the planet at the Chinese. I don't believe that we're seeing complex propaganda
campaigns that are tied to specific incidents -- I think we see ongoing organic
propaganda campaigns that all serve the same end: protect the agencies, protect their budgets,
justify their existence, and downplay their incompetence.
So, with respect to "propaganda" I would say that the US intelligence community has been
consistently pushing a propaganda agenda against the US government, and the citizens in order
to justify its actions and defend its budget.
The government also engages in propaganda, and is influenced by the intelligence
community's propaganda as well. And the propaganda campaigns work because everyone
involved assumes, "well, given what the NSA has been able to do, I should assume the Chinese
can do likewise." That's a perfectly reasonable assumption and I think it's probably true that
the Chinese have capabilities. The situation is what Chuck Spinney calls "A self-licking ice
cream cone" -- it's a justifying structure that makes participation in endless aggression seem
like a sensible thing to do. And, when there's inevitably a disaster, it's going to be like a
cyber-9/11 and will serve as a justification for even more unrestrained aggression.
Want to see what it looks like? A thousand thanks to Commentariat member [redacted] for this
link. If you don't like video, there's an article here. [ toms ]
Is this an NSA backdoor, or normal incompetence? Is Intel Management Engine an NSA-inspired
backdoor, or did some system engineers at Intel think that was a good idea? There are other
scary indications of embedded compromise: the CIA's Vault7 archive included code that appeared
to be intended to embed in the firmware of "smart" flatscreen TVs. That would make every LG
flat panel in every hotel room, a listening device just waiting to be turned on.
We know the Chinese didn't do that particular bug but why wouldn't they do
something similar, in something else? China is the world's oldest mature culture -- they
literally wrote the book on strategy -- Americans acting as though it's a great
surprise to learn that the Chinese are not stupid, it's just the parochialism of a 250 year-old
culture looking at a 3,000 year-old culture and saying "wow, you guys haven't been asleep at
the switch after all!"
What little I've been able to find out the new
Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that it doesn't involve any defense, just massive
retribution against (perceived) foes.
Funny how those obsessed with "false flag" operations work so hard to invite more of
same.
Pierce R. Butler@#1: What little I've been able to find out the new Trump™ cybersecurity plan is that
it doesn't involve any defense, just massive retribution against (perceived) foes.
Yes. Since 2001, as far as most of us can tell, federal cybersecurity spend has been 80%
offense, 20% defense. And a lot of the offensive spend has been aimed at We, The
People.
Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media). I mean, I've seen interviews with retired US intelligence
people since the 90s complain that since the late 1980s, the intelligence agencies have
been crippled by management in love with hi-tech "SIGINT" solutions to problems that never
deliver and neglecting old-fashioned "HUMINT" intelligence-gathering.
The thing is, Kevin Mitnick got away with a lot of what he did because people didn't
take security seriously then, and still don't. On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember
reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of the researchers who helped in the analysis of
the Morris worm
that took down a significant chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a
year or so afterwards and some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it
still hadn't patched the holes that had let the worm infect them in the first
place.
Cat Mara@#3: Your mention of Operation Sundevil and Kevin Mitnick in a previous post made me think
that maybe the reason we haven't seen the kind of leaks from the Russian and Chinese
hacking operations that we've seem from the NSA is that they're running a "Kevin Mitnick
style" operation; that is, relying less on technical solutions and using instead
old-fashioned "social engineering" and other low-tech forms of espionage (like running
troll farms on social media).
I think that's right, to a high degree. What if Edward Snowden was an agent provocateur
instead of a well-meaning naive kid? A tremendous amount of damage could be done, as well
as stealing the US' expensive toys. The Russians have been very good at doing exactly that
sort of operation, since WWII. The Chinese are, if anything, more subtle than the
Russians.
The Chinese attitude, as expressed to me by someone who might be a credible source is,
"why are you picking a fight with us? We don't care, you're too far away for us to threaten
you, we both have loads of our own fish to fry. To them, the US is young, hyperactive, and
stupid.
The FBI is not competent, at all, against old-school humint intelligence-gathering.
Compared to the US' cyber-toys, the old ways are probably more efficient and cost
effective. China's intelligence community is also much more team-oriented than the CIA/NSA;
they're actually a disciplined operation under the strategic control of policy-makers.
That, by the way, is why Russians and Chinese stare in amazement when Americans ask things
like "Do you think Putin knew about this?" What a stupid question! It's an autocracy; they
don't have intelligence operatives just going an deciding "it's a nice day to go to England
with some Novichok." The entire American attitude toward espionage lacks maturity.
On a similar nostalgia vibe, I remember reading an article by Keith Bostic (one of
the researchers who helped in the analysis of the Morris worm that took down a significant
chunk of the Internet back in 1988) where he did a follow-up a year or so afterwards and
some depressing number of organisations that had been hit by it still hadn't patched the
holes that had let the worm infect them in the first place.
That as an exciting time. We were downstream from University of Maryland, which got hit
pretty badly. Pete Cottrel and Chris Torek from UMD were also in on Bostic's dissection. We
were doing uucp over TCP for our email (that changed pretty soon after the worm) and our
uucp queue blew up. I cured the worm with a reboot into single-user mode and a quick 'rm
-f' in the uucp queue.
Thanks. I appreciate your measured analysis and the making explicit of the bottom line:
" agencies, protect their budgets, justify their existence, and downplay their
incompetence."
The official story, says the expert, is "stupidity on stupidity."
I agree with him.
The question is: Why did the British government think that they could get away with such an
obvious hoax? The answer is that the people in Western countries don't know anything about
anything. They live in a world in which their reality is a product of the propaganda fed to
them by "news organizations" and Hollywood movies. They only receive controlled explanations.
Therefore, they know nothing about how anything really functions. Read the account by the
Israeli expert to understand the vast difference between the British government's hoax and the
reality of how an assassination is conducted.
The Israeli expert got me to wondering why the British government thought anyone would fall
for such a transparently false story. Having just read David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth
Woodworth's new book, 9/11 Unmasked , and David Ray Griffin's 2017 book, Bush and
Cheney: How They Runed America and the World , the answer became obvious. The British
government had watched the idiot Western populations fall for the official 9/11 conspiracy
story in which a few Saudi Arabians, who could not fly airplanes and without the support of any
intelligence agency, caused the entire security apparatus ot the United States to fail utterly,
and no one was held responsible for the total failure. The British government concluded that
anyone who could possibly believe such an obviously false story would believe anything.
I remember coming to that conclusion years ago before the official conspiracy theory in the
9/11 Commission Report was blown to pieces by thousands of scientists, structural engineers,
high-rise architects, military and civilian pilots, first responders on the scene, and a large
number of former high government officials both in the US and abroad.
At first I did not connect the zionist neoconservatives' plot, outlined in their public
writings (for example, Norman Podhorttz in Commentary ) to destroy 7 Middle Eastern
countries in five years (also described by General Wesley Clark) and their statement that they
needed a "new Pearl Harbor" to implement their plan, with the attack on the World Trade Center.
But as I watched the twin towers blow up floor by floor it was completely obvious that these
were not builldings falling down due to asymetrical structural damage and limited, low
temperature office fires that probably did not even warm the massive steel structure to the
point of being warm to the touch. When you watch the videos you see buildings blowing up. It is
as clear as day. You see each floor blow. You see steel beams and other debris fly out the
sides as projectiles. It is amazing that any human is so completely stupid as to think what he
is seeing with his own eyes are buildings falling down from structural damage. But it required
many years before half of the American people realized that the official account was pure
bullshit.
Today polls indicate that a majority of people do not believe the official 9/11 propaganda
any more than they believe the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy, the alleged Gulf of Tonkin attack, or the report from Admiral McCain (father of
John) erasing Israel's responsibility for the destruction of the USS Liberty and its crew
during LBJ's administration, or that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or Iran
had nukes, or the many lies about about Syria, Libya's Gaddafi, or Somalia, or Yemen, or the
"Russian invasion of Georgia," the "Russian invasion of Ukraine." But at each time the idiot
population, no matter how many times they had learned that the governments lied to them
initially believed the next lie, thereby permitting the lie to become fact. Thus, the idiot
Western populations created their own world of controlled explanations.
Only a deranged person could believe anything any Western government says. But the Western
world has a huge number of deranged people. There are plenty of them to validate the next
official lie. The ignorant fools make it possible for Western governments to continue their
policy of lies that are driving the world to extinction in a war with Russia and China.
Perhaps I am being too hard on the insouciant Western populations. Ron Unz is no moron. Yet
he accepted the transparently false 9/11 story until he started to pay attention. Once he paid
attention, he realized it was false. http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/
Like myself, Ron Unz has noticed that the 9/11 Truth movement has succeeded in totally
discrediting the official 9/11 story. But the unanswered question remains: Who did it?
Unz says it was Israel, not Bush & Cheney. This is also the position of Christopher
Bollyn. It seems certain that Israel was involved. We have the fact of the Mossad agents caught
celebrating as they filmed the collalpse of the WTC towers. Obviously, they knew in advance and
were set up ready to film. Later they were shown on Israeli TV where they stated that they had
been sent to film the destruction of the buildings.
We also have the fact of the large profits made by someone that the US government continues
to protect on shorting the stock of the airlines, the planes of which were allegely
hijacked.
In other words, the 9/11 attack was known in advance, as was the destruction of WTC building
7 as evidenced by the BBC reporter standing in front of the still standing building accouncing
its destruction about a half hour before it occurred.
Unz and Bollyn's case against Israel is powerful. I agree with Unz that George W. Bush was
not part of the plot. If he had been, he would have been on the scene directing America's
heroic response to the first, and only, terrorist attack on America. lnstead, Bush was moved
out of the way, and kept out of the way, while Cheney handled the situation.
I understand what Unz is doing by focusing attention on the main beneficiary of the hoax
9/11 story. However Cheney and his corporation, Halliburton, also benefitted. Halliburton
received large municifient US government contracts for services in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cheney, as David Ray Griffen proves, achieved his aim of elevating the executive branch above
the US Constitution and statutory US law.
Moreover, it was impossible for Mossad to pull off such an attack without high level support
in the US government. Only a US official could have ordered the numerous simulations of the
attack underway in order to confuse the air traffic controllers and the US Air Force.
I understand what Unz is doing by focusing attention on the main beneficiary of the hoax
9/11 story. However Cheney and his corporation, Halliburton, also benefitted. Halliburton
received large municifient US government contracts for services in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Cheney, as David Ray Griffen proves, achieved his aim of elevating the executive branch above
the US Constitution and statutory US law.
Moreover, it was impossible for Mossad to pull off such an attack without high level support
in the US government. Only a US official could have ordered the numerous simulations of the
attack underway in order to confuse the air traffic controllers and the US Air Force.
The Israeli government could not have ordered the destruction of the crime scene, opposed by
the New York fire marshall as a felony. This required US government authority. The steel beams,
which showed all sorts of distortions that could only have been caused by nano-thermite were
quickly sent to Asia for reprocessing. The intense fires and molten rubble in the buildings'
remains six weeks after their collapse never received an official explanation. To this day, no
one has explained how low-temperature, smothered office fires that burned for one hour or less
melted or weakened massive steel beams and produced molten steel six weeks afterward.
Unz is correct that Israel made out like a bandit. Israel as a result of 9/11 got rid of
half of the constraints on its expansion. Only Syria and Iran remain, and the Trump regime is
pushing hard for Israel, even against Russia, a government that at its will can completely
destroy the United States and Israel, something that much of the world wishes would happen.
Unz is correct that right now the totally evil and corrupt US and Israeli governments have
the entire world on the path to extinction. However, he omits American responsibility, that of
the evil Dick Cheney, the Zionist neconservatives who are Israel's Fifth Column in America, and
the utter insouciance of the American people who do not show enough intelligence or awareness
to warrant their survival.
"... Last week the Russian Ministry of Defense and the Russian Foreign Ministry accused the U.S. of illegal biological weapon research in the Tbilisi laboratory : ..."
"... The documents record the deaths of 73 people over a short period of time, indicating a test of "a highly toxic chemical or biological agents with high lethality rate," said Igor Kirillov, commander of the Russian military branch responsible for defending troops from radiological, chemical and biological weapons. ..."
"... The U.S. rejects the claims but it does not explain the documents , what kind of research is done near Tbilisi, and the unusual secrecy and security around the laboratory. ..."
"... It is not only the Russians and Georgians who are concerned about secret U.S. biological warfare research. German and French scientists recently raised alarm over another dubious Pentagon research project. ..."
Recent evidence about deadly tests of biological substances in Tbilisi, Georgia raised
alarm about U.S. biological weapon research in foreign countries. European scientist are
extremely concerned about a dubious research program, financed by the Pentagon, that seems
designed to spread diseases to crops, animals and people abroad. The creation of such weapons
and of special ways to distribute them is prohibited under national and international
law.
The U.S. is running biological weapon research across the globe :
Bio warfare scientists using diplomatic cover test man-made viruses at Pentagon bio
laboratories in 25 countries across the world. These US bio-laboratories are funded by the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program–
Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union
countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
Until the mid nineteen-seventies the U.S. military
tested biological warfare weapons on U.S. people , sometimes over large areas and on
specific races. After a Congress investigation revealed the wide ranging program such testing
was moved abroad.
Private companies use U.S. government controlled laboratories in foreign countries for
secret biological research under contract of the U.S. military, the CIA and the Department of
Homeland Security. Last month the Bulgarian journalist Dilyana Gaytandzhieva
reported of one of these U.S. controlled bio-laboratories:
The US Embassy to Tbilisi transports frozen human blood and pathogens as diplomatic cargo
for a secret US military program. Internal documents, implicating US diplomats in the
transportation of and experimenting on pathogens under diplomatic cover were leaked to me
by Georgian insiders. According to these documents, Pentagon scientists have been deployed
to the Republic of Georgia and have been given diplomatic immunity to research deadly
diseases and biting insects at the Lugar Center – the Pentagon biolaboratory in
Georgia's capital Tbilisi.
Al Mayadeen TV broadcasted a video reportage about the laboratory and
its deadly effects on Georgian 'patients'.
The question of what really might have taken place at the secretive US-sponsored research
facility hosted by Russia's southern neighbor was raised by the Russian military on
Thursday after they studied files published online by a former Georgian minister.
The documents record the deaths of 73 people over a short period of time, indicating
a test of "a highly toxic chemical or biological agents with high lethality rate," said
Igor Kirillov, commander of the Russian military branch responsible for defending troops
from radiological, chemical and biological weapons.
The U.S.
rejects the claims but it does not explain the documents , what kind of research is done near Tbilisi, and
the unusual secrecy and security around the laboratory.
It is not only the Russians and Georgians who are concerned about secret U.S.
biological warfare research. German and French scientists recently
raised alarm over another dubious Pentagon research project.
In October 2016 the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) announced a new
project called Insect
Allies :
A new DARPA program is poised to provide an alternative to traditional agricultural threat
response, using targeted gene therapy to protect mature plants within a single growing
season. DARPA proposes to leverage a natural and very efficient two-step delivery system to
transfer modified genes to plants: insect vectors and the plant viruses they transmit. In
the process, DARPA aims to transform certain insect pests into "Insect Allies," the name of
the new effort.
The scenario DARPA describes is quite complicate. If a crop, for example maize, were
widely infected with some illness, a virus would be manipulated and applied to the crop. The
itself genetically modified virus would genetically modify the crop to 'cure' the illness.
Infected insects would be used to distribute the viruses across the fields.
The program is run
by the Biological Technologies Office (BTO) of DARPA. It does not come cheap. At least
$27 million have been committed to it. If the discussed program were for purely agricultural
purposes why would the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is part of
the Pentagon, propose and finance such research?
Scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Plön, Germany,
and the Institut des Sciences de l'Evolution de Montpellier, France, along with legal
scholars from the University of Freiburg point out that the method DARPA wants to
apply makes little sense for the stated agricultural purposes.
[A]n ongoing research program funded by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA) aims to disperse infectious genetically modified viruses that have been engineered
to edit crop chromosomes directly in fields.
...
In the context of the stated aims of the DARPA program, it is our opinion that the
knowledge to be gained from this program appears very limited in its capacity to enhance
U.S. agriculture or respond to national emergencies (in either the short or long term).
Furthermore, there has been an absence of adequate discussion regarding the major practical
and regulatory impediments toward realizing the projected agricultural benefits. As a
result, the program may be widely perceived as an effort to develop biological agents for
hostile purposes and their means of delivery , which -- if true -- would constitute a
breach of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).
It its response to the Science paper DARPA again insists that the program is for
purely agricultural purpose. But the response does not answer the questions the scientists
put up.
The mechanism of spreading infectious genetically modified viruses to genetically modify
and 'heal' plants in the fields is itself full of problems and dangers. To use insects for
distributing such viruses borders on insane.
If one has access to the targeted crop fields and if one has a genetically modified virus
to influence the plants why would one use insects to distribute it? Why not use the well
known targeted process of spraying the affected fields, just like it is widely done today?
Only when one does not have access to the fields, when these are situated in a foreign
country the U.S. has no access to, does it make sense to use insects for such purposes.
The idea that the real (and illegal) purpose of such U.S. research is biological warfare
is not far fetched at all.
During the Korea War the U.S.
dropped infected insects and rodents over north Korea and China to
infect people with deadly diseases. Various pathogens, including anthrax, were used
against the civilian population. During the Vietnam war the U.S. sprayed thousand of square
miles with poisonous defoliants. It tested biological weapons on
the people of Hawaii, Alaska, Maryland, Florida, Canada and Britain. In 2002 weaponized
anthrax spores from the U.S. biological warfare laboratory in Fort Derrick were used
to scare U.S. politicians into agreeing to the Patriot Act. At least five people were
killed. And why is the U.S. Air Force
looking for synovial tissue and RNA samples collected specifically from Caucasian people
in Russia?
Biological warfare programs are extremely dangerous. Not only to 'the enemy' but to ones
own population. Infectious diseases and pathogens can spread around the globe within a few
days. Genetic modifications can have unpredictable secondary effects. Viruses can jump over
the species barrier. These are the sound reasons why such weapons, and research into using
them, are prohibited.
The U.S. government should follow the law and stop all such programs. Even if only in the
self interest of protecting its very own people.
Posted by b on October 6, 2018 at 10:02 AM |
Permalink
Comments A picture speaks a thoudsand words. There are 49 bio-weapons research labs in 6
countries in close proximity to Russia.
The UK Porton Down labs are also involved in this process. They have conducted experiments
on the general public travelling on the London Underground. More recently, they have received
a nice £47 million funding boost for all their good work on the Skripal case.
"Biological warfare programs are extremely dangerous. Not only to 'the enemy' but to ones
own population."
This may explain the US BW research program interest in genetic material of RUssians. They
may hope to produce some kind of narrowly targetted (in theory) pathogen. Given the ethnic
diversity of the Russian Federation, Russian-ness is largely cultural rather than genetic.
Genetic effects would only likely to succeed in populations with a narrow genetic spread.
@ b who ended with:
"
The U.S. government should follow the law and stop all such programs. Even if only in the
self interest of protecting its very own people.
"
Your assumption is that the US government has the best interests of its citizens in mind. We
know the US government is under the control of the global elite and yes, they do not have the
best interests of global humanity at heart.
Western humans are being controlled by a parasite class that has historically operated in
this manner. It is only with the advent of the intertubes that information is shared widely
enough for these patterns of control to become clear. The mindset behind this control seems
to be monotheism with the center held by private finance. Monotheism was perverted enough in
in 1054 to insure that nowhere in Europe is the Crab Nebula supernova that was visible for 23
days and nights in the sky documented. This is a perverted mindset that denies reality so
thoroughly, eh?
The spawn of the monotheistic elite continue to act as though they really are better than
the rest of humanity and deserve to rule over everyone. They are having their position
challenged and seem to have no moral center other than to themselves.
My only positive point to this situation is that it clearly brings out the entitled from
under their rocks to push their bias. IF Western society cannot stand up and say that we
don't want to live like this, then I suspect our extinction is closer than many think
B: ... To use insects for distributing such viruses borders on insane .
If one has access to the targeted crop fields and if one has a genetically modified
virus to influence the plants why would one use insects to distribute it? Why not use the
well known targeted process of spraying the affected fields, just like it is widely done
today? Only when one does not have access to the fields, when these are situated in a foreign
country the U.S. has no access to, does it make sense to use insects for such
purposes.
It does NOT border on insanity, B, there is nothing remotely borderline about it. It is
insane, full stop. (Borderline insanity means it is on the border, could be on either
side).
Why not spray the fields? The compellingly obvious - and necessarily intended - feature of
the insects is their ability to spread out of control.
Maybe this is one of the clues to the complex and so multifaceted Skripal saga - the British
know the Russians had leads and would bring out this news, and were desperately trying to
destroy their credibility in advance.
"The U.S. government should follow the law and stop all such programs. Even if only in
the self interest of protecting its very own people."
Your assumption is that the US government has the best interests of its citizens in
mind. We know the US government is under the control of the global elite and yes, they do not
have the best interests of global humanity at heart.
Further than that - the elite expressly desire to reduce the global population -
including the US population - to a tiny fraction of what it is at present.
As for the "law", well we see what is happening these days: Russiagate-FBI-DoJ
criminality, US using terrorism as foreign policy, rapidly multiplying false flags, using
sanctions to ban legtimate trade of competitors, Bolton's threats to ICC, threats to blockade
Russia, ficticious sovereignty claims such as right to inspect Russian/Chinese ports and
right to build bases in Syria ...
"LAW" is rapidly evaporating away - very soon it will not exist at all, in the
West.
That appears to be a specific intention, and ties in with the mindless skripal fantasy/Syria
chemical weapons fantasy/virtual reality/"we create our own reality" bullshit.
[B: My appologies for the string of short posts, it was not intentional as such!]
The latest rash of hacking accusations against Russia appears timed to distract the public
from this highly disturbing information.
One way or another, the old white men who are the self appointed ruling elite week appear
determined to turn the planet into a monstrous, king sized Jonestown.
Psycho,
Which gets to the logical flaw in monotheism. A spiritual absolute would be the essence of
sentience from which life rises, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement from which humanity
fell. More the new born babe, than the wise old man. It is just that for social control, it
makes more sense to idolize wisdom over passion.
The deeper issue is that Western culture is ideals based, rather balance based, like Eastern
culture. The basis of civilization is story telling and the most memorable and repeated
stories are those with a focus, moral lesson and compelling narrative. So it becomes assumed
there must be some goal, destination, or ideal state to which we strive, even if it's just
the bottom line. Rather than to be in balance with nature and the community, absorbing and
radiating the energy of the present.
Which also goes to the nature of time. As we have this narrative thought process, being
mobile organisms, processing our motion, we think of time as a vector from past to future,
but the reality is change turning future to past. Potential>actual>residual. There is
only this state of dynamic energy and thermodynamics is a more elemental aspect of it than
time. Expansion/consolidation.
Thank you 'b' this subject is guaranteed to give us all nightmares on its own, but added in
to the rest of the bigger equation ! We run out of strong enough words to do it justice !
It's to much for one to bare. We need to share this burden or we will go under.
This kind of depravity has always been there in mankind -- - napalm,agent orange, white
phosphorus the human imagination is vast ! But now they have the power, technology, resources
opatunity and motivation, that is new !
We here at present can spread this story as much as we possibly can ! Far and wide.
That the USSR was an existential threat to Western capitalism and colonialism and war
– of one kind or another – between these two camps was logical and inevitable. But
the Soviet Union is 30 years dead.
Indeed, Gordievsky through Macintyre can – if he's telling the truth – claim
that he helped bring about the (brief) end of history and the "final" victory. His claimed role
in the rise and rise of Gorbachev's relationship with Mrs Thatcher and, by extension, President
Reagan certainly hastened the downfall of the USSR.
But Britain recruited Skripal in 1996 when not only was the Soviet Union dead but Russia was
ruled by the West's performing bear Boris Yeltsin. And during his presidency, Russia was
passed-out on the floor with everyone picking its pockets.
Why was Britain still fighting the Cold War against Russia in 1996, and why is it still
fighting the Cold War against Russia now?
Just this week, the rather effete British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson – a
former fireplace salesman –
said he was sending 800 shivering British soldiers to the Arctic to be ready to fight
Russia there. Amidst the snow. And the ice.
As both Napoleon and Hitler must have said: " What could possibly go wrong? "
Ryan Chilcote: Since you brought up the subject of sanctions, as you know after the
Skripal poisoning, Russia is facing even more of them, perhaps as soon as November. What is
Russia prepared to do to change the trajectory of relations with the United States and the
West?
Vladimir Putin : We are not the ones introducing these sanctions against the United
States or the West. We are just responding to their actions, and we do this in very restrained,
careful steps so as not to cause harm, primarily to ourselves. And we will continue to do
so.
As regards the Skripals and all that, this latest spy scandal is being artificially
inflated. I have seen some media outlets and your colleagues push the idea that Skripal is
almost a human rights activist. But he is just a spy, a traitor to the motherland. There is
such a term, a 'traitor to the motherland,' and that's what he is.
Imagine you are a citizen of a country, and suddenly somebody comes along who betrays your
country. How would you, or anybody present here, a representative of any country, feel about
such a person? He is scum, that's all. But a whole information campaign has been deployed
around it.
I think it will come to an end, I hope it will, and the sooner the better. We have
repeatedly told our colleagues to show us the documents. We will see what can be done and
conduct an investigation.
We probably have an agreement with the UK on assistance in criminal cases that outlines the
procedure. Well, submit the documents to the Prosecutor General's Office as required. We will
see what actually happened there.
The fuss between security services did not start yesterday. As you know, espionage, just
like prostitution, is one of the most 'important' jobs in the world. So what? Nobody shut it
down and nobody can shut it down yet.
Ryan Chilcote : Espionage aside, I think there are two other issues. One is the use
of chemical weapons, and let's not forget that in addition to the Skripal family being affected
in that attack, there was also a homeless person who was killed when they came in contact with
the nerve agent Novichok.
Vladimir Putin: Listen, since we are talking about
poisoning Skripal, are you saying that we also poisoned a homeless person there? Sometimes I
look at what is happening around this case and it amazes me. Some guys came to England and
started poisoning homeless people. Such nonsense. What is this all about? Are they working for
cleaning services? Nobody wanted to poison This Skripal is a traitor, as I said. He was caught
and punished. He spent a total of five years in prison. We released him. That's it. He left. He
continued to cooperate with and consult some security services. So what? What are we talking
about right now? Oil, gas or espionage? What is your question?
Let's move on to the other oldest profession and discuss the latest developments in that
business. (Laughter.)
Funny how lowkey this topic is handled. It appeard in The Times. As the Times article is
behind a paywall. I am linking to the Irish Times:
MI5 can authorise agents to commit crimes, tribunal told . Maybe the UK should be
sanctioned.
Makes my fantasy go a little wild and wonder if there might be any connection to
Skripal.
thanks b.. excellent information and insights as usual..
of course the USA and coalition of imbeciles are busy projecting onto Russia and China
what they themselves are guilty of.. the use of propaganda has gone into overdrive and is now
an accepted policy of the west.. screw facts.. who needs facts when you have a war to
pursue... and that is just what it looks like to me, as there is no end in sight to any of
this western madness...
the financial sanctions have not worked.. that much is clear.. another approach via
propaganda is to be the new regular feature.. claim all sorts of lies and supposition on
russia, china, iran, north korea, venezuela or any country that dares to get out of line with
the official ''coalition'' and you will be targeted with propaganda and or worse..
Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party
organization within their organization and party members head the mandatory unions in every
company. Indeed some of the designers are no doubt party members. Significant pressure can be
exerted on companies in China by the party, even foreign companies , especially with but not
limited to Joint ventures.
In any other country your skepticism is warranted. Not China.
That said, given how little attention the Bloomberg story received yesterday by MSM web
sites (havent checked today) beyond a denial story by msnbc I think its far more likely
that a friendly foreign intelligence agency or the US had something to do with it. Blame
China not Israel or CIA/NSA
I flicked on the beeb news channel as I dragged meself outta the pit this am and caught
the 'news' of the bellingcat claim that Ruslan Boshirov = Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga.
Now I'm fully cognisant of the fact that neither Russia nor Chepiga should feel obliged to
prove this claim is untrue, but since whichever way you slice it Chepiga is now 'blown', They
(Russia/Chepiga) may as well prove the claim is nonsense. The thing being that the boof heads
at MI6/CIA would also have worked that out, unless it was a particularly boofed, boofhead who
put this latest snippet together.
IMO in all likelihood Ruslan Boshirov = Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga is correct. Towards the
end of one of the supporting articles that sets out the 'proof' Bellingcat mutters something
rather odd which seems like it actually detracts from the story - if the ultimate target of
this revelation is Colonel Chepiga.
But who really cares about some obscure military intelligence mid-level bloke? (Colonel is
nowhere near the giddy heights of any military, something I discovered when working in the Oz
public service & I was seconded to the department of defence to do a job. Since I was
working with a bunch of uniformed saluters, it was claimed they would not "feel comfortable
working with someone of unknown status in the hierarchy". So I was told that my position in
the Public Service equated with the rank of colonel in the army. I can tell you, if it
weren't totally apparent, that I was just an average sh1tkicker)
No one cares about Chepiga, this entire saga is about getting the masses to accept without
any deep consideration, that "Putin" the figurehead who (according to western media)
micromanages everything evil about russia, only cares about destroying the life of Jo/Joe
Sh1tkicker where ever in the world Jo/Joe may be.
So the
last two paras of the burble runs thusly:
Bellingcat has contacted confidentially a former Russian military officer of similar rank
as Colonel Chepiga, in order to receive a reaction to what we found. The source, speaking
on condition of anonymity, expressed surprise that at least one of the operatives engaged
in the operation in Salisbury had the rank of colonel. Even more surprising was the
suspects' prior award of the highest military recognition.
In our source's words, an operation of this sort would have typically required a
lower-ranked, "field operative" with a military rank of "no higher than captain." The
source further surmised that to send a highly decorated colonel back to a field job would
be highly extraordinary, and would imply that "the job was ordered at the highest
level."
The logical flaw is obvious of course. If 'the job' had been ordered at the highest level
surely sending some bloke who had been riding a desk for the last six years is not how it
would handled, the most recently capable operative would be sent - either a relatively junior
officer or a young but experienced NCO.
However assuming Boshirov = Colonel Chepiga is correct, while he would never be sent to
supervise a hit on the ground much less carry it out; it doesn't take a great stretch to
ruminate on the possible tasks a military intelligence colonel would be sent to england
for.
There is one obvious task which would explain most credibly what he was in Salisbury for - to
give Sergey Skripal confidence that his repatriation was a genuine offer, not some half arsed
wish fulfillment plan dreamed up by Yulia and a low level intelligence operator eager to
climb into Yulia's pants.
Two colonels of the GRU, one a highly decorated hero and the other a dodgy turncoat who had
come to realise after the nonsense his immediate MI6 superior Pablo Miller, plus his big boss
"Mr Steele" had put out about Moscow golden showers, whilst insinuating he, Skirpal was party
to the fiction, that rapprochment between Russia and angland/amerika was never gonna happen.
He was never going to be able to know any of his grandchildren or see his motherland again
because usuk needed 'evil Russia' to distract their citizens away from the real evildoing 'at
home'.
Someone used a chess mataphor elsewhere in a thread, well I would say that if the Bellingcat
revelation that Ruslan Boshirov = Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga. if true sails close to a
checkmate.
If Russia confesses that Ruslan Boshirov does = Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga, citizens in the
west would be denied any explanation as the fishwraps and talking heads would be too busy
celebrating Russia's alleged 'defeat' to include any other portion of what Russia had said,
especially not an exposition which dealt with everything from the fact that Chepiga & co
arrived too late on Sunday for their poisoned doorknob to have tainted the Skirpals who had
left the house for the last time hours before and that of all the english towns some idjit
chose to squirt this muck around Salisbury was the one where assassination by chemical weapon
was the town the least likely to give success since the proximity of Porton Downs guaranteed
that some not all staff at Salisbury Hospital would have been trained in chem weapon
detection and antidote.
On the other side of the coin - panic stations at MI6, on a quiet Sunday it has just been
uncovered that an asset was 'going over'. So some duty officer sent the thug on call for the
day over to Porton Downs to grab 'a little something' guaranteed to prevent any such
nonsense.
"... My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the media imho to also take heat off Mueller. ..."
Last Friday the New York Times published
a story that reflected negatively on the loyalty of Deputy Attorney General Rod
Rosenstein towards President Trump. Rosenstein, the NYT claimed, suggested to
wiretap Trump and to remove him by using the 25th amendment. Other news reports contradicted
the claim and Rosenstein himself denied it.
The report was a trap to push Trump towards an impulsive firing of the number two in the
Justice Department, a repeat of Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre . The
Democrats would have profited from such an ' October surprise ' in the November 6
midterm elections. A campaign to exploit such a scandal to get-out-the-votes was already
well prepared .
The trap did not work. The only one who panicked was Rosenstein. He feared for his
reputation should he get fired. To prevent such damage he offered to resign amicably. He
tried this at least three times:
By Friday evening, concerned about testifying to Congress over the revelations that he
discussed wearing a wire to the Oval Office and invoking the constitutional trigger to
remove Mr. Trump from office, Mr. Rosenstein had become convinced that he should resign,
according to people close to him. He offered during a late-day visit to the White House to
quit, according to one person familiar with the encounter, but John F. Kelly, the White
House chief of staff, demurred.
...
Also over the weekend, Mr. Rosenstein again told Mr. Kelly that he was considering
resigning. On Sunday, Mr. Rosenstein repeated the assertion in a call with Donald F. McGahn
II, the White House counsel. Mr. McGahn -- [...] -- asked Mr. Rosenstein to postpone their
discussion until Monday.
...
By about 9 a.m. Monday, Mr. Rosenstein was in his office on the fourth floor of the Justice
Department when reporters started calling. Was it true that Mr. Rosenstein was planning to
resign, they asked.
...
At the White House the deputy attorney general slipped into a side entrance to the West
Wing and headed to the White House counsel's office to meet with Mr. McGahn, who had by
then been told by Mr. Kelly that Mr. Rosenstein was on his way and wanted to resign.
McGhan punted the issue back to Kelly and finally Rosenstein spoke with Trump. Trump did
not fire him nor did he resign. It is now
expected that he will stay until the end of the year or even
longer :
President Trump told advisers he is open to keeping Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
on the job, and allies of the No. 2 Justice Department official said Tuesday he has given
them the impression he doesn't plan to quit.
The trap did not work. Neither did Trump panic nor did the White House allow the panicking
Rod Rosenstein to pull the trigger. The people who set this up, by leaking some dubious FBI
memo to the NYT , did not achieve their aims.
There are only six weeks left until the midterm elections. What other October surprises
might be planned by either side?
Posted by b on September 26, 2018 at 11:20 AM |
Permalink
This account gives an interesting twist, that Trump wants to keep Rosenstein
as leverage.
I think it is not in the interest of Trump to do anything that could look like hampering the
Mueller investigation. It might be in his interest to try to force Mueller to show what he
has bevore the midterm elections, but that could also be seen as a form of hampering.
I think there are already lots of indications that the whole Russiagate collusion story
was fabricated. The messages between Peter Strzok und Lisa Page point towards this direction,
and it seems that different stories that were used for Russiagate were connected.
It seems that the Steele dossier played a crucial role for getting warrants for spying on
the Trump campaign and for starting the media campaign about Trump-Russia "collusion".
Obviously, the Steele dossier is a rather implausible conspiracy theory (allegedly, Russia
made preparations for Trump's candidacy years earlier when hardly anyone thought Trump would
have the slightest chance of being nominated by a major party), contains no evidence for the
allegations, and the elements that can be verified are either banal and don't show collusion
or they are false (e.g. Trump's lawyer going to Prague, it seems he has an alibi, and there
are leaks that there was another person named Michael Cohen, without a connection to Trump,
who flew to Prague, so Steele probably had access to flight data, but did not do further
verifications).
A further strand of "Russiagate" is the story around Papadopoulos. First, it should be
noted that it hardly shows foreknowledge of the DNC leaks when someone may have speculated
that Russia may have e-mails from Hillary Clinton - at that time, the deleted mails from
Clinton's private server were talked about a lot, and one of the concerns that was often
mentioned was that Clinton's private server may have been hacked by Russia or China. None of
the versions of what Papadopoulos was allegedly told by Mifsud and told Downer specifically
mention DNC or Podesta e-mails. Second, the people involved had close connections to Western
intelligence services. Mifsud had close ties with important EU institutions and was connected
with educational institutions used by Western intelligence agencies (mainly Italian, British,
FBI). If he really was a Russian spy, there would have been larger consequences, and the FBI
would hardly have let him go after questioning him. According to a book by Roh and Pastor who
have known Mifsud for a long time, he denies having told Papadopoulos anything about damaging
material about Hillary Clinton (Mifsud also said that in an interview), and Mifsud suspects
Papadopoulos of being a provocateur of Western intelligence services - Papadopoulos
forcefully tried to create connections between the Trump campaign and Russians, but both
sides were not willing to go along (a representative of a Russian think tank which
Papadopoulos asked to invite Trump answered that the Trump campaign should send an official
request, which never followed). Papadopoulos was in (probably frequent) contact with FBI
informer Stefan Halper, and it may be that Papadopoulos was an unwitting provocateur because
of events Stefan Halper arranged. The Australian diplomat Downer has connections to the
Clinton foundation (he helped arranging large payments by Australia) and Western secret
services. Third, what has exactly been said by whom is disputed. As mentioned, Mifsud denies
mentioning anything about damaging material on Hillary Clinton to Papadopoulos (the only one
who claims this is Papadopoulos), and Papadopoulos denies mentioning e-mails to Downer. It
seems, Papadopoulos were only half-willing participants in the setup arranged by Stefan
Halper whose goal was to have some background for the message that could be received from
Downer. Papadopoulos' wife has shared a picture of Stefan Halper and Downer together, which
also fits the idea that this story was set up by FBI informant Halper with Downer.
The visit of the Russian lawyer Veselnitskaya was arranged by Fusion GPS, and she met with
him before and after the meeting she met with Glen Simpson.
Of course, we are just in the beginning, there is certainly enough concrete material for
starting an investigation (unlike with the alleged Trump-Russia collusion), but many details
are still open. Those who presumably set up the collusion story went from offensive to
defensive, even if that might not be clear if someone reads particularly biased media. Now,
the time until the midterms certainly is not enough for conducting and concluding such an
investigation. But it should be enough for unclassifying and publishing some documents that
shed further light on these events.
The time for more decisive action against those who set up Russiagate may be after the
midterm elections, and how easy that will be probably partly depends on the election result.
Therefore, I suppose that Trump and other Republicans will strongly press for important
documents being unclassified and published before the elections.
Trump admin and GOP Congress are doing almost everything possible to alienate the majority of
the public on a wide spectrum of issues that's also helped threaten the positions of
Republicans masquerading as Democrats. The fallout from the 2016 Primary and subsequent
disclosures about Clinton and DNC corruption and law breaking--meddling in elections and
caucuses--has emboldened numerous people--particularly women--who were previously politically
apathetic, not just to run for office, but also to work to get like-minded candidates
elected. Sanders called for an insurrection--and yes, he's still sheep dogging--and it's
emerged and isn't totally controlled by the DemParty despite its efforts: The cat's out of
the bag.
Now I expect the usual attacks using the trite adage that voting doesn't matter. Well,
guess what, Trump's election proves that adage to be 100% false. There's only one path to
making America Great and that's by getting the neoliberals and neocons out of government; and
the only way to do that is to run candidates with opposing positions and elect
them--then--once in office, they need to oust the vermin from the bureaucracy--Drain the
Swamp, as Trump put it. I know it can be done as it's been done before during two different
epochs of US History. And the System was just as rigged against popular success than as it is
now.
Karlof1 I agree w you 100%. Voters can make a difference and change is still possible however
unlikely and rare. The problem is voter complacency which is fed by cynicism. Ironically
younger liberal voters tend to be the most complacent especially at the midterm elections.
This year complacency doesn't appear to be an issue so we will probably see a Dem House in
January if not also a Dem Senate.
My take on Rosenstein is he went to the WH to force Trump to accept his resignation or
fire him or keep him and thus shut him up either way because even as large a fool as Trump
can't be so stupid as to fire RR before the midterms. A trap laid by the Deputy AG not the
media imho to also take heat off Mueller.
Trump could shock the world by being on his best behavior for a few weeks. (j/k don't hold
your breath).
Just a little review:
In November, Dems are expected to take the House of Representatives by a modest margin.
The House, not the Senate determines impeachment. Impeachment is like an indictment -- the
Senate would then have a "trial" of sorts, and then to convict, you need 2/3 majority of
Senators. Nobody expects that.
Nixon actually resigned out of shame after being impeached. Clinton didn't. Trump gives
zero f**ks so this outcome isn't even worth discussing.
The Senate is more important. It is just barely within reach for Democrats if everything
goes in their favor. If they win every single seat that is competitive, Democrats get 51/100
seats, plus 2 independents who side with them, but minus a couple of Democrats-in-name-only
who regularly vote with Republicans (West Virginia's Manchin for example). Recall that the
Vice President (Pence) is the tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
More realistically, in a still optimistic scenario, Democrats will lose one or more of the
competitive races, and end up with 49-50 votes in the Senate. (they are expected to win big
in 2 years in 2020, due to many more Republicans facing re-election then).
Only someone morbidly partisan within the Corporate One-Party would bother seeking the
impeachment of a fungible geek like a US president. Indeed, those fixated on impeachment
evidently have no rationale beyond Trump Derangement Syndrome. To replace Trump with Pence
would be no improvement and most likely would make things worse. Trump and Pence share the
corporate globalization ideology and goals, but Trump's more chaotic execution is more likely
to lead to chaotic, perhaps system-destructive effects more quickly than a more disciplined
execution. The same is true of any Democrat we could envision replacing Trump in 2020.
That's why it was a good thing that Trump won in 2016: He's more likely to bring about a
faster collapse of the US empire and of the globalization system in general. Not because
these are his goals, but because his indiscipline adds a much-needed wild card to the
deck.
Needless to say, humanity and the Earth have nothing to lose, as we're slowly but surely
being exterminated once and for all regardless.
Now that UK's "resettling" White Helmet Terrorists within its borders, I wonder if they'll
become the next victims of MI6 attempts to frame Russia for its assassinations using poison
gas?
Semi OT--Now that UK's
"resettling" White Helmet Terrorists within its borders, I wonder if they'll become the
next victims of MI6 attempts to frame Russia for its assassinations using poison gas? What do
UK-located MoA barflies think of May bringing her terrorists "home"? Plus, I thought there
was a housing crisis of sorts within UK, and such scarce housing's to be allocated to
terrorists?! What sort of light opera would Gilbert & Sullivan compose as a ripost?
Unfortunately, it appears Corbyn's remained quiet on this issue, although there's plenty of
other items of importance to UK citizens for him to use as issues to defeat Tories.
"... We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers. ..."
"... The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign." ..."
We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but
instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which
is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers.
Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example
was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media,
The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli
for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories
without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war.
The result was a disastrous intervention that led to hundreds of thousands of civilian
deaths and continued instability in Iraq, including the formation of the Islamic State.
In a massive Times '
article published on Thursday, entitled, "A Plot to Subvert an Election: Unravelling the
Russia Story So Far," it seems that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti have succumbed to
the same thinking that doubled down on Iraq.
They claim to have a "mountain of evidence" but what they offer would be invisible on the
Great Plains.
With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with
any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election -- the
central Russia-gate charge -- the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up
of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made -- deceptively presented as though it's
all been proven.
Mueller: No collusion so far.
This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to
believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.
The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then
contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will
be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private
instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American
politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the
Trump campaign."
But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that "no public evidence has emerged
showing that [Trump's] campaign conspired with Russia."
The Times also adds: "There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the
presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved."
This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be "proved or disproved" what is the point
of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of
this very New York Times article?
Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this
piece.
A Banner Day
The 10,000-word article opens with a story of a pro-Russian banner that was hung from the
Manhattan Bridge on Putin's birthday, and an anti-Obama banner hung a month later from the
Memorial Bridge in Washington just after the 2016 election.
On public property these are constitutionally-protected acts of free speech. But for the
Times , "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and
Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most
effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Kremlin: Guilty, says NYT. (Robert Parry, 2016)
Why? Because the Times tells us that the "earliest promoters" of images of the banners were
from social media accounts linked to a St. Petersburg-based click-bait farm, a company called
the Internet Research Agency. The company is not legally connected to the Kremlin and any
political coordination is pure speculation. IRA has been
explained convincingly as a commercial and not political operation. Its aim is get and sell
"eyeballs."
For instance the company conducted pro and anti-Trump rallies and social media messages, as
well as pro and anti-Clinton. But the Times , in classic omission mode, only reports on "the
anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia." Sharing with
"millions" of people on social media does not mean that millions of people have actually seen
those messages. And if they had there is little way to determine whether it affected how they
voted, especially as the messages attacked and praised both candidates.
The Times reporters take much at face value, which they then themselves undermine. Most
prominently, they willfully mistake an indictment for a conviction, as if they do not know the
difference.
This is in the category of Journalism 101. An indictment need not include evidence and under
U.S. law an indictment is not evidence. Juries are instructed that an indictment is merely an
accusation. That the Times commits this cardinal sin of journalism to purposely confuse
allegations with a conviction is not only inexcusable but strikes a fatal blow to the
credibility of the entire article.
It actually reports that "Today there is no doubt who hacked the D.N.C. and the Clinton
campaign. A
detailed indictment of 12 officers of Russia's military intelligence agency, filed in July
by Mr. Mueller, documents their every move, including their break-in techniques, their tricks
to hide inside the Democrats' networks and even their Google searches."
Who needs courts when suspects can be tried and convicted in the press?
What the Times is not taking into account is that Mueller knows his indictment will never be
tested in court because the GRU agents will never be arrested, there is no extradition treaty
between the U.S. and Russia and even if it were miraculously to see the inside of a courtroom
Mueller can invoke states secrets privilege to show the "evidence" to a judge with clearance in
his chambers who can then emerge to pronounce "Guilty!" without a jury having seen that
evidence.
This is what makes Mueller's indictment more a political than a legal document, giving him
wide leeway to put whatever he wants into it. He knew it would never be tested and that once it
was released, a supine press would do the rest to cement it in the public consciousness as a
conviction, just as this Times piece tries to do.
Errors of Commission and Omission
There are a series of erroneous assertions and omissions in the Times piece, omitted because
they would disturb the narrative:
Not mentioning that the FBI was never given access to the DNC server but instead gullibly
believing the assertion of the anti-Russian private company CrowdStrike, paid for by the DNC,
that the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief found in metadata proves Russia was
behind the hack. Only someone wanting to be caught would leave such a clue.
Incredibly believing that Trump would have launched a covert intelligence operation on
live national television by asking Russia to get 30,000 missing emails.
Trump: Sarcastically calls on Russia to get Clinton emails.
Ignoring the possible role of the MI6, the CIA and the FBI setting up Trump
campaign members George Papadopoulos and Carter Page as "colluders" with Russia.
Repeating misleading statements about the infamous Trump Tower meeting, in which Trump's
son did not seek dirt on Clinton but was offered it by a music promoter, not the Russian
government. None was apparently produced. It's never been established that a campaign
receiving opposition research from foreigners is illegal (though the Times has decided that
it is) and only the Clinton campaign was known to have obtained any.
Making no mention at all of the now discredited opposition research dossier paid for by
the Clinton campaign and the DNC from foreign sources and used by the FBI to get a warrant to
spy on Carter Page and potentially other campaign members.
Dismissing the importance
of politicized text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page because the pair
were "skewered regularly on Mr. (Sean) Hannity's show as the 'Trump-hating F.B.I.
lovebirds.'"
Putting down to "hyped news stories" the legitimate fear of a new McCarthyism against
anyone who questions the "official" story being peddled here by the Times .
Seeking to get inside Putin's head to portray him as a petulant child seeking personal
revenge against Hillary Clinton, a tale long peddled by Clinton and accepted without
reservation by the Times.
Pretending to get into Julian Assange's head as well, saying he "shared Mr. Putin's
hatred of Mrs. Clinton and had a soft spot for Russia." And that Assange "also obscured the
Russian role by fueling a right-wing conspiracy theory he
knew to be false."
Ignoring findings backed
by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails were leaked and not
hacked.
Erroneously linking the timing of WikiLeaks' Podesta emails to deflect attention from the
"Access Hollywood" tape, as
debunked in Consortium News by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who worked with
WikiLeaks on those emails.
Distorts Geo-Politics
The piece swallows whole the Establishment's geo-strategic Russia narrative, as all
corporate media do. It buys without hesitation the story that the U.S. seeks to spread
democracy around the world, and not pursue its economic and geo-strategic interests as do all
imperial powers.
The Times reports that, "The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the
so-called color revolutions on Russia's borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004." The
Times has also spread the erroneous story of a democratic revolution in Ukraine in 2014,
omitting crucial evidence of
a U.S.-backed coup.
The Times disapprovingly dismisses Trump having said on the campaign trail that "Russia was
not an existential threat, but a potential ally in beating back terrorist groups," when an
objective view of the world would come to this very conclusion.
The story also shoves aside American voters' real concerns that led to Trump's election. For
the Times, economic grievances and rejection of perpetual war played no role in the election of
Trump. Instead it was Russian influence that led Americans to vote for him, an absurd
proposition defied by a Gallup poll in July that
showed Americans' greatest concerns being economic. Their concerns about Russia were
statistically insignificant at less than one percent.
Ignoring Americans' real concerns exposes the class interests of Times staffers and editors
who are evidently above Americans' economic and social suffering. The Times piece blames Russia
for social "divisions" and undermining American democracy, classic projection onto Moscow away
from the real culprits for these problems: bi-partisan American plutocrats. That also insults
average Americans by suggesting they cannot think for themselves and pursue their own interests
without Russia telling them what to do.
Establishment reporters insulate themselves from criticism by retreating into the exclusive
Establishment club they think they inhabit. It is from there that they vicariously draw their
strength from powerful people they cover, which they should instead be scrutinizing. Validated
by being close to power, Establishment reporters don't take seriously anyone outside of the
club, such as a website like Consortium News.
But on rare occasions they are forced to take note of what outsiders are saying. Because of
the role The New York Timesplayed in the catastrophe of Iraq its editors took the highly
unusual move of apologizing
to its readers. Will we one day read a similar apology about the paper's coverage of
Russia-gate? Tags Politics
"... There was no sign of nerve agents being used, but The Sun claimed to have 'security sources' which told them rat poison may have been used against the couple, while claiming King was fighting for his life. Soon after the hospital confirmed that actually both had been discharged. ..."
"... Then the BBC reported that King, who was reportedly found foaming at the mouth in the restaurant's toilet, is a "convicted criminal who once hoaxed Prince Charles" and had previously been convicted of "distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children." ..."
"... Then the Daily Mirror reported that King is an alleged drug dealer, and Shapiro is a high-class escort who told friends she was a " honeytrap spy ..."
"... Like any newspaper, we were keen to talk to those at the centre of the incident and give them the opportunity to share with the public their version of events ..."
"... Like this story? Share it with a friend! ..."
Russian-born Anna Shapiro and her British husband Alex King were at the center of another
poisoning scare in Salisbury last Sunday in an incident that appeared at first to echo the
attack on ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the very same city.
The details were compelling, a reported poisoning in another Italian eatery chain in
Salisbury (this time Prezzo), a Russian was involved, and the police closed off streets and
deployed specialists in hazmat suits.
The story also carried a hint of too-good-to-be-true, but The Sun was so seduced by
Shapiro's claim that Putin was after her, it ran a front page splash. The fact she was willing
to claim " Putin wants me dead " while at the same time doing a sexy photo shoot
probably helped.
There was no sign of nerve agents being used, but The Sun claimed to have 'security
sources' which told them rat poison may have been used against the couple, while claiming King
was fighting for his life. Soon after the hospital confirmed that actually both had been
discharged.
However, other details began to emerge after the Sun splashed. The police, who have not
suggested any crime actually took place, admitted one of their lines of inquiry into what
happened in Salisbury's Prezzo is now whether it may have been a hoax.
Then the BBC
reported that King, who was reportedly found foaming at the mouth in the restaurant's
toilet, is a "convicted criminal who once hoaxed Prince Charles" and had previously been
convicted of "distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children."
Then the
Daily Mirror reported that King is an alleged drug dealer, and Shapiro is a high-class
escort who told friends she was a " honeytrap spy " used by Israel's Mossad to seduce
men.
Essentially what appeared to be an extremely questionable story from the very start seems to
be disintegrating, so why would a national newspaper decide to run this story at all without
doing a basic background checks?
The obvious conclusion is simply that it's too easy to make any accusation you like about
Russia because readers are willing to believe anything in the current political climate.
The Sun said in a statement: " Like any newspaper, we were keen to talk to those at the
centre of the incident and give them the opportunity to share with the public their version of
events ."
But were they keen to check whether any of it was accurate?
@Mr. Hack I understand perfectly what I read, and even make a direct quotation:
Those in power in Kiev had several times already attempted to draw Moscow into the civil
war, directly and through a NATO intervention
I then ridicule such mularkey for what it is, unsubstantiated ' gibberish
'.
You want to defend this BS then go to it, otherwise put up or shut up! :-)
The same goes for Skeptikal. Here is a British 'method' of slandering the non-obedient
Russians. In terms of dishonesty, it is about the same as the US/EU/Ukrainian version of the
MH17 tragedy:
"The Holes in the Official Skripal Story," by Craig MURRAY:
"The nub of the British government's approach has been the shocking willingness of the
corporate and state media to parrot repeatedly the lie that the nerve agent was Russian made,
even after Porton Down said they could not tell where it was made and the OPCW confirmed that
finding. In fact, while the Soviet Union did develop the "novichok" class of nerve agents,
the programme involved scientists from all over the Soviet Union, especially Ukraine, Armenia
and Georgia, as I myself learnt when I visited the newly decommissioned Nukus testing
facility in Uzbekistan in 2002."
"... The fake story that May has been pushing is that it is "highly likely" that the Kremlin ordered a hit on the former British spy Sergei Skripal (and his daughter) using a "Russian-made" chemical weapon called "Novichok." In turn, from what we already knew, it is highly likely that this story is a complete and utter fake. ..."
The Brits have just provided my previous article, The Truthers and The Fakers, with a tidy
little case study: the very next day after I published it Theresa May's government stepped into
its role as one of the world's premier Fakers and unleashed the next installment of fake news
on the Skripal poisoning. We can use this as training material in learning how to spot and
discard fakes.
The fake story that May has been pushing is that it is "highly likely" that the Kremlin
ordered a hit on the former British spy Sergei Skripal (and his daughter) using a
"Russian-made" chemical weapon called "Novichok." In turn, from what we already knew, it is
highly likely that this story is a complete and utter fake. As I explained in the previous
article, it is not our job to establish what really happened. We would be unable to do so with
any degree of certainty without gaining access to state secrets. But we don't need to; all we
need to do is establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that the British government's
story is a foolishly, incompetently concocted fabrication. Doing so will then allow us to
properly classify the British press, which repeats this nonsense as fact, and the British
public, which accepts it unquestioningly at face value. Then we can drop the erroneous
appellation "great" -- because great nations don't act so stupidly
"... We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers. ..."
"... The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the Trump campaign." ..."
We've seen it before : a newspaper and individual reporters get a story horribly wrong but
instead of correcting it they double down to protect their reputations and credibility - which
is all journalists have to go on - and the public suffers.
Sometimes this maneuver can contribute to a massive loss of life. The most egregious example
was the reporting in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. Like nearly all Establishment media,
The New York Times got the story of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction -- the major casus belli
for the invasion -- dead wrong. But the Times , like the others, continued publishing stories
without challenging their sources in authority, mostly unnamed, who were pushing for war.
The result was a disastrous intervention that led to hundreds of thousands of civilian
deaths and continued instability in Iraq, including the formation of the Islamic State.
In a massive Times '
article published on Thursday, entitled, "A Plot to Subvert an Election: Unravelling the
Russia Story So Far," it seems that reporters Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti have succumbed to
the same thinking that doubled down on Iraq.
They claim to have a "mountain of evidence" but what they offer would be invisible on the
Great Plains.
With the mid-terms looming and Special Counsel Robert Mueller unable to so far come up with
any proof of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign to steal the 2016 election -- the
central Russia-gate charge -- the Times does it for him, regurgitating a Russia-gate Round-Up
of every unsubstantiated allegation that has been made -- deceptively presented as though it's
all been proven.
Mueller: No collusion so far.
This is a reaffirmation of the faith, a recitation of what the Russia-gate faithful want to
believe is true. But mere repetition will not make it so.
The Times' unsteady conviction is summed up in this paragraph, which the paper itself then
contradicts only a few paragraphs later: "What we now know with certainty: The Russians carried out a landmark intervention that will
be examined for decades to come. Acting on the personal animus of Mr. Putin, public and private
instruments of Russian power moved with daring and skill to harness the currents of American
politics. Well-connected Russians worked aggressively to recruit or influence people inside the
Trump campaign."
But this schizoid approach leads to the admission that "no public evidence has emerged
showing that [Trump's] campaign conspired with Russia."
The Times also adds: "There is a plausible case that Mr. Putin succeeded in delivering the
presidency to his admirer, Mr. Trump, though it cannot be proved or disproved."
This is an extraordinary statement. If it cannot be "proved or disproved" what is the point
of this entire exercise: of the Mueller probe, the House and Senate investigations and even of
this very New York Times article?
Attempting to prove this constructed story without proof is the very point of this
piece.
A Banner Day
The 10,000-word article opens with a story of a pro-Russian banner that was hung from the
Manhattan Bridge on Putin's birthday, and an anti-Obama banner hung a month later from the
Memorial Bridge in Washington just after the 2016 election.
On public property these are constitutionally-protected acts of free speech. But for the
Times , "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and
Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most
effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Kremlin: Guilty, says NYT. (Robert Parry, 2016)
Why? Because the Times tells us that the "earliest promoters" of images of the banners were
from social media accounts linked to a St. Petersburg-based click-bait farm, a company called
the Internet Research Agency. The company is not legally connected to the Kremlin and any
political coordination is pure speculation. IRA has been
explained convincingly as a commercial and not political operation. Its aim is get and sell
"eyeballs."
For instance the company conducted pro and anti-Trump rallies and social media messages, as
well as pro and anti-Clinton. But the Times , in classic omission mode, only reports on "the
anti-Clinton, pro-Trump messages shared with millions of voters by Russia." Sharing with
"millions" of people on social media does not mean that millions of people have actually seen
those messages. And if they had there is little way to determine whether it affected how they
voted, especially as the messages attacked and praised both candidates.
The Times reporters take much at face value, which they then themselves undermine. Most
prominently, they willfully mistake an indictment for a conviction, as if they do not know the
difference.
This is in the category of Journalism 101. An indictment need not include evidence and under
U.S. law an indictment is not evidence. Juries are instructed that an indictment is merely an
accusation. That the Times commits this cardinal sin of journalism to purposely confuse
allegations with a conviction is not only inexcusable but strikes a fatal blow to the
credibility of the entire article.
It actually reports that "Today there is no doubt who hacked the D.N.C. and the Clinton
campaign. A
detailed indictment of 12 officers of Russia's military intelligence agency, filed in July
by Mr. Mueller, documents their every move, including their break-in techniques, their tricks
to hide inside the Democrats' networks and even their Google searches."
Who needs courts when suspects can be tried and convicted in the press?
What the Times is not taking into account is that Mueller knows his indictment will never be
tested in court because the GRU agents will never be arrested, there is no extradition treaty
between the U.S. and Russia and even if it were miraculously to see the inside of a courtroom
Mueller can invoke states secrets privilege to show the "evidence" to a judge with clearance in
his chambers who can then emerge to pronounce "Guilty!" without a jury having seen that
evidence.
This is what makes Mueller's indictment more a political than a legal document, giving him
wide leeway to put whatever he wants into it. He knew it would never be tested and that once it
was released, a supine press would do the rest to cement it in the public consciousness as a
conviction, just as this Times piece tries to do.
Errors of Commission and Omission
There are a series of erroneous assertions and omissions in the Times piece, omitted because
they would disturb the narrative:
Not mentioning that the FBI was never given access to the DNC server but instead gullibly
believing the assertion of the anti-Russian private company CrowdStrike, paid for by the DNC,
that the name of the first Soviet intelligence chief found in metadata proves Russia was
behind the hack. Only someone wanting to be caught would leave such a clue.
Incredibly believing that Trump would have launched a covert intelligence operation on
live national television by asking Russia to get 30,000 missing emails.
Trump: Sarcastically calls on Russia to get Clinton emails.
Ignoring the possible role of the MI6, the CIA and the FBI setting up Trump
campaign members George Papadopoulos and Carter Page as "colluders" with Russia.
Repeating misleading statements about the infamous Trump Tower meeting, in which Trump's
son did not seek dirt on Clinton but was offered it by a music promoter, not the Russian
government. None was apparently produced. It's never been established that a campaign
receiving opposition research from foreigners is illegal (though the Times has decided that
it is) and only the Clinton campaign was known to have obtained any.
Making no mention at all of the now discredited opposition research dossier paid for by
the Clinton campaign and the DNC from foreign sources and used by the FBI to get a warrant to
spy on Carter Page and potentially other campaign members.
Dismissing the importance
of politicized text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page because the pair
were "skewered regularly on Mr. (Sean) Hannity's show as the 'Trump-hating F.B.I.
lovebirds.'"
Putting down to "hyped news stories" the legitimate fear of a new McCarthyism against
anyone who questions the "official" story being peddled here by the Times .
Seeking to get inside Putin's head to portray him as a petulant child seeking personal
revenge against Hillary Clinton, a tale long peddled by Clinton and accepted without
reservation by the Times.
Pretending to get into Julian Assange's head as well, saying he "shared Mr. Putin's
hatred of Mrs. Clinton and had a soft spot for Russia." And that Assange "also obscured the
Russian role by fueling a right-wing conspiracy theory he
knew to be false."
Ignoring findings backed
by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity that the DNC emails were leaked and not
hacked.
Erroneously linking the timing of WikiLeaks' Podesta emails to deflect attention from the
"Access Hollywood" tape, as
debunked in Consortium News by Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who worked with
WikiLeaks on those emails.
Distorts Geo-Politics
The piece swallows whole the Establishment's geo-strategic Russia narrative, as all
corporate media do. It buys without hesitation the story that the U.S. seeks to spread
democracy around the world, and not pursue its economic and geo-strategic interests as do all
imperial powers.
The Times reports that, "The United States had backed democratic, anti-Russian forces in the
so-called color revolutions on Russia's borders, in Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2004." The
Times has also spread the erroneous story of a democratic revolution in Ukraine in 2014,
omitting crucial evidence of
a U.S.-backed coup.
The Times disapprovingly dismisses Trump having said on the campaign trail that "Russia was
not an existential threat, but a potential ally in beating back terrorist groups," when an
objective view of the world would come to this very conclusion.
The story also shoves aside American voters' real concerns that led to Trump's election. For
the Times, economic grievances and rejection of perpetual war played no role in the election of
Trump. Instead it was Russian influence that led Americans to vote for him, an absurd
proposition defied by a Gallup poll in July that
showed Americans' greatest concerns being economic. Their concerns about Russia were
statistically insignificant at less than one percent.
Ignoring Americans' real concerns exposes the class interests of Times staffers and editors
who are evidently above Americans' economic and social suffering. The Times piece blames Russia
for social "divisions" and undermining American democracy, classic projection onto Moscow away
from the real culprits for these problems: bi-partisan American plutocrats. That also insults
average Americans by suggesting they cannot think for themselves and pursue their own interests
without Russia telling them what to do.
Establishment reporters insulate themselves from criticism by retreating into the exclusive
Establishment club they think they inhabit. It is from there that they vicariously draw their
strength from powerful people they cover, which they should instead be scrutinizing. Validated
by being close to power, Establishment reporters don't take seriously anyone outside of the
club, such as a website like Consortium News.
But on rare occasions they are forced to take note of what outsiders are saying. Because of
the role The New York Timesplayed in the catastrophe of Iraq its editors took the highly
unusual move of apologizing
to its readers. Will we one day read a similar apology about the paper's coverage of
Russia-gate? Tags Politics
"... It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." ..."
"... The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension" of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed, despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle class that constitute the target audience of the Times ..."
The New York Times published a fraudulent and provocative "special report" Thursday
titled "The plot to subvert an election."
Replete with sinister looking graphics portraying Russian President Vladimir Putin as a
villainous cyberage cyclops, the report purports to untangle "the threads of the most effective
foreign campaign in history to disrupt and influence an American election."
The report could serve as a textbook example of CIA-directed misinformation posing as
"in-depth" journalism. There is no news, few substantiated facts and no significant analysis
presented in the 10,000-word report, which sprawls over 11 ad-free pages of a separate section
produced by the Times.
The article begins with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners
were hung from bridges in New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016, one
bearing the likeness of Putin over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other
that of Obama and the slogan "Goodbye Murderer."
It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless
goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New
York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the
most effective foreign interference in an American election in history." The article begins
with an ominous-sounding recounting of two incidents in which banners were hung from bridges in
New York City and Washington in October and November of 2016, one bearing the likeness of Putin
over a Russian flag with the word "peacemaker," and the other that of Obama and the slogan
"Goodbye Murderer."
It acknowledges that "police never identified who had hung the banners," but nonetheless
goes on to assert that: "The Kremlin, it appeared, had reached onto United States soil in New
York and Washington. The banners may well have been intended as visual victory laps for the
most effective foreign interference in an American election in history."
Why does it "appear" to be the Kremlin? What is the evidence to support this claim? Among
the 8.5 million inhabitants of New York City and another 700,000 in Washington, D.C., aren't
there enough people who might despise Obama as much as, if not a good deal more than, Vladimir
Putin?
This absurd passage with its "appeared" and "may well have" combined with the speculation
about the Kremlin extending its evil grip onto "United States soil" sets the tone for the
entire piece, which consists of the regurgitation of unsubstantiated allegations made by the US
intelligence agencies, Democratic and Republican capitalist politicians and the Times
itself.
The authors, Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, complain about a lack of "public comprehension"
of the "Trump-Russia" story. Indeed, despite the two-year campaign of anti-Russian hysteria
whipped up in Washington and among the affluent sections of the upper-middle class that
constitute the target audience of the Times , polls have indicated that the charges of
Russian "meddling" in the 2016 presidential election have evoked little popular response among
the
"... shortly after FBI Director James Comey was fired by Trump, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed using the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office, and himself wearing a wire to record the President at the White House. Rosenstein is supervising the Mueller Special Counsel investigation of the President. Rosenstein has heatedly denied the Times story. ..."
"... Also this week, Mueller's first victim, former Trump Campaign volunteer George Papadopoulos began press appearances detailing how he was set up by the British and the CIA in the evidence fabrication phase of the Russiagate investigation, during the Spring of 2016. ..."
Friday afternoon, the New York Times once again took up the coup against Donald
Trump, not as a news matter, but as a witting psychological warfare instrument for those bent
on trying to illegally remove this President from office. They
report, with great fervor, that shortly after FBI Director James Comey was fired by
Trump, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed using the 25th Amendment to remove the
President from office, and himself wearing a wire to record the President at the White House.
Rosenstein is supervising the Mueller Special Counsel investigation of the President.
Rosenstein has heatedly denied the Times story.
This leak occurs in a context where the coup itself is unraveling. The President ordered the
declassification of foundational documents in the coup itself on Monday, September 17,
including tweets from Robert Mueller's central witness, Jim Comey. According to press accounts,
"our allies" called to complain, most certainly the British and the Australians who instigated
this coup together with Barack Obama and John Brennan. In addition, the so-called gang of eight
Senators and Congressmen who get briefed by the intelligence community had their knickers in a
full knot. On Friday, shortly before the Times story broke, the President delayed release of
the documents, placing their release in the hands of Justice Department Inspector General
Michael Horowitz, while insisting that the documents be reviewed and released in an expedited
fashion. He also reserved the right to move forward himself if the matter was not handled with
expedition. This was a sound move by Trump and the documents will be released.
Also this week, Mueller's first victim, former Trump Campaign volunteer George
Papadopoulos began press appearances detailing how he was set up by the British and the CIA in
the evidence fabrication phase of the Russiagate investigation, during the Spring of 2016.
There is a sitting grand jury in Washington D.C. hearing evidence concerning fired FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe. According to various sources, that grand jury is also hearing evidence
about criminal abuses of the FISA court process and media leaks.
The press reporting to date on the story points to Andrew McCabe or Robert Mueller as the
source of the leak to the New York Times .
McCabe's memos are reportedly the source of the story and he has provided those to
Mueller.
There is no doubt that Rosenstein has been a corrupt force throughout the ongoing coup
against the President.
The question, which allies of the President should be asking, however, is why is this
occurring now? In this strategic context? From the grey lady ragsheet that is the chief
propaganda arm of the coup?
The President should demand that the Inspector General Horowitz immediately obtain and
review the McCabe memos and interview everyone involved in the referenced in the Times
and any follow-on meetings under oath, as well as investigating the source of the leak to the
New York Times , providing him an immediate report for his consideration by early next
week.
"... If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be. ..."
"... The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget since the height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen. ..."
"... They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. ..."
"... US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give the illusion of competition. ..."
"... In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push. ..."
"... The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride toward war, ecocide and oppression. ..."
"... Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com . ..."
"... Support Ms. Johnstone's work on Patreon or Paypal ..."
A new article from the Wall Street
Journal reports that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
lied to congress about the measures Saudi Arabia is taking to minimize the civilian
casualties in its catastrophic war on Yemen, and that he did so in order to secure two billion
dollars for war profiteers.
This is about as depraved as anything you could possibly imagine. US-made bombs have
been conclusively tied to civilian deaths in a war which has caused the single worst
humanitarian crisis on earth, a crisis which sees
scores of Yemeni children dying every single day and has
placed five million children at risk of death by starvation in a nation where families are
now eating
leaves to survive . CIA veteran Bruce Riedel
once said that "if the United States of America and the United Kingdom tonight told King
Salman that this war has to end, it would end tomorrow, because the Royal Saudi Airforce cannot
operate without American and British support." Nobody other than war plutocrats benefits from
the US assisting Saudi Arabia in its monstrous crimes against humanity, and yet Pompeo chose to
override his own expert advisors on the matter for fear of hurting the income of those very war
plutocrats.
If the so-called "Resistance" to Trump was ever actually interested in opposing this
administration in any meaningful way, this would be the top trending news story in America for
days, like how "bombshell" revelations pertaining to the made-up Russiagate narrative trend for
days. Spoiler alert: it isn't, and it won't be.
It would be so very, very easy for Democratic party leaders and Democrat-aligned media to
hurt this administration at the highest level and cause irreparable political damage based on
this story. All they'd have to do is give it the same blanket coverage they've given the
stories about Michael Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort which
end up leading nowhere remotely near impeachment or proof of collusion with the Russian
government. The footage of the starving children is right there, ready to be aired to pluck at
the heart strings of rank-and-file Americans day after day until Republicans have lost all hope
of victory in the midterms and in 2020; all they'd have to do is use it. But they don't. And
they won't.
The US Senate has just passed Trump's mammoth military spending increase by
a landslide 92–8 vote . The eight senators who voted "nay"? Seven Republicans, and
Independent Bernie Sanders. Every single Democrat supported the most bloated war budget
since the
height of the Iraq war . Rather than doing everything they can to weaken the potential
damage that can be done by a president they've been assuring us is a dangerous hybrid of equal
parts Benedict Arnold and Adolf Hitler, they've been actively increasing his power as
Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen.
The reason for this is very simple: President Trump's ostensible political opposition does
not oppose President Trump. They're on the same team, wearing different uniforms. This is the
reason they attack him on Russian collusion accusations which the brighter bulbs among them
know full well will never be proven and have no basis in reality. They don't stand up to Trump
because, as Julian Assange once said , they are
Trump.
In John Steinbeck's The Pearl, there are jewelry buyers set up around a fishing community
which are all owned by the same plutocrat, but they all pretend to be in competition with one
another. When the story's protagonist discovers an enormous and valuable pearl and goes to sell
it, they all gather round and individually bid far less than it is worth in order to trick him
into giving it away for almost nothing. US politics is pretty much the same; two mainstream
parties owned by the same political class, engaged in a staged bidding war for votes to give
the illusion of competition.
In reality, the US political system is like the unplugged video game remote that kids give
their baby brother so he stops whining that he wants a turn to play. No matter who they vote
for they get an Orwellian warmongering government which exists solely to advance the agendas of
a plutocratic class which has no loyalties to any nation; the only difference is sometimes that
government is pretending to care about women and minorities and sometimes it's pretending to
care about white men. In reality, all the jewelers work for the same plutocrat, and that video
game remote won't impact the outcome of the game no matter how many buttons you push.
The only way to effect real change is to stop playing along with the rigged system and start
waking people up to the lies. As long as Americans believe that the mass media are telling them
the truth about their country and their partisan votes are going somewhere useful, the populace
whose numbers should give it immense influence is nullified and sedated into a passive ride
toward war, ecocide and oppression.
If enough of us keep throwing sand in the gears of the lie
factory, we can wake
the masses up from the oligarchic lullaby they're being sung. And then maybe we'll be big
enough to have a shot at grabbing one of the real video game controllers.
Reprinted with author's permission from
Medium.com .
"After the security briefing and everyone cleared out, McCabe shut the door to
Priebus's office. This is very weird, thought Priebus, who was standing by his
desk.
"You know this story in The New York Times?" Priebus knew it all too well.
McCabe was referring to a recent Times story of February 14 that stated, "Phone records
and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016
presidential campaign and other Trump associates had repeated contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the elections, according to four
current and former American officials."
The story was one of the first bombs to go off about alleged Trump-Russian
connections after Flynn's resignation. "It's total bullshit," McCabe said. "It's not true, and we want you to know
that. It's grossly overstated."
Oh my God, thought Priebus.
"Andrew," he said to the FBI deputy, "I'm getting killed."
The story about Russia and election meddling seemed to be running 24/7 on
cable news, driving Trump bananas and therefore driving Priebus bananas.
"This is crazy," Trump had told Priebus. "We've got to stop it. We need to
end the story."
McCabe had just walked in with a big gift, a Valentine's Day present. I'm
going to be the hero of this entire West Wing, Priebus thought.
"Can you help me?" Priebus asked. "Could this knockdown of the story be
made public?"
"Call me in a couple of hours," McCabe said. "I will ask around and I'll let
you know. I'll see what I can do."
Priebus practically ran to report to Trump the good news that the FBI would
soon be shooting down the Times story.
Two hours passed and no call from McCabe. Priebus called him."I'm sorry, I can't," McCabe
said.
"There's nothing I can do about it. I tried,but if we start issuing comments on individual
stories, we'll be doing statements
every three days." The FBI could not become a clearinghouse for the accuracy of news stories.
If the FBI tried to debunk certain stories, a failure to comment could be seen as a
confirmation.
"Andrew, you're the one that came to my office to tell me this is a BS story,
and now you're telling me there's nothing you can do?"
McCabe said that was his position.
"This is insanity," Priebus said. "What am I supposed to do? Just suffer, bleed out?"
"Give me a couple more hours."
Nothing happened. No call from the FBI. Priebus tried to explain to Trump,
who was waiting for a recanting. It was another reason for Trump to distrust and
hate the FBI, a pernicious tease that left them dangling.
About a week later on February 24 CNN reported an exclusive: "FBI Refused
White House Request to Knock Down Recent Trump-Russia Story." Priebus
was cast as trying to manipulate the FBI for political purposes.
The White House tried and failed to correct the story and show that McCabe
had initiated the matter.
Four months later on June 8, Comey testified under oath publicly that the
original New York Times story on the Trump campaign aides' contacts with
senior Russian intelligence officials "in the main was not true."
The Mueller Hoax is unraveling.
Posted by: Sid2 | Sep 20, 2018 3:03:44 PM | 3
The Mueller Hoax is unravelling, and concommittently the NYT is digging in; ergo ,
the NYT is also unravelling! The NYT will permanently damage its reputation with its own
readers.
I love how the NYT mentions how no public evidence has emerged, to skirt around the
fact that if there were internal evidence (from some gov agency or private citizen) it
would've leaked by now. There is no such thing as evidence which hasn't been leaked in
an alleged scandal of this size.
Further, the corporate news media gave Trump something like $2 billion dollars worth of
advertising in free airtime. That's a much larger impact -- around 20 times Clinton's
campaign costs IIRC -- than any alleged hacked e-mails (though the e-mails were leaked
not hacked, and that played a role. As well as the FBI's investigation into Clinton's illegal
email server which was public fact at the time) or social media interference.
Banks, defense contractors and oil companies decide who the President is and what their
Cabinet will look like (see Obama's leaked CitiBank memo "recommending" executives to his
2009 Cabinet). Russians and the American people do not.
John Pilger's essay: Hold
the Front Page, the Reporters are Missing appropriately describes this BigLie media
item b dissected, while also observing, "Although journalism was always a loose extension of
establishment power, something has changed in recent years," prior to providing Why this is
so.
Want to highlight this additional bit from Pilger:
"Journalism students should study this [New book from Media Lens Propaganda Blitz ]
to understand that the source of "fake news" is not only trollism, or the likes of Fox news,
or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a false respectability: a liberal
journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in reality, courts and protects
it, and colludes with it. The amorality of the years of Tony Blair, whom the Guardian has
failed to rehabilitate, is its echo. [My emphasis]
IMO, the bolded text well describes BigLie Media. I wonder what George Seldes would say
differently from Pilger if he were alive. Unfortunately, Pilger failed to include MoA as a
source in his short list of sites having journalistic integrity.
on journalism and it being usurped by social media behemoths google, facebook, twitter and
etc - i found
this cbc radio) interview last night worth recommending..
That New York Times piece was amazing. Belief anything the US Gov't/anti-Russian lobby and
other nut cases tell you, unquestioningly. Investigative journalism at its best!
Accept the most stupid evidence with blinking an eye. Even if one believes the collusion
argument, try to be a bit critical. And always believe that a GRU hacker will put Felix
Dzerzinnsky's name in their program. For heaven's sake he was Cheka, the forerunner of the
KGB, not the GRU which was military intelligence.
So much of mainstream journalism has descended to the level of a cult-like formula of bias,
hearsay and omission. Subjectivism is all; slogans and outrage are proof enough. What matters
is 'perception'...
The death of Robert Parry earlier this year felt like a farewell to the age of the reporter.
Parry was "a trailblazer for independent journalism", wrote Seymour Hersh, with whom he shared
much in common.
Hersh revealed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the secret bombing of Cambodia, Parry
exposed Iran-Contra, a drugs and gun-running conspiracy that led to the White House. In 2016,
they separately produced compelling evidence that the Assad government in Syria had not used
chemical weapons. They were not forgiven.
Driven from the "mainstream", Hersh must publish his work outside the United States. Parry
set up his own independent news website Consortium News, where, in a final piece following a
stroke, he referred to journalism's veneration of "approved opinions" while "unapproved
evidence is brushed aside or disparaged regardless of its quality."
Although journalism was always a loose extension of establishment power, something has
changed in recent years. Dissent tolerated when I joined a national newspaper in Britain in the
1960s has regressed to a metaphoric underground as liberal capitalism moves towards a form of
corporate dictatorship.
This is a seismic shift, with journalists policing the new "groupthink", as Parry called it,
dispensing its myths and distractions, pursuing its enemies.
Witness the witch-hunts against refugees and immigrants, the willful abandonment by the
"MeToo" zealots of our oldest freedom, presumption of innocence, the anti-Russia racism and
anti-Brexit hysteria, the growing anti-China campaign and the suppression of a warning of world
war.
With many if not most independent journalists barred or ejected from the "mainstream", a
corner of the Internet has become a vital source of disclosure and evidence-based analysis:
true journalism sites such as wikileaks.org, consortiumnews.com, wsws.org, truthdig.com,
globalresearch.org, counterpunch.org and informationclearinghouse.com are required reading for
those trying to make sense of a world in which science and technology advance wondrously while
political and economic life in the fearful "democracies" regress behind a media facade of
narcissistic spectacle.
Propaganda Blitz
In Britain, just one website offers consistently independent media criticism. This is the
remarkable Media Lens -- remarkable partly because its founders and editors as well as its only
writers, David Edwards and David Cromwell, since 2001 have concentrated their gaze not on the
usual suspects, the Tory press, but the paragons of reputable liberal journalism: the BBC, The
Guardian , Channel 4 News.
Cromwell and Edwards (The Ghandi Foundation)
Their method is simple. Meticulous in their research, they are respectful and polite when
they ask why a journalist why he or she produced such a one-sided report, or failed to disclose
essential facts or promoted discredited myths.
The replies they receive are often defensive, at times abusive; some are hysterical, as if
they have pushed back a screen on a protected species.
I would say Media Lens has shattered a silence about corporate journalism. Like Noam Chomsky
and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent, they represent a Fifth Estate that deconstructs and
demystifies the media's power.
What is especially interesting about them is that neither is a journalist. David Edwards is
a former teacher, David Cromwell is an oceanographer. Yet, their understanding of the morality
of journalism -- a term rarely used; let's call it true objectivity -- is a bracing quality of
their online Media Lens dispatches.
I think their work is heroic and I would place a copy of their just published book,
Propaganda Blitz , in every journalism school that services the corporate system, as they all
do.
Take the chapter, Dismantling the National Health Service, in which Edwards and Cromwell
describe the critical part played by journalists in the crisis facing Britain's pioneering
health service.
The NHS crisis is the product of a political and media construct known as "austerity", with
its deceitful, weasel language of "efficiency savings" (the BBC term for slashing public
expenditure) and "hard choices" (the willful destruction of the premises of civilized life in
modern Britain).
"Austerity" is an invention. Britain is a rich country with a debt owed by its crooked
banks, not its people. The resources that would comfortably fund the National Health Service
have been stolen in broad daylight by the few allowed to avoid and evade billions in taxes.
Using a vocabulary of corporate euphemisms, the publicly-funded Health Service is being
deliberately run down by free market fanatics, to justify its selling-off. The Labour Party of
Jeremy Corbyn may appear to oppose this, but is it? The answer is very likely no. Little of any
of this is alluded to in the media, let alone explained.
Edwards and Cromwell have dissected the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, whose innocuous
title belies its dire consequences. Unknown to most of the population, the Act ends the legal
obligation of British governments to provide universal free health care: the bedrock on which
the NHS was set up following the Second World War. Private companies can now insinuate
themselves into the NHS, piece by piece.
Where, asks Edwards and Cromwell, was the BBC while this momentous Bill was making its way
through Parliament? With a statutory commitment to "providing a breadth of view" and to
properly inform the public of "matters of public policy," the BBC never spelt out the threat
posed to one of the nation's most cherished institutions. A BBC headline said: "Bill which
gives power to GPs passes." This was pure state propaganda.
Media and Iraq Invasion
Blair: Lawless (Office of Tony Blair)
There is a striking similarity with the BBC's coverage of Prime Minister Tony Blair's
lawless invasion of Iraq in 2003, which left a million dead and many more dispossessed. A study
by the University of Wales, Cardiff, found that the BBC reflected the government line
"overwhelmingly" while relegating reports of civilian suffering. A Media Tenor study placed the
BBC at the bottom of a league of western broadcasters in the time they gave to opponents of the
invasion. The corporation's much-vaunted "principle" of impartiality was never a
consideration.
One of the most telling chapters in Propaganda Blitz describes the smear campaigns mounted
by journalists against dissenters, political mavericks and whistleblowers.
The Guardian' s campaign against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is the most
disturbing. Assange, whose epic WikiLeaks disclosures brought fame, journalism prizes and
largesse to The Guardian , was abandoned when he was no longer useful. He was then subjected to
a vituperative – and cowardly -- onslaught of a kind I have rarely known.
With not a penny going to WikiLeaks, a hyped Guardian book led to a lucrative Hollywood
movie deal. The book's authors, Luke Harding and David Leigh, gratuitously described Assange as
a "damaged personality" and "callous." They also disclosed the secret password he had given the
paper in confidence, which was designed to protect a digital file containing the U.S. embassy
cables.
With Assange now trapped in the Ecuadorean embassy, Harding, standing among the police
outside, gloated on his blog that "Scotland Yard may get the last laugh."
The Guardian columnist Suzanne Moore wrote, "I bet Assange is stuffing himself full of
flattened guinea pigs. He really is the most massive turd."
Moore, who describes herself as a feminist, later complained that, after attacking Assange,
she had suffered "vile abuse." Edwards and Cromwell wrote to her: "That's a real shame, sorry
to hear that. But how would you describe calling someone 'the most massive turd'? Vile
abuse?"
Moore replied that no, she would not, adding, "I would advise you to stop being so bloody
patronizing." Her former Guardian colleague James Ball wrote, "It's difficult to imagine what
Ecuador's London embassy smells like more than five and a half years after Julian Assange moved
in."
Such slow-witted viciousness appeared in a newspaper described by its editor, Katharine
Viner, as "thoughtful and progressive." What is the root of this vindictiveness? Is it
jealousy, a perverse recognition that Assange has achieved more journalistic firsts than his
snipers can claim in a lifetime? Is it that he refuses to be "one of us" and shames those who
have long sold out the independence of journalism?
Journalism students should study this to understand that the source of "fake news" is not
only trollism, or the likes of Fox News, or Donald Trump, but a journalism self-anointed with a
false respectability: a liberal journalism that claims to challenge corrupt state power but, in
reality, courts and protects it, and colludes with it. The amorality of the years of Tony
Blair, whom The Guardian has failed to rehabilitate, is its echo.
"[It is] an age in which people yearn for new ideas and fresh alternatives," wrote Katharine
Viner. Her political writer Jonathan Freedland dismissed the yearning of young people who
supported the modest policies of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as "a form of narcissism."
"How did this man .," brayed the Guardian 's Zoe Williams, "get on the ballot in the first
place?" A choir of the paper's precocious windbags joined in, thereafter queuing to fall on
their blunt swords when Corbyn came close to winning the 2017 general election in spite of the
media.
Complex stories are reported to a cult-like formula of bias, hearsay and omission: Brexit,
Venezuela, Russia, Syria. On Syria, only the investigations of a group of independent
journalists have countered this, revealing the network of Anglo-American backing of jihadists
in Syria, including those related to ISIS.
Leni Riefenstahl (r.) (Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images)
Supported by a "psyops" campaign
funded by the British Foreign Office and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the
aim is to hoodwink the Western public and speed the overthrow of the government in Damascus,
regardless of the medieval alternative and the risk of war with Russia.
The Syria Campaign, set up by a New York PR agency called Purpose, funds a group known as
the White Helmets, who claim falsely to be "Syria Civil Defense" and are seen uncritically on
TV news and social media, apparently rescuing the victims of bombing, which they film and edit
themselves, though viewers are unlikely to be told this. George Clooney is a fan.
The White Helmets are appendages to the jihadists with whom they share addresses. Their
media-smart uniforms and equipment are supplied by their Western paymasters. That their
exploits are not questioned by major news organizations is an indication of how deep the
influence of state-backed PR now runs in the media. As Robert Fisk noted recently, no
"mainstream" reporter reports Syria.
In what is known as a hatchet job, a Guardian reporter based in San Francisco, Olivia Solon,
who has never visited Syria, was allowed to smear the substantiated investigative work of
journalists Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett on the White Helmets as "propagated online by a
network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the
Russian government."
This abuse was published without permitting a single correction, let alone a right-of-reply.
The Guardian Comment page was blocked, as Edwards and Cromwell document. I saw the list of
questions Solon sent to Beeley, which reads like a McCarthyite charge sheet -- "Have you ever
been invited to North Korea?"
So much of the mainstream has descended to this level. Subjectivism is all; slogans and
outrage are proof enough. What matters is the "perception."
When he was U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus declared what he called "a
war of perception conducted continuously using the news media." What really mattered was not
the facts but the way the story played in the United States. The undeclared enemy was, as
always, an informed and critical public at home.
Nothing has changed. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's film-maker, whose
propaganda mesmerized the German public.
She told me the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on
the "submissive void" of an uninformed public.
"Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?" I asked.
"Everyone," she said. "Propaganda always wins, if you allow it."
Propaganda Blitz by David
Edwards and David Cromwell is published by Pluto Press.
The British Foreign Office almost immediately reacted to the RT scoop with its usual bluster:
"Lies and obfuscation!"
Interesting accusation off HM government is that!
Since March 4 of this year, the British side has stated that:
Yulia Skripal
brought "Novichok" in her suitcase.
The Skripals were poisoned with buckwheat.
The Skripals were poisoned with bouquet of flowers at the cemetery. T
he Skripals were
poisoned with an UAV drone.
The Skripals were poisoned through air conditioning in the car.
The Skripals were poisoned with an aerosol.
The Skripals were poisoned by Mikhail Savitskis
(aka "Gordon") group, consisting of 6 killers.
The killer/s poured "Novichok"onto a door
handle.
The Skripals were poisoned with "Novichok" in a form of a gel.
The Skripals were
poisoned with a perfume bottle (so it seems "Novichok" is still liquid).
The killer/s poured
"Novichok" in a public toilet.
The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a hotel room.
The Skripals
were poisoned by 2 GRU* agents.
"Novichok" is a "5–8 times more lethal than VX nerve agent" and "the most
deadly ever made", though it can't kill even 2 people.
*There has, in fact, been no such organization known as the GRU in Russia since 2010, when
the official name of the unit was changed from ″GRU″ [
Главное
разведывательное
управление -- Glavnoye
razvedyvatel'noye upravleniye ], namely "The Main intelligence Agency", to "The Main
Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation", or
″GU″ [Главное
управление
Генерального
штаба
Вооружённых
Сил Российской
Федерации -- Glavnoye upravleniye
General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhyonnykh Sil Rossiiskoi Federatsii ].
The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented in
the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different,
often contradictory, unproven scenarios.
Last week, the UK Ambassador to the UN, she who resembles a drag-queen well past his
sell-by date, namely the inimitable Karen Pierce, attempted to take the piss out of Russia by
stating at the UNSC that Russia had put forward 40 different accounts of what had happened,
which ludicrous proposals simply proved how lacking in credibility the Russian government
allegations are.
The reality was, however, that in presenting such accounts, Russia was taking the piss out
of Her Majesty's Government and the sensationalist, Russophobic, warmongering British press
and their more than 40 accounts of what happened in Salisbury last March.
The delectable Karen seemed unaware of this fact.
Recall, that Pierce is the woman, a high ranking British diplomat, no less, who believes
that Russia (i.e. the Russian Federation that came into existence in 1991) was founded on
many of Karl Marx's precepts.
Exactly! For Simonjan this unexpected interview was the scoop of the century.
The Russian press is going wild with this story.
One blogger wrote that some of the utterances of the 2 gopniki are rapidly becoming "winged
phrases" compared only to snippets from Griboedov's "Woe from Wit".
Best example: "We returned to Salisbury to complete this business."
Simonjan (suspiciously): "What business?"
Gopnik: "To see the cathedral
"... The Gvmt. *slowly* latched onto the meme 'the Russians did it' thru pol. opportunism (Syria etc.) and/or as a cover up for some ugly and dismaying stuff. At every step of the way, they tardily re-calibrated, 'fixed' the narrative to jell with that script. A good ex. is DS Bailey: he was at first affected as a first responder to the Bench Scene, but much later, that was denied, and he was poisoned because he stole comatose Sergei's keys and went to his home where he "most likely" touched a Novichoked doornob. (Note the doornob tale leaves the door open (sic) to some mundane passers-by doing nefarious deeds.) ..."
"... After examining endless planeloads of Russian travellers to the UK, and thousands of hours of CCTV, they turned up these two (and kept their jobs and kiddies safe! Yay! ) ..."
"... The only link between the pair and the Skripal 'event' is the stated fact that 'minuscule traces of Novichok' were found in the Hotel in London they stayed in. This is complete BS, see for ex. even the Daily Mail! ..."
Petrov - Boshirov. To me they were utterly convincing. Mostly because they were absolutely
terrified and utterly naive about doing a TV interview and answering questions.
RT, the interviewer and setting - an office - and the number of cameras were their
conditions, I have read, and I believe it. They wanted to appear in public, rather than hide
(no doubt following some excellent advice, and Putin's public assurance, saying he hoped they
would come forward..) but had little idea beyond that except that they wanted to avoid being
Center in a media circus - storm. (They need a PR expert and top-class lawyer.)
Why their gayness / not or what business they run legally or not-so-much and lots of other
topics are invoked and puzzled over is because ppl simply cannot believe what happened here.
(Imho!)
(Some weird event, possibly fabricated, organised by X, or strange happenstance, or
whatever) .. sent Sergei and Yulia 'queer -- ill', as well as DS Bailey, and later, Dawn and
Charlie (All connected to some 'event' that remains cloudy.)
The Gvmt. *slowly* latched onto the meme 'the Russians did it' thru pol. opportunism
(Syria etc.) and/or as a cover up for some ugly and dismaying stuff. At every step of the
way, they tardily re-calibrated, 'fixed' the narrative to jell with that script. A good ex.
is DS Bailey: he was at first affected as a first responder to the Bench Scene, but much
later, that was denied, and he was poisoned because he stole comatose Sergei's keys and went
to his home where he "most likely" touched a Novichoked doornob. (Note the doornob tale
leaves the door open (sic) to some mundane passers-by doing nefarious deeds.)
The investigators behind the computers acted under orders and under the imposed
assumption
"Some Russian undercover(s) flew in on or around March 1,2,3, and poisoned a door in
Salisbury, find a match."
After examining endless planeloads of Russian travellers to the UK, and thousands of hours
of CCTV, they turned up these two (and kept their jobs and kiddies safe! Yay! )
The only link between the pair and the Skripal 'event' is the stated fact that 'minuscule
traces of Novichok' were found in the Hotel in London they stayed in. This is complete BS,
see for ex. even the Daily Mail!
"... The myth of BBC being some standard for news reporting died with the advent of the availability of international and independent news in Western countries ..."
"... Ironic when the BBC has been ceaselessly pushing fake news for at least 15 years, with disastrous results. (Iraq; Libya; what caused the deficit and who should be forced to pay it down; Russia/Syria false flags; Corbyn A/S.) ..."
"... I find it impossible to watch BBC News, primarily because most of the editorial staff and senior correspondents seem to be working for MI5/6 and are more interested in disseminating Geo-political propaganda than upholding their journalistic responsibilities as defined in the BBC charter. ..."
"... The book is obviously part of a propaganda campaign. It seems hugely fortuitous that Mark Urban should have had "hours" of interviews with Skripal before the poisoning incident. ..."
"... Isn't it much more likely that the Urban "interviews" would have happened after the event? But Urban can't say that because that would lead to demands from other journalists or news bodies to have access to Skripal. ..."
"... I'm open to alternative hypotheses but right now I think the most likely explanation for Urban's pre-poisoning contact with Sergei Skripal is that, at the time, it was assumed the Orbis dossier would be a key component of the successful takedown of Trump and Urban was putting together a mutually flattering account by interviewing the main players. ..."
"... With regard to your tongue-in-cheek point. Urban could have interviewed Skripal anytime after Trump was gone, unless he believed Skripal might be unavailable (for some reason). The fact he interviewed Skripal before does indicate foresight. If Urban really did interview Skripal before the event then he would be wiser to pull the book and burn every copy in existence (as well as all his notes). ..."
"... Urban pretends to research a book exposing Russia and part of his research is to interview Skripal. His objective is to find dirt on Putin in order to swing the war in Syria in favour of USUKIS bombing Assad to smithereens, bayonets bums etc. ..."
"... Interestingly Mark Urbans' book on Sergei Skripal was available to purchase on Amazon in July. I added it to my Amazon wishlist on 28/7/18. I've just looked at my wishlist and was rather surprised to find it is no longer available. It has been pulled. ..."
"... Can't help thinking that the answer to all this lies in Estonia. Sergei went to Estonia in June 2016, Pablo was in Estonia, the Estonians passed on sigint about Trump-Russian collusion in the summer of 2016. A Guardian article of 13 April 2017 said: ..."
"... No doubt in my mind that the Skripal affair is a planned operation carried out by US/UK intelligence. What has actually taken place is still to be determined, but the propaganda operation itself is clear. ..."
"... I know about Ireland, and I agree, it was NOT a nerve agent. That said, I don't believe anyone was 'attacked', including the Skripals. ..."
"... All foreign correspondents of major newspapers too work with MI6. Nobody who is close to them has any kind of doubt about this. ..."
"... I despise everyone who says that free markets are the solution for the problems of the third world. What they mean is mass starvation and an enormous population cull. There are international "foundations" that pay academics and politicians large amounts of money to spout this obscene line. One of them is called the John Templeton Foundation. They have had their fangs in to British universities for a long time. ..."
"... When the Tories talk about 'free markets', they are talking about markets free from democracy. ..."
BBC is skanky state propaganda. The myth of BBC being some standard for news reporting died with the advent of the availability
of international and independent news in Western countries. The main thing that BBC used to have which propped up the illusion
of it being a respectable news source is that there was no competition or alternative to compare its narratives against. Since
that time is over, so is BBC's masquerading as an impartial or accurate news source.
Agree, Dave. That's what's informing the push to rubbish dissenting sites as fake news and eventually have them removed.
Ironic when the BBC has been ceaselessly pushing fake news for at least 15 years, with disastrous results. (Iraq; Libya;
what caused the deficit and who should be forced to pay it down; Russia/Syria false flags; Corbyn A/S.)
Well I was convinced of fake BBC news during 9/11 and not for the reasons of building 7 coming down too early but the fact
that the female journalist was facing a camera standing in front of a glass window and there was no reflection of her or the camera
person from the glass. Not even a faint shadow.
That's when I knew the BBC were employing vampires and have been ever since.
Green Screen technology I discovered later. All the On the spot reporters are at it apparently. Or repeating Reuters or PA.
I find it impossible to watch BBC News, primarily because most of the editorial staff and senior correspondents seem to
be working for MI5/6 and are more interested in disseminating Geo-political propaganda than upholding their journalistic responsibilities
as defined in the BBC charter. People should not only boycott the BBC but refuse to pay the license fee on the grounds that
it's a compulsory political subscription.
Dear Mark,
In a BBC article on 4 July 2018, you wrote: "I have not felt ready until now to acknowledge explicitly that we had met, but do
now that the book is nearing completion."
Could you please explain that comment? I do not see why your acknowledgement of your meetings with Sergei Skripal should be
delayed until your book is nearing completion.
If you felt that it was right to reveal those meetings in July, then why was it not right to do so in March, soon after the
poisoning occurred? What difference would it have made if you had done so four months earlier?
I cannot think of any negative consequences of an earlier acknowledgement of the meetings. In fact, disclosures of any possible
conflict of interest are generally considered to be desirable in journalism, regardless of whether the conflict of interest is
real.
The book is obviously part of a propaganda campaign. It seems hugely fortuitous that Mark Urban should have had "hours"
of interviews with Skripal before the poisoning incident.
Isn't it much more likely that the Urban "interviews" would have happened after the event? But Urban can't say that because
that would lead to demands from other journalists or news bodies to have access to Skripal.
And that can't happen because either Skripal would be asked about what happened on the day of the poisoning, or can't be guaranteed
to stick to the script, or is no longer alive. And that leads to a suspicion that whatever Skripal is supposed to have said in
his interviews with Urban has really just been made up by the British security services.
I'm open to alternative hypotheses but right now I think the most likely explanation for Urban's pre-poisoning contact
with Sergei Skripal is that, at the time, it was assumed the Orbis dossier would be a key component of the successful takedown
of Trump and Urban was putting together a mutually flattering account by interviewing the main players.
Tongue in cheek, it'd be worth asking Urban if his decision to cover the Skripal poisoning in his new book was made before
or after the Skripals were actually poisoned.
The consensus seems to be that it was an anti-Russia book, but that doesn't conflict with what you say (there is overlap, your
view is just more specific). But, I just find it hard to believe that Urban and the conspirators would waste their time "counting
their chickens ". Not least because such a book would form a handy list of traitors (together with confessions) if Trump were
to prevail and it fell into the right hands. This is "101 – How to Organise a Revolution" (secrecy / don't put anything in writing);
surely British security services know that?
With regard to your tongue-in-cheek point. Urban could have interviewed Skripal anytime after Trump was gone, unless he
believed Skripal might be unavailable (for some reason). The fact he interviewed Skripal before does indicate foresight. If Urban
really did interview Skripal before the event then he would be wiser to pull the book and burn every copy in existence (as well
as all his notes).
Regardless, it looks like the master of the universe are losing their ability to create reality.
Last month, Mark Urban was promoting the reports that the Russian assassins had been identified from CCTV footage:
"There are now subjects of interest in the police Salisbury investigation. ( ) analytic and cyber techniques are now being
exploited against the Salisbury suspects by people with a wealth of experience in complex investigations." https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1020366761848385536
The BBC relies on it's interpretation of the Act because it is held for the purposes of 'journalism, art or literature.' but
this relies on a usually unrelated precedent and the opinions of a number of Judges which contradict this view. I'm in the process
of challenging this with ICO but don't expect anything will change until another supreme court ruling:
I can see the value in asking writers, journalists and artists to pose exactly the same questions as Eccles' original letter
but I'm not convinced about Craig's email.
A quick google shows me that a man named Mark Urban has written a book on the Skripals. Isn't it likely that Urban was keeping
the interviews to himself in order to keep his book alive?
It wouldn't surprise me if Urban cares far more about his writing career than his job at the BBC. I'm sure most journalists
would rather be authors. He's written a number of books on war and military intelligence. If his sources have nothing to do with
the BBC then why should he answer to an on line mob?
" Isn't it likely that Urban was keeping the interviews to himself in order to keep his book alive?"
No, entirely unlikely. a chance to plug his forthcoming book and his Skripal contacts to a massive worldwide televion audience
was eschewed.
The book is now about the Skripal attack. Presumably that was not the original subject he was researching, as it hadn't happened
yet. The book will just be a rehash of the "noble defector – Putin revenge" line and none of the questions I asked about the genesis
of his involvement will be answered in it.
"Presumably that was not the original subject he was researching, as it hadn't happened yet." Or it was prescience ie that
it was part of the planning for the incident?
@BBC, Summer 2017, in an executive office:
"Hey Mark, why don't you go down to have a chat with this guy in Salisbury. I have a hunch that a story might be going to happen
involving him, you know, as an ex-Soviet spy. Spend time with him, get to know him, be able to write in depth about him. Say it's
for a book ."
Urban is never one-sided in his BBC reports on the Middle East. I would rather have him as Foreign Secretary than a bumbling
idiot like Hubris Johnson or a Tory racketeer Hunt, because however clunky the formula of BBC balance Urban is at least pretending
to be governed by normal rules. After Thatcher went anyone with half a brain left the Conservative party, leaving dolts like Johnson
and nasties like May and Cameron to pick up the pieces after Blair and Brown.
There's money to be made from Russian billionaires and tory shit will follow the money like flies on d**t**d.
Urban pretends to research a book exposing Russia and part of his research is to interview Skripal. His objective is to
find dirt on Putin in order to swing the war in Syria in favour of USUKIS bombing Assad to smithereens, bayonets bums etc.
Tory shit Hubris Johnson finds this political research floating around the Foreign Office and decides to twist it into Russia
murders Skripal by Novichok. Unfortunately Johnson is already known to be a liar and gravy-trainer Tory and nobody believes him
at all. Mrs May , realising that Johnson, Fox, Rees-Mogg and Hunt are completely bonkers, does Chequers her own way.
Interestingly Mark Urbans' book on Sergei Skripal was available to purchase on Amazon in July. I added it to my Amazon
wishlist on 28/7/18. I've just looked at my wishlist and was rather surprised to find it is no longer available. It has been pulled.
From memory the books description said that Mark had interviewed Skripal 'extensively' during 2017 and also mentioned the 'new'
spying war now happening between Britain and Russia.
Salisbury poisoning: Skripals 'were under Russian surveillance'
Mark Urban Diplomatic and defence editor, Newsnight
4 July 2018
'My meetings with Sergei Skripal
I met Sergei on a few occasions last summer and found him to be a private character who did not, even under the circumstances
then prevailing, wish to draw attention to himself.
He agreed to see me as a writer of history books rather than as a news journalist, since I was researching one on the post-Cold
War espionage battle between Russia and the West.
Information gained in these interviews was fed into my Newsnight coverage during the early days after the poisoning. I have
not felt ready until now to acknowledge explicitly that we had met, but do now that the book is nearing completion.
As a man, Sergei is proud of his achievements, both before and after joining his country's intelligence service.
He has a deadpan wit and is remarkably stoical given the reverses he's suffered in his life; from his imprisonment following
conviction in 2006 on charges of spying for Britain, to the loss of his wife Liudmila to cancer in 2012, and the untimely death
of his son Alexander (or Sasha) last summer.'
Laughable given that the whole world and virtually all heads of State were under US surveillance by the NSA – at least until
Edward Snowden made all his revelations.
I have pasted and copied your Email regarding the above with a few slight alterations, it will be interesting to see the response
I receive if any being just a concerned citizen of the U.
Is this not a matter for the Police? (Even if you're not too sure if they'd do anything about it) These would be files that
are to do with an attempted murder case. And definitely not Journalism if the story is fabricated.
It feels as if you are moving in the right direction in linking Sergei to Steele. I'm intrigued by the very early media references
to Sergei wanting to return home to see his elderly mother for perhaps the last time. He had apparently written to Putin making
his request but again according to newspapers hadn't received a reply.
I would suggest Julia was bringing the answer via her own secret services contacts, her boyfriend and his mother, apparently
Senior in the Russian Intelligence Agency. Perhaps a sentimental man Sergei was aware his mother couldn't travel so the plea to
Putin was his best bet.
Such a request must have disturbed MI6 if Sergei had anything at all to do with the Steele dossier because inevitably if he
returned to Russia he'd be debriefed by his old colleagues. But how can you rely on a mercenary double agent? If he decided he
might want to stay in Russia with his family that might well have been attractive, away from the lonely existence in a Salisbury
cul de sac with only spies for company. But the Steele dossier has great potential to turn sour on the British.
It's author was a Senior spy and Head of the Russian Desk for some years. It is – perhaps you'd agree? – inconceivable that
he didn't require permission to prepare it, especially as much of it was based on his experience as a spy in Russia. Yet it's
equally inconceivable that the Agency bosses didn't know the identity of the commissioners or the use to which it would be put
in the US election – to boost Clinton's bid. If she'd won everything would have been fine but as it is any discussion of foreign
interference in that election would have to include MI6 leading the list (they probably didn't tell any politician?) To have Sergei
supporting and highlighting that embarrassment would be problematic for US-UK relations. Of course Sergei may have had other nuggets
to expose as well as Steele.
Soon after Julia's arrival the pair fell ill. They both survived but are now locked away, presumably for life and never able
to explain their side of the story.
It was a bodged job with a poor cover story from the start and could only be carried because of D Notices and media complicity.
Is his mother still alive? Would he still like to see her before she dies? Would Russia allow it? Would MI6 allow it? I think
that's 3 yeses and a resounding No.
Following the deaths of 55 Palestinians on the Gaza 'border' and the wounding of thousands, in this video, Urban asks the questions
but the Israeli government spokesman, David Keyes, is allowed to spout all the usual propaganda against Hamas.
Gaza deaths: Who's to blame? – BBC Newsnight
Published on 15 May 2018
Subscribe 256K
Fresh protests against Israel are expected in the Palestinian territories, a day after Israeli troops killed 58 people in the
Gaza Strip.
David Keyes is the spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Mark Urban asked him whether it was appropriate
for the US to open their embassy on the 70th anniversary of Israel's creation, a day that is hugely controversial for the Palestinian
people.
Mr Keyes' pronounced American accent was heard. The Occupation was not mentioned. A Palestinian voice was not heard.
This is another of his videos. On the same subject and on the opening of the Israeli Embassy in Jerusalem. This time, Jonathan
Conricus spoke for the IDF.
"Urban asks the questions but the Israeli government spokesman, David Keyes, is allowed to spout all the usual propaganda against
Hamas."
Yes indeed : Urban asked the questions and allowed the interviewee to answer. Perhaps you would have preferred him to interrupt
the interviewee continually 'a la Today programme, or to have shouted at him similarly to the way I understand some people shout
at customers inside or outside supermarkets?
This may or may not be relevant regarding Russia, chemical weapons and BBC/MSM bovine effluent:
"US Poised to Hit Syria Harder: The Russian Defense Ministry issued a statement on Aug. 25 stating that the Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham
militants had brought eight containers of chlorine to Idlib in order to stage a false-flag attack with the help of UK intelligence
agencies. A group of Tahrir al-Sham fighters trained to handle chemical warfare agents by the UK private military company Olive
arrived in the suburbs of the city of Jisr ash-Shugur, Idlib, 20 km. from the Turkish border."
Can't help thinking that the answer to all this lies in Estonia. Sergei went to Estonia in June 2016, Pablo was in Estonia,
the Estonians passed on sigint about Trump-Russian collusion in the summer of 2016. A Guardian article of 13 April 2017 said:
"Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of western agencies shared further information on contacts between Trump's
inner circle and Russians, sources said. The European countries that passed on electronic intelligence – known as sigint – included
Germany, Estonia and Poland."
Perhaps not the Dossier, as such, but some material on collusion?
No doubt in my mind that the Skripal affair is a planned operation carried out by US/UK intelligence. What has actually
taken place is still to be determined, but the propaganda operation itself is clear.
Catch my last post Doodlebug, sadly MI6 diabolical elements can be traced back to Ireland in the 70's early 80's assassinations
theRealTerror (theRealElvis) understands.
Often it's been open. There was the BBC monitoring station at Caversham Park. The BBC's Foreign Broadcast Information Service
split the world into two parts with the CIA.
All foreign correspondents of major newspapers too work with MI6. Nobody who is close to them has any kind of doubt about
this.
Theresa May says a no deal Brexit "wouldn't be the end of the world".
This is not a negotiating strategy. This is not a pantomime where one giant on the stage can wink to his supporters (using
the British media) without his opponent (EU27) noticing.
The subconscious doesn't work well with negation. Whatever you do, please DON'T imagine an elephant at this time.
I would love to know what the preparations are at Trinity College, Cambridge, for food shortages. They own the port of
Felixstowe, which handles more than 40% of Britain's containerised trade. They also own a 50% stake in a portfolio of Tesco
stores. Soon food distribution will be what everyone is talking about. I am never going to stop making the point that the god
of the Tory party is Thomas Malthus.
" As a Prime Minister who believes both in free markets and in nations and businesses acting in line with well-established
rules and principles of conduct, I want to demonstrate to young Africans that their brightest future lies in a free and thriving
private sector. "
I despise everyone who says that free markets are the solution for the problems of the third world. What they mean is mass
starvation and an enormous population cull. There are international "foundations" that pay academics and politicians large amounts
of money to spout this obscene line. One of them is called the John Templeton Foundation. They have had their fangs in to British
universities for a long time.
They are keen on Prince Philip, the guy who said he wanted to come back as a virus so he could kill a large part of the population.
Never trust anyone who has received a Templeton scholarship or prize or who has anything to do with these people or with the message
that free markets and the private sector are the key to "development"
When the Tories talk about 'free markets', they are talking about markets free from democracy.
May's rhetoric is laughable .basically all her speeches read : 'the sky is green, the snow is black etc etc' -- totally detached
from reality and a spent political force, as their recent membership numbers showed, with more revenues from legacies left in
wills than from actual living members.
I agree with the Skripal relatives that Sergei is dead. He hasn't been seen or heard of and would have called his mother. Mind
boggling deception at all levels and I struggle to believe any of it.
Sergei Skripal could be in US custody, either in the US itself or in a US facility somewhere.
If he is dead, then the rehospitalisation of Charlie Rowley may be to assist with the narrative. "Once you've had a drop of
Novvy Chockk, you may recover but you can fall down ill at any time, and here's an Expert with a serious voice to confirm it."
I follow this blog closely, particularly in relation to the Skripal case, but this is my first comment. I just watched Sky
News piece on 'super recognisers' and couldn't help but wonder why, in an age of powerful facial recognition technology, the police
and security services seem to have drawn such a blank. The surveillance state in the UK is known to be one of the most advanced
in the world but when it comes to this highly important geopolitical crisis our technological infrastructure seems to be redundant
to the point where 'human eyes' are deemed to be more accurate than the most powerful supercomputers available. Psychologically,
all humans have an inherent facial recognition ability from a very young age, but the idea that some police officers have this
ability developed to such an extent that they supercede computer recognition is, i feel, laughable. To me this announcement through
the ever subservient Sky News reeks of desperation on the part of the ;official story'. Are we about to be shown suspects who,
although facial recognition technology fails to identify them, a 'super recogniser' can testify that it actually is person A or
person B and we are all supposed to accept that? Seems either a damning indictment of the judicial process, or a damning indictment
of the £££££'s of taxpayers money that is spent on places like GCHQ etc whose technology is now apparently no better than a highly
perceptive human brain. Give me a break !
People do die Trowbridge. I know you haven't, but you have the motivation of outliving your persecutors. With Muckin about
with Isis gone and covert operations isn't social work Kissinger looking as though he's on daily blood transfusions, you have
rejected Trump for some reason. But Trump has undone much of John McCain's worst mischief in one year. If McCain was an example
of a politician, we don't need politicians.
Give me an example, other than the Coopers. of a healthy couple one day that is found dying the next day like the Skripals.
And while i tried on another site to be generous about McCain. he got Navy Secretary John Lehman, Jr. to scare the Soviets
for prevailing in the Vietnam War so much about what NATO was up to in the fallout from shooting Swedish PM Olof Palme that Moscow
gave up the competition for fear that it would blow up the world, helping bring on the crappy one we have.
McCain was a continuing Cold Warrior who we don't need since we still have Trump who is just trying to do it another way.
Nice interview with Zakharova over the Skripal frame job. The good part is at around 14 minutes where the
loud yapping chihuahua, the UK, is put in its place.
It is not a global player by any measure and has nothing
useful to contribute aside from riding Uncle Scumbag's coat-tails to bomb civilians in Syria.
"... The obvious thing for the British side to do would be to request Moscow to detain the two men so they could be interviewed as persons of interest. If this doesn't happen, it smacks of problems holding the official narrative together and I really can't see how the MSM could spin it away. Plus the surviving alleged victims or their families could have a case against the police for failing to investigate properly. ..."
"... They're already spinning it away by saying publicly that the responses they are getting from Russia are 'lies and obfuscation'. ..."
"... It will not make the slightest bit of difference in Britain; the British government will quickly announce, following any presentation of evidence by Russia, that it is all cleverly faked up, and remind people that these are professional intelligence agents, that's what they do, of course it looks convincing. All the more proof that they are what Britain says they are. ..."
Moscow to London: Your move. This is an interesting development.
The obvious thing for the
British side to do would be to request Moscow to detain the two men so they could be
interviewed as persons of interest. If this doesn't happen, it smacks of problems holding the
official narrative together and I really can't see how the MSM could spin it away. Plus the
surviving alleged victims or their families could have a case against the police for failing
to investigate properly.
It will not make the slightest bit of difference in Britain; the British government will
quickly announce, following any presentation of evidence by Russia, that it is all cleverly
faked up, and remind people that these are professional intelligence agents, that's what they
do, of course it looks convincing. All the more proof that they are what Britain says they
are.
"... 'Clearly' is an English term which is subject to national interpretations. In Canada – mostly English-speaking – it traditionally means, "supported by verifiable and compelling evidence", although I hasten to add that Canada cheerfully booted out 'Russian spies' to support its ally, Britain. ..."
"... But in England, 'clearly' might mean 'as required to serve in the cause of political necessity'. In this instance, if the passports/visas/whatever travel documents of the men concerned do not read "GRU Assassin Traveling on Business", then clearly there was an attempt to circumvent British checks. ..."
Two alleged Russian spies who launched the Salisbury attack smuggled novichok into the
UK through Gatwick Airport, the security minister has confirmed.
I see! So now the disciplined and highly trained GRU assassins were spies as well.
Proper jack-of-all-trades!
Ben Wallace, who is currently Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime, " told
the House of Commons there was 'clearly some form of attempt to create a legend to make sure
that they circumvented our checks'.
'No doubt at the other end of that aeroplane journey [in Russia] there was some, I
should think, the baggage checks weren't probably as good as they might be,' he added "
-- because the Russians are all blithering incompetents stands ter reason, dunnit!
" Mr Wallace said requests for Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury had
been met with 'obfuscation and lies', saying their response merely 'reinforces their
guilt'. "
Of course it does! Why don't they just confess to what everyone knows they have done?
'Clearly' is an English term which is subject to national interpretations. In Canada –
mostly English-speaking – it traditionally means, "supported by verifiable and
compelling evidence", although I hasten to add that Canada cheerfully booted out 'Russian
spies' to support its ally, Britain.
But in England, 'clearly' might mean 'as required to
serve in the cause of political necessity'. In this instance, if the passports/visas/whatever
travel documents of the men concerned do not read "GRU Assassin Traveling on Business", then
clearly there was an attempt to circumvent British checks.
"... And the mockery from the Russophobes immediately kicks off in the British press! Travel all the way from Russia to visit Salisbury Cathedral and Stonehenge? What nonesense! Who are they trying to kid? That's because such a trip is barely imaginable for uncultured morons. ..."
And the mockery from the Russophobes immediately kicks off in the British press! Travel all the way from Russia to visit Salisbury Cathedral and Stonehenge? What nonesense! Who are they trying to kid? That's because such a trip is barely imaginable for uncultured morons.
When I last had the great misfortune to be in England with my family, and, to make matters
worse, in London, my elder children begged and begged that we take a trip to Stonehenge. You
see, they were fascinated by all that they had learnt about the place in their Russian
schools.
We went on an excursion there, calling first at Windsor, then Salisbury, Stonehenge, and,
finally, Bath for afternoon tea before heading off back to London.
Witness the moronity of some of my fellow countrymen in this comment published in today's
Independent:
Well you can say a lot about our Russian friends: semi-educated, semi-civilised,
pathological liars, undemocratic, authoritarian, crypto-fascist, mocked and despised the
world over, but one thing we must concede is that they have a wonderful sense of
humour.
So this delightful, oh-so intelligent looking couple flew all the way to Salisbury to
have a look at the Cathedral clock, but the nasty inclement British weather (unlike tropical
Moscow, of course) forced them to return with undue haste from whence they came.
May I suggest better acting classes and a credible script in future?
Doubtless the Indie's resident Putinite Mary Dejevsky, Comrade Corbyn and the brainless
Prigozhin trolls infesting this site will try and sell it – because they are paid to,
but anyone with an IQ higher than a daisy, ie. the rest of the sentient world, will shake
their heads in disbelief at the knuckle-headed absurdity of this story.
Well, as regards the weather, moron, – for Russians, English snow is "inclement"',
as it is wet shite. They were complaining of being wet to the knees. At the same time, in
Russia it was minus 15C and there was plenty of deep, dry snow, which really would make
Little Englanders like you whine.
Oh, and the person who owns that rag to which you wrote the above shite is owned by one of
those "semi-educated, semi-civilised, pathological liars, undemocratic, authoritarian,
crypto-fascist" Russians whom you so despise.
In the years that I worked in England, in an English coal mine, I worked with quite a few
fellow countrymen who were barely literate. I particularily remember one who often boasted
that he had never read a book since he left school.
Russia: The country with the highest literacy rate in Russia with almost 53% of the
population has tertiary education. It is estimated that 95% of adults in Russia have higher
secondary education and the country spends some 4.9% of GDP on education. 2.Jan 16,
2014
According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and
the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read. That's 14
percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and
19 percent of high school graduates can't read.Jul 7, 2017
Adult Litercy UK
: Around 15 per cent, or 5.1 million adults in England, can be described as 'functionally
illiterate.' They would not pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below those
expected of an 11-year-old. They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar
topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but
reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause
problems.
Many adults are reluctant to admit to their literacy difficulties and ask for help. One
of the most important aspects of supporting adults with low literacy levels is to increase
their self-esteem and persuade them of the benefits of improving their reading and
writing.
And the British Foreign Office has replied as follows:
"The government is clear these men are officers of the Russian military intelligence
service – the GRU – who used a devastatingly toxic, illegal chemical weapon on
the streets of our country."
"We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in March.
Today – just as we have seen throughout – they have responded with obfuscation
and lies."
No obfuscation and lies from the FO, though!
Anything but a confession of guilt is "obfuscation and lies", it seems.
"We have repeatedly asked Russia to account for what happened in Salisbury in
March
I tell you what happened: nothing that the Russian state had anything to do with!
I suggest you ask your Yukie nazi pals for an account of what happened there, and your
pals in Tel-Aviv as well.
Russia, cleverly, has thrown down the gauntlet. If the FCO claims that the story of Petrov
and Boshirov is simply 'obfuscation and lies', then why not ask Russia to help make these
guys available for interview and send a couple of detectives plus interpreter on the next
flight to Moscow?
No matter how the FCO and British government huffs, puffs and tries to blow houses down,
ultimately they will be unable to explain why they haven't sought to question these guys.
Agreed, Fern. This was a very clever move on the chess board. Odd as these 2 characters are,
the latest gambit serves to take this whole matter out of the Harry Potter world of
geo-political magick, and put down to the mundane world of a detective story and criminal
procedures. It pushes the politicians aside to make room for the gumshoes. From this point
onward, the story is a police procedural.
"... In a nutshell: Krutikov's theory is that these 2 "gopniki" earn their daily bread by illegal (or semi-legal) trade in European vitamins and supplement. This is what brings them to Europe and what brought them to Salisbury, most likely (i.e., the purchase of supplements, for resale in Russia). ..."
Krutikov has an
interesting take on these guys. I think I will probably do this story tomorrow, in my
blog, as a "breaking news".
In a nutshell: Krutikov's theory is that these 2 "gopniki" earn their daily bread by
illegal (or semi-legal) trade in European vitamins and supplement. This is what brings them
to Europe and what brought them to Salisbury, most likely (i.e., the purchase of supplements,
for resale in Russia).
While in Salisbury they decided to have a look at the sights; that part rings true; might
as well see some sights.
The semi-legal nature of their "business" accounts for their nervousness; while their
status in the Russian criminal underworld accounts for their horror at Simonyan's assuming
them to be gay. An allegation which they rejected more vehemently than the accusations of
being poisoners!
Krutikov also points attention to another instance of Vladimir Putin's subtle humor.
Recall that when Putin announced the existence of these guys to the world, a couple of days
ago, he used a strange phrase: "There is nothing particularly criminal there."
As usual, Putin is one step ahead of everybody in this ludicrous chess game.
P.S. "никакого
особого
криминала" was the phrase used by
Putin. At the time nobody paid much attention and it was translated as "There is nothing
criminal there," but the actual phrase is "There is nothing particularly criminal there."
Okay, I have to make a factual correction, Krutikov wass wrong about Putin's quote, and one
of his commenters who questioned it, turned out to be correct. (Which is sort of sad for
Krutikov, because he built his blogpost around the humor of Putin's supposedly implication
that the duo are petty thieves.)
So, I found the actual vid of Putin making this utterance, it can be seen on this
link:
Update: The currently reigning theory in the Russian blogosphere is that Petrov and Boshirov
earn their living buying and selling anabolic steroids on the grey market. Simonjan herself
noted that Petrov has the build of a body-builder.
The theory that they are a "gay pair" is also highly plausible. When Simonjan asked them
about their relationship, they spazzed out and refused to answer. Blog commenters point out
that this would be the moment when a man would indignantly mention that he had a wife and
kids, or a girlfriend; but nothing like that ensued.
Other commenters have noted that Salisbury is well-known in the gay subculture for having
a large number of rather excellent gay bars. Something that might have also drawn this couple
there, in addition to seeing the cathedral spire!
In general, Russian press and blogosphere are having a field day with this story.
Agree with James on that one point, namely that the Russian press is becoming too tabloid-y
and going after the sensationalism.
I feel sorry for this duo in that, if they are indeed gay and have now been outed due to what
they call a "horrendous coincidence", then their lives in Russia will be miserable from this
point onward.
Russian society is simply not accepting of two grown men living together in a
relationship.
To add insult to injury, the gutter-commenters on the Russian blogs continue to call them
"pedophiles". Even though (duh!) they are both grown men.
Not sure if they live in Moscow or not. If in Moscow, they might still be able to survive,
as the city is so Western now. But if they live out there in the sticks -- forget it.
Meanwhile, I just thought of something else. If these guys were sophisticated enough to
play the Westie system, then they could adopt a tone of utter outrage, that the British
government is harassing them for being gay. The Brits would have to cave on that one and
issue a humble apology.
I've been thinking along similar lines – that their apparent shiftiness and caginess
about the nature of their work suggests they could be involved in something that's semi-legal
or which walks a fine line between the legal and the not.
We've seen lots of CCTV footage of Petrov and Boshirov in Salisbury but nothing has been
said of their movements in London; what they did there is probably the reason why they flew
to the UK. Either that or the GRU is deficient in training its would-be assassins on the
reliability (non-existent) of British rail services in bad weather.
Once again, Britain is stiff with CCTV. We know from previous discussions that there is CCTV
coverage of the Skripals' street and even their house. Where is the CCTV video of the two GRU
assassins on Skripal's street, or near his house? The British say they have this evidence and
are happily building timelines around it, but where is the proof? If they have it, why don't
they show it? It would shut Russian defenses right down. All we've seen is evidence of the
two being in Salisbury. Apparently being Russian In Salisbury is now like Driving While
Black. Both automatically presuppose you are a criminal.
If they are gay, then the UK is going to have really bad optics with its setup. Gay GRU
agents? According the UK MSM Russian gays are all being arrested and thrown in jail.
"... The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented in the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different, often contradictory, unproven scenarios. ..."
" Even more strange is the idea that it is wildly improbable for Russian visitors to wish
to visit Salisbury cathedral and Stonehenge. Salisbury Cathedral is one of the most
breathtaking achievements of Norman architecture, one of the great cathedrals of Europe. It
attracts a great many foreign visitors. Stonehenge is world famous and a world heritage site.
I went on holiday this year and visited Wurzburg to see the Bishop's Palace, and then the
winery cooperative at Sommerach. Because somebody does not choose to spend their leisure time
on a beach in Benidorm does not make them a killer. Lots of people go to Salisbury
Cathedral. "
I had exactly the same thoughts! Holidays for most British moronic Tweeters means Benidorm
and boooze in "British Pubs" that arte emblazoned with "Fish & Chips" signs.
I mentioned above that before setting off for London in June, 2016, my two eldest insisted
that we include Stonehenge in our itinerary.
We were only in London for 3 days, though, before we set off for England, heading north to
the English lakeland national park.
The British Foreign Office almost immediately reacted to the RT scoop with its usual bluster:
"Lies and obfuscation!"
Interesting accusation off HM government is that!
Since March 4 of this year, the British side has stated that:
Yulia Skripal brought "Novichok" in her suitcase.
The Skripals were poisoned with buckwheat.
The Skripals were poisoned with bouquet of flowers at the cemetery.
The Skripals were poisoned with an UAV drone.
The Skripals were poisoned through air conditioning in the car.
The Skripals were poisoned with an aerosol.
The Skripals were poisoned by Mikhail Savitskis (aka "Gordon") group, consisting of
6 killers.
The killer/s poured "Novichok"onto a door handle.
The Skripals were poisoned with "Novichok" in a form of a gel.
The Skripals were poisoned with a perfume bottle (so it seems "Novichok" is still
liquid).
The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a public toilet.
The killer/s poured "Novichok" in a hotel room.
The Skripals were poisoned by 2 GRU* agents.
"Novichok" is a "5–8 times more lethal than VX nerve agent" and "the most
deadly ever made", though it can't kill even 2 people.
*There has, in fact, been no such organization known as the GRU in Russia since 2010, when
the official name of the unit was changed from ″GRU″ [
Главное
разведывательное
управление -- Glavnoye
razvedyvatel'noye upravleniye ], namely "The Main intelligence Agency", to "The Main
Directorate of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation", or
″GU″ [Главное
управление
Генерального
штаба
Вооружённых
Сил Российской
Федерации -- Glavnoye upravleniye
General'nogo shtaba Vooruzhyonnykh Sil Rossiiskoi Federatsii ].
The Russian Embassy in London has been keeping a record of all the scenarios presented
in the UK by the Govt/MSM and at the last count it was stated that there were 40 different,
often contradictory, unproven scenarios.
Last week, the UK Ambassador to the UN, she who resembles a drag-queen well past his
sell-by date, namely the inimitable Karen Pierce, attempted to take the piss out of Russia by
stating at the UNSC that Russia had put forward 40 different accounts of what had happened,
which ludicrous proposals simply proved how lacking in credibility the Russian government
allegations are.
The reality was, however, that in presenting such accounts, Russia was taking the piss out
of Her Majesty's Government and the sensationalist, Russophobic, warmongering British press
and their more than 40 accounts of what happened in Salisbury last March.
The delectable Karen seemed unaware of this fact.
Recall, that Pierce is the woman, a high ranking British diplomat, no less, who believes
that Russia (i.e. the Russian Federation that came into existence in 1991) was founded on
many of Karl Marx's precepts.
Prime Minister Teresa May took
to the floor of the Parliament today to report that the Crown Prosecution Service and Police
had issued warrants for two Russian GRU officials who, they claim, had carried out the Skripal
attacks last March. "We were right," she said with a stiff upper lip, "to say in March that the
Russian State was responsible." Mugshots were released of two people whose names, she declared,
were aliases (how they know they are GRU officials if they don't know their names was not
explained). "This chemical weapon attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian
behavior that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the
world," she intoned.
At the same time, dire warnings have been issued to Syria and Russia that there will be a
major military response if Syria uses chemical weapons in Idlib. This is despite the fact that
Russia has presented the proof to the OPCW and to the UN that the British intelligence-linked
Olive security outfit and the British-sponsored White Helmet terrorists have prepared a false
flag chlorine attack in Idlib, to be blamed on the Syrian government, to trigger such a
military atrocity by the US and the UK.
Also at the same time, in the US, Washington Post fraudster Bob Woodward released a book
claiming that numerous Trump cabinet officials made wildly slanderous statements about Trump --
all third hand from anonymous sources, of course. Chief of Staff John Kelly called the claims
"total BS," while Secretary of State Jim Mattis called it typical Washington DC fiction, adding
that "the idea that I would show contempt for the elected Commander-in-Chief, President Trump,
or tolerate disrespect to the office of the President from within our Department of Defense, is
a product of someone's rich imagination."
Worse, the New York Times, apparently for the first time, printed an "anonymous" op-ed by
someone claiming to be a "senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known
to us," under the title: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration -- I work
for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and
his worst inclinations." Whether this person is or is not who they claim to be, it is clearly
part of the British coup attempt, as proven in the op-ed itself. After calling Trump amoral,
unhinged, and more, and claiming there is discussion within the Administration of using the
25th Amendment to remove him for mental incompetence, it then states: "Take foreign policy: In
public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as
President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little
genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations [read: the United
Kingdom - ed.]. Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is
operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and
punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than
ridiculed as rivals. On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of
Mr. Putin's spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He
complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further
confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to
impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew
better such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."
And, while news about the British drive for war with Russia and their attempted coup against
the government of the United States fills the airwaves and the press, not a single word --
repeat, not a single word -- has been reported in the US or British media about the truly
historic conference which took place on Monday and Tuesday in Beijing, the Forum on
China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAP). Helga Zepp-LaRouche declared this week that this event will
be recognized in history as the end of the era of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Every
African nation except one was represented at the conference in Beijing (the "one" was
Swaziland, the last holdout on the African continent which still maintains diplomatic relations
with Taiwan rather than Beijing).
All but six were represented their head of state. They reviewed the transformation taking
place across Africa due to the Belt and Road Initiative since the last FOCAP meeting in 2015,
and laid out plans for the even more rapid development over the next three years, and on to
2063 -- the target year for full modernization over 50 years, adopted by the African Union in
2013. One after another the leaders of the African nations described the actual liberation
taking place, finally seeing in China the example that real development and the escape from
poverty is possible. The program launched at the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung,
Indonesia, where the formerly colonized nations met for the first time without their colonial
masters, has finally been realized.
But no one reading the western press would even know that this transformative event had
taken place.
Rather, there is only the new McCarthyism, trying to demonize Russia and China, to revive
the "enemy image" which should have been eliminated with the fall of the Soviet Union and the
recognition of the People's Republic of China.
Trump threatens this new McCarthyism, insisting that America should be friends with Russia
and China. No longer will the U.S. accept Lord Palmerston's imperial dictate for the Empire,
that "nations have no permanent friends or allies, only permanent interests." The "special
relationship" is to be no more.
This is the cause of Theresa May's hysterical rant today in the Parliament. Better war, led
by the "dumb giant" America, than to see the Empire destroyed in a world united through a
shared vision of universal development.
Britain's drive for war must be exposed and stopped, along with their Russiagate coup
attempt in the US. A victory for the common aims of mankind is within our grasp, but the danger
is great, and the time is short.
Some interesting insights. Looks like high stake political poker
Notable quotes:
"... While Britain crumbled in compliments of the OPCW experts it had bought for the act, Russia dealt the most powerful bomb attack in Idlib, clearing the way for the Syrian army to destroy the last enclave of American suckers. And thus it struck a blow to the British political elite. After all, all the dances around the Skripals and the subsequent sanctions are designed to prevent what Russia is doing now in Idlib. Not prevented. And this is a demonstration of the weakness of the British ruling class, capable only of biting stealthily behind its heels. ..."
machine translated from the original Russian; excerpted:
The fact is that Russia pursues its policy without regard to their provocations. She defeated the Wahhabis trained by the
West in the Caucasus, snatched Crimea from under the nose. The US scenario in Ukraine broke. Restores the EAEC. In Syria, Russia
completely threw the Anglo-Saxon West off the pedestal, which he held there all the post-war 50 years. That is, with its bombing
of head choppers, Russia has broken the rigid "Full Spectrum Dominance" situation created and maintained by the Americans
since the dissolution of the USSR.
This is a disaster, which the Anglo-Saxon world has nothing to answer nuclear to Russia.
While Britain crumbled in compliments of the OPCW experts it had bought for the act, Russia dealt the most powerful
bomb attack in Idlib, clearing the way for the Syrian army to destroy the last enclave of American suckers. And thus it struck
a blow to the British political elite. After all, all the dances around the Skripals and the subsequent sanctions are designed
to prevent what Russia is doing now in Idlib. Not prevented. And this is a demonstration of the weakness of the British ruling
class, capable only of biting stealthily behind its heels.
But worst of all, the actions in Idlib demonstrate the US weakness. Trump is completely beaten down - by his neocon rivals,
not
Russia. Russia has revealed the preparations for the provocation of the Khimatki in Idlib, which the US rep in the United Nations
has announced to the whole world. With all the details, such number of barrels of chorine delivered to headchoppers
and their color,
as well the path of those barrels to Idlib and places of their secret storage. Now with those revelation it make much less
sense to launch this operation.
But the operation will be. The match will take place in any weather. The United States has already outlined the places on
which they will strike rocket-bomb strikes. The assault will be more decisive than the previous time. Preparation is as if
the US is confident - the chlorine attack will take place. Then, when they decide in the US. Not in Damascus, but in Washington.
That is, in general, all masks are dropped and the States openly prepare for aggression with provocation in a sovereign country
where they are open in the status of an occupier. And even if there is no chemotherapy at all, the American blow will take
place. Too much Russian was battered by bombs of American protégés. They are too close to defeat, for which the reason for
finding Americans in Syria will disappear. How can this be allowed? The impact of prestige is necessary and it will be, even
if the Sun falls to the ground and the Mississippi will flow backwards. Only prestige is not visible.
The USA are increasingly falling down replacing the strategy with tactics. The attack on Syria is necessary for Americans not because
they will decide the outcome of the campaign. But because the US needs to introduce its
ground forces to change the course of the war, with all possible negative consequences such as possible the death of the military
personnel and the open clash
with Iran, Syria and Russia. And even with Turkey. With China silently standing behind them the
global consequences of this action are unpredictable. One possible consequence can well be the collapse of NATO. This "Second Vietnam"
might crush not only the American president, but the US itself. The other scenario is that the USA just want to "score a goal of prestige" and leave
the lost match. They will strike at Syria, where again Russian intelligence will reveal in advance the alleged targets of the
strike, withdraw the critical assets from there, and then we have a firework of exploding Tomahawks intercepted by
defenders.
Russia in Idlib is now in a very difficult position due to Turkey, not so much the USA. The repelling of the USA
attach is one thing, but the main danger that it can't achieve too much on the ground de to Turkish interests in the area.
Trump attack would be mainly for domestic consumption, the show created on the4 eve of the congressional elections. And
even repelling the attack can be counterproductive -- Russia risks drowning Trump, instead of somehow supporting
his formidable image and helping to win. Simply because Trump is beneficial to Russia - it's too cool he breaks everything
on what the American power of the past decades was based. Helping his impeachment is not in the national interests of Russia.
That means that Trump must come out of those stupid and counterproductive Tomahawks salvos without losing his face.
The US remains the world hegemon and want to remain as such for a long time. That's why it beats Russia with sanctions.
But Russia does not need to oppose the USA. It just need to help to build a countervailing power. And Berlin, supported by Moscow's cheap gas,
can be countervailing force for London in Europe.
The threat of losing global hegemony is very painful for both the British and Americans. It is so painful that
they organized the collapse of the ruble and this false flag operation
in Salisbury. And then OPSW were intimidated by British special services.
Russia should responds asymmetrically -- by continuing to build up its economy and prosperity of its citizens and ignore such insane and ineffective
actions by London and Washington.
Russia already had shown Erdogan how easily caravans with oil are bombed,
Russia does not want to allow its exports from Syria. And the US will have to withdraw from Syria there sooner or later.
Still, Russia should give Trump the opportunity to finish his term without outright humiliation in Syria. The United States
might not have the second such president, as Russia will not have a second Gorbachev.
"... "Renowned French security expert Paul Barril has let loose a bombshell: the existence of Operation Beluga, a covert Western intelligence scheme intended to undermine Russia and its leaders." ..."
"... Renowned French security expert Paul Barril, in an interview, alleges that Berezovsky was working closely with MI6 and the CIA to discredit Russia and Putin, and that large sums from these agencies were passing through Berezovsky's hands to be paid to individuals to cooperate in these efforts. Barril says Litvinenko was one of Berezovsky's bag men, who passed funds on to others. ..."
"... "Russia has nothing to do with the murder of Litvinenko. The case was fabricated from the beginning. Polonium was chosen as the poison due to its production in Russia, it would implicate Russia. The objective of the whole operation was to discredit president Putin and the FSB. It was done because Russia is blocking US interests around the world, especially in Syria. It was an attempt to weaken Putin's hold on power, to destabilize Russia." ..."
"Polonium was chosen as the poison due to its production in Russia, it would implicate Russia". Exactly. Just as 'Novichok' was
allegedly used in Salisbury, due to it allegedly being developed in Russia (Mirzyanov) – even though it wasn't actually used against
the Skripals at all. Maybe this element of the hoax was inspired by Beluga's use of polonium in the Litvinenko affair.
Miheila, the polonium story always seems crazy to me. It relies on Litvinenko being too mean not to buy his own cup of tea. Hardly
a foolproof assassination method.
PAGE 4 OF 4
This follows a similar pattern to Alexander Litvinenko. Walter Litvinenko, his father, believes Alex received a second dose of
agent whilst in hospital. It was a Worlds Apart interview but is now the subject of an Ofcom complaint. Walter said his suspicions
were raised by the secrecy of the British government and the fact that they wouldn't let him see any reports. So he made his own
investigations, and from initially thinking it was Russia, he now believes it was the British government. He returned to Russia
in fear of his life.
"Renowned French security expert Paul Barril has let loose a bombshell: the existence of Operation Beluga, a covert Western
intelligence scheme intended to undermine Russia and its leaders."
Renowned French security expert Paul Barril, in an interview, alleges that Berezovsky was working closely with MI6 and
the CIA to discredit Russia and Putin, and that large sums from these agencies were passing through Berezovsky's hands to be paid
to individuals to cooperate in these efforts. Barril says Litvinenko was one of Berezovsky's bag men, who passed funds on to others.
"Russia has nothing to do with the murder of Litvinenko. The case was fabricated from the beginning. Polonium was chosen
as the poison due to its production in Russia, it would implicate Russia. The objective of the whole operation was to discredit
president Putin and the FSB. It was done because Russia is blocking US interests around the world, especially in Syria. It was
an attempt to weaken Putin's hold on power, to destabilize Russia."
Barril mentions the outspoken Putin foe, financier William Browder, as being in close cooperation with Berezovsky in the discreditation
efforts. He also says he is sure Berezovsky was murdered by his secret service handlers after they realized he was behaving erratically
and had to be silenced so that he wouldn't give them away.
"... So they went through the same corridor just like I demonstrated in https://postimg.cc/image/pw7t667ch/ . This means the UK police manipulated the images, i.e. fabricated the evidence. Very interesting to have this confirmed directly.... ..."
I added bold in the quote below:
--- The RT editor-in-chief also touched upon the most puzzling picture of the two, the photo
from the Gatwick airport.
"Here is the picture that puzzled the whole world, Gatwick airport, you are leaving
through a gate literally in the same times, almost the same second. How did it happen?" she
asked.
" We always go together through the same corridor and the same custom service
officer or a policeman. One goes, the other waits. We went through the corridor together, we
always [do it] together .
How did it happen? It's better to ask them [UK police]," Boshirov replied.
---
So they went through the same corridor just like I demonstrated in https://postimg.cc/image/pw7t667ch/ . This
means the UK police manipulated the images, i.e. fabricated the evidence. Very interesting to
have this confirmed directly....
To add to Norwegian@3, George Galloway made a couple of very interesting points,
especially about the time stamp on the photo. He said the Skripals left the house in the
morning, never to return. The "Russian agents" could not have arrived in Salisbury until noon
or thereabouts...hmmmm...and they would have had to paint the doorknob with this deadliest of
poisons in full view of everyone. Perhaps the Russians have learned to time travel or warp
time. I wouldn't put it past them http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50231.htm
Prime Minister Theresa May made a
statement to accuse Russia of being behind the Skripal poisoning
case . She went to address the parliament right after prosecutors accused two Russian men,
allegedly military intelligence officers, to perpetrate the assassination attempt. These are
the first criminal charges in the case that
has spoiled the West-Russian relations so much. The British government has issued EU arrest
warrants and Interpol red notices to have the two individuals arrested by police in any country
should they leave Russia's territory.
According to the PM, Great Britain and its friends must step up collective efforts against
Russia. Its military intelligence service (the GRU) is to be specifically targeted employing
"the full range of tools from across our national security apparatus." Before making
the speech that
sounded hostile toward Moscow, the PM had talked the matter over with US President Trump
and other friendly world leaders. Ms May is expected to raise the issue at the UN General
Assembly later this month. No doubt, London will ask the Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to investigate the case. The UK will probably impose sanctions of its
own and call on others to join. As usual, media "leaks" will pour more fuel on the fire.
Anti-Russia forces in the West will get the second wind.
Ben Wallace, Minister of State for Security at the Home Office,
attributed direct blame on Russian President Vladimir, something Ms. May avoided to do. He
said the Russian leader bears responsibility for the nerve agent attack.
The photos of two men that have visited the UK are not evidence to support the PM' claims.
"We have heard or seen two names, these names mean nothing to me personally," Kremlin
aide Yuri Ushakov
told reporters in Moscow. "I don't understand why this was done and what sort of signal
the British side is sending." But one thing is curtain – the British government
wants as much noise and publicity as possible. It raises hue and cry in an evident attempt
to further deteriorate the West-Russia relations and it does it on purpose. Why now? Because
this is the right time to pursue the hidden agenda.
US Ambassador to Britain Woody Johnson said on Twitter: "The US and UK stand firmly
together in holding Russia accountable for its act of aggression on UK soil." He was quick
to react. Evidently, Mr Johnson wasted no time on waiting for instructions. It had all been
known, discussed and decided before.
By spearheading the anti-Russia campaign in the West, London increases its political weight
before Brexit takes place. With its unity in peril, the West needs something to keep it
together and the Russia's bogey comes in handy.
The second round of US sanctions imposed to punish Russia for the alleged, but never proven,
use of nerve agents, is much tougher than the first one in force since August. It is to take
effect in November – the same month US midterm elections take place.
The "Skripal sanctions" are not introduced by Congress but the State Department. It's up to
the president to impose them or not. If President Trump's party keeps the majority in both
houses, the pressure to prove he is tough on Russia will ease. The president may soften the
sanctions or not impose them at all. The reinvigoration of "Skripal poisoning" campaign will
make it much harder to do. Donald Trump as well as EU leaders will be under constant pressure
to do more to counter Russia.
True, the EU is not interested in whipping up tensions in its relationship with Russia amid
the sanctions war and other things to deteriorate its relationship with the United States. But
on the other hand, Eurosceptics, who are friendly to Moscow, are predicted to win big in the
European parliament election in May. They may get every third vote and have enough seats to
stymie the functioning of the "unreformed" EU as we know it today. It will put into jeopardy
the very survival of the bloc. Many of Eurosceptics want the relations with Russia normalized
and the sanctions lifted. Be it Skripal or something else, an anti-Russia campaign is needed to
attack them. They'll be painted as "useful idiots" or "traitors" promoting Russia's evil plans
to destroy the West. Here again, the imaginary "Russia threat" serves the purpose
perfectly.
The events in Syria are distorted to denigrate Russia but that's happening far away.
Spreading around the stories about Moscow using chemical weapons in Europe may have the desired
effect to keep voters away from throwing their support behind those who can change the European
political landscape.
There is actually nothing new in what the British PM stated. It's not so important what
exactly she said. It's timing that matters. The moment is right for anti-Russia hysteria to be
given a fresh impetus. Will this tactics work? The November elections in the US and the
European elections in May will show. The closer is the vote, the more concocted stories about
the nefarious Russia's activities will come into the spotlight.
"... "I want to address them [the suspects]... [I hope] they contact the media. I hope they appear and tell everything about themselves," ..."
"... "Neither Russia's top leadership nor those with lower ranks, and [Russian] officials, have had anything to do with the events in Salisbury," ..."
"... "It seems very strange that these people have absolutely left what seems to be a very reckless and clear trail of evidence, which almost seems to be designed, or at least would almost inevitably lead to, the conclusions that the police and the authorities have come to today, in other words that Russia were to blame," ..."
"... "bits of evidence that may look pretty compelling but will never be tested in a real court of law." ..."
"... "perfect cover for smuggling the weapon into the country and a perfect delivery method for the attack against the Skripal's front door." ..."
HomeWorld NewsWe know who people named as suspects in Skripal
case are, they are civilians – Putin Published time: 12 Sep, 2018 06:56 Edited time:
12 Sep, 2018 12:57 Get short URL 'Alexander
Petrov' and 'Ruslan Boshirov' are seen in an image handed out by the Metropolitan Police in
London, Britain / Reuters Moscow is aware of who the people named as suspects in the Skripal
case are, President Vladimir Putin said, adding that these people are civilians. Saying that
there is "nothing criminal" about the two, Putin also hopes that the people in
question will eventually come forward and talk to the media.
"I want to address them [the suspects]... [I hope] they contact the media. I hope they
appear and tell everything about themselves," he said, addressing the audience during the
Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in the Russian city of Vladivostok.
Earlier in September, UK prosecutors named two Russians they suspect of poisoning Sergei
Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury this March. According to London, their names are
Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Russia denies any involvement and accuses Britain of
spinning the case to stir anti-Russian sentiment.
Beyond identifying them as Russian nationals, the prosecutors gave no indication as to who
the men are.
After London again blamed Russia, implying that officials at the highest levels of power
could be responsible for the poisoning, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov rebuffed the
allegations.
"Neither Russia's top leadership nor those with lower ranks, and [Russian] officials,
have had anything to do with the events in Salisbury," he said at that time.
The Kremlin spokesman added that Putin didn't personally speak to the two individuals
identified by the British authorities as suspects in the case. Russian law enforcement has not
made any moves to prosecute them, Peskov said.
According to the investigators, the suspects who arrived in Britain from Moscow left traces
of the poison used in the attack in the hotel room they stayed in. They were also caught on
CCTV cameras in Salisbury twice, including on the day of the attack, and traveled back directly
to the Russian capital.
This trail of evidence from the supposedly highly-trained perpetrators casts doubt over
Moscow's involvement, according to a number of security experts. "It seems very strange
that these people have absolutely left what seems to be a very reckless and clear trail of
evidence, which almost seems to be designed, or at least would almost inevitably lead to, the
conclusions that the police and the authorities have come to today, in other words that Russia
were to blame," Charles Shoebridge, a security expert and former British military officer,
told
RT. Annie Machon, a former MI5 intelligence officer, said the inquiry into the case has
effectively turned into a trial by media, based on "bits of evidence that may look pretty
compelling but will never be tested in a real court of law."
London also insists that a counterfeit Nina Ricci perfume box was used as container and
delivery device for the chemical used in the poisoning. It was later found by Charlie Rowley in
the town of Amesbury, not far from Salisbury. They also claim that the noxious agent was in a
bottle that had been altered to make it "perfect cover for smuggling the weapon into the
country and a perfect delivery method for the attack against the Skripal's front
door."
Reacting to the prosecutors' statement, Russian envoy to the UN Vasily Nebenzya joked that
the nerve agent attack has so far had only one benefactor – Nina Ricci.
Today's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are
'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly
avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do
so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the
would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.
The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist
squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime
in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister
on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more
refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.
FSB arrests ISIS member 'who planned murder of a Donbass leader on behalf of
Ukraine'
The Russian security service, the FSB, says it has arrested an Islamic State operative
who was planning to murder one of the leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's
Republic (DNR) on behalf of the Ukrainian authorities.
The suspected terrorist was identified as Mejid Magomedov, who was born in 1988 in Russia's
southern Dagestan republic. He was arrested on Sunday in Russia's Smolensk region in the
west of the country.
https://www.rt.com/news/438028-fsb-isis-member-ukraine/
Explosive Skripal allegations may blow up in Syria - George Galloway
Today's latest offering is that the 'Russians' in the 'mugshots' released last week are
'already dead' having been 'executed by Putin' to stop them talking, forever. Which neatly
avoids the British state asking Russia for help in identifying them. London's failure to do
so was already arousing suspicion amongst a cynical public. There is now no point, the
would-be assassins are now six-feet below the permafrost of Anglo-Russian relations.
The media here have completely ignored the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist
squad of Scotland Yard that he had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime
in Salisbury, preferring instead the cheap barroom brawling of the British prime minister
on the floor of the House of Commons cheered on by the vulgar popular press and their more
refined elder sisters in the upmarket papers and on the BBC.
"the statement of the head of the anti-terrorist squad of Scotland Yard that he
had "No" evidence of Russian state involvement in the crime in Salisbury "
Yes. The UK government has lost its marbles in the pursuit of power & money. They
suffer the same disease as their Israeli and US counterparts -- the loss of the life-saving
integrity and intelligence and the triumph of the life-threatening stupidity.
The western governments have become incompetent due to the lack of the populace' supervision.
For any living organism, no feedback means no protective actions ensuring the survival of the
organism.
The Cheneys and Bibis and Blairs of the world are not intelligent enough even to envision the
future for their immediate progeny, nevermind grandkids. These stupid elders are covered in
the blood of the innocent.
Two Russian GRU hit men who apparently spent a considerable amount of their small amount of
time whilst on a mission of death in Merry England mugging in front of CCTV cameras.
And they only killed one person, and not their intended target at that: a junky, drug
pushing bum's alcoholic womanfriend, who unfortunatly was accidently contaminated with the
deadliest nerve poison known to man.
As a Scotland counter-terrorist chief plod said, these were trained professionals in the
killing trade, and as Prime Minister May said, they belong to a tightly disciplined
organization whose orders come directly from the top, meaning the Dark Lord no less.
Simply sickening and despicable!
Good job Russians are a bunch of dickheads, otherwise the whole population of Salisbury
might have been poisoned – or the South of England, even.
It's amazing that so much crisp, instantly-recognizable footage exists of the hit men, almost
as if they were laying out an easily-reconstructable route for observers; at least, as
contrasted with the blurry and ambiguous photo evidence of the Skripals, which seems to rely
on happy snaps by friends as much as government resources. Until they get Yulia on camera to
make her post-Novichok debut, of course – then, it's theatre-quality. In fact, the
quality of British evidence seems to go up markedly as soon as the preceding exhibits are the
object of public derision.
The poison was polonium-210, a rare radioactive isotope, tiny, invisible, undetectable.
Ingested, it was fatal. The polonium had originated at a nuclear reactor in the Urals and a
production line in the Russian town of Sarov. A secret FSB laboratory, the agency's "research
institute", then converted it into a dinkily portable weapon.
Lugovoi and Kovtun, however, were rubbish assassins. The quality of Moscow's hired
killers had slipped since the glory days of the KGB.
It's because they're idiots, see!
Although Russians are a direct to Western civilization and against whom we must be ever on
guard, they are also all congenital dickheads, doomed to failure -- always.
metadata for the uk police photos show the airport pix used micro$oft photo editing app
back on may 3rd. check the direct download buttons at the police site pages and ignore the
html embed.
"... "There were plenty of baseless allegations against Moscow and concrete sanctions based on them. Apparently, the only winner in this continued theatre of absurdity is Nina Ricci, the product of which got some free ad as a container for the toxic chemical," ..."
The nerve agent attack in Salisbury has so far had only one benefactor – Nina Ricci,
which got free advertising due to a disguise apparently used by the perpetrators to hide the
poison, the Russian envoy to the UN joked. The British investigators said a counterfeit Nina
Ricci bottle was used as a container and delivery device for the chemical used in the poisoning
of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in March. The same container was found by a struggling
couple from Amesbury, who got poisoned themselves. Read more
Speaking at a UN Security Council session on Thursday, Russian envoy Vasily Nebenzya,
denounced Britain for accusing Russia of the crimes, saying that the allegations are not base
on any hard evidence.
"There were plenty of baseless allegations against Moscow and concrete sanctions based
on them. Apparently, the only winner in this continued theatre of absurdity is Nina Ricci, the
product of which got some free ad as a container for the toxic chemical," he said.
Britain says two Russian military intelligence agents tried to kill Skripal with a
weapons-grade chemical weapon, claiming the identification was made by the British
intelligence. Russia denies any involvement and accuses Britain of spinning the case to stir
anti-Russian sentiment.
"... The UK has stirred up the Skripal saga for the sake of waging a broader campaign to kowtow to the anti-Russian rhetoric inside the British government, ex-London mayor Ken Livingstone has told RT. ..."
"... "military intelligence agents" ..."
"... "What struck me over last couple of years seem to me ratcheting up of anti-Russian sentiment almost trying to recreate a Cold War," ..."
"... "a hidden political agenda here as part of broader anti-Russian campaign" ..."
The UK has stirred up the Skripal saga for the sake of waging a broader campaign to
kowtow to the anti-Russian rhetoric inside the British government, ex-London mayor Ken
Livingstone has told RT. The latest smoking gun of allegations against Russia fired by
London, with the British Prime Minister Theresa May claiming that Russian "military
intelligence agents" attempted to murder former spy Sergei Skripal, leaves too many
questions and doubts, Livingstone believes.
"What struck me over last couple of years seem to me ratcheting up of anti-Russian
sentiment almost trying to recreate a Cold War," the former mayor told RT. He stressed
that London's turning its back to Moscow's constant readiness to cooperate and failure to
present to the public a shred of evidence – if there is any – might be a sign of
"a hidden political agenda here as part of broader anti-Russian campaign" inside the
British government.
Livingstone is not the only one who doubts the narrative. Independent political analyst Dan
Glazebrook, who also shared his views with RT, pointed how clumsy the alleged agents should
have been – from taking a train to reach their target to allowing themselves to be caught
on CCTV.
Talking of 5th column, lest forget the solid one in the UK.
Deep State's mouthpiece "The Telegraph" had dedicated several articles to the
identification of alleged Skripal Novichok poisoners, named as two Russian nationals who
briefly entered the UK under the aliases Petrov and Beshorov.
Sycophantic PM Theresa May has gone as far as stating that the suspects are GRU agents,
and pointing the finger at President Putin.
Jeremy Corbyn is being hounded because he is very reserved about the Novichok story.
The UK government is fully embedded with Zionist Israel. This cock-and-bull story, which
details have been nonetheless very well presented, is a very alarming hint that something is
in preparation against Russia, either directly in Syrian, or less directly in the
Ukraine.
@Iris Talking of
5th column, lest forget the solid one in the UK.
Deep State's mouthpiece "The Telegraph" had dedicated several articles to the
identification of alleged Skripal Novichok poisoners, named as two Russian nationals who
briefly entered the UK under the aliases Petrov and Beshorov.
Sycophantic PM Theresa May has gone as far as stating that the suspects are GRU agents,
and pointing the finger at President Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1VqSJCa7RA
Jeremy Corbyn is being hounded because he is very reserved about the Novichok story.
The UK government is fully embedded with Zionist Israel. This cock-and-bull story, which
details have been nonetheless very well presented, is a very alarming hint that something is
in preparation against Russia, either directly in Syrian, or less directly in the Ukraine.
Novichock poisoning false flag (Continued).
A possible explanation of the Novichok story being spun at the moment in the UK is that a
Western/Israeli military attack on Syria is in preparation to stop the Arab Syrian Army from
entering Idlib, the last terrorist stronghold.
Such Western intervention requires the pretext of a chemical attack, that will be staged
in the field by the proxy White Helmets, while UK public opinion will be subdued with
terrorising stories of weapons of mass destruction.
This same pretext was used for the April 2018 Western bombing of Syria. This bombing was
aimed at hitting key Syrian targets, but its scale was finally limited by the intervention of
General Mattis, who dreaded reciprocated actions against the 3000 US servicemen present in
Syria.
"The White Helmets (and an alleged chemical attack) are the last hope for regime change
in Syria"
Very interesting interview of former UK Ambassador Ford by SyrianGirl:
One day after Theresa May's Novichok show at the British Parliament , France's Chief of
Military Staff Francois Lecointre has declared that France is ready to strike Syria should
she dare a "chemical attack" on Idlib.
Both poodles each side of the Channel are barking in synchronism; Israel is pulling on the
leashes and something bad is in preparation.
Here is Francois Lecointre in his brown uniform. Unknown to us stupid plebeians, France
must be surrounded by steppes and deserts for brown to have been chosen as camouflage
colour.
John Wight has written for a variety of newspapers and websites, including the
Independent, Morning Star, Huffington Post, Counterpunch, London Progressive Journal, and
Foreign Policy Journal. The recent development in the Skripals poisoning case is
guaranteed to plunge already dire relations between Moscow and London through the floor. At a
set-piece press conference in London, Neil Basu, head of the London Met's counter-terrorism
police force, positively identified two Russian suspects in the case. He produced CCTV images
of the two individuals along with their names and details of their movements from Russia to the
UK and back again. He also alleged that according to a " working hypothesis " the
suspects smuggled the Novichok substance used in the attempt on the lives of former Russia
intelligence office and British spy Sergei Skripal, and daughter Yulia, into the country with
them from Russia. Read more Names of
'Russian suspects' in Skripal case published by UK don't mean anything to us –
Moscow
The rocket fuel this very significant and very serious development adds to the already
seething anti-Russia sentiment and feeling that dominates the minds of the British political
and media establishment is self-evident. At a time of multiple crises involving Moscow and
London – crises yet to be resolved around the conflict in Syria, tensions over Ukraine,
the presence of NATO troops and military assets close to Russia's western border, sanctions,
etc. – it is extraordinarily worrying that relations between both countries have now
plunged to their lowest point since the end of the Cold War.
That the Russian state is capable of carrying out an attack of this nature is not in doubt.
All states are capable of carrying out such attacks, and all states, including Britain, have
carried them out at various points in their history. But the timing of this particular attack
is key, given that it took place just a few months prior to the start of the World Cup in
Russia, and at a time when the Russian government was extending itself in attempting to repair
relations with the West with a view to achieving normalization.
Then, too, the motive remains impossible to discern. Sergei Skripal had been living openly
under his own name in Salisbury, England, where the attack took place, for some time, so
clearly did not believe that he was in any danger.
The international damage to Russia's reputation as a consequence of being behind such an
attack is likewise not in any doubt.
These points are not, of course, made as infallible proof that the Russian government or
intelligence was not responsible. But they are pertinent in of themselves, given the
context.
Another point worth raising is the sheer crudity of two supposed Russian agents taking a
direct flight to and from the UK to carry out the attack and travelling together both ways.
Such amateurish planning is the stuff of your average Hollywood spy spoof movie rather anything
you would associate with a serious intelligence agency.
Significantly, during his press conference and presentation, Mr Basu did not go as far as
alleging Russian state involvement. Such restraint, however, has long been a foreign land where
the prime minister is concerned.
In her statement to the Commons on this latest development, Theresa May wasted no time in
unleashing a rhetorical artillery barrage against the Kremlin, buoyed by a feral chorus of MPs
who almost to a man and woman had already embraced Russia as the officially designated enemy of
all that is holy and good in the world.
Either the prime minister knows something that the head of the Met's counter-terrorism
police force does not, or we have entered an age when blaming Russia for everything is an
unofficial requirement of the duties of high political office in Westminster.
To be fair to the prime minister though, she's been blaming the Kremlin for this crime
almost since the very day it took place, gleefully riding the wave of anti-Russia hysteria that
had already been whipped up by a mainstream media whose denizens one James Connolly was once
minded to describe as " The inkslingers of the jingo press ."
With her leadership mired in crisis over Brexit, and with her errant former foreign
secretary and putative prime minister, Boris Johnson, currently breathing down her neck with a
looming challenge to her leadership, for the prime minister the timing of this development
could not, politically, be more convenient. For at such moments she is able to give free rein
to the appearance of the kind of strong and robust leadership qualities that are, in truth,
grievously absent.
Going forward, this will only add more grist to the mill of a neocon firmament whose very
existence is predicated on maintaining Russia in the role of existential threat to Western
civilization. A frog's chorus of calls and demands for ever more stringent trade, financial and
economic sanctions against Moscow will reach a crescendo, buttressed by an uptick in the
deployment of troops and military assets to eastern Europe in a futile effort to intimidate and
cow the Kremlin into accepting its prescribed status as a vassal of Washington and its
allies.
Worryingly, in 2018 we have reached the stage that George Orwell described in his classic
novel, 1984: " The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed
that no past or future agreement with him was possible. "
Western ideologues should take a moment to consider that Orwell wrote his classic work as a
warning not a blueprint.
"... Over the past decade or so, a disturbing number of Russian nationals living in Britain have met untimely deaths. The victims – at least 14 – have been high-profile individuals, such as oligarch businessman Boris Berezovsky or former Kremlin security agent Alexander Litvinenko. All were living in Britain as exiles, and all were viewed as opponents of President Vladimir Putin's government. ..."
"... Invariably, British politicians and news media refer to the deaths of Russian émigrés as "proof" of Russian state "malign activity". Putin in particular is accused of ordering "the hits" as some kind of vendetta against critics and traitors. ..."
"... The claims of Russian state skulduggery have been reported over and over without question in the British media as well as US media. It has become an article-of-faith espoused by British and American politicians alike. "Putin is a killer," they say with seeming certainty. There is simply no question about it in their assertions. ..."
Over the past decade or so, a disturbing number of Russian nationals living in Britain have
met untimely deaths. The victims – at least 14 – have been high-profile
individuals, such as oligarch businessman Boris Berezovsky or former Kremlin security agent
Alexander Litvinenko. All were living in Britain as exiles, and all were viewed as opponents of
President Vladimir Putin's government.
Invariably, British politicians and news media
refer to the deaths of Russian émigrés as "proof" of Russian state "malign
activity". Putin in particular is accused of ordering "the hits" as some kind of vendetta
against critics and traitors.
The claims of Russian state skulduggery have been reported over and over without question in
the British media as well as US media. It has become an article-of-faith espoused by British
and American politicians alike. "Putin is a killer," they say with seeming certainty. There is
simply no question about it in their assertions.
The claims have also been given a quasi-legal veracity, with a British government-appointed
inquiry in the case of Alexander Litvinenko making a conclusion
that his death in 2006 was "highly likely" the result of a Kremlin plot to assassinate. Putin
was personally implicated in the death of Litvinenko by the official British inquiry. The
victim was said to have been poisoned with radioactive polonium. Deathbed images of a
bald-headed Litvinenko conjure up a haunting image of alleged Kremlin evil-doing.
Once the notion of Russian evil-doing is inculcated the public mind, then subsequent events
can be easily invoked as "more proof" of what has already been "established". Namely, so it
goes, that the Russian state is carrying out assassinations on British territory.
Thus, we see this "corroborating" effect with the alleged poisoning of a former Russian
double-agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter in Salisbury back in March this year.
uke Harding likes writing books
about things that he wasn't really involved in and doesn't really understand. Unfortunately for
the rest of the world, that covers pretty much everything. His book about Snowden, for example,
was beautifully
taken down by Julian Assange – a person who was actually there.
He's priming the traumatised public for another of his works, this time about Sergei
Skripal. This one will probably be out by Christmas, unless he can find someone else's work to plagiarise , in which case he might
get it done sooner.
It will have a snide and not especially clever title, perhaps a sort of pun –
something like "A Poison by Any Other Name: How Russian assassins contaminated the heart of
rural England" . It will relate, in jarring sub-sub-le Carre prose, a story of Russian
malfeasance and evil beyond imagining, whilst depicting the whole cast as bumbling caricatures,
always held up for ridicule by the author and his smug readership.
There's an extract in The Guardian today. It's not listed as one, but trust me, it
will be in the book. It's title, as predicted above, is sort of a pun (and will probably
be a chapter heading):
Planes, trains and fake names: the trail left by Skripal suspects
You see? Like that film? I don't really get it either but until someone else comes up with
something clever he can copy, Luke is left to his own rather meagre devices.
It starts off surprisingly strong, waiting three whole sentences before lurching violently
into totally unsupported conjecture:
The two men were dressed inconspicuously in jeans, fleece jackets and trainers as they
boarded the flight from Moscow to Gatwick. Their names, according to their Russian passports,
were Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov. Both were around 40 years old. Neither looked
suspicious.
This is, as far as we know so far, true.
The plane trundled down the icy runway. In Moscow the temperatures had fallen below -10C,
not unusual for early March. In Britain it had been snowing.
and so is this. In fact, in googling "Moscow weather March 2018" Harding has displayed an
uncharacteristically thorough approach to research that was rarely (if ever) evidenced in his
previous works.
They had also packed a bottle of what appeared to be the Nina Ricci perfume Premier Jour.
The box it came in was prettily decorated with flowers, it listed ingredients including
alcohol and it bore the words "Made in France".
This is where truth ends and guesses take over: there is no evidence, at all, that these two
men had anything to do with the "perfume bottle" allegedly found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th
and allegedly containing a powerful nerve agent. There is (as far as we know) no fingerprint or
DNA evidence on the bottle, nobody saw them with the bottle, and there's no released CCTV
footage of them holding or carrying the bottle. Saying "it's in their backpack" is meaningless
without any evidence to back it up.
According to the Metropolitan police, the bottle in fact contained novichok, a lethal
nerve agent developed in the late Soviet Union. The bottle had been specially made to be
leakproof and had a customised applicator.
Note he doesn't feel the need to examine, question or even verify the words of the
Metropolitan Police. This is a recurring theme in Harding's works – there are people who
tell the truth (US) and people who lie (RUSSIANS). Evidence is a complication you can live
without.
Moscow's notorious poisons factory run by the KGB made similar devices throughout the cold
war.
Did they? Because he doesn't show any evidence this is true. One thing you can be sure of,
if there had ever been even a whisper about a "modified perfume bottle" in any Soviet archive
or from any "whistleblower currently living in the United States", it would be on the front
page in big black letters.
Petrov and Boshirov were aliases, detectives believe. Both men are suspected to be career
officers with the GRU, Russia's powerful and highly secretive military intelligence
service.
Note use of the word "believe", it makes regular appearances alongside it's buddies:
"suspect" and "probably".
And yes, they "believe" they are aliases because IF they were assassins then obviously they
used aliases. There's no evidence taken from their (currently totally theoretical) visa
applications that point to forgery, nobody at the time questioned their passports. As of today,
we have been given no reason to think they were aliases, except reasoning backwards from
assumed guilt which isn't how deduction works.
In fact, there's more than enough reason to assume they aren't aliases –
Firstly, they passed the visa check, secondly their passports were never questioned, thirdly
they've used them before (see below), and finally just WHY would a Russian spy-come-assassin
use a fake Russian name and a fake Russian passport? That's ridiculous.
The officers' assignment was covert. They were coming to Britain not as tourists but as
assassins.
[citation needed]
Their target was Sergei Skripal, a former GRU officer who spied for British intelligence,
got caught and was freed in a spy exchange in 2010. They were heading for his home in
provincial Salisbury.
Luke doesn't feel the need to dig down into the nitty gritty here – motive is a
trifle, to be added in the footnotes or made up on the spur of the moment when asked at a book
signing. I'm a bit more fussy than that – I feel the need to ask "Why did they release
him in 2010 and then try to kill him in 2018?" If they had wanted to kill him, why not just do
it when he was in prison in Russia between 2006 and 2010? If they wanted to kill him why do it
just weeks before the World Cup? What could they possibly have to gain?
Luke doesn't know, and neither do I.
Their Aeroflot flight SU2588 touched down at 3pm on Friday 2 March. They were recorded on
CCTV going through passport control, Boshirov with dark hair and a goatee beard, Petrov
unshaven and wearing a blue gingham shirt. Both were carrying satchels slung casually over
the shoulder.
This is all true, and completely unnecessary. It's what we in the industry call "filler" or
"padding". Totally meaningless and useless words that do nothing but take up space. Without it,
a lot of Luke's books would only be about 700 words long.
According to police, the pair had visited the UK before.
Way to bury the lead there, Luke.
This is actually quite important isn't it? I mean, when did they visit the UK before? Did
they visit Salisbury then too? Did they have any contact with Sergei Skripal? Were they
travelling under the same names? Were these visits linked with other intelligence work? Were
they just holidays? What kind of assassins would use the SAME FAKE IDS ON TWO DIFFERENT
OCCASIONS?
These are all very important questions, but Luke doesn't ask them. Because Luke is a modern
journalist, and they don't interrogate the claims of the state, just report them. To
Guardian reporters a question mark is just that funny squiggle next to the shift
key.
From Gatwick they caught the train to London Victoria station and then the tube to east
London, where they checked in to the City Stay hotel in Bow. It was a low-profile choice of
accommodation. The red-brick Victorian building is next to a branch of Barclays bank, a busy
train line and a wall daubed with graffiti. Across the road is a car pound and a Texaco
garage.
This just more filler. Totally meaningless packaging material. The prose equivalent of
All-Bran.
On hostile territory, Boshirov and Petrov operated in the manner of classic intelligence
operatives.
In this instance "the manner of classic intelligence operatives" means, flying direct to
London from Moscow, using Russian names and Russian passports (which you've used before),
checking into a hotel with a CCTV camera on the front door, going straight to the hometown of
an ex-double agent, leaving a Russian poison his front door even though he's already gone out,
dumping your unused poison in a charity bin on the high street, going back to your hotel,
smearing poison around that too even though you already dumped it, and then flying directly
back to Moscow without even waiting to see if the plan worked and the target is dead.
This, in Luke's head, is ace intelligence work.
On the day of the hit, according to detectives, the pair made a similar journey, taking
the 8.05am train from Waterloo to Salisbury and arriving at 11.48am.
Yes, they arrived at 11.48, making it absolutely pointless to put poison on the Skripal's
door, as they had already gone out.
The perfume bottle was probably concealed in a light grey backpack carried by Petrov.
It was "probably concealed" in that backpack because, as I said above, there's no evidence
either of those men ever knew the perfume bottle existed. You never see it in their
possession.
Oh, and the backpack would have to contain TWO bottles of perfume – because the police
aren't sure the bottle Rowley found 3 months later was the same bottle, and Rowley reported it
was unopened and wrapped in cellophane. Perhaps Luke should have read the details of the case
instead of trolling IMDB looking for movie titles with "plane" in them or googling "insouciant"
to see if he was using it right.
From Salisbury station the two men set off on foot. It was a short walk of about a mile to
Skripal's semi-detached home in Christie Miller Road.
which doesn't matter, because the Skripals weren't there. They left at 9.15 and there is no
evidence they ever returned.
At Skripal's house the Russians smeared or sprayed novichok on to the front door handle,
police say.
which doesn't matter, because the Skripals weren't there. They left at 9.15 and there is no
evidence they ever returned.
It doesn't matter if Borishov and Petrov re-tiled the bathroom with novichok grouting or hid
novichok in the battery compartment of Sergei's TV remote or replaced all his lightbulbs with
novichok bombs that explode when you use the clapper .according to everything we've been told
so far Sergei and Julia were literally never in that house again.
Luke seems to write a lot about this case, considering he is barely acquainted with the most
basic facts of it.
The moment went unobserved
True. There is not a single piece of footage, photograph or eyewitness placing these men
within a hundred feet of the Skripals, or their house. The "moment went unobserved" is an
incredibly dishonest way of phrasing this, "the moment is entirely theoretical" is rather
fairer. Or, if you want to be honest "it's possible none of this happened".
At some point on their walk back they must have tossed away the bottle, which at this
point was too dangerous to try to smuggle back through customs.
It's all falling into place perfectly isn't it?
At some point the two men, who we never see holding or carrying the bottle, must have
thrown it away because three months later someone else found it.
They took it through customs once but couldn't a second time, because reasons.
Also one of them was smiling a sort of "I just poisoned somebody" smile:
At 1.05pm the men were recorded in Fisherton Street on their way back to the station. They
appeared more relaxed, Petrov grinning even.
Those evil bastards.
By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a park bench
in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the poisoners were gone.
No Luke: By the time Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found collapsed on a
park bench in the centre of Salisbury later that afternoon, the ALLEGED poisoners were
gone.
Alleged is an important word for example, there is a marked difference between being an
ALLEGED plagiarist, and being a
plagiarist .
The visitors were captured on CCTV one more time, at Heathrow airport. It was 7.28pm and
both men were going through security, Petrov first, wheeling a small black case. In his right
hand was a shiny red object, his Russian passport. Police believe the passport was genuine,
his name not. In other words, that it was a sophisticated espionage operation carried out by
a state or state entities.
You see? Nobody thought the passport was fake, which means it was a really good fake
. So the Russian state must have been in on it. This is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
If the passport did look fake, that would be evidence that the men were spies and
therefore the Russian state was in on it.
Harding has created a narrative where there is literally no development that could ever
challenge his conclusions.
Seemingly, the GRU plan – executed two weeks before Russia's presidential election
– had worked perfectly.
This is an example of the cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy – two things
happen at the same time, therefore they happen for the same reason. It's a maneuver we at OffG
refer to as "the Harding", where you state two separate assertions or facts one after the other
in such a way as to imply a relationship, without ever making a solid statement. I'll give you
an example:
Luke Harding was born in 1968, mere weeks before the brutal assassination of Robert
Kennedy.
Harding is suggesting some sort of connection between the election and the poisoning. He
can't STATE it, because then he has to explain his reasoning – and there isn't any.
Putin, and Russia as a whole, had nothing to gain from poisoning an ex-spy they had released
nearly a decade earlier, especially on the eve of a Presidential election and mere weeks before
the World Cup. There's no argument to be made, so he doesn't attempt to make one, he just makes
a snide and baseless insinuation.
Vladimir Putin, the man whom a public inquiry found in 2016 had "probably" signed off on
the operation to kill Litvinenko. The UK security services say a "body of evidence" points to
the GRU.
"Probably" is also a big word. For example, there's a marked difference between "probably
being a plagiarist" and "being a
plagiarist" .
It seems clear that Moscow continues to view Britain as a playground for undercover
operations and is relatively insouciant about the consequences, diplomatic and political. The
Skripal attack may have misfired. But the message, mingling contempt and arrogance, is there
for all to see: we can smite our enemies whenever and wherever we want, and there is nothing
you can do about it.
This is the second time Luke has used the word "insouciant" in two days, which means that
word of the day
calendar was a probably sound investment, but he forgot to flip it over this morning.
Other than that, this final paragraph is nothing but paranoia.
The Russians were TRYING to make it obvious, to send a message. But were also lazy and
arrogant. And yet also left no solid evidence because they are experts at espionage. They had
no motive except being mean, and couldn't even be bothered to make sure they did it right. They
want us all to know they did it, but will never admit it.
The actual truth of the situation can be summed up in a few bullet points.
Currently:
There is no evidence these men were using forged documents. There is no evidence
these men were travelling under aliases or assumed names. There is no evidence these men ever
had any contact with Sergei Skripal's house. There is no evidence these men ever had any
contact with Sergei Skripal or his daughter. There is no evidence these men were Russian
intelligence assets or had any military training. There is no evidence these men ever possessed
or had any contact with the perfume bottle found by Charlie Rowley on June 27th. They have
visited the UK before, not on intelligence business (as far as we know). Their movements don't
align with the timeline of Skripal's illness.
The entire narrative is created around half a dozen screen caps of two (allegedly) Russian
men, not behaving in any way illegally or even suspiciously. All the rest is fiction, created
by a hack to service an agenda. This isn't one of those "You couldn't make it up" stories, it's
not that incredible. It's just insulting and stupid.
Theresa May demonstrated traits of a psychopath who cling to power using all available to her
means, including criminal. Looks like British version of Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... despite hysterical news broadcasts and front-page headlines regarding "Russian assassins," the public know nothing more substantively about the events of Sunday, March 4, than they did more than six months ago. ..."
"... May did not detail the intelligence she was supposedly acting on. Instead she singled out Russia as the main enemy of the West that had to confronted, declaring, "This chemical weapons attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian behaviour that persistently seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the world." ..."
"... "Back in March, Russia sought to sow doubt and uncertainty about the evidence we presented to this House -- and some were minded to believe them," May told parliament. "Today's announcement shows that we were right." Except that it doesn't. The new narrative is that "Petrov" and "Boshirov" flew into Gatwick airport on Friday, March 2. CCTV footage purportedly verifies this. They checked into a budget hotel in Bow, east London, and the next day, according to police, travelled to Salisbury, staying in the area for several hours, before returning to London. ..."
"... The pair then returned to Salisbury on Sunday, March 4. Police claim they are shown on CCTV at 11:58 a.m., on Wilton Road, "moments before the attack" on Sergei Skripal. ..."
"... Former UK ambassador Craig Murray asked: "1. Why did two alleged GRU agents travel under false names and fake passports, but still use Russian ..."
"... Murray retweeted a statement from a freelance journalist, Neil Clark, pointing out: "If the two men were identified coming through Gatwick, it is impossible that the police do not know what kind of visa they were travelling on. Something is very wrong here -- ties in with the fact that the photos released [showing grainy images of the men's faces on dark backgrounds] are not UK visa standard photos." ..."
"... at precisely the same second ..."
"... Murray points out that the Skripals left their home at 9:15 a.m. on March 4 and were assumed not to have returned home, before they were found collapsed. "But the Metropolitan Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals' doorknob before noon at the earliest." ..."
"... An article on the Off Guardian website noted that the police said the Bow Hotel was "contaminated" with novichok, but no one has been reported ill in six months at the hotel. ..."
"... The government's narrative cannot be taken at face value, especially as it is supplied by the same security services that faked "evidence" of Iraq having "weapons of mass destruction" to justify pre-emptive war against Iraq. ..."
"... Moreover, the timing of the government's latest disclosure is highly suspect. Yesterday, the UK raised its new allegations against Moscow at the United Nations Security Council, after which the US, France, Germany and Canada issued a joint statement that the Russian government "almost certainly" approved the poisoning of the Skripals. ..."
"... The same day the European Union announced it was extending, for a further six months, the sanctions it had imposed on around 150 Russian individuals and 50 companies following the right-wing Western-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. Complaints of Russian aggression in Crimea have been used to carry through a massive NATO build-up on Russia's borders. ..."
"... These measures unfold as the US renews threats over the operation by forces loyal to the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad against Al Qaeda affiliates that control the northwestern province of Idlib. Denouncing the "threat of an imminent Assad regime attack, backed by Russia and Iran," the White House stated that, in the event of a chemical weapons attack, "the United States and its Allies will respond swiftly and appropriately." ..."
The UK government and media have doubled down on their anti-Russian campaign following
Wednesday's announcement by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that two men have been named as
suspects in the poisoning of former Russian/British double agent Sergei Skripal and his
daughter, Yulia.
The police released passport photos and CCTV images of two men in various locations,
including Gatwick Airport and Salisbury. But despite hysterical news broadcasts and
front-page headlines regarding "Russian assassins," the public know nothing more substantively
about the events of Sunday, March 4, than they did more than six months ago.
CPS Director of Legal Services Sue Hemming said that evidence from counter-terrorism police
meant "it is clearly in the public interest to charge Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, who
are Russian nationals," with the attempted murder of Sergei, Yulia and police officer Nick
Bailey.
Prime Minister Theresa May then told parliament that, in addition to the police
investigation, the security and intelligence agencies had conducted their own investigation
and, "based on a body of intelligence, the Government has concluded that the two individuals
named by the police and CPS are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also
known as the GRU."
She added: "So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside
the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state."
The Russian Foreign Ministry has categorically rejected the UK's claims, stating the names
of the two men "do not mean anything to us."
May did not detail the intelligence she was supposedly acting on. Instead she singled
out Russia as the main enemy of the West that had to confronted, declaring, "This chemical
weapons attack on our soil was part of a wider pattern of Russian behaviour that persistently
seeks to undermine our security and that of our allies around the world."
"Back in March, Russia sought to sow doubt and uncertainty about the evidence we
presented to this House -- and some were minded to believe them," May told parliament. "Today's
announcement shows that we were right." Except that it doesn't. The new narrative is that
"Petrov" and "Boshirov" flew into Gatwick airport on Friday, March 2. CCTV footage purportedly
verifies this. They checked into a budget hotel in Bow, east London, and the next day,
according to police, travelled to Salisbury, staying in the area for several hours, before
returning to London.
The pair then returned to Salisbury on Sunday, March 4. Police claim they are shown on
CCTV at 11:58 a.m., on Wilton Road, "moments before the attack" on Sergei Skripal.
The police say two more images show the "suspects at Salisbury train station at 13.50 on
Sunday, 4 March, as they embark on their journey back to London." Another image shows the
"suspects passing through passport control at London Heathrow at 19.28 on Sunday evening (4
March) -- in the image, 'Petrov' is at the front and 'Boshirov' at the back."
May's definitive assertion of Russian authorship was contradicted by Assistant Commissioner
Neil Basu, National Lead for Counter-Terrorism Policing. Asked by the press if he had any
evidence that the two men were Russian State operatives, he said, "No." Basu said in his
statement that "it is likely that they were travelling under aliases and that these are not
their real names."
BBC Security Correspondent Gordon Corera reported that he understood the authorities
identified the pair "a while back" and "may also know their real names." But if so, why are
they not being made public?
Former UK ambassador Craig Murray asked: "1. Why did two alleged GRU agents travel under
false names and fake passports, but still use Russian names and Russian
passports? If they had used EU passports -- say from Lithuania or Estonia for example -- they
wouldn't have needed a visa, thanks to EU freedom of movement agreements, and could still have
spoken Russian without raising suspicion."
Murray retweeted a statement from a freelance journalist, Neil Clark, pointing out: "If
the two men were identified coming through Gatwick, it is impossible that the police do not
know what kind of visa they were travelling on. Something is very wrong here -- ties in with
the fact that the photos released [showing grainy images of the men's faces on dark
backgrounds] are not UK visa standard photos."
Among the glaring oddities in the new account is that the two photos released of "Petrov"
and "Boshirov" shows them both in what appears to be the same space at Gatwick airport at
precisely the same second (16:22:43 on March 2, 2018.) Raising the physically
impossibility, Murray suggests the CCTV images may have been
doctored . The police are now claiming that the two are in different but similar places
passing CCTV cameras at exactly the same time.
The government's latest narrative fails to correspond with claims it has maintained for
months that the Skripals were poisoned by "novichok" being applied to the front door knob of
Sergei's house.
Murray points out that the Skripals left their home at 9:15 a.m. on March 4 and were
assumed not to have returned home, before they were found collapsed. "But the Metropolitan
Police state that Boshirov and Petrov did not arrive in Salisbury until 11.48 on the day of the
poisoning. That means that they could not have applied a nerve agent to the Skripals' doorknob
before noon at the earliest."
An article on the Off Guardian website noted that the police said the Bow Hotel was
"contaminated" with novichok, but no one has been reported ill in six months at the hotel.
Moreover, to contaminate the room "the suspects would have to physically apply the poison to
it, and since they allegedly left [sic] country on March 4th -- the same day as the alleged
attack -- the contamination must have happened BEFORE Sergei Skripal was poisoned."
Also, previously the Metropolitan Police said that it was connecting the poisoning of the
Skripals with that of Dawn Sturgess and her partner Charley Rowley. Dawn died in hospital after
being exposed to what was described as a novichok on July 8. Rowley is now seriously ill with
reported meningitis.
Yet Basu commented, "We don't yet know where the suspects disposed of the Novichok they used
to attack the door, where Dawn and Charlie got the bottle that poisoned them, or if it is the
same bottle used in both poisonings."
The government's narrative cannot be taken at face value, especially as it is supplied
by the same security services that faked "evidence" of Iraq having "weapons of mass
destruction" to justify pre-emptive war against Iraq.
Moreover, the timing of the government's latest disclosure is highly suspect. Yesterday,
the UK raised its new allegations against Moscow at the United Nations Security Council, after
which the US, France, Germany and Canada issued a joint statement that the Russian government
"almost certainly" approved the poisoning of the Skripals.
The same day the European Union announced it was extending, for a further six months,
the sanctions it had imposed on around 150 Russian individuals and 50 companies following the
right-wing Western-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014. Complaints of Russian aggression in Crimea
have been used to carry through a massive NATO build-up on Russia's borders.
May wants the EU to go further and follow the US, which imposed additional sanctions from
August 27 on the basis that Russia had used "chemical weapons in violation of international law
or lethal chemical weapons against its own nationals." This include terminating aid, except on
urgent humanitarian grounds, restricting access to US credit, ending aspects of financing and
prohibiting exports to Russia of "restricted goods or technology." Russia has 90 days to allow
inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to verify it
does not have chemical weapons, or Washington will impose a far more severe set of
sanctions.
These measures unfold as the US renews threats over the operation by forces loyal to the
Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad against Al Qaeda affiliates that control the
northwestern province of Idlib. Denouncing the "threat of an imminent Assad regime attack,
backed by Russia and Iran," the White House stated that, in the event of a chemical weapons
attack, "the United States and its Allies will respond swiftly and appropriately."
Washington and London are not responding out of humanitarian concerns. They have backed the
Al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups in Syria as part of their regime-change operations in the
Middle East, and broader geostrategic objectives against Russia and Iran. As in previous
instances -- Douma in April for example -- Washington's threats amount to an invitation to the
Al Qaeda forces to stage an incident to justify military intervention by the US and its
allies.
On the one hand, the ruling class want us to believe that Russian operations are highly
sophisticated, that we should all live in suspense of when the next incident will occur, that
we should hunger for vengeance, and yet when the media and government provide their
"evidence" it shows that the so-called Russian operatives are incredibly inept. Of course,
what else could be expected from manufactured narratives.
The British ruling class and it's security forces are cold blooded killers for hundreds of
years. There is nothing too savage below them. Nothing they say can be taken at face value.
This whole affair has been a set up from the beginning. As we see know, it is used once
again when needed. Russia is about to make a final push in Syria. This means, if they are
victorious, America and Britain will have been stopped in the Middle East.
England has nothing left to lose. Nothing is off the table for their survival.
Jsut to assume tat two secret agents sent on an assassination plot from the Russian
government would leave such obvious traces is absurd. Using Russian passports, needing a visa
to enter, flying from Russia direct to London and then back... The British want us to think
that the Russian secret service does not know about all the CCTV cameras in London, or
England in general. Or the advanced level of security at Gatwick.
Anti-NATO Russians joke about this "new proof", I have read a funny short poem about it, and
my favorite joke was - looks like there is not even Lestrade in Scotland Yard anymore.
talked about his apprehension of the social media . From the story: He saves his
greatest condemnation for the scourge of fake news and societal manipulation on large social
media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Despite the founders of the social giants
pledging to do more to ensure public debate is not artificially skewed, Plattner believes the
solution will have to come from law enforcement and criminal penalties. He says humans are
genetically wired to thrive on rumours, dating back to ancient times when rumours about what
was going on in the next village would be on everyone's mind. He fears social platforms have
simply become rumour distribution machines of unbelievable power.
"I was very optimistic that social networks would improve access to information and
democracy in general, but I am very disappointed that the opposite is happening," he says.
"Professional information producers undermine the social networks, undermine states and
elections. It is unbelievable what is happening and we have a huge problem." Plattner draws a
parallel with insider trading, which he says is as easy to commit as social media manipulation,
but is not so common because people know they will be slugged with criminal convictions. "This
is all before we look at the exploitation of personal data, where we are naked in front of the
social networks, because we undress ourselves, and not only literally," he says. "I think this
will continue until we have the legal systems properly looking at it, and have strong laws that
people have to obey."
The plot now turned into smuggling operation run by older Skripal, possibly with some participation of this daughter.
There were similar hypothesis about Litvinenko death -- that he was involved n polonium smuggling operation.
The behaviour of two people involved is unprofessional -- they took public transport so they were strictly bounded by train
schedule. But that's logical if they were mules -- used for smuggling some substance to GB.
Notable quotes:
"... As with the fraudulent "Mueller investigation" in the US, despite the united efforts of government officials and a colluding, servile mass-media insisting that there's a (sinister Russian) "there" there, I foolishly thought that the overall absence of actual evidence, or even a plausible rationale connecting the dubious dots, was an overreach that would rapidly reach a fatal point of diminishing returns. ..."
"... But I underestimated the staying power of Big Lies, and the Big Liars who tell them ..."
"... Another oddity, the hotel the men stayed at, which was supposedly contaminated by Novichok as discovered on May the 4th - I did a news search for this hotel for the period March - September 4th and couldn't find a single reference to it being cordoned off or investigated by the police. Did they let people continue to use the hotel without telling them it could be contaminated? ..."
"... EVERYONE knows it's all BS. BUT, everyone talking about it gives it traction. I find this no different than the USA scoundrels worried about Syrian citizens in Idlib. ..."
"... The most worrying angle, as far as I am concerned, is the utter unbelievability of these stories. Exactly in line with 9/11 (three buildings knocked down by two planes), the Boston Marathon bombing, countless supposed multiple murders in the USA that do not seem to have taken place as officially described, MH17, and the Syrian "chemical weapons" attacks. ..."
"... So we had Bolton clearly stating in the media time and time again --- if chemical weapons are found in Idlib it would be a game changer to US policy in Syria, thus prompting those desperate cornered brutal rebels, offering a last way out of there situation. Now we have the prime minister. UK giving a statement about new evidence re Salisbury, chemical Russia. I would put a weeks wage on there being a chemical attack in Syria Idlib enytime now ! This is the UK prime minster aiding a massive brutal crime. ..."
"... It is obvious this whole novichok thing is a false flag op. The only question is why did the UK government did this. ..."
"... UK agencies have a long track record back to before WW2 running operations to get the US into a war. Their recent false flag operations inside the UK are to soften up the US/UK public in advance of the UK managed chemical weapon false flag attack in Syria they are clearly threatening in advance. ..."
"... There are times of the day when 2 passengers could arrive at an empty passport control, enter two different tunnels at the same time and arrive at exactly the same second at equivalent gates. Not many times, because it means that there is no queue at either tunnel. And 16:22 is not one of these times. ..."
"... You think that two members of a highly trained hit squad are going to walk through Heathrow together? You've got to be dreaming. Have you no concept of Operational Security? Dear oh dear... ..."
"... Historian and political analyst Vladimir Kornilov wrote an article for RIA Novosti comparing the famous 1924 SIS forgery, "Zinoviev letter", to the ongoing Skripal affair: https://ria.ru/analytics/20180905/1527822792.html ( machine translation ; the translation is good, except that "the Violins" should read as "the Skripals"). ..."
"... And with all due respect to b I don't think the airport pictures prove much. Who were these two? Why did they go to Salisbury? It looks too sloppy to be GRU. Russian Mafia contract killers is my guess. Unless the whole story is an elaborate MI6 concoction and all the CCTV photos are fake. ..."
"... A beautiful story, this Skripal affair...designed and timed to draw the public into emotional judgments, against reason and logic, immediately prior to the Russian pummeling of jihadi scum. One wonders what sort of blowback arises from such psychological conditioning. Hmmm... ..."
"... As I wrote before, the case reeks of planted evidence. A normal logic of investigation would be to inspect "probable leads" ASAP, and to perform tests ASAP. Instead, the famous door knob was tested with one month delay, and the hotel room, with two month delay. But planting evidence in an improvised mode requires planning and debates how to do it. The logistics of planting evidence are the most plausible explanation why it was done at the place where Skripals lived rather than close to the place where they together lost consciousness. Planting evidence in the hotel is simplicity itself, because it is very easy to do it in a secret lab. ..."
"... Two men (traveling together on Russian passports) are seen leaving a flight from Moscow and (in the most heavily CCTV monitored country in the world), immediately take public transport directly to and from the scene of the crime. ..."
"... Its very hard to imagine that any intelligence agency would be so sloppy as to use their own nationals, own passports, travel together, take direct flights from their own capital, use public transport, make no effort to avoid CCTV, casually dispose of vital evidence where it was certain to be found (a deadly poison left in a brandname perfume box at a charity donation bin? someone was going to open it eventually), etc. There are many more flaws but there are also more significant questions. ..."
"... Is there any strong reason to believe that US or UK intelligence were less likely to poison Skripal than Russia? Did he perhaps have evidence regarding the Steele Dossier they wanted to silence? If so, is there any reason we should not suspect the men in the picture of working for non-Russian intelligence who are deliberately trying to point the finger of blame at Russia? ..."
"... Personally, I think relity is much more mundane: the UK, given its objective reality post-Brexit, simply decided to (re)synchronize (update) its geopolitical position with the USA's. When the USA decided to jump into the madness of Russophobia after Trump's victory, the UK simply had to jump after because it is so dependent on the Americans they kinda didn't have a choice. ..."
"... They need something to try to put pressure on Russia. What tools do they have? "Skripal case", "Russian meddling in elections" (aka "Russian hackers"), "Russian doping", situation in Donbass, illegal detentions/abductions of Russian citizens (Ukraine did it with Kirill Vyshinsky in May, the US did it with Maria Butina recently etc.), cheap provocations with chemical weapons in Syria to accuse Assad/Russia. ..."
"... I would pick three directions - the "Skripal case", fake "chemical attacks" in Syria and deliberate aggravation of the situation in Donbass (terrorist act against DPR head Alexander Zakharchenko is just the beginning) are, apparently (in their opinion), the most effective measures to influence Russia to change its policy in Syria. These tools will be used. Simultaneously, or in a particular order. ..."
"... The key proposition that the police are asserting is that the Skripals were poisoned by 'delayed reaction'. The alleged suspects were out of Salisbury 3 hours before the Skripals exhibited signs of poisoning, nerve agents, however, act immediately. If the 'door handle theory' is not physically possible, which it is not, then that leaves out the assassin hypothesis. Most likely, as I have always said, is that this is about Sergei's skulduggery, he took delivery of the agent from these guys for eventual passing over to the White Helmets via their MI6 handlers. All went pear shaped because of a leaky bottle. Sergei realised something was wrong so hurried his meal so he could check it out, reached the park bench with Julia and the saw that the bottle was leaking and began to feel ill, Julia through the thing away and went down herself. ..."
Some commenters there who claim to be familiar with the airport have already noted that
the men were surely exiting from parallel walkways ("channels"), and/or that the CCTV clock
was simply malfunctioning.
Even if both claims are true, it doesn't explain away the remarkable congruence between
the men's supposedly separate and independent progress through the walkways. Again, some
commenters who purport to be personally familiar with the location assert that there are
visible differences in the "two" walkways shown in the photos-- but to me they look
identical.
This is still another dodgy, ambiguous piece of "evidence" to prop up the ongoing Big Lie.
In the weeks following the Skripal event, the UK officials began making such ludicrous and
incredible assertions that I naïvely expected that their colossal deceit would blow up
in their faces sooner than later.
As with the fraudulent "Mueller investigation" in the US, despite the united efforts of
government officials and a colluding, servile mass-media insisting that there's a (sinister
Russian) "there" there, I foolishly thought that the overall absence of actual evidence, or
even a plausible rationale connecting the dubious dots, was an overreach that would rapidly
reach a fatal point of diminishing returns.
But I underestimated the staying power of Big Lies, and the Big Liars who tell them.
Another oddity, the hotel the men stayed at, which was supposedly contaminated by Novichok as
discovered on May the 4th - I did a news search for this hotel for the period March -
September 4th and couldn't find a single reference to it being cordoned off or investigated
by the police. Did they let people continue to use the hotel without telling them it could be
contaminated? Did nobody notice police and men in hazmat suits there? Or was the name of the
hotel d noticed?
Everyone,,, EVERYONE knows it's all BS. BUT, everyone talking about it gives it traction. I find this no different than the USA scoundrels worried about Syrian citizens in
Idlib. Anything the West says or does is USDA Grade AAA horse hockey.
As to the UK government being able to fake the involvement of GRU agents - remember that
Sergei Skripal himself was a British spy while working for the GRU. Why not others?
The most worrying angle, as far as I am concerned, is the utter unbelievability of these
stories. Exactly in line with 9/11 (three buildings knocked down by two planes), the Boston
Marathon bombing, countless supposed multiple murders in the USA that do not seem to have
taken place as officially described, MH17, and the Syrian "chemical weapons" attacks.
The official explanations of all those stories are so weak and inconsistent that they
would be rejected as plot lines for Dr Who or CSI. So what is their little game? I can think
of two unpleasant possibilities.
They are trying to calibrate exactly how grotesque a set of lies they can pass off
without any public protest or outcry.
They are compiling a list of the few people who are both intelligent and bold enough to
point out the obvious discrepancies in public.
So we had Bolton clearly stating in the media time and time again --- if chemical weapons are
found in Idlib it would be a game changer to US policy in Syria, thus prompting those
desperate cornered brutal rebels, offering a last way out of there situation. Now we have the prime minister. UK giving a statement about new evidence re
Salisbury, chemical Russia. I would put a weeks wage on there being a chemical attack in Syria
Idlib enytime now ! This is the UK prime minster aiding a massive brutal crime.
This prime minister got in to power by a slim margine on the back of 3 false flag terror
attacks 2 in London one in Manchester persuading the public to go for the get tough vote .
Are we gulable or what ?
UK agencies have a long track record back to before WW2 running operations to get the US into
a war. Their recent false flag operations inside the UK are to soften up the US/UK public in
advance of the UK managed chemical weapon false flag attack in Syria they are clearly
threatening in advance.
This is beyond ridiculous that the dried out husk of the UK is beating its chest for war
with Russia. I almost wish that they would get their war and be beaten flat.
Just yesterday the Russian embassy in the UK released this statement: Today marks exactly six months since the Russian citizens Sergei and Yulia Skripal were
taken to Salisbury District Hospital under obscure circumstances...
There are times of the day when 2 passengers could arrive at an empty passport control, enter
two different tunnels at the same time and arrive at exactly the same second at equivalent
gates.
Not many times, because it means that there is no queue at either tunnel.
And 16:22 is not one of these times.
My experience through those boarding bridges is that when boarding people walk normal pace
and when exiting they do so at a faster pace down the bridge. I guess they want get to their
luggage quickly.
Køn @ 14 "In fact anyone insisting that this timestamp is some gotcha loses a lot of
credibility in my eyes."
Don't be a gallah, Køn! You think that two members of a highly trained hit
squad are going to walk through Heathrow together? You've got to be dreaming. Have you no
concept of Operational Security? Dear oh dear...
The two strong-looking men take it in turns to carry what looks like a light backpack which
is kind of odd in itself. If nerve gas had either been sprayed or smeared, one or both would
have to have used a full protective suit, which consists of a bulky gas mask, jacket,
trousers and substantial boots, which would have called for a much bigger backpack.
These photos show the same time but different locations. These are the security barriers
between passport control and the baggage reclaim hall, there are a number of parallel gates
that open automatically and are monitored by CCTV. The high resolution photos on the Met
website show a different camera angles: The Petrov photo shows a white flat surface with a
thin red stripe in the lower right corner and the top of the wall panels on the upper left.
The Boshirov picture show a much wider red stripe (and no white surface) and the top of the
panels is not visible. So you have two different gates entered at the same time.
I'm no expert but allow me to play devil's advocate. What if they have two cameras on
different angles with separate receivers in case one goes offline and their clock is not in
sync so the second camera stamps same time when it's one second later on first. It just seems
that if there was Photoshop involved they would think of changing the timestamp and inserting
person in precisely same angle. Of course it doesn't explain why they would take pictures
from two different cameras, but maybe face appeared clearer?
Which airports have parallel disimabarkation tunnels then? I've been through 4 airports in 3
different countries in the past two months and each time it was a single tunnel. The only
time I've seen two tunnels was when I was on a flight witha first class and even then it sort
of branched off, near the door of the plane.
Could it be the same corridor at two different locations at the same moment? This would
explain the different angles of the cameras, which maybe were placed at a similar location to
the railings etc.
Historian and political analyst Vladimir Kornilov wrote an article for RIA Novosti
comparing the famous 1924 SIS forgery, "Zinoviev letter", to the ongoing Skripal affair:
https://ria.ru/analytics/20180905/1527822792.html
(
machine translation ; the translation is good, except that "the Violins" should read as
"the Skripals").
Deltaeus... kindly please desist from insulting me in anitpodean. I make no assertions about trained or untrained hit squads or how they might behave. I am merely saying that anyone who thinks these timestamps represent anything suspicious
or out of the ordinary is chasing their own tails.
The UK authorities present pictures of two men that travelled together on a flight from
Moscow to London Gatwick. They went through parallel security sluices at the same time as
they were walking together. At which point they were automatically photographed. It could
just as easily have been that the time stamp was 1 second apart or even 2 seconds, or as is
in fact the case, less than 1 second apart. NOTE: They may have triggered the automatic
camera 999ms apart and still had the same timestamp so it is not strictly accurate to say
that they were pictured at exactly the same time. The sluice appears to be about 4 metres
long up to the point where the camera is triggered. I can walk 4 metres in less than 2
seconds. Which does not give a large time frame in which the walking pace of these two men
can diverge.
There is so much more suspicious and contentious in todays UK announcement that it is
ridiculous and counter productive to waste time on an easily explained time stamp.
This is an obvious fabrication of evidence. What they did was to take 2 photos from the same
tunnel using the same camera at different times, but with the camera rotated about 20 degrees
between them (notice the slightly different fish-eye lens distortions). Afterwards they
flipped one of the images horizontally and added time-stamps to the images, but forgot to
change the times between them.
Gatwick not Heathrow. I highly suggest reading the
comments to Craig Murray's blog post. Yes, as here there're some repetitive comments, but
many good points are also raised. Perhaps the best is the lack of a "tag" identifying the
camera location as at the security station you have many CCTV images that are very similar:
Something like Jetway2 Customs4, or some such. IMO, the photos and story are contrived just
as the rest of the hoax is--except for the fact that at least one person has died and likely
the Skripals most certainly--she wanted to return to Russia and take Sergei with her.
Well done UK comrades! So now you will release all the cctv from the original Salisbury
incident so we can see every detail of the cunning ruskies eh! including the entire street
videos, Mill pub and park videos too; and in high resolution this time please. Plus as the
case is solved would you be so kind as to release the complete OPCW reports and the Porton
Down reports too.
Can't have enough open government in the worlds foremost democracy now, can we?
Sy Hersch blames the poisoning of Skripals on the Russian mafia who found out he was working
with MI6 to reveal their European operations.
Could these two guys be of the Russian mafia? Them being not of the Russian IC might
explain how the poison was less than lethal for all who came in contact.
@49 Sorry Sy but your theory doesn't hold up. Teresa May has said they were from the GRU.
Here are her exact words...
"Based on this work, I can today tell the House that, based on a body of intelligence,
the Government has concluded that the two individuals named by the police and CPS are
officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU.
The GRU is a highly disciplined organisation with a well-established chain of command.
So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at
a senior level of the Russian state."
Here is an interesting side note, relating to the statement made by "Sue Hemming, the CPS
director of legal services" (e.g. as in
this Guardian piece .
We will not be applying to Russia for the extradition of these men as the Russian
constitution does not permit extradition of its own nationals. Russia has made this clear
following requests for extradition in other cases. Should this position change then an
extradition request would be made.
This is a blatant lie. Russia's Constitution (available here in Russian states the following in Article 63,
Section 2:
В Российской
Федерации не
допускается
выдача другим
государствам
лиц,
преследуемых
за
политические
убеждения, а
также за
действия (или
бездействие),
не
признаваемые
в Российской
Федерации
преступлением.
Выдача лиц,
обвиняемых в
совершении
преступления,
а также
передача
осужденных
для отбывания
наказания в
других
государствах
осуществляются
на основе
федерального
закона или
международного
договора
Российской
Федерации.
Which means (my own translation, but Google Translate is your friend if you do not believe
me):
In the Russian Federation it is not permitted to extradite to other states individuals
who are persecuted for their political beliefs, as well as for actions (or inaction) that are
not deemed criminal in the Russian Federation. Extradition of individuals accused of
committing a crime, as well as transfer of convicts to serve their sentences in other states,
is performed on the basis of federal law or international agreements of the Russian
Federation.
I must confess that I am not up on the most current version of Russian criminal law, but I
believe "attempted murder utilizing a banned chemical weapon" does still qualify as a crime
over there, and, moreover, is not considered "political beliefs". But, of course, an official
extradition requests would entail also handing over the Crown's evidence against the accused,
which...well, clearly there is so much of it that the Crown just doesn't wish to share
any.
Perhaps the best is the lack of a "tag" identifying the camera location as at the security
station you have many CCTV images that are very similar: Something like Jetway2 Customs4,
or some such.
Se my post @45 (animation link). The camera location is the same in both images,
they just rotated the camera, and flipped one image horizontally. If you download the MET
"originals" and repeat what I did you find the match to be 100%. With identical time stamps,
you know this is fabricated evidence. There is really no other plausible or (even possible)
explanation.
It isn't the GRU (Glavnoye Razdevyvatel'noye Upravleniye, Main Intelligence Directorate) any
more. In 2010, the name was changed to GU (Glavnoye Upravleniye, Main Directorate).
"Norwegian" is correct. These pics have been tampered with bigly. "Kon" points out that one
has a "red line" while one has a more solid looking red area. That is explained by the
picture flipping and tilting. The red line is a framelike border of something. In one pic we
see that part that's further from the camera and it looks like a slim red line. In the other
pic we see the part of it which is closer to the camera, and is ALSO the corner of the line,
so it appears to be something completely different when it's actually just 2 parts of the
same puzzle.
My bet is that they were taken at different times of day, those tunnels always let natural
light in. Unless a filter was intentionally applied(to further suggest two tunnels). There
has been some photoshop fussing with the other identifying blobs - like the dirt on the
camera lense and on the floors have been erased or blurred in the flipped pic! It's mad
obvious.
Thanks Norwegian, I am posting that gif all over the place.
Thanks for your reply! Another comment mentioned the ability of such digital cameras to
self-crop as both pics are cropped as someone provided the pixel dimensions. IMO, this is
just more BigLie piled atop the preceding BigLies--doubling-down is the Neocon way after all.
All timed with Idlib, no doubt. My question along with many others: Where are the other
passengers having to travel through the same portals?
My explanation: Human images were added to an image(s) of an empty portal(s).
"It is virtually a confession from the police". Yes, one doesn't know whether to be hopeful
of a whistleblower, or just devastated at the incompetence of the so-called intelligence
agencies behind these fabrications. It's hardly ever the former unfortunately.
Nice work with the gif, it appears exactly how you describe it... just amazing fuckery. Re:
the timestamp, its so sloppy it pretty much a taunt: 'none of you sheep give a toss cos
there's not a critical thought amongst ya'
@65 Good question. And with all due respect to b I don't think the airport pictures prove
much. Who were these two? Why did they go to Salisbury? It looks too sloppy to be GRU. Russian Mafia contract killers is my guess. Unless the whole story is an elaborate MI6 concoction and all the CCTV photos are
fake.
It may be the release of this material was scheduled to coincide with the US sanctions
announced a few weeks ago, as those were said to be motivated by the Skripal case, but then
held back for domestic political reasons, as May's position has weakened just the past two
weeks. The bonus gratuitous finger-pointing at Corbyn would serve its purpose today or back
in August.
It all relies ultimately on" a body of evidence gathered by intelligence" and we know from
recent past experiences of anglo/ ameriocan Intelligence that that cannot be trusted to be
either valid or reliable .
Please people these photos were taken in exactly the same place. Nothing has been
rotated.
Notice on the right hand side there is a a small piece of a red security notice in the two
photos. You will need to see the original police photos to see this. In only one of the four
lanes is that possible. The one on the right as viewed from the exit. notice that this is the
only lane where the steel handrail on the right extends so far on the white panel. Two
different photos of the same lane with the same timestamp. ???? I'd say in both images are
fake.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1570429,-0.1626642,2a,89.7y,192.36h,83.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5aRAGxER5MlF-9kpw8ZyRQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Ort 17
Yes, it appears, like me, you are enjoying our latest visit to Wonderland where a great many
things are possible... all you need to do is believe. Christopher Steele has done a smackdown
job of reinvigorating the Non Fiction shelves at my library. Who knew high treason and golden
showers could ever work together.
A beautiful story, this Skripal affair...designed and timed to draw the public into
emotional judgments, against reason and logic, immediately prior to the Russian pummeling
of jihadi scum. One wonders what sort of blowback arises from such psychological conditioning. Hmmm...
I wouldn't say these images prove anything either way.
Perhaps they are doctored, but what if they were from customs entry points side-by-side?
The two men have been walking together so presumably they'd go through the customs walkways
at exactly the same time. These are not photos from the walkway off the plane - that much is clear.
On the spectrum of what is going on you have to go from one end (all this evidence is
completely fabricated - these might be images of 'dead men' so no one can step
© missannawebb / Instagram In one of the least surprising developments in an ongoing story, the Sun newspaper has been forced to remove a report from its website in which a Russian model claims Vladimir Putin is trying to kill her. The article has since been removed " for legal reasons, " and, some are speculating, probably for some 'truth' reasons as well.
'Putin wants me dead': Russian 'model' seduces UK tabloids with new Salisbury poisoning claims
'Alexander Petrov' and 'Ruslan Boshirov' are seen in an image handed out by the Metropolitan Police in London, Britain / Reuters Moscow is aware of who the people named as suspects in the Skripal case are, President Vladimir Putin said, adding that these people are civilians. Saying that there is "nothing criminal" about the two, Putin also hopes that the people in question will eventually come forward and talk to the media.
British prosecutors name the 2 Russians suspected of poisoning the Skripals
Names of 'Russian suspects' in Skripal case published by UK don't mean anything to us – Moscow
British PM says two suspects in Skripals poisoning case are Russian military intelligence officers
'No cause for further investigation' into 14 deaths of people linked to Russia – May
