Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 01:25:41 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Bond villain strikes again?

Started by Alberon, March 05, 2018, 06:52:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Skip Bittman

What exactly is so appealing about Putin that inspires one to be contrarian to the point of denying 2 decades of history? Surely he's as loathsome as the evil members of the globalist neoliberal legion of doom.

biggytitbo

Why don't you stick to actual facts about what he's done then, rather than making stuff up?


We know opposition groups in Russia are furious about how the West continually bigs up Putin as a global mastermind of evil, it empowers him and disempowers them, and is massively out of proportion with his actual status.

Buelligan

OK.  Tell me who you think killed Berezovsky, if you would be so kind, bigs.

jobotic

Who's "we"?

What is his actual status?

Talulah, really!

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 05, 2018, 10:26:21 PM
No, that was disproved in the trial itself, there is no way to trace the source of Polonium and it can and is produced all over the world:

"Is" produced all over the world? Can you back that statement up with a list of the reactor locations and countries that are currently producing Polonium 210?

While you are at it, can you find me the section in the inquiry transcripts where Scientist A1 'flatly contradicts' Professor Domeby's advice as no source is given for this in the article?

Buelligan

Or who was behind the apartment bombings?

Remember "We will hunt down the terrorists everywhere and if we catch them on the toilet, we will waste them in the outhouse"?
  0.40 onwards, Berezovsky at 1.30.

Quote from: WikipediaOn 23 March 2013, Berezovsky was found dead at his home, Titness Park, at Sunninghill, near Ascot in Berkshire. His body was found by a bodyguard in a locked bathroom, with a ligature around his neck.

Cuellar


biggytitbo

Quote from: Buelligan on March 06, 2018, 09:11:45 AM
OK.  Tell me who you think killed Berezovsky, if you would be so kind, bigs.


I've no idea, who do you think killed him? Do you think he was murdered? If we believe the western media pretty much all the FSB does is go around the world murdering people they have old feuds with.

ieXush2i

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 05, 2018, 07:51:47 PM
What is the actual evidence the FSB/Putin was responsible for Litvinenko's death? - https://off-guardian.org/2017/12/12/the-litvinenko-inquiry-a-legal-critique-and-alternative-view/


At best it appears to be a pretty thin circumstantial case. The writer of the above legal critique of the dodgy pseudo-trial thinks the two people Russians found guilty in their absence might have done it (and its a big might), but that the case they were ever affiliated with the FSB is virtually non-exist.


Reading that its striking how many similarities there are to Russiagate, how the underlying evidence completely fails to support how massively overstated the case made by the media is, almost as if the case itself was irrelevant and was just being used as a vehicle to attack Russia regardless of the evidence.

This Mercouris seems a trustworthy sort, certainly not the kind of person who would lie for money.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Talulah, really! on March 06, 2018, 09:21:22 AM
"Is" produced all over the world? Can you back that statement up with a list of the reactor locations and countries that are currently producing Polonium 210?

While you are at it, can you find me the section in the inquiry transcripts where Scientist A1 'flatly contradicts' Professor Domeby's advice as no source is given for this in the article?


Its in her concluding statements here - http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence


She agrees it could have come from the Russian facility, but doesnt believe it was the only possible source -


QuoteI do not think that Prof Dombey is correct to exclude the very real possibility that it could have been produced elsewhere

Buelligan

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 06, 2018, 09:40:27 AM

I've no idea, who do you think killed him? Do you think he was murdered? If we believe the western media pretty much all the FSB does is go around the world murdering people they have old feuds with.

Do you think he wasn't murdered?

What do you think the FSB does?

ieXush2i

Every country murders people, why are you focused on Russia

Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 05, 2018, 07:51:47 PM
What is the actual evidence the FSB/Putin was responsible for Litvinenko's death? - https://off-guardian.org/2017/12/12/the-litvinenko-inquiry-a-legal-critique-and-alternative-view/


That article is very poor. It spends a considerable time criticising the inquiry for behaving in a way that would be inappropriate for a trial. An inquiry isn't a trial, as the article acknowledges, so all those criticisms are something of a waste of time. It then accepts that there is circumstantial evidence against Luguvoi and Kovtun (and that's all that's needed for an inquiry, as opposed to a trial, to make a finding). Finally it tries to argue that the involvement of the Russian State cannot be deduced from the public evidence, and that the inquiry report maintains it can. This seems to just be untrue. The article says:

QuoteSince we do not know what the secret evidence [evidence provided by the UK Security Services and sealed in the final report] is, it is impossible to comment on it. However the Judge said in the Inquiry report that his conclusion that the Russian state was "probably" responsible for Litvinenko's death is made out by the publicly disclosed evidence.

It is on that evidence therefore that his conclusions stand or fall, and it is to that evidence – and the Judge's handling of it – that I shall now turn.

On the contrary, Owen says explicitly in the report:

QuoteIn my judgement, these matters amount to strong circumstantial evidence of Russian State responsibility for the killing of Mr Litvinenko. Having additionally taken into account the closed evidence, my findings are as follows.
9.200    When Mr Lugovoy poisoned Mr Litvinenko (as I have found that he did), it is probable that he did so under the direction of the FSB. I would add that I regard that as a strong probability. I have found that Mr Kovtun also took part in the poisoning; I conclude therefore that he was also acting under FSB direction, possibly indirectly through Mr Lugovoy but probably to his knowledge.

This totally undermines the remainder of the article's critique, which is solely based on the public evidence. I'd recommend that anyone interested reads Owen's report

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf

rather than trusting the frankly mendacious article Biggy linked there.

Ray Travez

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 05, 2018, 07:51:47 PM
What is the actual evidence the FSB/Putin was responsible for Litvinenko's death?

At best it appears to be a pretty thin circumstantial case.

It never quite added up to me.

If Putin was responsible, why would he choose such an odd method, as opposed to a bullet in the head? Litvinenko's slow death allowed him to run his mouth off against Putin in the world's press for several weeks. I can't see how Putin would view that as a favourable outcome.


Pdine

Quote from: Ray Travez on March 06, 2018, 10:17:33 AM
It never quite added up to me.

If Putin was responsible, why would he choose such an odd method, as opposed to a bullet in the head? Litvinenko's slow death allowed him to run his mouth off against Putin in the world's press for several weeks. I can't see how Putin would view that as a favourable outcome.

The theory is that it was a deliberate signal to other FSB officers not to commit what the Russian state saw as treason. The polonium was much more expensive that alternative poisons, but sent a message about state involvement. After the killing, Putin gave Lugovoi the accused poisoner an public award for services to the Russian state.

Pdine

Quote from: (Ex poster) on March 06, 2018, 09:56:00 AM
This Mercouris seems a trustworthy sort, certainly not the kind of person who would lie for money.

Yes - going to the site he writes for 'Russia Insider', its headlines at the moment include:

It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo
Pragmatic Cooperation With Russia - We Americans Should Admit the Time Has Come
Putin Made His Speech, Now Watch the US Bankrupt Itself in Response
Russia Shoots Down America's UN Resolution on the War on Yemen. US Should Get Ready for Many More
If You Had Leaders Like Putin and Xi Wouldn't You Want Them to Stay on Past Two Terms?


FFS

Fambo Number Mive

QuoteIf You Had Leaders Like Putin and Xi Wouldn't You Want Them to Stay on Past Two Terms?

No. It's hard to object to China wanting to get rid of the term limits, especially as Britain doesn't have them, but having Putin or Xi as a leader would be dreadful.

jobotic

Quote from: Pdine on March 06, 2018, 10:31:49 AM
Yes - going to the site he writes for 'Russia Insider', its headlines at the moment include:

It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo
Pragmatic Cooperation With Russia - We Americans Should Admit the Time Has Come
Putin Made His Speech, Now Watch the US Bankrupt Itself in Response
Russia Shoots Down America's UN Resolution on the War on Yemen. US Should Get Ready for Many More
If You Had Leaders Like Putin and Xi Wouldn't You Want Them to Stay on Past Two Terms?


FFS

Come on, that looks much more reliable than the MSM. Except for News Corp.

ieXush2i

Quote from: Pdine on March 06, 2018, 10:31:49 AM
Yes - going to the site he writes for 'Russia Insider', its headlines at the moment include:

It's Time to Drop the Jew Taboo
Pragmatic Cooperation With Russia - We Americans Should Admit the Time Has Come
Putin Made His Speech, Now Watch the US Bankrupt Itself in Response
Russia Shoots Down America's UN Resolution on the War on Yemen. US Should Get Ready for Many More
If You Had Leaders Like Putin and Xi Wouldn't You Want Them to Stay on Past Two Terms?


FFS

https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/07/barrister-who-was-disbarred-after-forging-lady-hale-letter-sued-for-200000-by-ex-client/

Ray Travez

Quote from: Pdine on March 06, 2018, 10:23:34 AM
The theory is that it was a deliberate signal to other FSB officers not to commit what the Russian state saw as treason. The polonium was much more expensive that alternative poisons, but sent a message about state involvement.

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense now. The polonium is a kind of signature.

Quote from: Pdine on March 06, 2018, 10:23:34 AM
After the killing, Putin gave Lugovoi the accused poisoner an public award for services to the Russian state.

Well ain't that cute!

biggytitbo

Quote from: Pdine on March 06, 2018, 10:03:54 AM
That article is very poor. It spends a considerable time criticising the inquiry for behaving in a way that would be inappropriate for a trial. An inquiry isn't a trial, as the article acknowledges, so all those criticisms are something of a waste of time. It then accepts that there is circumstantial evidence against Luguvoi and Kovtun (and that's all that's needed for an inquiry, as opposed to a trial, to make a finding). Finally it tries to argue that the involvement of the Russian State cannot be deduced from the public evidence, and that the inquiry report maintains it can. This seems to just be untrue. The article says:

On the contrary, Owen says explicitly in the report:

This totally undermines the remainder of the article's critique, which is solely based on the public evidence. I'd recommend that anyone interested reads Owen's report

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf

rather than trusting the frankly mendacious article Biggy linked there.

Haha somebody really wants to believe don't they? Why have the 'trial' at all then, if the real evidence they did it was some special secret whispered into the judge's ear by MI5? I mean you're actually criticising him for not having access to secret evidence? He, like everyone else, you, me, the press (who were more than convinced by what was aired to the court), can only go on what is publicly offered as evidence in the 'trial' and as he quite adequately explains this was extremely thin as to specifically FSB responsibility. None of us can know what rival spooks said in secret but there's little to no reason for us to take them at their word.

And if you actually think its ok to essentially convict men for murder on the basis of secret evidence then say so.

And this is quite true -
QuoteAny legal proceedings which examine a case of murder and which pronounce on the guilt or innocence of the individuals accused is in effect a trial.



What this really tells me is that you, Pdine, are so gullible you not only believe very poor evidence you know about and that exists, you also definitely believe secret evidence you've never seen and don't even know exists. No wonder you love Russiagate so much.

Buelligan

Are you suggesting that no "secret service" does any wrong?  None of them are responsible for any crimes?  No murders, no bombings, no torture, nothing?

Skip Bittman

#52
Quote from: biggytitbo on March 06, 2018, 09:09:26 AM
Why don't you stick to actual facts about what he's done then, rather than making stuff up?


We know opposition groups in Russia are furious about how the West continually bigs up Putin as a global mastermind of evil, it empowers him and disempowers them, and is massively out of proportion with his actual status.

So he's not even JUST AS BAD as the evil neoliberal globalists?

Not even a "pox on both their houses?"

What exactly have I made up here? What "actual facts?" Why would actual facts matter when you are adept at ignoring any used and going off on delicious, mad tangents.

I'm just wondering what's so appealing about this guy that sparks such feisty contrarianism. You do it very well, and very consistently. Why? Admittedly I used to really enjoy when he'd make fun of Bush to his face, but then I was feeling helpless circa 2001-3 during the endless wartime drumbeat to the Iraq war that completely engulfed my country and made it all a bit Twilight Zone. I still can't accept "Department of Homeland Security." But finding humor in that didn't make me think Putin was any less of disgrace than Bush. Besides, by then I had been to Moscow and chatted with drunk Russians about this jerkoff.

It's not like Putin is the Prince of Peace when it comes to meddling in other countries. So why stick up for a piece of shit like that?

ieXush2i

Anyone seen that Icarus doc yet?

Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 06, 2018, 10:49:49 AM
Haha somebody really wants to believe don't they? Why have the 'trial' at all then, if the real evidence they did it was some special secret whispered into the judge's ear by MI5? I mean you're actually criticising him for not having access to secret evidence?

No, I'm criticising him for deliberately misrepresenting what the inquiry report says. Why would he do that?

QuoteHe, like everyone else, you, me, the press (who were more than convinced by what was aired to the court), can only go on what is publicly offered as evidence in the 'trial' and as he quite adequately explains this was extremely thin as to specifically FSB responsibility. None of us can know what rival spooks said in secret but there's little to no reason for us to take them at their word.

Little reason to deduce anything from information we don't have, positive or negative.

QuoteAnd if you actually think its ok to essentially convict men for murder on the basis of secret evidence then say so.

A finding of an inquiry is not a conviction. This is basic stuff.

QuoteAnd this is quite true -

No, it isn't. That's a fundamental misrepresentation by Mercouris and now you.

QuoteWhat this really tells me is that you, Pdine, are so gullible you not only believe very poor evidence you know about and that exists, you also definitely believe secret evidence you've never seen and don't even know exists. No wonder you love Russiagate so much.

You on the other hand believe an article whose argument hinges on an easily checkable lie.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Pdine on March 06, 2018, 10:23:34 AM
The theory is that it was a deliberate signal to other FSB officers not to commit what the Russian state saw as treason. The polonium was much more expensive that alternative poisons, but sent a message about state involvement. After the killing, Putin gave Lugovoi the accused poisoner an public award for services to the Russian state.


Litvinenko was a lowly figure in the FSB though wasn't he, and that was years ago. Just this idea that the FSB spend all the time settling old scores in very public and obvious ways seem a bit odd. And no, polonium wasn't that expensive, it was in the realms of a few thousand, well within any private sector operation. And no, the award Putin gave Lugovoi was for his services to the Russian parliament, he is an MP there. I don't doubt the timing was intended to be two fingers up to the UK though.

biggytitbo

Quote from: Buelligan on March 06, 2018, 10:56:57 AM
Are you suggesting that no "secret service" does any wrong?  None of them are responsible for any crimes?  No murders, no bombings, no torture, nothing?

No, i'm suggesting there aren't good and bad guys. Craig Murray puts it well - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/skripal-no-litvinenko/

QuoteBut I moved long ago past a world view where my country are the "goodies" and Russians are the "baddies", and instead I reached an understanding that those in power oppress the people, universally. The idea that the elaborate spy games between world intelligence agencies are a battle between right and wrong, is for the story books. They are all wrong, all part of a system where power over people is controlled for the benefit of the wealthy, and battles are over hard resources, whichever "side" you are on.



biggytitbo

Quote from: Pdine on March 06, 2018, 11:03:52 AM
No, I'm criticising him for deliberately misrepresenting what the inquiry report says. Why would he do that?

Little reason to deduce anything from information we don't have, positive or negative.

A finding of an inquiry is not a conviction. This is basic stuff.

No, it isn't. That's a fundamental misrepresentation by Mercouris and now you.

You on the other hand believe an article whose argument hinges on an easily checkable lie.

It doesn't hinge on a lie, it hinges on the case made at the trial and presented to the public and press. That is all we have to go on. That case was thin and unconvincing, even after all the time, witnesses and millions spent they were unable to prove that:

- The polonium came from Russia
- That the two suspected men had any connections to the FSB

Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 06, 2018, 11:04:48 AM

Litvinenko was a lowly figure in the FSB though wasn't he, and that was years ago.

It was - the argument goes - more about his books that leaked a load of internal FSB information, and his public accusations that the FSB had sought to assassinate Boris Berezovsky.

QuoteJust this idea that the FSB spend all the time settling old scores in very public and obvious ways seem a bit odd. And no, polonium wasn't that expensive, it was in the realms of a few thousand, well within any private sector operation.

Hundreds of times more expensive than cyanide though. Why use it?

QuoteAnd no, the award Putin gave Lugovoi was for his services to the Russian parliament, he is an MP there. I don't doubt the timing was intended to be two fingers up to the UK though.

So you acknowledge that the overt reason for the award was spurious? Lugovoi's political career grew out of his lauding by ultra-Nationalists as a righteous executioner (not unlike Ollie North's media career post-Iran Contra). By publicly rewarding him for his 'parliamentary work' Putin is doing little to undermine that narrative.

Pdine

Quote from: biggytitbo on March 06, 2018, 11:10:49 AM
It doesn't hinge on a lie, it hinges on the case made at the trial and presented to the public and press. That is all we have to go on.

It lies when it says that the Inquiry report relied solely on the public evidence in making its finding that Russia probably ordered the killing. That makes the whole rest of the argument moot, as the report itself clearly says it relied on both the public and closed evidence in making that finding of probability.