Bond villain strikes again, again?

[phantom_power]

Well, don't we all just look silly then (and a good example of why you should quote who you are responding to)

[Buelligan]

I was responded to you, Buelligan posted whilst I was writing it.


Buelligan's theory might be true but it feels like it only works if the 'poisoner' (can't really call them murderer) is some kind of freelance person still at large in Britain and this is like the plot of a Columbo episode.

Or if they work, full time or freelance, for an organisation with a permanent presence in the UK.

Did you read what I posted directory above you?

etc

Yes, it popped up when I pressed post and it amused me to go ahead anyway, you obviously see the joke.  So pleasant that we can share it.

[biggytitbo]

Or if they work, full time or freelance, for an organisation with a permanent presence in the UK.

MI5? Porton Down? Greggs?

[Paul Calf]

Usual Mail bullshit caveats - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5980433/Salisbury-Novichok-victim-Charlie-Rowleys-brother-says-kept-police-safe-house.html

So he's locked up in a room unable to watch tv or read a newspaper and can only phone relatives under tight conditions using a government phone? Definitely not, like the Skripals, any kind of prisoner then.

This bit -
Sounds like someone recounting a dream.

Biggy, is this Daily Mail bullshit and if so why do you immediately treat is as factual in the sentence after the quote?

[biggytitbo]

I could caveat every sentence with 'if true, ' if that helps you?

[Buelligan]

I think it probably would. 

MI5? Porton Down? Greggs?

It's not my business to guess but if I had to I'd say it could be the Russians, they are interested in destablising Europe/Britain and it would probably kill two birds if they focused any attack on people who'd already throughly pissed them off.  Equally, it could be the Russians, intentionally making it look as if they wanted to kill Skripal because the Brits may have doubted information given to them by him and this faux assassination makes him look more trustworthy.  It might be the Americans, they're all about fucking Europe up the arse and pulling the UK towards the US as a vassal state - making Britain feel vulnerable is a classic way of doing that and a classic way of galvanising anti-Russian feeling internationally at a time when other anti-Russian issues are surfacing.  It could've been done by the Israelis looking to increase the rifts between Russia and the ROW.  It could've been done by a mad scientist or lab technician from Porton Down due to a sort of Munchausen syndrome by proxy or because they hate old men or a laugh that went a bit wrong.  Who the fuck can be sure until they know?  But I think we all know that some explanations are more likely than others, though, of course, that does not mean they are the correct explanations.

[Buelligan]

Oh and I've just thought of another one.  You know all this stuff about Russia influencing western politics.  What if it was done to make someone like Johnson (a little friend of Trump) look heroic to the tranche of the British electorate stuffed to the gunwales with xenophobic head-scratchers?  That could fly couldn't it?

[Neville Chamberlain]

Imagine waking up in the morning and thinking this was a good idea.

[Buelligan]

Imagine being the sort of person that sees it and thinks he would make a good leader.  Now multiply that number.  Frightening stuff.  #boatymcboatface 

[Paul Calf]

He's doing a semaphore 'c' there. Wonder what that could stand for?

I could caveat every sentence with 'if true, ' if that helps you?

It'd be helpful - to you, at least - if you could decide what point you were trying to make before you started bashing your head against the keyboard. Just a thought.

[biggytitbo]

It could've been done by a mad scientist or lab technician from Porton Down due to a sort of Munchausen syndrome by proxy or because they hate old men or a laugh that went a bit wrong.  Who the fuck can be sure until they know?  But I think we all know that some explanations are more likely than others, though, of course, that does not mean they are the correct explanations.

If you look at the Bruce Ivins case, IF ITS TRUE (which it isnt, but lets pretend for a moment), the idea is he was a biological weapons specialist who was also a bit of a super patriot nut, hated muslims and wanted to create a provocation that would be blamed on them. Maybe this is a similar situation but its a nut who hates Russia or wants to create a provocation against Putin? That could be at Porton Down, or elsewhere, since we know Novichok was both out on the black market and reproducible by multiple countries. The timing and the crude fingerprints of Russia on the attack make it look very likely an attempt to frame Russia in much the same way Ivins, IF ITS TRUE, allegedly was trying to frame Muslims.

I personally don't believe the Russian security service leave suspiciously obvious fingerprints behind on their top secret operations - just like Guccifer 2.0 may as well have left a note behind saying 'I'm Russian', this use of an exotic assassination method that will immediately be traced back to Russia is a bit too crude to be believable.

[Paul Calf]

...or is that what they want you to think?

[biggytitbo]

IF ITS TRUE

[BlodwynPig]

...or is that what they want you to think?

Or it's what they want they to think

[Buelligan]

And don't forget, there is a thing we talk about which we call acting with impunity.  Often, this thing is done to show an opponent that it can be done and they can do fuck all about it.

The reality is, none of us has any reason to believe any of these explanations, pushing one more than another with no concrete evidence is simply partisanship.  That's a normal human thing but it's nothing like the truth.

[biggytitbo]

And don't forget, there is a thing we talk about which we call acting with impunity.  Often, this thing is done to show an opponent that it can be done and they can do fuck all about it.

Except the international opprobrium, exposure of their supposed super top secret assassinations program, mass expulsion of Russian diplomats and the wrecking of the long standing protocols about spy exchanges you mean? The 'acting with impunity' stuff that was pushed around the time of Skripal was just a lame framing device to make 'this makes no sense but we want to blame it on Russia' sound credible in the a superficial way that can then be asserted confidently by fake Russia pundits on the news.

[Alberon]

They would probably consider that worth it to stop future traitors.

[Buelligan]

Except the international opprobrium, exposure of their supposed super top secret assassinations program, mass expulsion of Russian diplomats and the wrecking of the long standing protocols about spy exchanges you mean? The 'acting with impunity' stuff that was pushed around the time of Skripal was just a lame framing device to make 'this makes no sense but we want to blame it on Russia' sound credible in the a superficial way that can then be asserted confidently by fake Russia pundits on the news.

You can think about it like that if you choose, nevertheless, until we have evidence, proof, of what happened and why it did, all speculations are speculative.  Choosing or pushing for any particular culprit's guilt or innocence is simply partisan opinion (as I've already said).

[Dr Rock]

You can think about it like that if you choose, nevertheless, until we have evidence, proof, of what happened and why it did, all speculations are speculative.  Choosing or pushing for any particular culprit's guilt or innocence is simply partisan opinion (as I've already said).

All true. My money's on Mark Lamarr.

[BlodwynPig]

You can think about it like that if you choose, nevertheless, until we have evidence, proof, of what happened and why it did, all speculations are speculative.  Choosing or pushing for any particular culprit's guilt or innocence is simply partisan opinion (as I've already said).

You're not going to get evidence. Bloody hell. Buelligan, the voice of beige realism.

[BlodwynPig]

Always take the anti-authoritarian stance. It's common sense.

[Paul Calf]

Always take the anti-authoritarian stance. It's common sense.

Unless there are many authoritarians.

[Buelligan]

You're not going to get evidence. Bloody hell. Buelligan, the voice of beige realism.

So the alternative is what?  Imagine your own answer?  Let someone else tell you the answer that they've invented, believe it, act and vote on it, maybe even go to war on it?  Bloody hell, Blods, wake up old fellow.

[Alberon]

Always take the anti-authoritarian stance. It's common sense.

That's one of the reasons I think it could be the Russians behind this.

[biggytitbo]

They would probably consider that worth it to stop future traitors.

Worth remembering all that propogabdna we were exposed to about Putin's speech regarding 'traitors' was false, a deliberate lie. The repetition is how they get their false reality to stick (see the bbc obsession with endlessly repeating the Corbyn is an antisemite lie)

[Paul Calf]

That's one of the reasons I think it could be the Russians behind this.

That's what they want you to think.

[Alberon]

Worth remembering all that propogabdna we were exposed to about Putin's speech regarding 'traitors' was false, a deliberate lie. The repetition is how they get their false reality to stick (see the bbc obsession with endlessly repeating the Corbyn is an antisemite lie)

I wasn't referring to the fake Putin speech. It makes far more sense for it to be the Russians - they have a decent motive and form for it - as opposed to the British secret services - why stage a false flag operation that makes themselves look so weak and helpless?

[Alberon]

That's what they want you to think.

Ah, but what if it's a cunning double bluff and it really is the Russians behind it!

[Buelligan]

The man who found the bottle of the nerve agent Novichok which killed his partner said it was in a glass bottle within an "expensive-looking" box.

Charlie Rowley, who was also poisoned, said he gave his partner Dawn Sturgess the box - which he believed to be perfume - as a present.

Speaking to ITV News, he said Ms Sturgess grew ill within 15 minutes of spraying the substance on her hands.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44947162

[biggytitbo]

I wasn't referring to the fake Putin speech. It makes far more sense for it to be the Russians - they have a decent motive and form for it - as opposed to the British secret services - why stage a false flag operation that makes themselves look so weak and helpless?

I don't agree a out the motive, I think the lack of motive for the Russians is the weakest part of the whole case, if you can even call it that, against them.