Critically ill man 'former Russian spy'

Status
Not open for further replies.
I fear you (and others) don't understand my point.
Words invasion, invasive are common words in English. So usage of 'invasive' in English variant of the statement is quite natural. But translation is very poor. It is word by word translation that doesn't take into account semantical and other features of Russian words and expressions.
Word INVASIVNYI is very rare in Russian. It is used only as a special medical term. It is not used in common situations and I believe 99% of Russians don't understand its meaning.
Ms.Skripal could say that it would be better to say - the treatment was difficult, tough and included surgical operation. But she didn't correct the Russian text and it is telling. Either she made made it intentionally - as a sign that she is not free or she had to sound the statement exactly word by word.
So a tracheotomy isn't covered by INVASIVNYI(sic)? Someone cutting into your windpipe isn't invasive? Just a normal day at the office for your average Russian?
 
I would expect that all of the patients would have had tubes sticking out of every orifice whilst they were in a coma and for a short time afterwards. I don't know the ins and outs (pun intended) of exactly what is required regarding that matter, but I'd certainly count having a tube up me bum as 'invasive'.
 
The whole thing was rehearsed and unnatural. The script careful to give nothing away... clearly a complete sham never seen before in any criminal case and evidence that there is much to hide. A press conference held in secrecy with Q&A is easy to arrange but no! They do not want anyone to hear her personal accounts leading up to the incident or to ask awkward questions. Questions that may help identify who, how and why. At least we are not in the dark any longer...that the Russians were involved can now be ruled out.
 
The whole thing was rehearsed and unnatural. The script careful to give nothing away... clearly a complete sham never seen before in any criminal case and evidence that there is much to hide. A press conference held in secrecy with Q&A is easy to arrange but no! They do not want anyone to hear her personal accounts leading up to the incident or to ask awkward questions. Questions that may help identify who, how and why. At least we are not in the dark any longer...that the Russians were involved can now be ruled out.
You're insane.
 
The whole thing was rehearsed and unnatural. The script careful to give nothing away... clearly a complete sham never seen before in any criminal case and evidence that there is much to hide. A press conference held in secrecy with Q&A is easy to arrange but no! They do not want anyone to hear her personal accounts leading up to the incident or to ask awkward questions. Questions that may help identify who, how and why. At least we are not in the dark any longer...that the Russians were involved can now be ruled out.
How do you manage to live with yourself? The self loathing must be unbearable.
 
The whole thing was rehearsed and unnatural. The script careful to give nothing away... clearly a complete sham never seen before in any criminal case and evidence that there is much to hide. A press conference held in secrecy with Q&A is easy to arrange but no! They do not want anyone to hear her personal accounts leading up to the incident or to ask awkward questions. Questions that may help identify who, how and why. At least we are not in the dark any longer...that the Russians were involved can now be ruled out.
Are you going on tour with your comedy act?
 
Contrary to dearly-held stereotypes, The Guardian's coverage of this saga has been excellent. It now has an opinion piece by Moscow-based journalist Alexey Kovalev about "predictable" reactions to Yulya Skripal's televised statement:
... State officials, TV hosts, loyalists reporters, a host of experts and, of course, online trolls scrambled to cast doubt on Skripal’s statement. She couldn’t have known the meaning of “invasive therapy”, she’s a geographist by education. Why didn’t she conceal that hideous tracheostomy scar under a scarf or something? Why did she have to flaunt it like that? Why was her delivery so laboured and unnatural? She kept looking sideways and pursing her lips! Any physiognomist could see that! ... And anyway, everyone agrees, her speech was full of awkward turns of phrase, which clearly indicates that Skripal was reading from someone else’s crib sheet. And it was obviously written by a native English speaker and then translated – badly – into Russian ...
 
The whole thing was rehearsed and unnatural. The script careful to give nothing away... clearly a complete sham never seen before in any criminal case and evidence that there is much to hide. A press conference held in secrecy with Q&A is easy to arrange but no! They do not want anyone to hear her personal accounts leading up to the incident or to ask awkward questions. Questions that may help identify who, how and why. At least we are not in the dark any longer...that the Russians were involved can now be ruled out.
'They' of course, because isn't it always 'they' when it's a conspiracy?

Thing is, she has twice now stated she wants privacy and no input or interference from the media or others, including Russian officials, which she has every right to ask for, so if a press conference were arranged, in secret or otherwise, it would be against her clearly presented wishes.

Now that would be coercian.

It’s telling that a request that you would probably consider reasonable for most is instead evidence of coercion of some form when stated by Yulia, even though there is absolutely no evidence.

Indeed, the big smile she gave at the end of her statement appeared genuine, unforced and indicates that she is far from nervous around the company she was is in at that time.

You claim to be a sceptic, but the reality is that you have decided on a position and like a piss-poor scientist, you’re trying to twist or invent facts to fit the theory, despite clearly opposing evidence.
 
I fear you (and others) don't understand my point.
Words invasion, invasive are common words in English. So usage of 'invasive' in English variant of the statement is quite natural. But translation is very poor. It is word by word translation that doesn't take into account semantical and other features of Russian words and expressions.
Word INVASIVNYI is very rare in Russian. It is used only as a special medical term. It is not used in common situations and I believe 99% of Russians don't understand its meaning.
Ms.Skripal could say that it would be better to say - the treatment was difficult, tough and included surgical operation. But she didn't correct the Russian text and it is telling. Either she made made it intentionally - as a sign that she is not free or she had to sound the statement exactly word by word.
You see that thing disappearing on the breeze?

That's the straw you're trying to clutch, that is.
 
The whole thing was rehearsed and unnatural. The script careful to give nothing away... clearly a complete sham never seen before in any criminal case and evidence that there is much to hide. A press conference held in secrecy with Q&A is easy to arrange but no! They do not want anyone to hear her personal accounts leading up to the incident or to ask awkward questions. Questions that may help identify who, how and why. At least we are not in the dark any longer...that the Russians were involved can now be ruled out.
Higgsy, you are starting to become predictable.
I don't agree with much of what you have to say. For instance, I am an atheist like yourself but don't feel the need to ridicule and belittle 'believers'.
You seem to have a strong tendency to adopt the Devil's Advocate stance which can be tiresome but is needed.
It wasn't scripted or rehearsed, at least not in the way that you mean. However I will agree with you that it was unnatural, but only because we were seeing a young woman speak about how she was nearly murdered.

I think you are capable of better, much better.
 
I was listening to a radio interview yesterday that was talking about the recent Dutch/Australian direct accusation about MH17 that named an individual Russian air defence unit for the shootdown of the airliner.
The SME was saying that even interested Russians who wanted to know the truth were kept in the dark as Russian state media has been consistent that Russia is not to blame and is now reporting a completely different version of what the Dutch/Australians are saying.

At the same time the Russian government (for outsiders) are saying that Russia doesnt respect the authority of any court the Dutch/Australians would wish to take the case too.

It's yet another very current example that the Russian government and state media contsantly tell lies knowing the rest of the world know the Russians are lying.
SME was saying. Who is this 'SME' exactly.
No, Russian TV channels, reported about new claims made by Dutch investigators.
Pres.Putin made his comment and of course it was reported.
Remains of BUK missile with serial number were shown. They appeared out of the blue. They were never be mentioned previously. When, where, by whom they were recovered? It is not clear. Ukrainians could disassemble one of their missiles for this purpose. As for other claims then there are nothing new.
Btw, has British mass media reported about one interesting detail?
According to the serial number, the missile was produced in 1986. Its safe period of use is 15 years that could be extended for additional 5 or maximum 10 years. Russian MoD claims that all Russian BUK missiles produced in 1986 had been disassembled and utilized up to 2011.
Let's look at BBC
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44252150
No, the article doesn't contain arguments proposed by Moscow.
So namely British mass media hides important details.
 
Last edited:
The whole thing was rehearsed and unnatural. The script careful to give nothing away... clearly a complete sham never seen before in any criminal case and evidence that there is much to hide. A press conference held in secrecy with Q&A is easy to arrange but no! They do not want anyone to hear her personal accounts leading up to the incident or to ask awkward questions. Questions that may help identify who, how and why. At least we are not in the dark any longer...that the Russians were involved can now be ruled out.
Do the police need the media to ask the questions about a case? I kind of thought that some members of the police are SMEs in asking questions
 
@KGB_resident

On the subject of unnatural choices of words, while you are picking up on how Ms Skripal talked about her depression what do you think of President Putin saying death from Novichock would have been instant?
I'm not a specialist in poisons.
By contrast mr.Putin has at hand a lot of high class specialists and in fact he retranslated their expert opinion.
Still British investigators haven't proposed more or less realistic scheme of poisoning.
How it had happened? It is still not clear.
 
The whole thing was rehearsed and unnatural. The script careful to give nothing away... clearly a complete sham never seen before in any criminal case and evidence that there is much to hide. A press conference held in secrecy with Q&A is easy to arrange but no! They do not want anyone to hear her personal accounts leading up to the incident or to ask awkward questions. Questions that may help identify who, how and why. At least we are not in the dark any longer...that the Russians were involved can now be ruled out.
That's a startling and baffling conclusion to come to given that there's no evidence to rule theRussians out.
 
I'm not a specialist in poisons.
Clearly
By contrast mr.Putin has at hand a lot of high class specialists and in fact he retranslated their expert opinion.
Putin says it wasn’t a weapons grade nerve agent. Porton Down and OPCW say it was Novichok (or family) and high grade. Either Putin is lying or OPCW are. My money is on the former.
Still British investigators haven't proposed more or less realistic scheme of poisoning.
How it had happened? It is still not clear.
Criminal investigation as mentioned many (many, many) times.
 
Last edited:
.....that the Russians were involved can now be ruled out.
From the quoter of agitprop without links. From the poster of Russophile sites. From the poster who says the facts ‘don’t follow’. From the poster who has repeatedly said he hasn’t made up his mind.

Quelle surprise. Your tinfoil hat is slipping
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top