News story: Novichok nerve agent use in Salisbury: UK government response

Slime

LE
Yes, CIA version is only a version based on allegations.
However GRU version as well is only a version based on allegations.
For the sake of reminding you as you are trying to ignore real life.

YOU DONT KNOW THE FACTS.

Ergo, you are only making wild guesses.
If you would like to know more facts, then YOU personally as a Russian would need to apply pressure to YOUR government to extradite or return the two suspects to the UK.
 
Yes, CIA version is only a version based on allegations.
However GRU version as well is only a version based on allegations.
The CIA version is an idea you have thought up
The GRU version has publicly available circumstantial evidence

There is a motive for “the Russians did it”
What motive is there for “the Americans did it”, other than “so that it looks like the Russians did it”?
 

Slime

LE
@KGB_resident

I'm more than happy to help to develop your allegations. :)

We know that YOU PERSONALLY do not know the pair, and that you have never met them or even spoken to them.

Their friends and colleagues who have met them or did know them have said the pair were GRU officers. They have even provided histories or photographs to back up what they say. You clearly cannot do similar.

Question one. Who is likely to be correct, you who have never met net or people who knew them or trained with them?

The GRU seemed to have thought the pair were GRU officers as official photographs of the pair were present on official picture hanging sections of a GRU building showing GRU officers.

Question two. Who is more likely to be correct, you who have never met them or the GRU think they trained and employed them?

The pair have been 100% proven to have lied in their one and only public interview, and those lies have been proven beyond any doubt, the video of the pair in various locations in Salisbury showing no snow being especially good evidence.

Question three. You now know that the pair lied about their trip to Salisbury and so we have to ask: The pair said they were just tourists, we know they lied to the ENTIRE WORLD in their one interview so why should you believe what they said?
 
Yes, CIA version is only a version based on allegations.
No. Your allegation has no facts based on anything other than to lie, obfuscate and deny
However GRU version as well is only a version based on allegations.
Repeatedly you have been made aware through your own sources and here that the Russian govt is 'highly likely' responsible. From Vlad saying they'll eat their 30 pieces, failing to declare Novichok when you joined the CWC, this same substance confirmed by PD and OPCW, two 'slush averse goons' (who have disappeared, 'highly likely' dead), evidence collected by the Police and reviewed by the CPS with warrants being issued. That and 'other evidence' provided by 20 or so countries and the removal of diplomats.

Once again, you are comparing apples and chalk
 

Slime

LE
For everyone.
I noted KGB asking where someone was from. I asked him if was curious as to where @184461 was from.

Did I miss him quizzing 118 or did he very predictably go totally silent when potentially exposing the lack of credibilty of a fellow troll!
 

184461

*Russian Troll*
YOU DONT KNOW THE FACTS.
I'll try again.

What are these facts that we're obviously not aware of?

Don't tell me.....It's all under the OSA and you've already said too much.

Am I getting warm?
 
"184461, post: 9091113, member: 101425"]If the Russians blamed the UK for a NA attack in Russia without offering any credible evidence, facts or proof to support their accusations I'd be making exactly the same noises.
Go on then:

Russian ambassador to the UK: 'We have a lot of suspicions about Britain'

There have been repeated claims in Russia, from officials and some sectors of the media, that the UK could have its own stock of novichok – pointing out the proximity of the Porton Down research facility to Salisbury – and may have staged the attack. An alternative conspiracy theory is that some other substance may have been used instead of novichok by the British authorities.


Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov suggested that the attack may have been carried out by British “special services” [security and intelligence services] to hide Theresa May’s government having to make humiliating concessions to the EU on Brexit.
In the same para, the Russian ambassador states:

...…...his country was not directly blaming Britain, but “that is a conclusion one can come to because Britain is not showing any evidence for their accusations and keeping the investigation secret”.
But, the slimy turd, in TV interviews I saw last year inferred exactly that.

Inner consistency? Where'd you pull that one from?
There are so many holes, inconsistencies, anomalies and contradictory-statements in the official narrative that it would take me a very long time to list them all.
A very,very long time.
You see, that's why you're a conspiraloon. In addition to having an irrational conspiratorial mind, you get fixated on detail, and when one factoid doesn't match another your conspiraloon senses scream 'plot', 'deep state', inconsistencies therefore it's all a lie and a plot by the CIA/MI5/Illuminati or whoever.

But the rational rest of us see understandable inconsistencies and changes as the news and investigations develop. But whilst at the same time see also the rational consistent thread through these developments.

The generally accepted consensus is only actually a general consensus on this ex-services site so don't kid yourself that the other 99.9% of civpop haven't twigged that something is rotten in the state of Denmark and the complete absence of proof is a guarantee that it's all as ukgov says it is.
There you go. Inflating and conflating again.

Where did you get this 99.9% figure from?

You just made it up didn't you.
 

184461

*Russian Troll*
Or even that it’s evidence that hasn’t gone to court
Ah yes, that's the DS solution to the question of where the evidence and proof is, isn't it?

With all this excitement I had forgotten all about the DS solutions to unwanted questions.

Such as why didn't plod take even the tiniest precaution against cross contamination from the deadliest NA ever made™ on the evening of 4th March 2018.

How lucky that there wasn't one casualty from wandering around the 'highly contaminated' Zizzi's that was shut down for 8mths after the event.
No cause for concern from the clients, nor the staff, nor plod.
No cross contamination as was also seen with all the 1st responders at the infamous bench.
Even those who were subject to bodily-fluids and obvious 1st aid procedural practices.

1549934920043.png
1549934959074.png

1549935002819.png
1549935040659.png

Police close Zizzi in Salisbury in Russian spy investigation

Don't fret!
Just wash your stuff at 40'c and don't forget the wet-wipes.

1549935403474.png


If this was ever mentioned during NBC lessons you'd think it was a piss-take.

The most deadly NA ever™ is very,very choosy about who it cross-contaminates and is quickly negated by washing your kit at normal temperature and/or by using wet-wipes.

Who wrote this narrative?
Enid Blyton?
Being CS'd sounds more serious than this stuff.
 
If the Russians blamed the UK for a NA attack in Russia without offering any credible evidence, facts or proof to support their accusations I'd be making exactly the same noises.

Inner consistency? Where'd you pull that one from?
There are so many holes, inconsistencies, anomalies and contradictory-statements in the official narrative that it would take me a very long time to list them all.
A very,very long time.

The generally accepted consensus is only actually a general consensus on this ex-services site so don't kid yourself that the other 99.9% of civpop haven't twigged that something is rotten in the state of Denmark and the complete absence of proof is a guarantee that it's all as ukgov says it is.

They haven't even bothered to go down the Iraq/Libya routes of duff- official int and dossiers this time round.
It's as though they've been advised that less is more and nothing can be leaked if nothing is there to leak.

Thus all we get is the slow drip................drip........................drip....................drip of information being fed to the country from the compromised uk media that have been exposed as being part of a gov/int/media JV anti-establishment troll farm funded by the taxpayer.

Thus why they've subbed the gig of collating the int to a third party.
Anything gets found out to be a complete 100% lie and fabrication?

Plausible deniability, to a certain extent, as the Institute for Statecraft/ Integrity Initiative has rx'd minimum MSM attention.

It was the subby wot did it.



When they were appealing for witnesses to Skripals' whereabouts and movements but decided against releasing even one frame of the Skripals in town that day?

Then this came out as proof of the fact that they were both in Salisbury at the allotted time.

View attachment 377413

NB the red bag.

View attachment 377414

View attachment 377415

Q: Did we ever hear of any uniformed plod getting very, very ill from the NA contaminating the bench area?
A: Definitely not.

There's a good reason the surveillance footage from that day will never be seen as it will prove that ukgov has been caught lying.....again.
Future court case? Pah, in your dreams.


Yes, let's have a look at how the govt censor orders have prevented a full and honest investigation onto what actually happened:

ukgov used the DSMA system a whole 3 days (7th March) after the event for the first and a whopping 8 days (14th March) after the event for the second.

Pablo Miller's name (considered to be the official reason for the D Notices) was leaked a day after the first (8th March) and yet 11 mths on the D Notices are still running.

7th March D-notice can be viewed HERE refers to “the identities of intelligence agency personnel associated with Sergei Skripal not yet widely available in the public domain.”

The 14th March D-notice can be viewed HERE and specifically focuses on “reactions from the Russian authorities” and the publication of Sensitive Personal Information (such as naming the ex-spook in question) or identify personnel who work in sensitive positions.

The use of the word ‘advisory’ is cleverly inserted to give a false impression that this notice is not state censorship.
It is indeed nothing less than state censorship.

The mainstream media are ‘advised’ not to publish and if they do there will be consequences.
Possibly career-suicide and/or other repercussions.

As Spinwatch says:
However, the DSMA-Notices (as they are now officially called) are one of the miracles of British state censorship. They are a mechanism whereby the British state simply ‘advises’ the mainstream media what not to publish, in ‘notices’ with no legal force. The media then voluntarily comply.”​
So before the D notices were issued where were the investigations of the uk media taking them?

From the same day as the first D Notice issued:
The ex-Kremlin spy apparently poisoned in Britain has links to the man who wrote the explosive Trump-Russia dossier

Poisoned Russian spy Sergei Skripal was close to consultant who was linked to the Trump dossier

Nocookies

Can you imagine where we'd be now if the few news-hounds that still exist were allowed (by their editors) to do proper investigative work on this censored-subject?




Who needs highly trained + very well budgeted int agencies when you can have Bellingcat on hand to point the finger so conveniently at Russia.
As a point of interest Bulgaria didn't expel dough they have noiplomats over Skripal.

There you go again.
Stop flapping your gums and give us the facts, then.

Everybody, no matter which side of the fence, is just dying to hear what you have to say.
Following on from my last post, lets make my question a bit easier for you and break it down.

You say you know who didn't do it and by which you mean Russia. What evidence do you have that it wasn't Russia since you are so certain of it?

the 2nd part:

You are alleging that UK gov't is blaming Russia though they have shown no evidence showing it was Russia evidence.

Ergo, the UK gov't must have planned or decided to blame Russia without evidence. To do so discussions and planning must have taken place to develop the story so the UK gov't and their agencies, as well as the OPCW, 'to sing off the same hymn sheet'.

So therefore, what evidence do you have of this planning and preparation?

And you can't use the usual opinion pieces and news articles you used before since that is not evidence.

And if you can't show this it's proof that you're a conspiraloon with no case.

Off you go.
 
"KGB_resident, post: 9091488, member: 8026"]Yes, CIA version is only a version based on allegations.
Correct. Fairytale allegations with no evidence.
However GRU version as well is only a version based on allegations.
Incorrect.

The allegations are based on evidence gathered and analysed by UK agencies and others.
 
The CIA version is an idea you have thought up
The GRU version has publicly available circumstantial evidence

There is a motive for “the Russians did it”
What motive is there for “the Americans did it”, other than “so that it looks like the Russians did it”?
OK. Let's compare
Motive.
vGRU - very doubtful one.
vCIA - very natural motive. To use the provocation for political means - impose more sanctions, stage diplomatic pressure, accuse Russia publicly on highest levels including UNSC in chemical attack where ordinary citizens (in the UK) could fall as victims. To blacken image of Russia and this way extract political profits.
Method.
vGRU - strange, unreliable, technically difficult, easily spotted, risky.
vCIA - as it was imitational poisoning in this case then there was no any problem with security and problems with Skripal's health. Moreover, top British nurse was monitoring the process.
Choice of poison.
vGRU - illogical and stupid.
vCIA - logical because all fingers would point to Russia while the poison could be manufactured in US/UK without any problem.
Date of poisoning.
vGRU - it is strange to stage such an operation just before presidential elections in Russia and World Football Cup. Also why it was needed to posion ms.Skripal. Why not to poison mr.Skripals a few days earlier or a few days later?
vCIA - exactly for the same reasons the date was optimal. Ms.Skripal as a victim only made the effect more colourful.
Absence of any official information about key details (as whereabout of the Skripals 4 March).
vGRU - there is no any logical explanation
vCIA - some details could make the CIA version as the only possible or/and exclude the GRU version.
Skripals are vanished.
vGRU - there is not any logical explanation. Why not to organise press conference or/and allow Russian diplomats to exchange a few words with the Skripals?
vCIA - It looks as the Skripals know something that ruin vGRU and back vCIA.
... and so on and so forth. Gaps, holes in official narrative? in the context of the CIA version they are quite natural.
 
Last edited:

Slime

LE
Go on then:

Russian ambassador to the UK: 'We have a lot of suspicions about Britain'



In the same para, the Russian ambassador states:



But, the slimy turd, in TV interviews I saw last year inferred exactly that.




You see, that's why you're a conspiraloon. In addition to having an irrational conspiratorial mind, you get fixated on detail, and when one factoid doesn't match another your conspiraloon senses scream 'plot', 'deep state', inconsistencies therefore it's all a lie and a plot by the CIA/MI5/Illuminati or whoever.

But the rational rest of us see understandable inconsistencies and changes as the news and investigations develop. But whilst at the same time see also the rational consistent thread through these developments.



There you go. Inflating and conflating again.

Where did you get this 99.9% figure from?

You just made it up didn't you.
Just For fun;

While the video of the pair of suspects walking around Salisisbury with no snow in the ground has been shown by worldwide meainstream media to a potential viewer count of one billion viewers it's worth noting that 2% of the British population live close enough to Salisbury to see the regular LOCAL TV, radio and printed press updates on the Salisbury case.
So 2% of the population live close enough to be familiar with Salisbury, live there or have travelled there (plus know that it wasn't snowy at the time the suspects lied about). That same 2% will have seen the lack of snow in the video shown of the suspects, and yet may have also seen idiots like 118 try to tell those local to Salisbury that the likes of 118 who were pedalling lie after lie we're 'right' and what those locals had seen with their own eyes was 'wrong'

Just as 118 was roughly three months behind what those in the UK were learning or seeing with their own eyes it needs to be remembered that those three months was roughly (and still is) 80 days whereby 118 is so far behind the latest news that his out if date or context info were the biggest thing 'rubbishing' his own posts.

My favourite example was that for TEN WEEKS after the video of the pair had been shown on mainstream BBC and ITV TV networks @184461 was still making a total idiot of himself by telling those who had viewed the video that there was no video............what a prize chump!!!!!!!

We are still in the same situation RIGHT NOW and 118 is still posting stuff that makes him look stupid.

We are nearly one year on, he hadn't been able to back up any if his assertions and month by month as new facts are released he is proved wrong time after time.
 
The allegations are based on evidence gathered and analysed by UK agencies and others.
What exactly do you regard as 'evidence' (please without highly likely, only factual information)?
 
Just For fun;

While the video of the pair of suspects walking around Salisisbury with no snow in the ground has been shown by worldwide meainstream media to a potential viewer count of one billion viewers it's worth noting that 2% of the British population live close enough to Salisbury to see the regular LOCAL TV, radio and printed press updates on the Salisbury case.
So 2% of the population live close enough to be familiar with Salisbury, live there or have travelled there (plus know that it wasn't snowy at the time the suspects lied about). That same 2% will have seen the lack of snow in the video shown of the suspects, and yet may have also seen idiots like 118 try to tell those local to Salisbury that the likes of 118 who were pedalling lie after lie we're 'right' and what those locals had seen with their own eyes was 'wrong'

Just as 118 was roughly three months behind what those in the UK were learning or seeing with their own eyes it needs to be remembered that those three months was roughly (and still is) 80 days whereby 118 is so far behind the latest news that his out if date or context info were the biggest thing 'rubbishing' his own posts.

My favourite example was that for TEN WEEKS after the video of the pair had been shown on mainstream BBC and ITV TV networks @184461 was still making a total idiot of himself by telling those who had viewed the video that there was no video............what a prize chump!!!!!!!

We are still in the same situation RIGHT NOW and 118 is still posting stuff that makes him look stupid.

We are nearly one year on, he hadn't been able to back up any if his assertions and month by month as new facts are released he is proved wrong time after time.
Absolutely.

He's never going to be able to back anything up.

It's the result of being a conspiraloon warrior using 2nd and 3rd, and maybe even 4th, hand facts mixed in with confirmation bias opinion pieces.

Either that or he's being paid to do it and the research dep't of the organisation is way behind feeding info' through.
 

Slime

LE
OK. Let's compare
Motive.
vGRU - very doubtful one.
vCIA - very natural motive. To use the provocation for political means - impose more sanctions, stage diplomatic pressure, accuse Russia publicly on highest levels including UNSC in chemical attack where ordinary citizens (in the UK) could fall as victims. To blacken image of Russia and this way extract political profits.
Method.
vGRU - strange, unreliable, technically difficult, easily spotted, risky.
vCIA - as it was imitational poisoning in this case then there was no any problem with security and problems with Skripal's health. Moreover, top British nurse was monitoring the process.
Choice of poison.
vGRU - illogical and stupid.
vCIA - logical because all fingers would point to Russia while the poison could be manufactured in US/UK without any problem.
Date of poisoning.
vGRU - it is strange to stage such an operation just before presidential elections in Russia and World Football Cup. Also why it was needed to posion ms.Skripal. Why not to poison mr.Skripals a few days earlier or a few days later?
vCIA - exactly for the same reasons the date was optimal. Ms.Skripal as a victim only made the effect more colourful.
Absence of any official information about key details (as whereabout of the Skripals 4 March).
vGRU - there is no any logical explanation
vCIA - some details could make the CIA version as the only possible or/and exclude the GRU version.
Skripals are vanished.
vGRU - there is not any logical explanation. Why not to organise press conference or/and allow Russian diplomats to exchange a few words with the Skripals?
vCIA - It looks as the Skripals know something that ruiv vGRU and back vCIA.
... and so on and so forth. Gaps, holes in official narrative? in the context of the CIA version they are quite natural.

Good idea lets compare.

Russia: leader said Mr Skripal was a traitor and would suffer.

The rest of the entire planet: no comment.

Russia: Mr Skripal was a former GRU officer, that Russian politicians have said was now working against Russia.

The rest of the world: no axe to grind.

Russia: a leak from within Russia said the Novichock was Russian, and from within Russia. (If you want to learn more about this you might need to dig up the suspects and get them to appear in court)

Rest of the world: no country developed Novichock for offensive use.

Russia: two Russian GRU officers travelled to Salisbury, later told complete lies about their visit, left various proof and evidence of where they went and what they did while in the UK (see point above if you want to know more) then returned to Russia.

Rest of the world. No known intelligence officers present.

Russia: denied the suspects were Russian, then said the names were wrong, then changed again and said the suspects were Russian. The story of their history and visit has been proven to be fake.

Rest of the world: no suspects.

Britain's allies: shown Britain's evidence and proof. All shown agreed with British conclusion.

OPCW: agreed with Britain's findings.


Russia: sent intelligence operatives to hack the OPCW

NATO/Five eyes: due to leaks from within Russia intercepted the Russian state hackers (who all held state rather than civilian passports)

Russia: no evidence at all to back up cover story of the business of the pair of suspects. They have also dissapeared from public view.

Rest of the world: no evidence at all to back up cover story of the business of the pair of suspects.

All factual items.
 

Slime

LE
What exactly do you regard as 'evidence' (please without highly likely, only factual information)?
As you are very aware the police evidence and proof would be shown at a court case if the pair return to the UK for trial.

Of course you personally have no idea if the pair are even still alive, but you choose to try always ignore the possibly that your own state have killed them.
Even a casual observer would wonder why you don't find it suspicious that two Russian males who have been shown to be Russian state employees and seen by up to ONE BILLION people ViaVoice the world's mainstream media both in video and still pictures have been seen once and only once in public after returning to Russia.

Someone following your posts a little more closely could wonder why this pair were not seen in public for TEN WEEKS after they had returned to Russia even though the Russian state was aware that the British had identified the pair (but hadn't named them in public as they hoped that the pair would travel outside of Russia again).

Somone following your posts even more closely, and seeing how you are skeptical could wonder why YOU have always blindly believed that the RT interview with the pair was 'real' or that it hadn't perhaps been filmed in advance and the pair could have been dead by the tine it was shown on TV.
We all of course nite your lack of worry that the photos the pair promised to show have never been seen.............why do YOU think the pair chose not to show those photos?

Anyway, you are aware that as a Russian citizen YOU have NO need to see any evidence as YOU are nothing to do with the case.

But, here is an easy video for you to watch.
What if anything do YOU think is wrong in the vid, but please only say things you can actually back up with fact.
As an easy starter, do you think the snow that the pair claimed hampered there progress was actually there or not?

 

Slime

LE
@184461

While it has been shown that the use of DSMA notices hasn't hampered this case at all, I do wonder if you have ever heard of a book called Spycatcher?

I suspect you have, suspect you might know what it is about and the history of its publication.

Even if you didn't know it you could now look it up and would see where it was published and why it was published there.

But, I suspect you wouldn't want to talk about spycatcher as it doesn't suit your made up theories. :)
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top