Page 181 of 184 FirstFirst ... 81131171179180181182183 ... LastLast
Results 1,801 to 1,810 of 1836

Thread: PC Watch: Free Speech Is Dying We Must Be Vigilant And Fight Against PC Tyranny

  1. #1801  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Fifteen years ago, President Richard Nixon's casual musings about using nuclear weapons against North Vietnam became public knowledge with the release of the Nixon tapes. Now, recently declassified archival documents show that a general serving Nixon's predecessor Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) had his own plans to nuke the Asian country.


    General William Westmoreland, commander of US forces in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968, made preparations to send nuclear weapons to South Vietnam and prepare them for use in the event that the US suffered a military defeat in the battle of Khe Sanh in 1968, the New York Times reported, citing declassified documents.


    Details of the secret operation, ominously dubbed 'Fracture Jaw,' were made available in papers which were released several years ago, but not reported on until being discovered by presidential historian Michael Beschloss, who is writing a book on the Johnson presidency.


    LBJ rejected the plan to deploy the nukes after being informed of Westmoreland's plans by national security advisor Walt Rostow. Before the idea was scrapped, Westmoreland had received approval to go ahead from Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp Jr., commander of US forces in the Pacific.



    Tom Johnson, special assistant to the president, told NYT that LBJ was "extraordinarily upset" after hearing that plans to deploy the nukes had already been set in motion. The president "forcefully sent word through Rostow, and I think directly to Westmoreland, to shut it down," the former official recalled. According to Tom Johnson, LBJ feared sparking a "wider war" which would result in Chinese involvement in Vietnam.


    After LBJ scrapped the idea, Admiral Sharp was ordered "discontinue all planning for Fracture Jaw," and to "place all planning material, including messages and correspondence relating thereto, under positive security." "Security of this action and prior actions must be air tight," a document dated February 12, 1968 stressed.



    Vietnam Demands Compensation From the US Over ?Agent Orange?
    The Vietnam War was one of the bloodiest conflicts of the 20th century, causing nearly 3.8 million Vietnamese deaths and the loss of over 58,000 US troops. Between 1965 and 1975, the US Air Force dropped 7.6 million tons of bombs in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, almost triple the total tonnage dropped during the Second World War. Moreover, poisonous defoliating agents were sprayed across over 20 percent of the total land area of South Vietnam, destroying millions of hectares of agricultural land. The Red Cross of Vietnam estimates that upwards of one million Vietnamese are disabled or suffering serious health problems today as a result of the use of Agent Orange.

    US forces withdrew from Vietnam in 1973, and the country unified in 1975 after North Vietnam invaded and captured Saigon.


    The revelations about General Westmoreland's plans to deploy nuclear weapons in Vietnam are the second case of US officials making plans to do so. In 1972, LBJ's successor Richard Nixon told his national security advisor Henry Kissinger that he would "rather use the nuclear bomb" in Vietnam than attack power plants, docks and dikes as a means to escalate the war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #1802  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    (Note: I have no issue believing that Russian secret services, like those of other countries, assassinate people. But, at a time when there is a blatant agenda in the west to demonise Putin and provoke Russia via NATO expansion, I think it is completely rational and responsible to treat all western government claims against Russia extremely skeptically).






    I just watched the full 30 minute interview on RT with the two Salisbury suspects, named - without providing any supportive evidence - as GRU agents, by Theresa May. (On the same day, UK police have said that they had no evidence of this). As ever, the corporate/state media in the west reported the government's claims unquestioningly. (On matters of ?national security? and foreign policy, the corporate media is almost entirely a mouthpiece for the state. Or, perhaps it?s more accurate to say that it is they who set the agenda?).


    In the interview, the suspects come across to me as very nervous and edgy. Are they nervous and edgy because they really are innocent, ordinary citizens, and this attention has all come as a complete shock? Are they nervous and edgy because the Russian state is forcing them to give this interview and fabricate an alibi? I've no idea. Personally, I don?t find their alibi - that they were just tourists visiting Salisbury - quite as implausible as some. Salisbury was one of Lonely Planet?s top 10 city destinations in 2014. As this article in the Salisbury Journal states, 'the tourism business is booming in Salisbury with significant increases in overseas visitors'. Though, for sure, their story is definitely highly questionable.


    The main issue, obviously, is that they just happened to visit the city at pretty much the exact time that the Skripals were poisoned. Is this just too much of a coincidence? How often exactly are Russian tourists visiting the city?


    If it weren?t for the absurdity of the 'Putin did it' narrative, I?d be much more inclined to completely right-off the theory that this could just be a coincidence. Perhaps it is bizarre to say that two Russian nationals just innocently happened to be in Salisbury, 400 yards from the Skripal?s house, on the same day as their poisoning, but the official theory is also bizarre:


    Russia had a longstanding program of putting poison onto door handles, and they decided to utilize it going after a spy pardoned years ago in a spy swap, (thus jeopardising future spy swaps), just before the World Cup (and Russian election), when the Kremlin was focussed on selling a positive image of Russia to the world.


    The GRU assassins, who failed to assassinate their target, made no attempt to cover their tracks, flying in straight from Moscow, using public transport, operating in broad daylight, with no proper protective clothing, using a (10x deadlier than VX) Soviet poison that would instantly be linked to Russia. And afterwards, they just flung the poison bottle away in the centre of Salisbury. They made no attempt to hide from CCTV, nor to quickly escape the scene of the crime.


    These are some unbelievably careless assassins! Or are we to believe that this was intentional - that Putin wanted them to be discovered? That Putin wanted to carry out a brazen act of terrorism on British soil to show the world that Russia is now, once again, a force to be reckoned with? This is the theory that some in corporate media are pushing. Unless you believe Putin to be a deranged madman with massive delusions of grandeur, who doesn?t care at all about Russia?s image in the world, or about the Russian economy - he must really want those sanctions - then this theory seems extremely illogical/absurd.


    If it really was a Kremlin job, it must have been about something other than Skripal just being a traitor - as explained, that theory makes little sense, given that he was released years ago, the timing, etc. It must have been about something that he has been up to in the years since his pardoning. Surely British security services will know more about what he's been doing with himself? That they, the government, and the corporate media insist that it was simply an attack on a traitor by the (clearly unhinged and power-hungry) Putin, makes me extremely suspicious.




    Some questions/notes:


    Why was the site in Salisbury turned upside down, pets killed etc, but the hotel in east London - where traces of the poison were supposedly also found - wasn?t?


    The Skripals left home at 09.15. The suspects arrived into Salisbury station at 11.48. How had the Skripals managed to get back to their home, and touch the door handle, in the hour between noon and 1pm, without being caught on any of the CCTV cameras that caught them going out and caught the Russian visitors so extensively? After this remarkably invisible journey, what time did they touch the door handle?


    Why was a D-notice put out re Pablo Miller?


    Why has it taken so long to reveal these suspects? The timing seems convenient, just before the first PMQs after the Summer, allowing Theresa to grandstand. Plus useful to distract from Brexit chaos etc.


    Why little mention that Russia got rid of their chemical weapons (according to OPCW) last year? (Unlike many western countries!).


    Why did Charlie Rowley say that the poison bottle was sealed when he found it?


    Why is no one in the media being allowed to question the Skripals? Why was GPS on both Skripals? phones switched off for four hours on the day they were poisoned? What has Sergei Skripal been doing in the years since being pardoned by Russia?


    Why did the U.K. refuse to provide the fingerprints and visa application forms of the suspects to Russia?


    Why has BBC?s Mark Urban not spoken about the fact he had contacts with Sergei Skripal six months before the incident?


    Would assassins really use public transport? Surely a car would be used, to avoid CCTV and unreliable public transport? Given the UK weather forecast - heavy snow, storms etc - if you were an assassin, wouldn?t you delay the job until the bad weather was over?


    It was originally thought that the Skripals had been exposed to opioids. When was it determined that it was in fact a nerve agent ?of a type developed by Russia??


    Many other Russians have died in the UK under suspicious circumstances - many with links to the Russian mafia - with no such media reaction and casting of blame, as with the Skripals. Why is this? In previous cases, despite the US insisting that the Kremlin was behind the deaths, the UK authorities have insisted that this was not the case.


    How is it possible that the Met Police do not know what kind of visas the suspects travelled on?


    The NATO-affiliated Bellingcat group claims to have discovered that Petrov and Boshirov?s passports were of a series issued only to Russian spies, and that their visa applications listed GRU headquarters as their address. How is it possible that UK security services didn't spot this when they applied for their visas? Surely they would have done, and they subsequently would have been monitored closely by MI6 during their time in the UK?


    Why did Sergei, at first, not think that the Kremlin was behind the assassination attempt? And why does that claim, by the Guardian's Luke Harding, completely contradict what Sergei's best friend, Ross Cassidy, has said? Cassidy says that Sergei had feared retribution and seemed ?spooked? in the lead up to the attack - he even changed his mobile phone amid concern it was being monitored. If this is true, then Sergei will surely have assumed immediately that it was the Kremlin that was responsible for the assassination attempt? Why would Luke Harding, and others, be lying about this?


    Why have the Skripals not been in touch with their family in Russia?


    This former Israeli expert on international terrorism, finds the theory that these evidently extremely careless and incompetent suspects were decorated GRU agents to be totally absurd.


    Michael Pozner, a respected journalist/broadcaster who had a show on US television during the first Cold War, gives a talk here at Yale University - the entire talk is worth listening to, but he speaks about the Skripal debacle in the last 5 minutes, and is also highly skeptical of the theory that Putin would have assassinated Sergei.




    If anyone can think of any other questions; any inconsistencies etc in the official narrative, please comment! (And tell me if I?ve got anything wrong). I recommend reading this great article by Jonathan Cook, which sums up why none of these questions will likely be asked in the corporate media.




    Whatever happened in Salisbury, there is clearly much that we are not being told, and this whole sorry debacle needs to be looked at in context of the west?s anti-Russia agenda, which has been ongoing for years. It is clear that conclusions have been jumped to; that the UK government decided that ?Putin did it? without awaiting proof, and despite the lack of logic in such an assertion. In such a scenario, the media, security services etc, are inclined to desperately seek supportive evidence, and perhaps manufacture it, in order to back-up the government's claim, and are likely (as is clearly happening) to ignore that which contradicts/questions it.




    Finally, if this really was a Kremlin hit, it is absolutely absurd for the west to act righteous. No one beats them, when it comes to killing people with chemical weapons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #1803  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    There?s enough smoke and mirrors in the Salisbury poisonings to make the Magic Circle blush. It is impossible for the public to understand what happened, and who did what to whom, not only because the details don?t add up, but because many of the so-called ?facts? that have been released are suspicious in and of themselves. Whichever aspect of the case we look at to try to make sense, we can never quite be sure that we are not going down a rabbit trail, since the ?facts? we base our case on may in fact not be facts at all.


    What we can do, though, is to keep looking at the official claims. The investigators of the case obviously have access to information that ordinary members of the public don?t have, and they have made an accusation. But the big question is whether the claims and the accusation they have made stand up to scrutiny ? not just to the ?facts? that have been given out, but also to logic and to reason.


    It is important to begin by defining exactly what the claim is. There are essentially two branches.


    The first comes from the British Government, who have declared the Russian State to be responsible for an attempted assassination of Mr Skripal on 4th March (to begin with they hedged their bets between direct responsibility and indirect responsibility, but later statements are more explicit about direct responsibility). In making this claim, because they are not in a court of law, but rather in a Parliament full of remarkably incurious folk, they have been able to able to come up with vague and airy statements about the case, all of which may well be enough to satisfy the incuriosity of that particular audience and their chums in the media, but which are unlikely to satisfy the minds of the more discerning.


    The second branch comes from the Metropolitan Police. It is by far the more important of the two, since it is the specific claim of those paid to investigate the case, and is therefore the one upon which the Government?s claim ultimately rests (it is, however, worth reminding ourselves that in the Alice in Wonderland times we now find ourselves in, the Government?s claim came prior to the investigation, not after it, which as anyone acquainted with logic, reason and justice will tell you, is precisely the wrong way around).


    To understand The Met?s central claim, however, we must first hack our way through much smoke and navigate our way around many mirrors. So let?s do that by first establishing what the claim is not:


    It is not that the Russian state was behind the poisoning (although the Metropolitan Police statement of 5th September does repeats the claim made by the Prime Minister on 14th March, it does so only as a prelude to what is then said about the two suspects, and is not central to its claim about those men).


    It is not that Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov are GU Intelligence Officers.


    It is not that Ruslan Boshirov is in reality Colonel Anatoliy Chepiga.


    All these are peripheral to the central claim made by the Metropolitan Police, and in many ways just smokes and mirrors. The Metropolitan Police?s central claim can be succinctly said to be the following:


    ?That between 12:10pm and 12:40 on 4th March 2018, the two men named as suspects ? Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov ? went to the house of Sergei Skripal at 47 Christie Miller Road, Salisbury, on foot, and there applied a high purity, military grade nerve agent to the handle of the front door in an attempt to assassinate Mr Skripal.? [see my note below]


    Now, astute readers will realise that the Metropolitan Police has mentioned nothing about the timing that I have stated: 12:10 ? 12:40. Nevertheless, that this is what their claim entails is an incontrovertible fact taken from two pieces of information:


    a) The image released by the Met of the two men on the Wilton Road at 11:58 (ten minutes after another image showing them arriving at Salisbury train station), which is a little over 5 minutes walk from 47 Christie Miller Road.


    b) The image of the two men walking towards the train station on Fisherton Street, some 25 minutes walk or so from Christie Miller Road, at 13:05 [see my note below]


    In other words, the claim that the Government first made back in March, when there were still various conflicting claims as to where and how the poisoning took place, have now been distilled into a very particular location ? the door handle of 47 Christie Miller Road ? and a narrow timeframe ? approximately 30 minutes.


    To put that into Cluedo terminology, the Metropolitan Police have made an accusation, and it is as follows:


    ?We believe it was Boshirov and Petrov (perhaps not their real names), at the door handle of Christie Miller Road, with the Novichok, between 12:10 and 12:40.?


    The whole of the Government accusations from March onwards are now indelibly connected with this claim, and its truth or otherwise.


    Now, the first thing to say about the claim is that the information released by the Met so far has not proven this claim at all. The images showing the two men coming into the UK do not prove the claim. The images of the two men walking around Salisbury do not prove the claim (in fact, they tend to do the opposite, since the idea that two apparently highly trained intelligence officers would not only carry out their deed under cover of daylight, walking together at all times, but would then spend almost two hours traipsing around town are frankly not very credible). The image showing the two men on the Wilton Road does not prove the claim, since it is some 600 yards from the alleged crime scene.


    It may all be enough to convince the nation?s MPs, but it ought not be enough to convince anyone still committed to reason and logic.


    However, comments in a new book by the BBC reporter, Mark Urban, reveal a couple of things that are of crucial interest in light of the claim. Here is the first:


    ?Urban discovered that Skripal spent much of his day watching Russia?s Channel One, a pro-Kremlin state broadcaster. He adopted ?the Kremlin line in many matters?, the journalist writes, ?even while sitting in his MI6-purchased house?, especially over Moscow?s fraught relations with Ukraine.?


    The key part I want to draw your attention to is that, according to Urban, Mr Skripal?s house was ?MI6-purchased.? This may come as no surprise to those who have been paying attention, but it does at least clear away some of the smokes and mirrors. So the house that Mr Skripal lived in, and the one that he was apparently targeted in, was owned by MI6. And the reason for this, as the British media seem to have belatedly discovered, is that Mr Skripal was still working for MI6.


    Mr Urban also says this:


    ?The people closest to him [Sergei] were probably what he called his ?Team? ? the officers from MI5 and MI6 who looked after his welfare. He spoke about them with affection and had a special mobile phone that went directly to their duty officer.?


    Hopefully, you?re beginning to get the picture. Sergei Skripal was not only active for MI6, and not only lived in a house which was purchased by MI6 but ? according to Mr Urban ? he had MI5 and MI6 officers assigned to protect him, as well as a direct line should he need to get in contact. As an aside, would it be cheeky to enquire whether this particular phone was one of the ones that was allegedly made untraceable on 4th March?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #1804  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Part 2

    Given what Mr Urban says about the house, the phone and the protection, let me ask a few simple questions:


    How conceivable is it that the house did not have some kind of security measures in place, including CCTV cameras?
    How conceivable is it that Russian intelligence wouldn?t have assumed that Mr Skripal?s house would have had some kind of security measures in place, including CCTV cameras covering the front door?
    How conceivable is it that Russian intelligence would have chosen a method of assassination that was not only highly untargeted, but which was practically guaranteed to result in the filming of the assassins committing the crime?
    To discerning persons, the answer to all three questions is quite obvious, though perhaps not to the nation?s MPs or media.


    But let?s just suspend reason and logic for a moment, and imagine that despite the extremely high probability that Russian intelligence would have assumed Mr Skripal?s house to be well protected, and the absurdly low probability that they would then have chosen this particular method of assassination, they had still carried out the attack in the way the Met claims. What would it mean?


    It would mean that there has been a massive failure on the part of British intelligence to protect one of their own assets in his own house ? a house which they owned, and which should therefore have been made safe. In which case, why are there no questions being asked about this failure in the House of Commons? Or do we already know the reason for that.


    Let me spell it out even more clearly. There only three options here:


    Option 1: Mr Skripal?s MI6-bought house did indeed have the kind of security measures you would expect it to have had, given that Mr Skripal was actively working for British Intelligence. In which case, if the central claim of the Metropolitan Police is true, there must be CCTV footage of the two suspects, applying ?high purity, military grade nerve agent? to the door handle.


    Option 2: Mr Skripal?s MI6-bought house didn?t have the kind of security measures one would expect it to have had, given that Mr Skripal was actively working for British Intelligence. In which case, if the central claim of the Metropolitan Police is true, does this not constitute a failure of security of the highest order?


    Option 3: Mr Skripal?s MI6-bought house may or may not have had the kind of security measures you would expect it to have ? but it?s all neither here nor there because the door handle assassination claim is untrue.


    The discerning amongst you will make your own minds up as to which of these possible scenarios is correct.


    Note: I originally stated in this piece that the specific timeframe that the Met?s and by association the Government?s claims rest was 1 hour and 20 minutes. This is the time between when Boshirov and Petrov could reasonably have got from the Wilton Road to Christie Miller Road, and done the alleged deed, and the time that Mr Skripal?s car was seen driving towards the town at 13:33. But as one of the commenters, David, has pointed out, there is a Met released image of the two men in the town (about 25 minutes walk away) at 13:05. This reduces the timeframe to between 12:10 and 1240. So half an hour, rather than 1 hour 20 minutes.


    It is also worth reiterating that the claim also rests on the Skripals being out in this 12:10-12:40 timeframe, coming back sometime just after it, and then going out again at approximately 13:30, plus of course both Sergei and Yulia touching the outside door handle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #1805  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    These people really are seriously fucked in the head and a cancer

    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #1806  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #1807  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    It's beyond insane how far gone the democrats and all these brainwashed drone leftists are now

    First 11 minutes.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #1808  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Ditto


    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #1809  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #1810  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    4,998
    Further down the rabbit hole with Eliot, Boshirov, Petrov, his grandma and all
    Catte

    UPDATED with additional links. Bellingcat today released the second part of their ?investigation? into the alleged real identities of Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, the two Russians accused of attempting to murder Sergey Skripal. We offer some preliminary thoughts and open the subject up for discussion
    What is going on with the Skripal poisoning narrative?


    Anyone who thinks they have a definitive answer at this point had better pause and reflect. Very little of anything is clear and nothing makes much sense.


    The ?official? UK story (except not really official since the government has been careful to keep its distance and its wiggle room on the details) was initially, and remains, contradictory, factually implausible and bereft of corroboration on most important details.


    Almost all of the initial questions and areas of puzzlement remain unanswered and unresolved at this time. We still have no explanation for any of the following:


    Why Russia would want to murder Skripal at all let alone by use of something as exotic and untested as this still poorly defined substance known as ?Novichok?. And why they apparently would do so at a time that dovetailed perfectly with UK/US plans in Syria, including a possible false flag chemical attack in Douma as a justification for a full-scale NATO attack on Damascus

    How the UK authorities were able to be so certain so quickly of Russian state involvement or of the source of the alleged ?Novichok? used.

    What form the alleged nerve agent was in; was it gel (on the door knob) powder/aerosol (in Skripal?s car a/c system) or liquid (in a perfume bottle)?

    How, when or where the poison was allegedly administered.

    How the allegedly super-deadly nerve agent (supposedly many times more deadly than VX) did not kill either of the primary targets, or any of the secondary targets, save for the woman who allegedly literally sprayed it on her own skin.
    Where the two Skripals and DS Bailey are and why they either can?t or won?t speak to the press or appear in public. While fear (either of their ?protectors? or of Russian reprisals) may be a possible reason in the case of the Skripals, it?s hard to see why this would apply to Bailey.

    Why the timing of the alleged poisoning does not fit with the itinerary of the two alleged suspects in the case, who did not arrive in Salisbury until several hours after the nerve agent was allegedly applied to the door handle (if indeed this is the one of many versions we are supposed to assume is true).

    Why there is no released CCTV footage placing the two suspects closer than 500 yards from Skripal?s house. No footage of them even in a road adjoining or leading directly to said house.

    Why two alleged GRU agents would behave in any of the ways Boshirov and Petrov behaved, including leaving a visible trail of their visit and browsing Salisbury high street for vintage coins.

    To date these questions remain outstanding. But late last month we were treated to the added bizarreness of Bellingcat?s entry into the fray, culminating in the second part of their ?report? released today (we discuss part one HERE), replete with a presser outside parliament by the man himself ? Eliot Higgins.




    Bellingcat/Higgins, as we know, is a patsy; a NED-funded front for UK intel agencies, through which they siphon the information ? or more often disinformation ? they don?t want to be associated with directly, either because it?s too weak, corrupt or absurd, or because they want to give the info a gloss of ?grassroots honesty? by putting it in the hands of a (bungling) amateur.


    What Bellingcat tell us, true or false, is what the UK/NATO security forces want us to hear. And what Bellingcat is currently saying is that they ?proved? Boshirov and Petrov, the two apparently hapless Russian tourists snapped wandering around Salisbury last March, are actually Chepiga and Mishkin, elite military intelligence officers.


    We can wonder about Higgins? claims of how he acquired this information. It looks pretty clear his story of ?discovering? their identities is completely bogus. It involves too many unnamed sources, lucky guesses and fortuitous bits of serendipity to be plausible. Bellingcat?s clumsy MO of Googling and reverse-image searching would in all likelihood simply not be up to the task anyhow.


    What looks very likely, if not glaringly obvious is that they have been handed the driver?s licence and other alleged documentation by their ?anonymous sources? (whoever they are) and worked back from there to try and sell what is essentially a data-dump as a piece of investigative journalism.


    But all that?s moot anyhow. A bigger question is ? is the story true?


    The background narrative supplied by Bellingcat and its Russian allies for these alternative IDs is contradictory. Some people in Chepiga?s home town swear Boshirov is the man. Others say no, Chepiga was bald and had a different face. The same cloudiness is true of Mishkin/Petrov. Only one anonymous alumnus of ?Mishkin?s? alleged school was prepared to say that such a person with such a name had even attended there. All the other ex-students approached by Bellingcat claimed to have no memory of him at all. There are altogether too many anonymous informants here. Too many ?my friend told me his grandma had a pic of him with Putin?? type memes for anything to be solid. What it amounts to is a collection of anecdote fed by alleged documentation, some of which of looks pretty real on cursory analysis:






    Some a bit more questionable:



    Many potential explanations have been offered.


    Are these two gormless-seeming bozos really elite military intel officers sent by Putin to off an ageing spy for reasons that seem to defy analysis?


    Were they intelligence officers sent to talk to Skripal for some reason, and was Skripal poisoned to prevent the meeting taking place?


    Were they there unofficially, possibly at the bidding of some rogue elements inside Russia, to poison Skripal or perform other mischief?


    Are they just what they say they are, a couple of tourists, and is the entire thing a collection of clumsy and not so clumsy western fakery?


    Or is this, as Craig Murray?s contacts seem to suggest, all some weird shadow play by both sides? An extended game of pretend, bluff and counter bluff for reasons we can?t fathom?


    Well, right now, your guess is as good as mine. We?re almost certain to be coming back to this ATL in the next days or weeks.

    https://off-guardian.org/2018/10/09/...andma-and-all/
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •