Page 183 of 185 FirstFirst ... 83133173181182183184185 LastLast
Results 1,821 to 1,830 of 1848

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

  1. #1821  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Reply With Quote  

  2. #1822  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    It's beyond insane how far gone the democrats and all these brainwashed drone leftists are now

    First 11 minutes.

    Reply With Quote  

  3. #1823  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Reply With Quote  

  4. #1824  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Reply With Quote  

  5. #1825  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Further down the rabbit hole with Eliot, Boshirov, Petrov, his grandma and all

    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.
    Reply With Quote  

  6. #1826  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Another good article about it

    The curious case of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury continues to puzzle. So let's get the key, undisputed facts down and approach it logically, without fear or favor, and see what conclusions we come to...

    Here are fifteen facts in relation to the Salisbury poisonings case:

    1. We haven't seen any photographs or heard anything from Sergei Skripal since 4th March.

    The last confirmed images we have of Skripal is CCTV footage of him in a shop in Salisbury at 12.47pm on 27th February.

    We haven't seen Yulia Skripal, Sergei's daughter since a short video statement featuring her was released on 23rd May.

    2. Investigative website Bellingcat contends that the two suspects identified by the police, and traveling under the names Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, are in fact Anatoliy Chepiga, a highly decorated colonel from Russian military intelligence, and Alexander Mishkin, a doctor working for Russian military intelligence.

    3. We haven't seen any CCTV footage of the Skripal's house on 4th March, or of the Skripals on the bench where they were found at around 4.15pm.

    READ MORE: Bellingcat Claims Second Skripal Poisoning Suspect Identified

    4. We have seen CCTV footage, timed at 11.58am, of the two suspects walking along Wilton Road in an opposite direction to Salisbury Cathedral (which they claim to have come to Salisbury to visit), and in the direction of the Skripals house.

    5. The football World Cup was held in Russia this summer for the first time. There was an anti-Russian neocon campaign in the west to undermine the event, calling for boycotts and fans not to travel there.

    6. On Tuesday 6th March, two days after the Skripals were taken ill, arch-Putin critics Bill Browder and Ed Lucas were due to address British Parliamentarians on 'fake news'.

    They were expected to make the case for tougher measures to be taken against Russia and Russian media.

    7. Anatoliy Chepiga has not, as yet, come forward to identify himself as being a different person from Ruslan Boshirov.

    8. Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, who was one of the first on the scene at the bench and who subsequently became ill, has not been interviewed by any news media, since being released from the hospital on 22nd March.

    In this Feb. 27, 2018 grab taken from CCTV video provided by ITN on Wednesday, March 7, 2018 , former spy Sergei Skripal shops at a store in Salisbury, England
    Ex-MI5 Officer Sheds Light on 'Narrative' Behind Book on Skripal
    9. The weather in and around Salisbury on the weekend of 2-4th March was inclement. It included heavy snow, strong winds, and freezing rain. There were significant transport disruptions in southern England.
    10. The UK authorities believe that nerve agent novichok was sprayed by the two suspects on the Skripals front door knob at around noon on 4th March.

    11. The two suspects were captured on CCTV exiting Salisbury railway station at 11.48am and then entering the station at 1.50pm, just over two hours later.

    12. We have seen no evidence that the Skripals returned home having been seen on CCTV at around 9.15am out in their car in Salisbury.

    13. The suspects have not been charged in connection with the death of Dawn Sturgess, who were are, told died from novichok poisoning having used perfume from a bottle discarded by the two men in a skip and given to her by her partner.

    14. In a letter to The Times on 14th March, Dr. Stephen Davies, Consultant in Emergency Medicine at the Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust wrote: 'May I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning?No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved'.

    15. Eyewitness Freya Church, who saw the Skripals in on the bench, told the BBC: 'He was doing some strange hand movements, looking up to the sky?.They looked like they had been taking something quite strong'.

    Have a think about those fifteen pieces of factual information for a moment. What conclusions do you draw from them?

    Well, here's mine.

    1. Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov were in Salisbury for a reason which they did not want to disclose in their television interview on RT. It is looking increasingly likely that both men were Russian intelligence officers. Fact 7, suggests that Boshirov is Chepiga. If not, why hasn't Chepiga come forward?

    2. The absence of any interviews with, or statements from, Sergei Skripal indicates that he does not believe the UK government narrative that the Russian state was behind his poisoning. Last week, it was revealed that Skripal was indeed reluctant to believe that Russia was responsible.

    But surely Skripal would have a good idea of who did the act? If 'Chepiga' and 'Mishkin' had done the poisoning, and Skripal and his daughter had met them that fateful Sunday, why isn't he saying so, in a video address?

    A police officer near the Mill pub in Salisbury, where the traces of the nerve agent used to poison former Main Intelligence Directorate colonel Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found
    'Dr. Novichok': Two More Suspects Wanted in Skripal Case ? Reports
    3. The fact that the World Cup was due to be held in Russia and that Browder and Lucas were to address Parliament that very week (and this was publicized in advance on social media), makes it most unlikely that the Russian state would authorize the assassination of Sergei Skripal on the weekend of 2-4th March 2018 UNLESS Skripal was about to do something very soon to endanger Russian security. But what could that be, considering he hadn't been in Russia for many years and was not privy to any new secrets?
    If 'revenge' against a former spy who had betrayed his country had been the motive, then the operation would surely have been done before or at least postponed until after the World Cup. In fact, from a Kremlin perspective, there could not have been a worse weekend to carry out the operation, especially if we take into account the wintry weather which would make getting to Salisbury problematic- and smearing a doorknob with novichok as an assassination technique unlikely to be fully effective because of the precipitation.

    4. The absence of CCTV footage of the suspects approaching the Skripals' house or doing anything suspicious in Salisbury (apart from walking in the wrong direction from the cathedral), suggests that such footage does not exist. If it does, why hasn't it been shown?

    5. The lack of evidence to show that the Skripals returned home after leaving their house before 9.15 am suggests that novichok was not placed on the front door knob and that they were poisoned elsewhere. If the Skripals had returned home, then poisoning their doorknob in broad daylight would have been extraordinarily risky- but if they didn't go back, how were they affected by a sprayed doorknob?

    Aug. 9, 2006 file picture Sergei Skripal speaks to his lawyer from behind bars seen on a screen of a monitor outside a courtroom in Moscow

    Skripal Refused to Move to US Under New Identity, New Book Claims
    Novichok is supposed to be fast acting and lethal, so the likeliest places they were poisoned were either in the pub, the restaurant (with someone possibly dropping poison into their food or drink, as security expert Will Geddes suggested in this report, or on the bench itself. The restaurant seems more likely as an eyewitness told the BBC that Sergei Skripal had been behaving strangely there.
    'He started screaming. He just didn't look right'. Some have said this is because he may have spotted Borishov and Petrov through a window. But how could he, if the pair had already entered Salisbury station to make their journey back to London at 1.50pm? The Skripals entered the restaurant after 2.20pm.

    So where do these conclusions lead us, in regards to solving the mystery?

    READ MORE: UK Police: It Will Cost Over $13Mln to Probe Alleged Cases of Novichok Use

    The 'official' explanation of the UK government is that the two suspects were Russian hitmen who came to Salisbury to assassinate Skripal but who botched their assignment because for some reason they didn't use a strong enough dose/and/or the excellence/quickness of the emergency services and Salisbury hospital.

    But if men were the poisoners, why the lack of CCTV footage of them approaching the Skripals house- and why did they carry out their operation on the weekend of 2nd-4th March? If Russian culpability was so obvious, why have the UK authorities sought to censor, via two DSMA notices, MSM reporting of the case?

    The timing suggests that if the men were indeed Russian agents, their mission did not have high-level Kremlin approval, as claimed.

    Could they then have been part of a group within Russian intelligence who were fed up with western 'bear-baiting', and who actually wanted relations between Russia and the west to deteriorate further in order to bring matters to a head?

    Or might they even be double agents, actually working for the west? If they were an assassination squad out to smear a doorknob with novichok, then why did they come to Salisbury twice in broad daylight and not at night?

    READ MORE: Salisbury Church to Hold 'From Russia With Love' Concert ? Reports
    Last edited by Serge; 10-09-2018 at 09:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  

  7. #1827  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Why did they come together, and arrive in Salisbury so openly, on public transport? Two possible inferences are (a) the men were bungling Mr. Bean-style incompetents- which doesn't tally with Chepiga being a highly decorated colonel in military intelligence, or (b) they didn't mind being found out, and actually wanted to be. If that sounds plausible, here's another explanation which ticks all the boxes.

    The two suspects were indeed Russian military intelligence operatives. Bellingcat, for all the concerns we have about founder Elliot Higgins' links to The Atlantic Council, are actually right about this.

    But the two men didn't travel to Salisbury to kill Skripal but to meet with him, negotiate with him, or conduct some kind of business with him. The Skripals weren't poisoned via their front doorknob, but in the pub or restaurant or on the bench itself- at a time when the two suspects had already left Salisbury.

    The reason we haven't seen the CCTV footage is that it does not incriminate 'Boshirov' and 'Petrov'. Novichok didn't kill the Skripals because novichok wasn't used. The aim was to simulate a novichok attack, as a provocation to blame Russia by a geopolitical adversary, but not to kill the Skripals. Those behind the provocation knew that two Russian agents were in town that weekend to do business with Skripal so it was perfect timing. The Skripals were poisoned with the synthetic drug fentanyl (or fentanyl mixed with small traces of novichok).

    Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova during a briefing in Moscow

    Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Says New Claims About Boshirov Aim to Distract Public From Events in Salisbury

    Remember, fentanyl poisoning is what the hospital originally treated them for, before the government's own laboratory at nearby Porton Down said it was novichok on 7th March. Read again the words of Dr. Stephen Davies- and also bear in mind what eyewitness Freya Church said: 'They looked like they had been taking something quite strong'.
    As for small traces of novichok being found in the suspects' hotel room on 4th May, this could indeed have been left by them, but it also could quite easily have been planted later on by an intelligence operative of a power hostile to Russia, staying in the room as a 'guest', before the police went there.

    Of course, this is only a theory, and it could be wrong, but it is one that is consistent with the facts as we currently know them. It would explain why we haven't heard from Sergei Skripal. It would explain the DSMA Notices and the fact that Dt Sgt Nick Bailey- who surely has a lot to tell about what happened on 4th March, has not been interviewed. It would explain the fact that we haven't seen more CCTV footage.

    READ MORE: UK Envoy Claims Russia Tried to Compromise Foreign Office After Salisbury Attack

    It would also explain why Russia has had to deny the two named suspects were agents because if they admitted they were agents and in Salisbury on the day of the poisoning, but had nothing to do with it, no one would believe them.

    Lovers of detective fiction- and indeed those who follow real-life crime stories will know that there have been lots of examples of 'suspicious' characters who happened to be near a crime scene and were there for a reason which they did not want to reveal ?but who did not actually carry out the crime.

    Seven months on, it still remains up to those accusing the Kremlin to prove their case.

    Reply With Quote  

  8. #1828  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015

    Reply With Quote  

  9. #1829  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    The Framing of Russia
    David Macilwain

    On the first of May, the UK?s National Security Adviser Sir Mark Sedwill told MPs that the agencies he oversaw ? MI6, MI5 and GCHQ ? had no information on who was responsible for the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter two months earlier.

    Three days later police searched the room in the City Stay Hotel used by ?suspects? Ruslan Boshirov and Alexander Petrov, and took swabs which were ?found to contain Novichok? by Porton Down. The police did not make this information public until September 6th, when they chose to break the story of the now notorious ?Russian assassins?.

    As I have speculated before, and as is now becoming increasingly clear, the ?suspects? put in the frame by the UK government were evidently known to its intelligence agencies long before Mark Sedwill?s denial, and in fact before they even reached London, on their way, we are told ad nauseum, to hit the Skripals with toxic perfume.

    Obviously that story is not true, but it now appears that the mission assigned to the unwitting Russian couple was much more than simply to be caught on CCTV in the vicinity of the elusive Skripals, and that they were a pivotal part of ?Operation Nina? ? both in the planning stages and in the extended ?action phase?, currently playing out in the media and institutions of the Western world.

    The researches of Elena Evdokimova, explained in systematic detail on her twitter account, allow us to turn what was previously just informed speculation into solid assertions which now look ?highly likely? to be true, and which then become a basis for further well-informed speculation. I use the term ?highly likely? with reservation, having previously argued that it lies a long way from certainty. In this context however, it?s only fair to adopt Mark Sedwill?s own interpretation of the phrase as meaning ?100% certain?, bizarre as that is.

    This adjustment to the standard of proof by the UK?s intelligence agencies was contained in an intelligence briefing to NATO?s chief Jen Stoltenberg, made public on Friday April 13th ? the day before the combined US/UK/French missile attack on Damascus. Without labouring the point, it?s worth quoting from Sedwill?s letter to NATO.

    Sedwill wrote:

    I would like to share with you and allies further information regarding our assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian state was responsible for the Salisbury attack. Only Russia has the technical means, operational experience and the motive. The term ?highly likely? is one commonly used by the intelligence agencies when they believe something is 100% certain ? since they are unwilling to express that opinion without a caveat in case of error.?

    Sedwill wisely left himself a caveat however, concluding that: ?there is no plausible alternative explanation.?

    So how might we classify ?implausible? on the scale of probability? Implausible certainly doesn?t mean impossible, nor perhaps even ?highly unlikely?. But to say something is ?not plausible? is to make a judgement that reflects one?s point of view, or in this case the UK?s strategic attitude. The ?explanation? for the attack on Sergei Skripal being offered by the UK government and its top advisors is clearly not plausible in Russia?s eyes, nor in those of most independent observers and commentators.

    In fact the UK?s story ? its cover story for ?Operation Nina? is virtually impossible, besides being highly improbable and completely inexplicable in its finer details; those have been sufficiently explored not to need repeating, nor do they merit any further attention. It?s already evident that no amount of scientific analysis and careful reasoning can counter this intricately constructed spy story or its stranglehold on Western mainstream media and the public mind.

    Ironically it is now the one area of weakness in Russia?s defence against these delinquent charges that offers the greatest opportunity, centring around the question of what exactly Petrov and Boshirov were doing in Salisbury. This has been a weakness that the UK and its minions have exploited to the full, and that also challenges those of us trying to defend the Russians? innocence.

    What has been revealed by Elena Evdokimova and her sources however, appears to show that UK agencies were selecting and cultivating suitable Russians to use as patsies in psy-ops against Russia, with Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov picked out for ?Operation Nina?.

    The whole story of her research and discoveries is told on Elena?s twitter thread, and should be read in detail, but in essence it goes like this: (it focuses on Ruslan Boshirov ? who Eliot Higgins/Bellingcat claim to be Anatoly Chepiga and a GRU agent.)

    Ruslan Boshirov applied for a replacement 5 year foreign passport in 2016 through a private agency, submitting copies of his previous passport from 2011 and his Russian ID from 1999. As Elena says:

    #Skripal None of the photos Bellingcat produced were the photos of Chepiga. All 3 ? are the photocopies from the documents that were needed to apply for a 5 year foreign passport and they were all photos of Boshirov. But the plot is much more sophisticated than we imagined.
    Not long after Boshirov submitted his application to this private firm:

    30-40 sets copies of people?s documents (those who applied for a foreign passport through that firm) were stolen by a criminal in 2016. That?s why the passports Bellingcat is forging have the same series and consecutive numbers ? they were stolen at the same time & place.

    The criminal sold those documents to a foreign entity.

    These documents also included details of the individual?s work history and military service.

    They also had the photocopies of people?s new foreign passports they stole, including Boshirov?s passport. One photocopy was already used to fake the ?Shirokov?s? passport (see Montenegro?s 2016 coup False Flag).

    So those to whom that criminal sold the photocopies knew where to contact people whose documents they stolen. They had their places of employment.

    That?s what they done- they offered Boshirov & Petrov (a gay couple who seem to be involved in something a bit shady- steroids?human growth hormones?) to deliver something to somebody Salisbury, somewhere near the #Skripal?s house or, maybe, maybe even to Skripal himself(?)
    Boshirov and Petrov were handsomely paid and did not even think twice ? who does not want to have a paid holiday just to deliver/pick up a small thing, maybe documents, prescription drugs, steroids or whatever.

    But whatever they picked up/delivered was not quite legal, so both did not want to mention it. As Putin said- not much of a criminal they were. That?s how they were in Salisbury at the right place at the right time. And suspiciously spent only 3-4 hours there each day.

    While being in Salisbury they were also sightseeing, looked at famous cathedral, which is actually amazing. When they came home- people who used them stopped sending them overseas. There was no reason to- the patsies done what they were planned to be used for.

    Meanwhile, Boshirov and Petrov discovered in horror that they were used, accused in poisoning #Skripals and, being not the brightest people ? they decided not to tell about their shady delivery, especially on TV. So they looked even more suspicious.

    Which all sounds rather plausible. In the plausibility stakes in fact, this whole story ? which as Elena observes is only hypothetical ? rates at least as ?highly likely?, if not quite ?beyond reasonable doubt, and is a substantial base on which to mount further speculation and prediction on the conspirators? next moves.

    That the UK government, its agencies and assistants are the conspirators, with everything that this implies, can however no longer be in doubt.
    Reply With Quote  

  10. #1830  
    NEOCON LUCIFERIAN Serge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Operation Nina ? A Conspirator?s View
    There?s never a shortage of commentators reporting on how Russia planned the attack on the Skripals, or how Syria planned its chemical weapons massacres. So let?s just turn the tables on these prejudiced and blinkered proponents of the Western narrative?

    The current impasse between the UK and Russia, initiated by the Skripal poisoning on March 4th and crystallized by the identification of two Russian ?suspects? this week, calls for new thinking. Despite what appears to most Russians as the complete exposure of the UK?s dirty game, where its ?smoking gun? evidence has been trashed by the appearance of the two ?guns? on Russian TV, the UK?s leaders and their dutiful media remain unrepentant.

    Worse than that, the ?spycatchers? are re-invigorated with passionate Russophobia, full of indignation over the ?brazen appearance? of their assassins on the BBC?s nemesis, RT. After they spent so many months combing through 11,000 hours of CCTV footage to put together a picture of the men, whose recorded movements almost coincided with the location and movements of the Skripals, it would be vexing to see that work squandered in less than a week.

    Or so it might seem.

    But before we feel too sorry for those unnamed individuals who finally found the proverbial needles in the haystack of Russians visiting Salisbury, albeit, at rather a quiet time, we might consider this inconvenient detail: ?Novichok? was found on swabs taken at the City Stay Hotel on MAY 4th.

    This, of course, was only two months after the attack on the Skripals, when the nerve agent might have been considered ?fresh? and possibly dangerous; more recent re-testing found no trace of Novichok, though it was suggested this was because all of the substance had been removed on the swabs in May. Yes.

    Given that no-one at the hotel reported being affected by Novichok, one must conclude that police had already identified Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov by the end of April, as Russians who had flown into London on that snowy weekend in March, and who had visited Salisbury while staying at City Stay Hotel.

    But before we waste time speculating how and why it took them another four months to release the mug-shots of the suspected ?GRU agents?, we should consider how much earlier the two Russians may have been under suspicion as the possible culprits and purveyors of the Nina Ricci perfume ?Nouveau Truc?.

    If authorities assumed the assassins had come from Russia, with the extensive monitoring and searching capabilities now available to them, might Petrov and Boshirov (their real names) not have been identified within days?

    But now here?s the rub.

    Accepting that the ?Novichok? poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal did NOT take place, neither as claimed by the UK from contact with a Novichok-smeared doorknob, nor in fact from any contact at all, we should now logically consider if these two Russian guys were identified before they came to London.

    This is not some ?conspiracy theory? ? because it?s clear that there was a conspiracy. And with every new piece of ?evidence?, and every repetition of the original false and fabricated claims against Russia this conspiracy becomes deeper and more malignant.

    It is often useful when accusations are made against countries of ? for instance ? military expansionism, to reverse the protagonists; would the US be happy to see Chinese warships ?maintaining freedom of navigation? between Cuba and Florida? While building military bases in neighboring countries and installing anti-missile defense systems in them?

    So in considering the attack on the Skripals, and the apparent connection with false-flag chemical weapons attacks in Syria, it is useful to take what we may call a ?conspirator?s eye view?.

    Despite the credulity of Western media and its audience in the fabricated stories of chemical weapons use both in Syria and in Salisbury, there is now no alternative but to count these Western populations amongst the victims of a massive conspiracy by the UK and its allies; one that threatens to even exceed the criminality and deception involved in that ?Mother of all Conspiracies? that launched the Imperial Wars of Terror seventeen years ago.

    Considering this conspiracy, or operation - as it may appear to those who planned and executed the whole deception ? from their perspective, opens up a whole new line of inquiry, and interest in past events that may have otherwise been overlooked. It may also take us into a realm of human psychology that is highly discomfiting, and for which it may be better to pretend that this is simply an academic inquiry.

    A ?what if the Skripal poisoning was staged by GCHQ to frame the Russians and provide a pretext for sanctions, because of their support for the Syrian government?? inquiry. But just remember this is a pretense.

    First, we must assume that this operation was well-planned, and at least some months in advance. While considerations of the coming Russian Presidential election and the World Cup Football may have figured, along with Russia?s resistance in Ukraine and on its borders, the key driver behind ?Operation Nina? (as we may choose to call it after the UK?s choice of ?perfume?) must surely have been the situation in Syria.

    This became quite clear when Theresa May delivered the ?first use of a chemical weapon in Europe since WW2? accusation against Russia, timed as it was so cleverly only weeks before the staging of the Douma gas attack. Rather than simple guilt by association ? supporting the ?murderous Assad regime? ? Russia could now be framed as a collaborator and user of chemical weapons.

    One need only look at the rise in toxic Russophobia, and support for extreme measures against Russia which are entirely unjustifiable, to realize just who benefits from this framing of the West?s chief bugbear, and thus who might consider such an operation.

    Russia?s enormous commitment to restoring peace and justice in Syria for the last seven years, and dedication to diplomacy and negotiation, with military action as the last resort, has been completely obscured by the NATO campaign of disinformation and subversive action, and to an extraordinary degree.

    Clearly from the conspirators? point of view, ?Operation Nina? and the concomitant ?White Helmets? and ?Doctors Under Fire? operations in Syria have been a resounding success ? even though the presumed goal of regime change still eludes them, whether in Damascus or Moscow. Certainly in terms of intent, and what the opposing parties stood to gain from assassinating Sergei Skripal there can be no argument ? Russia only stood to lose, a little or a lot, while the UK and its allies stood to prevail both militarily and politically in their own interests, however morally repugnant and legally unjustified these were.
    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