a reply to: Kester
It is interesting that such an attack would come in a location so close to the UK chemical weapons research station, Porton Down.
The history that the town of Salisbury has, in terms of its having been experimented on by the operators of the research branch at Porton Down in the
past, and its close proximity to the installation, casts a muddy light on this situation. Looking at this from the perspective of the British
government, if there were to be a chemical attack on the people of this country (which, regardless of the identity of the primary target, this most
certainly qualifies as), the ideal place for it to happen is somewhere close to the resources they would want to deploy, to combat the threat
represented by it. This occurring so close to Porton Down, means that even in the event of a wider spread assault, the best resources we have as a
nation to deal with it, would have been right on top of the exposure site, able to immediately respond to the situation if necessary.
It would be like a person starting a fire right across the street from the fire station, or a thug performing a mugging outside the police station.
If the intention of the perpetrator is to cause harm, it would make more sense for them to do their business further away from the resources which
might best foil their plans, or limit the effectiveness of their plans.
But no, this man was poisoned within easy reach of the nations foremost experts in chemical and biological warfare, the only people in the country
who could be expected to step in to positively effect this specific situation. Surely some other method of assassination would have been more...
effective in this instance? Deaths made to look like accident or suicide would be preferable, surely, to attacking a man with a nerve agent, right on
the doorstep of the people who could most effectively prevent his death? You don't shoot a man with a pistol when he is sat within a battle tank, and
you do not attack a man with nerve agent, right on top of a chemical weapons research laboratory. It makes very little sense, as operations go.
Some might say "Well sure, but it sends a heck of a message!". It does, but at this stage the message is simply that this was a messy,
unprofessionally organised hit, using a method ill suited to the situation, which has failed to kill its target as of yet, had collateral effects, and
has attracted an awful lot of negative attention toward the assumed perpetrator, or at least, the nation from which they allegedly came.
And again, I keep coming back to this:
North Korea, by all measures a pisspot of a dictatorship, full of starving citizens, technologically backward, an unsophisticated place, run by
unsophisticated people, successfully killed a target using VX nerve agent, with, as far as I am aware, no collateral deaths or even exposure related
injuries, and the target died within hours of exposure. North Korea is as nothing when compared to Russia, a blip, a gnat in the presence of
elephants. Russia, of the two nations mentioned, should have been able to reach out and kill Skripal without the slightest concern that he would
survive even a day. But he was poisoned what... eleven days ago now?
His condition remains critical, so he may well die. But he yet lives.
Something does not add up in the slightest about all this. The timing, the location of the hit, the fact that the hit has thus far failed, despite
being allegedly carried out by agents of one of the most powerful nations, operatives of one of the most potent intelligence agencies on the face of
Earth, a nation which has historically employed only the most predatory, dangerous and effective killers trained anywhere in the world...
There is something off about this situation. Its all so muddy at the moment, the picture confused, all the data coming out of anywhere is spun,
biased, potentially untrustworthy. Time, I feel, will be the only thing which provides clarification on this, and I have a nasty feeling that someone,
somewhere, is relying on that for some reason. I just cannot put my finger on why.