Here is a theory. Maybe this guy tried to commit a suicide, and make it look like an assassination so that people would pity him. Maybe he was kicked out of FSB for mental instability, became disgruntled and moved to UK where he found a well paying job telling fairy tales to reporters. Then he reflected on his meaningless life life, and decided to off himself. And when you don't succeed what do you do- you blame your old boss. Sounds pretty much as plausible as Putin disguised as a sushi chef putting thallium or whatever into the guy's sushi.

And just happened to have a supply of radioactive thallium on hand to poison himself with? Come on dude, that's genuine wet work supplies.
And while I see you try to discredit me through absurd imagry, I never said Putin was shadowing around Europe, personally poisoning dissidents.

Why not Italy, or maybe the picteresque Switzerland or Monaco.

None of those other countries, save Switzerland, have really strong anti-extradition laws. Especially Italy, which teeters with both fascism and leftist ideologies, and has a love-hate relationship with Russia.

And seriously? Putin in a limo? Como on, man. Do better than that to debate me.

If you took care of choosing a better leader in the first place, more centralized authority wouldn't be much of the problem as long as it's not abused.

Ditto, my friend.

Infused billions? Where are these billions. Major cities remained dirt poor through the 90's. The oligarchs and their Western parters got around paying most taxes thanks to bribes. Exxon/Shell/BP were pumping oil as fast as they could, and all the money was untraceable- believed to have went back to UK through parterns like Berezovsky and Khadarkovsky. Genious idea- lets pump Russia's oil, and then pay ourselves for it. I can see why Russian's hate these Western conglomerates.

Entire thriving cities in Northern Russia -- long suffering and dirt poor -- were created because of western capital energy expansion. Why those funds failed to be infused in the overall Russian economy is not the fault of Exxon. It's the fault of corruption. But I think if you were to speak to the workers for the oil companies, you'd find a much different opinion on the realities of life.

Never be successful without these companies? Are you kidding me? Was Russia in the stone age before the 90's? It's not like the Soviet Union was powered by the wind or by manpower. Oil/gas refining and infrastructure was in place for decades, and well operational beyond needed capacity of that time. There were never issues with getting gas or oil. It is because Western puppets in Russia's government pressed on for quick privatization, that they were able to acquire these assets for pennies on the dollar.

It's not that they were in the "stone age," so much, as the state controlled energy industry let its infrastructure sour and lag behind technologically, so the upstart cost to bring lines and manufacturing and refining to capacity in a modern sense was way toooooooo cost intensive for a bankrupt post-Soviet Russian government.

And yes Putin is now using Western funds to build new energy infrastructure in return for a small profit share to Western companies. After so many years of being exploited by them, its time for Russia to put pressure on them to pitch in some funds. After that they are out of there- for good.

Nice justification for what is essentially a crime.

Putin is not power-hungry, he is leaving after this term.

Oh really? You think so? Is that before or after he crowns himself czarist for life.....

Russians prefer poison and other countries prefer explosives. It is like the comics at times I swear. Like Rocky and Bullwinkle vs Natasha and Boris.

Originally posted by behindthescenes
And just happened to have a supply of radioactive thallium on hand to poison himself with? Come on dude, that's genuine wet work supplies.
And while I see you try to discredit me through absurd imagry, I never said Putin was shadowing around Europe, personally poisoning dissidents.

Well this absurdity is no more absurd than assuming that Putin has no better things to do than oversee assassinations of "dissidents" (AKA sell-outs) around the world. Why no liquidate Berezovsky or the remainder of Chechen separatist leader hiding in Britain and the Middle East? Sure FSB could off anyone if they want to. There are thousands of Putin critics in Europe, many even more so than this allegedly poisoned fella. Do you honestly think Putin is gonna start a bloodbath in Europe. There are plenty in Russia, who have to fear organized crime factions more than Putin. In fact many of the murdered reporters were killed because they interfered by reporting on local organised crime factions. It is the West that blames every murder on Putin- and thats easy to do because most reporters have at one time or other criticized Putin. That is like blaming any killed reporters in the West, for criticizing Bush. Nearly all criticized him, but there still needs to be a connection between criticism and their death.

The connection in this case is unclear untill further evidence. Maybe it was the MI5 that killed him, or the CIA. You could probably dig up a reason after a thorough search as well.


And while we are on the plot of assassinations- there are still rumors in Eastern Europe, Russia, and Balkans that Milosevich was assassinated by the West. After all the trials in Hague were going nowhere, and Milosevich presented evidence that NATO purposely bombed civilian targets, and allowed Albanians to murder Serbian civilians. He even subpoenaed Clinton to appear in hague right before he died. Now Milosevich wasn't much of a good guy, and there are few facts to support the assassination theory. But it's just as plausible as this theory on Putin.

So why isn't the Western media all over the Milosevich assassination story- blaming Clinton and his ex-Secret Service cronies? Selective coverage of such news, is clearly bias, and proves that the West is more interested in witch hunts against Putin and other "evil" leaders.

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Entire thriving cities in Northern Russia -- long suffering and dirt poor -- were created because of western capital energy expansion. Why those funds failed to be infused in the overall Russian economy is not the fault of Exxon. It's the fault of corruption.

This corruption was fueled by Western businesses who stood to make a profit on it- and did. With dubious tactics like that you'd have to wonder why these Western energy firms aren't busy making billions in profit out of thin air. OH WAIT THEY MAKING BILLIONS IN PROFIT. Where do you think all that excess capital comes from? It comes from exploiting third world countries and taking their oil. In return they give the cooperating leader of those countries a pat on the back, while the people get the shaft.

Have you seen the movie Syriana. Gives a pretty good picture of what these oil firms are doing. They are far from being the great humanitarians. I think Americans themselves became disillusioned with these glorious conglomerates after oil prices started going up for incoherent reasons last year. Democracy- is the government by the corporations, for the corporations. The people are given some symbolic rights to make them feel in charge, when in reality the Electoral College is making a farce of this Democracy.

Originally posted by behindthescenes
It's not that they were in the "stone age," so much, as the state controlled energy industry let its infrastructure sour and lag behind technologically, so the upstart cost to bring lines and manufacturing and refining to capacity in a modern sense was way toooooooo cost intensive for a bankrupt post-Soviet Russian government.

Soviet Union had the largest and most reliable natural gas infrastructure in the world. Europe still relies on this infrastructure for gas imports from Russia. During Soviet Times there was no need to over produce petroleum products, because they weren't exported outside the Soviet Union. Now that Russia needs to export them, it obviously needs to expand its infrastructure, but it is very capable of doing so itself. It has the technology and funds.

There are other things at play in contracting Western firms to develop new oil stations. These are concessions that Russia is giving Western countries, in return for increased participation in WTO and G8. Why do you think Putin still lets those companies stick around, and not throwing them all out like Chavez did in Venezuela (props to Chavez by the way). Do you think the federal government can't afford to spend $10 or $15 billion on energy infrastructure. Russia isn't dirt poor today, and the oil firms need it more than it needs them.

To assume that these oil firms are doing Russia or anyone else for that matter a favor, is very misguided. They are exploiting third world nations like they had done with Venezuela, and at the end it came back to bite them. Russia will no longer let itself be exploited, and this here was direct and obvious form of exploitation.

Originally posted by behindthescenes
Nice justification for what is essentially a crime.

Oh really? You think so? Is that before or after he crowns himself czarist for life.....

A crime? By whose standards? Is what US doing in Iraq a bigger crime by these same standards or is that just fair business practices? The West is not one to tutor Russia about law practices here. It is a crime to give the country control out ITS OWN RESOURCES NOW? It is a crime to root out corruption associated with Western corporate conglomerates? If thats all a crime, then I guess US can lock Russia up right now. Except Russia is not a thrid world country incapable of defending itself. What a pity.

Putin is leaving office, and he does not intend to change the constitution (unlike Bush and his Patriot Act). Many Russians are actually unsure who will come to power, and fear that whoever it is he can undo Putin's reforms.


[edit on 21-11-2006 by maloy]

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Russians prefer poison and other countries prefer explosives. It is like the comics at times I swear. Like Rocky and Bullwinkle vs Natasha and Boris.

On this side we have glorious Russia which allegedly defeated a dozen of ex-FSB agents and corrupted oligarchs, all the while trying to take control of its own country's resources.

And on this side we have the heavy weight USA, which invaded Iraq and Afganistan in just the past 5 years, subject tens of millions of people to an increasingly bloody civil strife, saw the deaths of thousands of its soldiers not to mention tens of thousands of civilians, and all the while managed to land striking blows to its opponent Russia by stepping on Ukraine and Georgia and having the audacity to accuse Putin of being the evil guy.


Yep- this is going to be a fair fight.

I'm still trying to find some information about the 'missile silos' BlabBlab says we and the Americans have built in the Ukraine! If we have managed that perhaps The FSB aren't as competant as I thought!

I was referring to the missile-"defense" shield that Washington wants to plant in countries neighbouring Russia.

Actually they want them in the UK too.

Originally posted by blablablaxyz

Once the USUK funded Orange Revolution took over the running of Ukraine it was up to the USUK to step up to the plate and subsidise Ukraine like Russia has been doing since the break up of the Soviet Union. USUK refused because their budget only involved planting missile silos on Ukraine's soil.

To be more precise, USUK missile silos pointed at Russia's citizens.

Take a step back and you'll see that Russia cares about Ukraine's citizens and that the USUK is obviously the meddler.

Oh I see. Just new radar (which will not be placed in the Ukraine). The UK component is the upgrading of the existing facility at RAF Fylingdale.Phew, I'm glad we sorted that out.

No, not just "new radar".

Patriot missile batteries.

For "defensive" purposes only, of course...

Obviously Russia isn't going to give €3bn a year to a country that hosts USUK missiles pointed at her citizens.

Blab you are really begining to worry me. There are no plans to put Patriots or EW Radar in the Ukraine. There are no plans to put Patriots in The UK. (Principally because they don't work very well).

Originally posted by Fang
Russia's dispute with Georgia, Ukraine or whoever, shouldn't mean that non involved EU customers suffer as a result. I'll admit this poses interesting questions about pipelines and gas destined for one customer being "bunkered" by a country through which a pipeline runs but at the end of the day there are international legal means of redress for this sort of dispute which should have been used. Ok they are slow and expensive but what Russia did was to demonstrate that a pricing dispute with a former Republic outweighed any other obligations they had and people have drawn appropriate conclusions as a result.

that i can agree with, and it's self-explanatory that euro companies pay for gas, not just hot air, so it's clear both, russia and EU would have gotten the shaft in a prolonged dispute.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
Russians prefer poison and other countries prefer explosives. It is like the comics at times I swear. Like Rocky and Bullwinkle vs Natasha and Boris.

ok, that alone should tell you something: IF something is just a bit too stereotypical it might just be propaganda. this works both ways, which is one reason why secret services around the world should be canned - not so secretly of course.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Long Lance]

Originally posted by blablablaxyz
No, not just "new radar".

Patriot missile batteries.

For "defensive" purposes only, of course...

Obviously Russia isn't going to give €3bn a year to a country that hosts USUK missiles pointed at her citizens.

Well, yeah. Patriot missiles are not an offensive weapon. Not designed for it and would be ineffectual.

But they sure as hell could protect us in case Putin really loses his mind.....

Now substitute George H. W. Bush (Sr, Poppy, 41) or The Younger 43 for Putin and CIA for KGB/ FSB and who's left out of the loop?

That post sent chills up my spine.


How much oil/pipeline/infrastructure is in Checnya? That seems to be the common thread between this poisoned ex-spy and the journalist's death he is investigating.

For dead spies we use agents to spread misinformation to the enemy. For living spies, we use agents to return with reports. ?

...

Only the wisest ruler can use spies;

Only the most benevolent and upright general can use spies, and only the most alert and observant person can get the truth using spies.

....

There is nowhere that spies cannot be used.

If a spy's activities are leaked before they are to begin, the spy and those who know should be put to death.

Any truth to that?

So, are you implying that the thallium poisioning of Alexander Litvinenko is actually a lie, a cover for something bigger?

I'm listening. What do you think is the covert potential here?

Thanks for the link Psyops I haven't seen that before. I'm no weapons Tech. either but from what I've, read any missile component of the new missile defence system is likely to use a new generation of missile interceptors.( I think the only thing Patriot has shot down was an RAF Tornado!)