Assassination attempt on former Russian spy in the UK , The Cold War Returns

originally posted by: spy66
Correct. But will we actually get thee evidence or will we get something that is manufactured?

Well, some people and organisations/governments will dispute the evidence. If Russia is implicated the entire Russian state propaganda machine will drive distraction and confusion, thus insuring the gullible are controlled.

The fact is that in the case of the UK evidence ends up in the legal system where it'll end up being scrutinised and probably published. I would rather trust the legal system and investigative processes in the UK over (say) a bunch of paid Russian trolls and RT.com. I recognise some people trust RT.com, but that's the world we live in, eh?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: spy66
Correct. But will we actually get thee evidence or will we get something that is manufactured?

Well, some people and organisations/governments will dispute the evidence. If Russia is implicated the entire Russian state propaganda machine will drive distraction and confusion, thus insuring the gullible are controlled.

The fact is that in the case of the UK evidence ends up in the legal system where it'll end up being scrutinised and probably published. I would rather trust the legal system and investigative processes in the UK over (say) a bunch of paid Russian trolls and RT.com. I recognise some people trust RT.com, but that's the world we live in, eh?

Well that is Your Choice. This is also why it is so easy to fool the Public. We dont actually trust anyone, but we just choose a narrative that sounds fair. Maybe the narrative the majority supports. We do love Democracy, cant go wrong if i support the winning team..

a reply to: spy66


Ah yes, Russia - a shining beacon for democracy. Just look how free and fair their current election is?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: spy66


I guess we will find out in due course.

What is the source for your excerpt?

I believe this particular opioid was used in aerosol form by your Russian mates in the Moscow Theatre Hostage crisis so how does that fit with your views?

Symptomatic reports from a couple of days back (suppression breathing, loss consciousness, coma, behaviour beforehand) led to initial reports it was an opioid analogue - though this was later denied/ruled out/obviously doesn't fit progressive symptoms. (a swab for acetyl-choline would show results for a nerve agent, an opoid wouldn't burn out the synaptic vesicles in the manner and opioid tests have shown up blank.

From what I gather the nerve agent source has been traced backed to a Moscow lab run by Russian NBC crews, the cast iron proof is only a couple of days away.

Though Putin is now openly joking about Russia's enemies accidentally poisoning themselves so I've no idea why people would believe he was set up. The last 24 hours have seen a major flurry of activity.

a reply to: bastion


Cast iron proof would be good.

The very first reports in these parts mentioned fentanyl. I always wondered where the press got that from.

a reply to: spy66

spy66,

I think it is important to take an objective view of this matter. By that I mean that while I have less than no respect, concern, love for, or trust in our intelligence services, because I know that a great deal of their time is spent in actions which actually harm the people of this country (by way of mass surveillance, and by way of engineering and maintaining networks used to fund and control terrorist groups abroad and at home), I also have no love for the intelligence services of Russia, because I know that they are equally disdainful of the health, happiness and the rights of their own people, and have agendas which include harm to my people, and people living in my country.

Therefore, while it is perfectly possible that Russia are not to blame for this incident, it is also perfectly possible that they are, and the only way that a reasonable conclusion can be come to on the causes and origins of this incident, is to examine the facts as they become available to us, by whatever means and through whatever channels, as might be the case.

As always, this leaves us in a holding pattern, which will remain the case until we can get firm data on the situation from somewhere. Of course, the origins of the data that we get will necessarily shade our opinion of the matter, but that is why we must not be shy about the sources we use to create an aggregate picture of the situation. For example, it has always been my view, that you can learn a great deal from what is not reported by a given news agency, by reading between the lines. Doing so becomes easier, the more sources, from all quarters, you use, because the gaps in reportage become more obvious.

An example of this would be comparing US news broadcasts, with those of the UK, and those of Russia. Taken apart from one another, all you would get is the propaganda attendant to each nations leadership, broadly speaking. But taken as a whole, you can build a picture of events which can indicate the areas which are in dispute, create a mental Venn diagram which allows you to parse the situation for propaganda, leaving you, once that parsing is done, with the facts that no one is questioning at all.

Its tricky, its convoluted, but it works. Unfortunately, no one reads the news this way. They pick their preferred lies, they read their sides news, and ignore everything else, meaning that they never get the whole story, they never see the cogs, only the outer skin of the machine.

a reply to: TrueBrit


In other words, we can only speculate until we have more facts?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Power_Semi


I don't think anyone with half a brain could be misled by those headlines as they made it clear that they were about cyber attacks.

Russia has form for cyber attacks on other countries.

Are you suggesting that Russia does not have the capacity to cripple the UK by such attacks?

And - you are agreeing with Flanker86!!!!

Sorry but you're just plain wrong, and the other guy saying I don't know what I'm talking about - sorry but I understand so much more than you 2 it's laughable at just how slow you both are.

First of all the reason headlines like that are used is that around 80% of people read ONLY the healine of any given article, only 20% of people read the copy.

So when you think of those newspapers stacked up, folded so you can only see the above-the-fold headline in the "gas station" or wherever - 80% of the people who see those headlines will only read the headlines.

That's why it's been part of political chicanery for so long to print headlines like:

"Russia could Cripple the UK"

This 1 day after the "alleged poisoning" using "nerve agents" that was probably "by the Ruskies".

The 80% of people who saw that headline would put 2 and 2 together and come to the conclusion that Russia want to launch a biological attack on the UK to cripple us. Since they would never get to the copy about "cyber attacks".

It's also the reason why mud sticks.

Papers for example print some seedy allegation against a politician with a headline that could be interpreted as being highly accusatory, then a much more watered down copy that actually shows there's nothing in the story, then a week later print a 1 paragraph "apology" buried deep in the paper on page 9 under some other no-interest story.

Since only 20% of people read the copy, and only a tiny fraction of them will see the retraction, it allows for the smearing of politicians, parties, celebrities, countries - you name it - without fear of being sued, and with the knowledge that of the 80% of people who only saw the headline, 99.9% of them (people like you no doubt) will still believe it 10 years later and will believe it constitutes knowledge.

So, perhaps what you and the other idiot could do is to learn something before trying to fire off your gobs when actually, neither of you have the feintest idea of what you're talking about.

This is a conspiracy website, and yet neither of you have the feintest idea about the tricks the establishment use to blinker people - well people just like you - and so you come here defending the rubbish printed in those papers as though it's fact.

You're both in the wrong place, you need to be on the BBC News comments section so that you can just agree with everything they say and call anyone else a conspiracy theorist or a bigot.

originally posted by: Whereismypassword

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: oldcarpy

We are in a conspiracy site mate, that view can be expected and I respect his opinion

Myself, it’s the Russians

Oh really? You don’t think he thinks that because he is white and far right anymore? Some mod have a word with you did they? Pfft.

No mods have had a word with me and this site is full of far right and white posters churning out conspiracy theories coming from Russian troll factory’s

I’m white and English, you have a problem which that then that’s your problem sunshine

Where is your evidence of people posting conspiracy theories coming from Russian troll factory’s? I know there is a far right element on here, but is Russia really feeding them the drivel they spout? Or are you falling for the propaganda that the MSM churns out that everything that goes wrong is Russia’s fault?

I’ve seen Russia blamed for Brexit, and for Trump becoming president and it’s a crock of crap frankly. I think they are still pissed at Russia for stopping the toppling of Assad.

So what if your white and English? So am I, what difference does that make?
Since when did a former communist state suddenly become far right anyway?

a reply to: Power_Semi


My response to you would be exactly the same as the one in the well known case of Arkell v Pressdram.

You may like to look it up.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Far right and WHITE is what I mention, with the emphasis on WHITE for this boards 180 on its anti Putin and anti Russian threads that used to dominate this site

Won’t say any more as I don’t want to go off topic

a reply to: Power_Semi


"Cyber attack" was in the headline. So there goes your argument, genius.

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
a reply to: surfer_soul

Far right and WHITE is what I mention, with the emphasis on WHITE for this boards 180 on its anti Putin and anti Russian threads that used to dominate this site

Won’t say any more as I don’t want to go off topic

Well you brought it up in the first place and had no issue with going off topic then!
What does being white have to do with anything and why did you feel the need to capitalise it twice? You sound like one of these white apologists to me.

Perhaps create your own thread on the matter I’m sure it will make an interesting debate.

Looks like Mad Vlads troll factories are working good and proper, and Russian news media pumping out anti-British rhetoric is sheer class!!
With upto 200 British soldiers, trained in hazards of this kind, being sent in to help with decontamination is a good idea. It will help get things back to normal quicker and keep the public and lesser trained police officers out of harms way.

a reply to: surfer_soul


With Mad Vlads idea of "democracy" the way it is and his troll factories helping push the idea of a certain type of nationalism around the globe one can't help but wonder where Russia is heading. I remember the history of another party who had similar ideas, The National Socialist Party of Germany, and we all know how that went!!

a reply to: Kurokage

What do you propose? We already have British media pumping out anti Russian rhetoric so it’s tit for tat in that respect.

Wouldn’t it be better to man up and have someone assassinate mad vlad?
Or should we just declare war instead, scene as Russia could cripple us with a cyber attack anytime anyways, it would be the preemptive move to make.

a reply to: surfer_soul

You sound like one of these white apologists to me.

Just to clarify for someone who hasn't been around these parts for a while; who or what exactly is a 'white apologist'?

a reply to: Kurokage

Right I was under the impression Russia was vilified for being communist, now though under Putin they are far right? Nationalism is the opposite of globalism so I’m all for it in that respect, it doesn’t mean the same thing as fascism.

Putin might not be some angel far from it, but it is and was him and his supporters who prevented Russia becoming a complete lap dog of the gangster globalist cabal.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: surfer_soul

You sound like one of these white apologists to me.

Just to clarify for someone who hasn't been around these parts for a while; who or what exactly is a 'white apologist'?

a belief, often subconscious, among white liberals that being white is, in and of itself, a great transgression against the rest of the world for which one must spend their life making atonement.

P.s I’ve tried to drop some breadcrumbs in this thread about who might really be behind the attempted assassination, but it seems people prefer to look at it with the us versus them mentality or left versus right paradigm. I might as well be posting in the comments section of some tabloid newspaper rather than ATS.

a reply to: surfer_soul

Thanks for the explanation.

I think you're right, that does indeed seem worthy of a thread all on its own.

I have no desire to derail this thread so I'll just leave it at that.