Operation Beluga the plan to discredit Putin.

This is an interesting vid. Where a retired French secret service officer mentions the USA UK plan to get stuck into Putin. With an interesting take on how polonium was used. It's interesting insomuch that we have what seems to be a false flag ongoing with regards to the demonization of Russia.
With regards to the latest poisonings it appears that the actual people where all of the suited up decontamination was occurring don't seem to have noticed much going on out of the ordinary.

Does Russia have a Rothschild owned central bank?

I think i see the problem......

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


Looks like Putin told them to sod off, so they are doing an Assad on him Ignore the top one I don't know where that one came from.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Does Russia have a Rothschild owned central bank?


I think i see the problem......

Ah , the old "Globally connected Central Bank" as opposed to the State ran Central Bank
Folks get those confused
Thanks for the reminder
Syria , Iran , North Korea
Used to be Iraq and Afghanistan too. Not too long ago.

I think i see the problem......

I can tell you dont have "vision problems"

a reply to: Gothmog


I think that they have really #ed up on this one , because nobody in Britain are swallowing it

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Gothmog


I think that they have really #ed up on this one , because nobody in Britain are swallowing it

The best way to have an enemy is to create one.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
They have a military industrial complex and key figures that are profiting the most from fighting so-called "terrorists" (or a new "Cold War" for that matter, which profits both sides). These figures are as much capitalist war profiteers as the Rotschilds you speak of. Talking about what the Rothschilds invest their money in and like to promote...

Ernst Walter Mayr....His work contributed to the conceptual revolution that led to the modern evolutionary synthesis of Mendelian genetics, systematics, and Darwinian evolution, and to the development of the biological species concept.

Although Charles Darwin and others posited that multiple species could evolve from a single common ancestor, the mechanism by which this occurred was not understood, creating the species problem. Ernst Mayr approached the problem with a new definition for species. In his book Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942) he wrote that a species is not just a group of morphologically similar individuals, but a group that can breed only among themselves, excluding all others.
...
At the International Zoological Congress at Budapest in 1927, Mayr was introduced by Stresemann to banker and naturalist Walter Rothschild, who asked him to undertake an expedition to New Guinea on behalf of himself and the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
...
He returned to Germany in 1930, and in 1931 he accepted a curatorial position at the American Museum of Natural History, where he played the important role of brokering and acquiring the Walter Rothschild collection of bird skins, which was being sold in order to pay off a blackmailer. During his time at the museum he produced numerous publications on bird taxonomy, and in 1942 his first book Systematics and the Origin of Species, which completed the evolutionary synthesis started by Darwin.

Source: wikipedia, Ernst Mayr

Is Evolution a Fact? Awake!—2006

...
Does Natural Selection Lead to the Creation of New Species?

Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene mutations made them most fit for their new environment. As a result, evolutionists postulate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species.

As previously noted, the evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.”

In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,” continues the brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.”

However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but awkward facts. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.” In 1991, Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth” each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species” of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species” into just one within 200 years.

Back in 1966, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams wrote: “I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.” Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’ conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating anything new.”

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.

Regarding Ernst Mayr's "new definition for species"...

Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic. As history bears out, such tactics can prove all too effective.

Source: article in my signature (previous page)

Some people also create ambiguity around words like "species" in order to then capitalize on that ambiguity. Just like these guys are doing with a much simpler word: "nothing".

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

I wanted to keep all that short but it just didn't work out. I already skipped the evidence (facts) from research that "strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals." Which is quite interesting and compelling as well.

a reply to: anonentity

Very interesting interview...alas the statement "nobody in Britain is buying it" won't be true as many many believe the papers & news and refuse to believe institutions like the Armed Forces or BBC could possibly do any wrong

Didn't know about the Hospital Doctor denying anyone else had been affected by the "nerve agent" nor the close proximity of Porton Down Lab !
Interesting!

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Yeah Porton Down is just up the road and has an 'interesting' history to say the least.

www.theguardian.com...

There are loads more links bbc and most other uk media sources.

Seems that there are an awful lot of people on here posting Russian propaganda and even more that seem to lap it up without engaging their brains.....

"Nobody in Britain is buying it"? Oh really? I am in Salisbury and I can tell you that is complete BS.

Can't watch the video right now.

Does he say the motive of this operation?

Why do TPTB wants Putin out?

1. Why have there been no updates on the condition of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the public domain since the first week of the investigation?

2. Are they still alive?

3. If so, what is their current condition and what symptoms are they displaying?

4. In a recent letter to The Times, Stephen Davies, Consultant in Emergency Medicine at Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust, wrote the following:

“Sir, Further to your report (“Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment”, Mar 14) may I clarify that no patients have experienced nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning.”

His claim that “no patients have experienced nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury” is remarkably odd, as it appears to flatly contradict the official narrative. Was this a slip of the pen, or was it his intention to communicate precisely this — that no patients have been poisoned by a nerve agent in Salisbury?

5. It has been said that the Skripals and Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey were poisoned by “a military grade nerve agent”. According to some claims, the type referred to could be anywhere between five and eight times more toxic than VX nerve agent. Given that just 10mg of VX is reckoned to be the median lethal dose, it seems likely that the particular type mentioned in the Skripal case should have killed them instantly. Is there an explanation as to how or why this did not happen?

6. Although reports suggested the involvement of some sort of nerve agent fairly soon after the incident, it was almost a week before Public Health England issued advice to those who had visited The Mill pub or the Zizzi restaurant in Salisbury on the day that the Skripals fell ill. Why the delay and did this pose a danger to the public?

7. In their advice, Public Health England stated that people who had visited those places, where traces of a military grade nerve agent had apparently been found, should wash their clothes and:

“Wipe personal items such as phones, handbags and other electronic items with cleansing or baby wipes and dispose of the wipes in the bin (ordinary domestic waste disposal).”

Are baby wipes acknowledged to be an effective and safe method of dealing with objects that may potentially have been contaminated with “military grade nerve agent”, especially of a type 5-8 times more deadly than VX?

8. Initial reports suggested that Detective Sergeant Bailey became ill after coming into contact with the substance after attending the Skripals on the bench they were seated on in The Maltings in Salisbury. Subsequent claims, however, first aired by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Ian Blair on 9th March, said that he came into contact with the substance at Sergei Skripal’s house in Christie Miller Road. Reports since then have been highly ambiguous about what should be an easily verifiable fact. Which is the correct account?

9. The government have claimed that the poison used was “a military grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia”. The phrase “of a type developed by Russia” says nothing whatsoever about whether the substance used in the Salisbury case was produced or manufactured in Russia. Can the government confirm that its scientists at Porton Down have established that the substance that poisoned the Skripals and DS Bailey was actually produced or manufactured in Russia?

10. The former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has claimed that sources within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) have told him that scientists at Porton Down would not agree to a statement about the place of origin of the substance, because they were not able to establish this. According to Mr Murray, only under much pressure from the Government did they end up agreeing to the compromise wording, “of a type developed by Russia”, which has subsequently been used in all official statements on the matter. Can the FCO, in plain and unambiguous English, categorically refute Mr Murray’s claims that pressure was put on Porton Down scientists to agree to a form of words and that in the end a much-diluted version was agreed?

11. On the occasion that the FCO did attempt to refute Mr Murray’s claims, the wording they used included a straightforward repetition of the same phrase – “of a type developed by Russia”. Is the FCO willing and able to go beyond this and confirm that the substance was not only “of a type developed by Russia”, but that it was “produced” or “manufactured” in Russia?

12. Why did the British Government issue a 36-hour ultimatum to the Russian Government to come up with an explanation, but then refuse their request to share the evidence that allegedly pointed to their culpability (there could have been no danger of their tampering with it, since Porton Down would have retained their own sample)?

13. How is it possible for a state (or indeed any person or entity) that has been accused of something, to defend themselves against an accusation if they are refused access to evidence that apparently points to their guilt?

14. Is this not a clear case of the reversal of the presumption of innocence and of due process?

15. Furthermore, why did the British Government issue an ultimatum to the Russian Government, in contravention of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) rules governing such matters, to which both Britain and Russia are signatories, and which are clearly set out in Article 9, Paragraph ii of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)?

16. Given that the investigation, which has been described by the man leading it as being “an extremely challenging investigation” and as having “a number of unique and complex issues”, and given that many of the facts of the case are not yet known, such as when, where and how the substance was administered, how is it possible for the British Government to point the finger of blame with such certainty?

17. Furthermore, by doing so, haven’t they both politicised and prejudiced the investigation?

18. Why did the British Government feel the need to come forward with an accusation little more than a week into the investigation, rather than waiting for its completion?

19. On the Andrew Marr Show on 18th March, the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, stated the following:

“And I might just say in response to Mr Chizhov’s point about Russian stockpiles of chemical weapons. We actually had evidence within the last ten years that Russia has not only been investigating the delivery of nerve agents for the purposes of assassination, but it has also been creating and stockpiling Novichok.”

Where has this intelligence come from and has it been properly verified?

20. If this intelligence was known before 27th September 2017 – the date that the OPCW issued a statement declaring the completion of the destruction of all 39,967 metric tons of chemical weapons possessed by the Russian Federation – why did Britain not inform the OPCW of its own intelligence which apparently contradicts this claim, which they would have had a legal obligation to do?

21. If this intelligence was known after 27th September 2017, why did Britain not inform the OPCW of this “new” information, which it was legally obliged to do, since it allegedly shows that Russia had been lying to the OPCW and had been carrying out a clandestine chemical weapons programme?

Tbc

22. Also on the Andrew Marr show, Mr Johnson made the following claim after a question of whether he was “absolutely sure” that the substance used to poison the Skripals was a “Novichok”:

“Obviously to the best of our knowledge this is a Russian-made nerve agent that falls within the category Novichok made only by Russia, and just to get back to the point about the international reaction which is so fascinating.”

Is the phrase “to the best of our knowledge” an adequate response to Mr Marr’s request of him being “absolutely sure”?

23. Is this a good enough legal basis from which to accuse another state and to impose punitive measures on it, or is more certainty needed before such an accusation can be made?

24. After hedging his words with the phrase, “to the best of our knowledge”, Mr Johnson then went beyond previous Government claims that the substance was “of a type developed in Russia”, saying that it was “Russian-made”. Have the scientists at Porton Down been able to establish that it was indeed “Russian-made”, or was this a case of Mr Johnson straying off-message?

25. He also went beyond the previous claim that the substance was “of a type developed in Russia” by saying that the substance involved in the Skripal case “falls within the category Novichok made only by Russia”? Firstly, is Mr Johnson able to provide evidence that this category of chemical weapons was ever successfully synthesised in Russia, especially in the light of the OPCW’s Scientific Advisory Board stating as recently as 2013, that it has “insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of ‘Novichoks‘“?

26. As Craig Murray has again pointed out, since its 2013 statement, the OPCW has worked (legally) with Iranian scientists who have successfully synthesised these chemical weapons. Was Mr Johnson aware that the category of “Novichok” chemical weapons had been synthesised elsewhere when he stated that this category of chemical weapons is “made only by Russia”?

27. Does the fact that Iranian scientists were able to synthesise this class of chemical weapons suggest that other states have the capabilities to do likewise?

28. Is the British Government aware that the main plant involved in attempts to synthesise Novichoks in the 1970s and 1980s was based not in Russia, but in Nukus in Uzbekistan?

29. Does the fact that the US Department of Defence decontaminated and dismantled the Nukus site, under an agreement with the Government of Uzbekistan, make it at least theoretically possible that substances or secrets held within that plant could have been carried out of the country and even back to the United States?

30. The connection between Sergei Skripal’s MI6 recruiter, Pablo Miller, who also happens to live in Salisbury, and Christopher Steele, the author of the so-called “Trump Dossier”, has been well established, as has the fact that Mr Skripal and Mr Miller regularly met together in the City. Is this connection of any interest to the investigation into the incident in Salisbury?
Link Zero Hedge

As novichok unites Europe, Brexit seems more absurd

a reply to: DerBeobachter

a reply to: DerBeobachter

Point 4: Here is Dr Davies letter to the Times:

Letter to The Times

He actually simply said that no one other the Skripals and the Police Officer were treated for poisoning at Salisbury District Hospital, thus allaying fears that the other thirty odd members of the public admitted were not poisoned.

What he said was very clear and very straightforward so one has to wonder at your motive for completely misrepresenting what he actually said?

Would you care to explain yourself?

a reply to: DerBeobachter

1. Why have there been no updates on the condition of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the public domain since the first week of the investigation?

Utter nonsense. There are plenty, actually, as a simple Google will confirm, eg:-

Update on Skripals' Condition

So, a question for you - why do you present obvious lies as facts?

a reply to: DerBeobachter

30 questions....

I don't think I can get through them all but I have a bit of free time just now before I head off for a bit so why not.

1. Why have there been no updates on the condition of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the public domain since the first week of the investigation?

2. Are they still alive?

3. If so, what is their current condition and what symptoms are they displaying?

I hope you don't mind me grouping these three together. Just a few days ago there was a court order that give more details. The short of it is that both are still on life support and are critical but stable.

[5.....]it seems likely that the particular type mentioned in the Skripal case should have killed them instantly. Is there an explanation as to how or why this did not happen?

This report is about a scientist who was exposed to it and it took him a year to die. It depends on a whole host of variables how long it will take to kill a person or if it even will kill them.

6. Although reports suggested the involvement of some sort of nerve agent fairly soon after the incident, it was almost a week before Public Health England issued advice to those who had visited The Mill pub or the Zizzi restaurant in Salisbury on the day that the Skripals fell ill. Why the delay and did this pose a danger to the public?

Well it took them a while to figure out exactly what it was the 12th of March that May made her statement to the commons with the details of what was known and it was the 11th that public health released some advice, and then it was the 8th or 9th that they knew what it was. The actual advise anyway was only to wash down the dishes or something to that effect. The talk coming out of all COBRA meetings was that there was no risk to the pubic. There is also a interesting parallel to Litvenenko where the government stayed quiet about finding radiation on the tube because they believed it would cause panic so that could also be a contributing factor.

8. Initial reports suggested that Detective Sergeant Bailey became ill after coming into contact with the substance after attending the Skripals on the bench they were seated on in The Maltings in Salisbury. Subsequent claims, however, first aired by former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Lord Ian Blair on 9th March, said that he came into contact with the substance at Sergei Skripal’s house in Christie Miller Road. Reports since then have been highly ambiguous about what should be an easily verifiable fact. Which is the correct account?

It was at the house he was exposed, during these big breaking news events there are always inaccurate or incomplete media reports. He was one of I think three officers who was sent to the Skripals home after he was found.

[8.]According to Mr Murray, only under much pressure from the Government did they end up agreeing to the compromise wording, “of a type developed by Russia”, which has subsequently been used in all official statements on the matter. Can the FCO, in plain and unambiguous English, categorically refute Mr Murray’s claims that pressure was put on Porton Down scientists to agree to a form of words and that in the end a much-diluted version was agreed?

Well yes but Murray is also a frequent guess on RT so lets also take that into account.

He is right however, but May was quite open in her address to the Commons (before Murray starting trying to sell himself) that this is of a "type developed by Russia". This is true. It is only one part of the bigger picture, the OPWC are also going to inspect the nerve agent and if they corroborate then that will provide further evidence of Russian involvement. This in no way casts doubt or question of the possibility that this was Russia rather its just some carful language being used by proton down and the government.

[9]Can the government confirm that its scientists at Porton Down have established that the substance that poisoned the Skripals and DS Bailey was actually produced or manufactured in Russia?

My understanding on the chemistry of this is limited but my understanding is that the scientists at proton down are able to say with a degree of confidence where the toxin came from. How they do this I do not know and I would imagine that it is information that is not in the public domain as it could compromise intelligence assets and techniques.

11. On the occasion that the FCO did attempt to refute Mr Murray’s claims, the wording they used included a straightforward repetition of the same phrase – “of a type developed by Russia”. Is the FCO willing and able to go beyond this and confirm that the substance was not only “of a type developed by Russia”, but that it was “produced” or “manufactured” in Russia?

So lets clear this up. Craig Murray issued a article on the 14th of march that said it was of a type developed by Russia, this was first said in Mays march 12th statement to commons and it has been reiterated in all other official government statements including the EU statement, Nato and so on. Nobody is denying it was anything other than of a type developed by Russia.

12. Why did the British Government issue a 36-hour ultimatum to the Russian Government to come up with an explanation, but then refuse their request to share the evidence that allegedly pointed to their culpability (there could have been no danger of their tampering with it, since Porton Down would have retained their own sample)?

I would highly recommend you read further into the stuff the Russians were doing when they were "cooperating" with the litvinenko investigation. They gave them 36 hours to assist in the investigation and the Russians basically said "piss off".

13. How is it possible for a state (or indeed any person or entity) that has been accused of something, to defend themselves against an accusation if they are refused access to evidence that apparently points to their guilt?

Fair question I don't know. All I would say is that Russia so far have not been behaving in my view like a innocent party.

14. Is this not a clear case of the reversal of the presumption of innocence and of due process?

The claim is not that Russia are guilty of it rather that they are the prime suspects, that is kind of different. You wouldn't ask the same of the prime suspect in another attempted murder investigation.


Look......

I would go on but the fact of the matter is that right now there is a very strong case against Russia (not proven but strong), I have seen so far zero evidence to suggest this was anyone other than Russia or Russian individuals. Your questions while valid are only questions they do not actually offer up any kind of evidence that this was not Russia or provide a alternative explanation.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: DerBeobachter

1. Why have there been no updates on the condition of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in the public domain since the first week of the investigation?

Utter nonsense. There are plenty, actually, as a simple Google will confirm, eg:-

Update on Skripals' Condition

So, a question for you - why do you present obvious lies as facts?

I just left a link to a thread that raises some good questions, thought it would be easy to recognize that with the link under the 30 questions.

Now you have explanation for some of them, that maybe were not "lies"(as you say) when the article was written, but what is with the rest? Can you explain me all of that(and i even would have some new questions) so that i could believe that official story and don´t have to think of a badly performed flase flag attack? What is with all the coincidences between the evidence for the Iraq war and the Skripal case. In both cases it were the brits that presented the "irrefutable evidence" via their secret services.

Did you see the powerpoint presentation, which was reason enough for some idiotic vasalls like Germany to allegedly just believe the "Russia did it" story. In reality Germany stands by the anglo-american side right now just because of simple and stupid Bündnisstreue, loyalty to the alliance, not even because they said they would really believe the story the UK presents.

How many countries deported russian diplomats?
Look for yourself and look which countries this are, maybe you notice something, think of "loyalty to the alliance" ,the NATO, think of anglo-american serfdom plus think of the east european "Revenge from Russia" states, which motives they could have to deport russian diplomats:
Link

Not even every EU state is willing to just believe that abstruse story! And why do from around 194 states on earth only these 25 deport russian diplomats, but the overwhelming majority does not? And why do many of them say that they first want to see any credible(!) evidence, before they would start to deport russian diplomats?

The biggest lie of all is the official story!
And there are even reasons enough presented of why they would do something like this, look at the other link i posted, after these 30 questions!

a reply to: DerBeobachter


I really don't have the time or inclination to respond point by point but I fail to see why I should bother really when you ask things like why have there been no updates on the Skripal's condition "in the public domain since the first week of the investigation".

Seeing as how there have been loads of such updates all over the MSN and everywhere that leaves me with two possibilities about why you post this stuff - (1) You are too lazy to Google to find the answer to your question or (2) you are just deliberately lying and spreading pro Russian propaganda.