6 ms·

The Litvinenko death occurred prior to the Russian Georgian war, prior to Obama's grand reset, prior to the failure of that reset, prior to the Crimean crisis,

by fidget 11y ago

The Litvinenko death occurred prior to the Russian Georgian war, prior to Obama's grand reset, prior to the failure of that reset, prior to the Crimean crisis, in essence, prior to the current political situation. And there has never been any real doubt that it was orchestrated by the KGB, with (at the very least) the knowledge of Putin.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>And there has never been any real doubt There's never been much doubt in the western media, but then again the western media maintains the pretence that Russia isn't factionalized and Putin has absolute power over all ex-FSB/KGB members (Putin isn't unhappy with this characterization; he'd rather be seen as a monster than powerless). The western media isn't coy about bringing up that Lugovoy is a member of the Duma but they usually leave out the fact that he belongs to the far right Liberal Democratic Party and is not a member of Putin's United Russia. If the situations were reversed - let's say an ex-CIA agent killed Edward Snowden (noted critic of Obama) and was subsequently elected as Republican senator would you automatically assume that Obama ordered the attack?
- drdaeman 11y ago
  > leave out the fact that he belongs to the far right Liberal Democratic Party and is not a member of Putin's United Russia With all seriousness, there is no real difference between those. The parties are not opposing each other (except for minor agendas) and differences are primarily cosmetic. Opposing parties (if they manage to get built - opposition is full of issues, too) are practically barred from registering and entering the elections. Not to say LDPR isn't holding any liberal or democratic values (but that's irrelevant). > [...] would you automatically assume that Obama ordered the attack Given that Snowden isn't some small fry, it's reasonable to assume that such things would be at least acknowledged by the higher-ups the chain of command. So, it would be reasonable to assume that there is a good chance of this. Not ordering - the initiative could be someone else's, but acknowledging.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >With all seriousness, there is no real difference between those. With all seriousness did Putin ever suggest forcibly retaking Alaska? >Given that Snowden isn't some small fry, it's reasonable to assume that such things are at least acknowledged by the higher-ups the chain of command. Because Snowden isn't small fry you'd presume that his killing wasn't the work of a fringe right wing extremist group working independently? I would look for where the evidence points, personally.
    - drdaeman 11y ago
      > did Putin ever suggest forcibly retaking Alaska? Don't remember him saying so. But what's about Alaska? Do we have some contest of random analogies here? > wasn't the work of a fringe right wing extremist group What's more likely - that a State Duma deputy and a KGB and Federal Protective Service member is a part of some fringe extremist group (that has access to radioactive materials), or that Kremlin's siloviki (whom Putin is a part of, himself) have pulled some strings? Obviously, that's not a definite evidence - the article doesn't tell that Putin did this. But a well-probable, so Putin's accused of acknowledging or even ordering the killing. Well, everything is possible. We can't deny a possibility of a fringe extremist group. We can't either deny the possibility that the killing was done by a extraterrestrial alien shapeshifting as Lugovoy, by the order of alien reptilians from Nibiru. Accusation goes to most probable ones first. +++++ Edit: oh, sorry! I see, talking about fringe group you meant hyphothetical situation with Snowden. Well, depends on the imaginable case. If we have some ex-CIA agent's fingerprints all over assault UAV's control terminal ;), then it would be reasonable to suspect US Government had something to do with this. Hope you see the idea.
      - crdoconnor 11y ago
        >Don't remember him saying so. But what's about Alaska? Do we have some contest of random analogies here? The leader of the LDR said he wants to take back Alaska by force. "With all seriousness, there is no real difference between those [parties]." <-- not so much. That's just one example of the kind of crackpot ideas they come out with, but it's one you might be able to relate to. Needless to say, it's not an idea Putin would entertain. >What's more likely - that a State Duma deputy and a KGB and Federal Protective Service member is a part of some fringe extremist group (that has access to radioactive materials), or that Kremlin's siloviki (whom Putin is a part of, himself) have pulled some strings? I see both as roughly equally likely (wanting to invade Alaska is a fringe extremist position, no?). I certainly don't think Putin is implicated with cast iron evidence here, which seems to be your position. Also if you don't see anything suspicious about this: >The conclusions of this inquiry are stronger than many expected in pointing the finger at Vladimir Putin personally. The evidence behind that seems to have come from secret intelligence heard in closed session. Or this: >The report stresses that its conclusions are based on many witness opinions that “would not be admissible as evidence” You're an idiot.
- istinspring 11y ago
  Putin is not even member of the United Russia =)

by fidget 11y ago

crdoconnor 11y ago

>And there has never been any real doubt There's never been much doubt in the western media, but then again the western media maintains the pretence that Russia isn't factionalized and Putin has absolute power over all ex-FSB/KGB members (Putin isn't unhappy with this characterization; he'd rather be seen as a monster than powerless). The western media isn't coy about bringing up that Lugovoy is a member of the Duma but they usually leave out the fact that he belongs to the far right Liberal Democratic Party and is not a member of Putin's United Russia. If the situations were reversed - let's say an ex-CIA agent killed Edward Snowden (noted critic of Obama) and was subsequently elected as Republican senator would you automatically assume that Obama ordered the attack?

drdaeman 11y ago
> leave out the fact that he belongs to the far right Liberal Democratic Party and is not a member of Putin's United Russia With all seriousness, there is no real difference between those. The parties are not opposing each other (except for minor agendas) and differences are primarily cosmetic. Opposing parties (if they manage to get built - opposition is full of issues, too) are practically barred from registering and entering the elections. Not to say LDPR isn't holding any liberal or democratic values (but that's irrelevant). > [...] would you automatically assume that Obama ordered the attack Given that Snowden isn't some small fry, it's reasonable to assume that such things would be at least acknowledged by the higher-ups the chain of command. So, it would be reasonable to assume that there is a good chance of this. Not ordering - the initiative could be someone else's, but acknowledging.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >With all seriousness, there is no real difference between those. With all seriousness did Putin ever suggest forcibly retaking Alaska? >Given that Snowden isn't some small fry, it's reasonable to assume that such things are at least acknowledged by the higher-ups the chain of command. Because Snowden isn't small fry you'd presume that his killing wasn't the work of a fringe right wing extremist group working independently? I would look for where the evidence points, personally.
  - drdaeman 11y ago
    > did Putin ever suggest forcibly retaking Alaska? Don't remember him saying so. But what's about Alaska? Do we have some contest of random analogies here? > wasn't the work of a fringe right wing extremist group What's more likely - that a State Duma deputy and a KGB and Federal Protective Service member is a part of some fringe extremist group (that has access to radioactive materials), or that Kremlin's siloviki (whom Putin is a part of, himself) have pulled some strings? Obviously, that's not a definite evidence - the article doesn't tell that Putin did this. But a well-probable, so Putin's accused of acknowledging or even ordering the killing. Well, everything is possible. We can't deny a possibility of a fringe extremist group. We can't either deny the possibility that the killing was done by a extraterrestrial alien shapeshifting as Lugovoy, by the order of alien reptilians from Nibiru. Accusation goes to most probable ones first. +++++ Edit: oh, sorry! I see, talking about fringe group you meant hyphothetical situation with Snowden. Well, depends on the imaginable case. If we have some ex-CIA agent's fingerprints all over assault UAV's control terminal ;), then it would be reasonable to suspect US Government had something to do with this. Hope you see the idea.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      >Don't remember him saying so. But what's about Alaska? Do we have some contest of random analogies here? The leader of the LDR said he wants to take back Alaska by force. "With all seriousness, there is no real difference between those [parties]." <-- not so much. That's just one example of the kind of crackpot ideas they come out with, but it's one you might be able to relate to. Needless to say, it's not an idea Putin would entertain. >What's more likely - that a State Duma deputy and a KGB and Federal Protective Service member is a part of some fringe extremist group (that has access to radioactive materials), or that Kremlin's siloviki (whom Putin is a part of, himself) have pulled some strings? I see both as roughly equally likely (wanting to invade Alaska is a fringe extremist position, no?). I certainly don't think Putin is implicated with cast iron evidence here, which seems to be your position. Also if you don't see anything suspicious about this: >The conclusions of this inquiry are stronger than many expected in pointing the finger at Vladimir Putin personally. The evidence behind that seems to have come from secret intelligence heard in closed session. Or this: >The report stresses that its conclusions are based on many witness opinions that “would not be admissible as evidence” You're an idiot.
istinspring 11y ago
Putin is not even member of the United Russia =)