7 ms·

If it is an attack rather than an accident, then after the Skripal poisoning, Russia should be the #1 suspect. There is only one country in the world that is br

If it is an attack rather than an accident, then after the Skripal poisoning, Russia should be the #1 suspect. There is only one country in the world that is brazen enough to attack a US consulate in China.

dionian 8y ago
Except maybe .. China
- wafflebear 8y ago
  An attack on diplomatic missions in China is an attack on China too.
toomanybeersies 8y ago
My tinfoil hat was actually pointing at non-state actors. This would be something within their means, and something that I'm sure somebody would benefit from. Terrorists have been brazen enough to attack US diplomatic missions in the past. That's not to say that I think ISIS is attacking US diplomatic missions with sonic weapons, but if we're going to go with the theory that it is, in fact, a sonic weapon, there's no reason to believe that it could only be Russia.
lawnchair_larry 8y ago
That doesn’t make a lot of sense. The Skirpal incident is very murky, but even if for the sake of argument we assume that the government ordered it, attacks on a traitor who fled the country would not be in any way relevant to an attack on an American in China. I can’t imagine how one would even suspect Russia here. Not to mention, they would be unbelievably stupid to do something that risky for no real gain.
- wafflebear 8y ago
  That's just it, doing something unbelievably stupid for marginal gain is the Russian M.O. right now. There are still people in hazmat suits cleaning up leftover nerve agent in Salisbury.
  - rdiddly 8y ago
    There is good reason to doubt the Skripal story -- among other things the apparent lack of hard evidence, the absence of any discernible upside for Russia the purported perpetrators, and the already-existing climate of relentless and politically convenient warmongering against Russia for going on 2-3 years now. If Russia is being set up for military attack, then we're currently seeing a propaganda campaign pretty similar to many others. Fool me once... shame on me etc. How do you know I'm wrong? You heard it from one of those same sources? I'm not saying I would outright believe RT or any of Putin's outlets either, but that's exactly the point: a healthy dose of skepticism is called for.
    - wafflebear 8y ago
      Do you dispute that Russia poisoned Litvinenko as well? Enemies of the Russian state just seem to be poisoned by incredibly rare substances every now and again.
      - rdiddly 8y ago
        I don't know much about that case, but a cursory read on Wikipedia (which could itself be biased and/or misinformed) is a bit more convincing than the Skripal case. Nonetheless we're getting pretty far afield. Select two incidents where any nation has killed its double-agents or whistleblowers (and I doubt there are any nations that lavish fond treatment on their double-agents in particular), and you now have evidence against that country equivalent to that upon which you declared Russia the only possible country brazen enough to carry out these two embassy attacks (assuming they were attacks).
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Select two Skripal, Litvinenko, Gorbuntsov, Perepilichnyy and others. Not two.
        rdiddly 8y ago
- huhtenberg 8y ago
  Skripal didn't fled the country. He was caught, trialed, jailed and then exchanged. That whole incident makes absolutely zero sense as explained by the UK government.
  - favorited 8y ago
    How does it not make sense? It absolutely makes sense that a spy would be exchanged, then assassinated later.
    - huhtenberg 8y ago
      No, it doesn't in the slightest. This says "you should not do spy exchanges with us". Moreover, let's shoot this poor shmuck with an exotic bullet stamped with "Made in Russia" on its side AND let's also just wound the guy. The bottom line is that this gives Russia nothing. It proves no point, it doesn't serve as a deterrent to anyone (which is what makes it different from the Litvinenko case), but it's just happens to be overflowing with signs that it was done by Russia. If Russians went to such great lengths to make sure it was obvious it was done by them, then it should be even more obvious why they did that. And it's not. So the simplest explanation is that it's a frame-up.
      - favorited 8y ago
        Except nations do it anyway, regardless of the message it sends to potential exchange partners. Mazen Faqha was released by Israel in a prisoner exchange, and was later assassinated. It serves as a deterrent if it sends the message to your own people that treason will never be forgiven, regardless of a pardon and exchange. And that is a philosophy to which Putin subscribes – he once said, "Enemies are right in front of you, you are at war with them, then you make an armistice with them, and all is clear. A traitor must be destroyed, crushed."
  - lawnchair_larry 8y ago
    Right, that’s an important correction. It casts even more doubt on his poisoning being state ordered. The smoking gun is that the nerve agent came from a USSR factory decades ago. It’s not hard to imagine that ended up in who-knows-whose hands since then. Plus, it didn’t even do the job. Skirpal was released from the hospital. Seems pretty amateur...
thaumasiotes 8y ago
> There is only one country in the world that is brazen enough to attack a US consulate in China. > Russia should be the #1 suspect. If it was actually true that there was only one country in the world brazen enough to attack a US consulate in China, that country would be China, not Russia.
- wafflebear 8y ago
  It's completely absurd. If it transpired that China had been attacking the foreign missions it was hosting, it would instantly go from superpower to pariah state. Countries would pull their diplomats out of China. China would lose credibility even among its allies.
- cryptonector 8y ago
  GP meant (I think) that there is only one country brazen enough to do that in another country. I think that would be right. I'm willing to believe the same operators pulled off these two attacks (well, they look like attacks; let us assume for a moment that they were). In that case it was either China or Russia -- I seriously doubt the Cubans would do this in China, so that leaves either China or Russia. Of course, it could also be North Korea, or who knows who else (Iran?). I doubt anything will come of the local investigations, so until there is a third attempt, we may not find out what's up.
rdtsc 8y ago
> If it is an attack rather than an accident, then after the Skripal poisoning, Russia should be the #1 suspect. There is only one country in the world that is brazen enough to attack a US consulate in China. If it was Russia, I don't understand what's the upside here? Step 1:Hurt US diplomat in China Step 2: Start a wave of condemnations from both countries. Possible retaliations. More sanctions. Step 3: ? Step 4: Profit. They are bullies and have assassinated before but they don't seem to be completely irrational. What would be their Step 3 in the plan?

dionian 8y ago

Except maybe .. China

wafflebear 8y ago
An attack on diplomatic missions in China is an attack on China too.

toomanybeersies 8y ago

My tinfoil hat was actually pointing at non-state actors. This would be something within their means, and something that I'm sure somebody would benefit from. Terrorists have been brazen enough to attack US diplomatic missions in the past. That's not to say that I think ISIS is attacking US diplomatic missions with sonic weapons, but if we're going to go with the theory that it is, in fact, a sonic weapon, there's no reason to believe that it could only be Russia.

lawnchair_larry 8y ago

That doesn’t make a lot of sense. The Skirpal incident is very murky, but even if for the sake of argument we assume that the government ordered it, attacks on a traitor who fled the country would not be in any way relevant to an attack on an American in China. I can’t imagine how one would even suspect Russia here. Not to mention, they would be unbelievably stupid to do something that risky for no real gain.

wafflebear 8y ago
That's just it, doing something unbelievably stupid for marginal gain is the Russian M.O. right now. There are still people in hazmat suits cleaning up leftover nerve agent in Salisbury.
- rdiddly 8y ago
  There is good reason to doubt the Skripal story -- among other things the apparent lack of hard evidence, the absence of any discernible upside for Russia the purported perpetrators, and the already-existing climate of relentless and politically convenient warmongering against Russia for going on 2-3 years now. If Russia is being set up for military attack, then we're currently seeing a propaganda campaign pretty similar to many others. Fool me once... shame on me etc. How do you know I'm wrong? You heard it from one of those same sources? I'm not saying I would outright believe RT or any of Putin's outlets either, but that's exactly the point: a healthy dose of skepticism is called for.
  - wafflebear 8y ago
    Do you dispute that Russia poisoned Litvinenko as well? Enemies of the Russian state just seem to be poisoned by incredibly rare substances every now and again.
    - rdiddly 8y ago
      I don't know much about that case, but a cursory read on Wikipedia (which could itself be biased and/or misinformed) is a bit more convincing than the Skripal case. Nonetheless we're getting pretty far afield. Select two incidents where any nation has killed its double-agents or whistleblowers (and I doubt there are any nations that lavish fond treatment on their double-agents in particular), and you now have evidence against that country equivalent to that upon which you declared Russia the only possible country brazen enough to carry out these two embassy attacks (assuming they were attacks).
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Select two Skripal, Litvinenko, Gorbuntsov, Perepilichnyy and others. Not two.
        rdiddly 8y ago
huhtenberg 8y ago
Skripal didn't fled the country. He was caught, trialed, jailed and then exchanged. That whole incident makes absolutely zero sense as explained by the UK government.
- favorited 8y ago
  How does it not make sense? It absolutely makes sense that a spy would be exchanged, then assassinated later.
  - huhtenberg 8y ago
    No, it doesn't in the slightest. This says "you should not do spy exchanges with us". Moreover, let's shoot this poor shmuck with an exotic bullet stamped with "Made in Russia" on its side AND let's also just wound the guy. The bottom line is that this gives Russia nothing. It proves no point, it doesn't serve as a deterrent to anyone (which is what makes it different from the Litvinenko case), but it's just happens to be overflowing with signs that it was done by Russia. If Russians went to such great lengths to make sure it was obvious it was done by them, then it should be even more obvious why they did that. And it's not. So the simplest explanation is that it's a frame-up.
    - favorited 8y ago
      Except nations do it anyway, regardless of the message it sends to potential exchange partners. Mazen Faqha was released by Israel in a prisoner exchange, and was later assassinated. It serves as a deterrent if it sends the message to your own people that treason will never be forgiven, regardless of a pardon and exchange. And that is a philosophy to which Putin subscribes – he once said, "Enemies are right in front of you, you are at war with them, then you make an armistice with them, and all is clear. A traitor must be destroyed, crushed."
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  Right, that’s an important correction. It casts even more doubt on his poisoning being state ordered. The smoking gun is that the nerve agent came from a USSR factory decades ago. It’s not hard to imagine that ended up in who-knows-whose hands since then. Plus, it didn’t even do the job. Skirpal was released from the hospital. Seems pretty amateur...

thaumasiotes 8y ago

> There is only one country in the world that is brazen enough to attack a US consulate in China. > Russia should be the #1 suspect. If it was actually true that there was only one country in the world brazen enough to attack a US consulate in China, that country would be China, not Russia.

wafflebear 8y ago
It's completely absurd. If it transpired that China had been attacking the foreign missions it was hosting, it would instantly go from superpower to pariah state. Countries would pull their diplomats out of China. China would lose credibility even among its allies.
cryptonector 8y ago
GP meant (I think) that there is only one country brazen enough to do that in another country. I think that would be right. I'm willing to believe the same operators pulled off these two attacks (well, they look like attacks; let us assume for a moment that they were). In that case it was either China or Russia -- I seriously doubt the Cubans would do this in China, so that leaves either China or Russia. Of course, it could also be North Korea, or who knows who else (Iran?). I doubt anything will come of the local investigations, so until there is a third attempt, we may not find out what's up.

rdtsc 8y ago

> If it is an attack rather than an accident, then after the Skripal poisoning, Russia should be the #1 suspect. There is only one country in the world that is brazen enough to attack a US consulate in China. If it was Russia, I don't understand what's the upside here? Step 1:Hurt US diplomat in China Step 2: Start a wave of condemnations from both countries. Possible retaliations. More sanctions. Step 3: ? Step 4: Profit. They are bullies and have assassinated before but they don't seem to be completely irrational. What would be their Step 3 in the plan?