5 ms·

"Perhaps they even had WMDs on them..." I downvoted you for this. That isn't suggested anywhere and there are enough unsubstantiated accusations flying around

"Perhaps they even had WMDs on them..." I downvoted you for this. That isn't suggested anywhere and there are enough unsubstantiated accusations flying around without people starting a few more.

jstanley 8y ago
He wasn't suggesting that they actually had WMDs on them. He was drawing parallels to a high-profile previous instance of government officials lying about "enemies" in an effort to create support for wars that further their own ends. But I think you knew that.
- yAnonymous 8y ago
  He did however suggest that the UK, Dutch and Swiss agencies can't be trusted in this case, which is beyond laughable. It implies that another actor would have tried to kill former Russian agents and UK citizens with a chemical weapon. Why would anyone in the west go to such lengths to frame Russia in this? It'd be like kicking a kid that's on the ground. They have nothing to gain from it. Adding to that, the bluntness and stupidity of these operations fits the style of Russian agencies very well. They don't seem to be very good at covert operations anymore as they failed to adapt to modern technology.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >He did however suggest that the UK, Dutch and Swiss agencies can't be trusted in this case, which is beyond laughable. Yeah, because agencies and especially of good old colonial powers like UK and Dutch have historically been very trustable, and not at all working to promote the interests of their states (with lies, covert action, false flag operations, and so on) >It implies that another actor would have tried to kill former Russian agents and UK citizens with a chemical weapon. Yeah, nobody does false flags ever. A more plausible explanation is that Putin waited 12 years to kill the guy, long after he was out of Russia (where they could have gotten to him far more easily), and from 2000 other ways to kill someone they chose something that's the equivalent of living their business card on the murder scene...
    - yAnonymous 8y ago
      >and from 2000 other ways to kill someone they chose something that's the equivalent of living their business card on the murder scene... This was always about sending a message. For that, it has to be obvious who did it.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >This was always about sending a message. For that, it has to be obvious who did it. That's the poor-man's theory of a blatant murder. As if, if the same person was murdered with a gun, the message would be lost? Russians would then had still send their message just fine (those in similar situation as the suspect would know it immediately), but still be able to deny doing anything and avoid all the BS hoopla going on now. But this was a crude way to set it up so they can point fingers at Russia and have the less than average IQ public see it as "obvious".
        foldr 8y ago
        >As if, if the same person was murdered with a gun, the message would be lost? Yes, because any criminal organization can easily obtain a gun, whereas novichok is much more difficult to obtain. >but still be able to deny doing anything and avoid all the BS hoopla going on now. They don't want to avoid all the "BS hoopla". This is a deliberate provocation.
        coldtea 8y ago
        >Yes, because any criminal organization can easily obtain a gun, whereas novichok is much more difficult to obtain. That's beside the point. If someone in disfavor was killed, everybody would still know that it wasn't some random "criminal organization" that did it. There just wouldn't be direct "evidence". If anything, this would have made killing anybody else easier (because those taking the decision wouldn't have to risk sanctions, and embargoes, and diplomatic tension, and so on), so everybody that was in disfavor would have even more reason to fear for their life (as they'd could be killed just like that with little fuss). >They don't want to avoid all the "BS hoopla". This is a deliberate provocation. That's the problem with people watching too much movies like "The Dark Knight‎" where supervillains do anything just to provoke, and then apply this to states which have tons to lose, and don't just provoke for the sake of it (or to scare some third grade targets, as if they couldn't achieve it otherwise).
  - maze-le 8y ago
    As member of the public, you should never trust intelligence agencies about anything. Disinformation of the public is part of their job description. If you are a member of the executive or the military, then it might be something different, because these agencies exist to work for you. Everyone else, not so much...
  - ionised 8y ago
    As a Brit, I don't have a single lick of trust in the UK intelligence services. They don't exist to protect people like me, they exist to preserve the status quo.
azangru 8y ago
Wasn't this comment (the whole thread, really) just sarcasm?
- luoji_ 8y ago
  People need to be more liberal with /s
- neffy 8y ago
  Original comment was from Britain, so yes. But let´s face it, if the Americans realized just how often the British are being conversationally sarcastic at their expense, it wouldn´t be Russian invaders that we´d have to worry about. Fortunately the accent cues don´t seem to get picked up that often.
  - azangru 8y ago
    > Original comment was from Britain, so yes. LOL! Have my upvote!
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    In fairness we're conversationally sarcastic at everyone's expense, including our own, and especially our fine politicians. It's just that Americans miss more of it than most. :)
rurban 8y ago
He probably meant their brains
coldtea 8y ago
That was sarcasm. I doubt they were even spies, or anything beyond the regular spying that always goes on between all parties...

"Perhaps they even had WMDs on them..." I downvoted you for this. That isn't suggested anywhere and there are enough unsubstantiated accusations flying around without people starting a few more.

jstanley 8y ago

He wasn't suggesting that they actually had WMDs on them. He was drawing parallels to a high-profile previous instance of government officials lying about "enemies" in an effort to create support for wars that further their own ends. But I think you knew that.

yAnonymous 8y ago
He did however suggest that the UK, Dutch and Swiss agencies can't be trusted in this case, which is beyond laughable. It implies that another actor would have tried to kill former Russian agents and UK citizens with a chemical weapon. Why would anyone in the west go to such lengths to frame Russia in this? It'd be like kicking a kid that's on the ground. They have nothing to gain from it. Adding to that, the bluntness and stupidity of these operations fits the style of Russian agencies very well. They don't seem to be very good at covert operations anymore as they failed to adapt to modern technology.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >He did however suggest that the UK, Dutch and Swiss agencies can't be trusted in this case, which is beyond laughable. Yeah, because agencies and especially of good old colonial powers like UK and Dutch have historically been very trustable, and not at all working to promote the interests of their states (with lies, covert action, false flag operations, and so on) >It implies that another actor would have tried to kill former Russian agents and UK citizens with a chemical weapon. Yeah, nobody does false flags ever. A more plausible explanation is that Putin waited 12 years to kill the guy, long after he was out of Russia (where they could have gotten to him far more easily), and from 2000 other ways to kill someone they chose something that's the equivalent of living their business card on the murder scene...
  - yAnonymous 8y ago
    >and from 2000 other ways to kill someone they chose something that's the equivalent of living their business card on the murder scene... This was always about sending a message. For that, it has to be obvious who did it.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >This was always about sending a message. For that, it has to be obvious who did it. That's the poor-man's theory of a blatant murder. As if, if the same person was murdered with a gun, the message would be lost? Russians would then had still send their message just fine (those in similar situation as the suspect would know it immediately), but still be able to deny doing anything and avoid all the BS hoopla going on now. But this was a crude way to set it up so they can point fingers at Russia and have the less than average IQ public see it as "obvious".
      - foldr 8y ago
        >As if, if the same person was murdered with a gun, the message would be lost? Yes, because any criminal organization can easily obtain a gun, whereas novichok is much more difficult to obtain. >but still be able to deny doing anything and avoid all the BS hoopla going on now. They don't want to avoid all the "BS hoopla". This is a deliberate provocation.
        coldtea 8y ago
        >Yes, because any criminal organization can easily obtain a gun, whereas novichok is much more difficult to obtain. That's beside the point. If someone in disfavor was killed, everybody would still know that it wasn't some random "criminal organization" that did it. There just wouldn't be direct "evidence". If anything, this would have made killing anybody else easier (because those taking the decision wouldn't have to risk sanctions, and embargoes, and diplomatic tension, and so on), so everybody that was in disfavor would have even more reason to fear for their life (as they'd could be killed just like that with little fuss). >They don't want to avoid all the "BS hoopla". This is a deliberate provocation. That's the problem with people watching too much movies like "The Dark Knight‎" where supervillains do anything just to provoke, and then apply this to states which have tons to lose, and don't just provoke for the sake of it (or to scare some third grade targets, as if they couldn't achieve it otherwise).
- maze-le 8y ago
  As member of the public, you should never trust intelligence agencies about anything. Disinformation of the public is part of their job description. If you are a member of the executive or the military, then it might be something different, because these agencies exist to work for you. Everyone else, not so much...
- ionised 8y ago
  As a Brit, I don't have a single lick of trust in the UK intelligence services. They don't exist to protect people like me, they exist to preserve the status quo.

azangru 8y ago

Wasn't this comment (the whole thread, really) just sarcasm?

luoji_ 8y ago
People need to be more liberal with /s
neffy 8y ago
Original comment was from Britain, so yes. But let´s face it, if the Americans realized just how often the British are being conversationally sarcastic at their expense, it wouldn´t be Russian invaders that we´d have to worry about. Fortunately the accent cues don´t seem to get picked up that often.
- azangru 8y ago
  > Original comment was from Britain, so yes. LOL! Have my upvote!
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  In fairness we're conversationally sarcastic at everyone's expense, including our own, and especially our fine politicians. It's just that Americans miss more of it than most. :)

rurban 8y ago

He probably meant their brains

coldtea 8y ago

That was sarcasm. I doubt they were even spies, or anything beyond the regular spying that always goes on between all parties...