3 ms·

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

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).
        foldr 8y ago
        >If someone in disfavor was killed, everybody would still know that it wasn't some random "criminal organization" that did it. If Skripal had been shot, it would be difficult to be sure that his death had been ordered by the Russian government. In that scenario, anyone with a grievance against him might have done it. >There just wouldn't be direct "evidence". Yes, that's the point! >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). Nonsense. I'm just inferring from Russia's previous actions. In particular, the Litvinenko murder, which could equally well have been carried out using more conventional means.
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.

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).
      - foldr 8y ago
        >If someone in disfavor was killed, everybody would still know that it wasn't some random "criminal organization" that did it. If Skripal had been shot, it would be difficult to be sure that his death had been ordered by the Russian government. In that scenario, anyone with a grievance against him might have done it. >There just wouldn't be direct "evidence". Yes, that's the point! >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). Nonsense. I'm just inferring from Russia's previous actions. In particular, the Litvinenko murder, which could equally well have been carried out using more conventional means.

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.