5 ms·

>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

>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.

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.