3 ms·
See, the typical tactic of Kremlinbots is to deny all existing evidence as fake, and then ask for proofs. So, I have to ask you first: do you find the current e
by Grue3 8y ago
See, the typical tactic of Kremlinbots is to deny all existing evidence as fake, and then ask for proofs. So, I have to ask you first: do you find the current evidence that MH-17 was shot down by a Russian Buk launcher, and that Skripals were poisoned by Russian GRU agents "solid" enough? If you don't think the evidence for these two events is "solid" (I think it is solid), then I will be unable to provide you "solid" evidence that Wikileaks cooperates with Kremlin.
- donkeyhot 8y agoI’m a long time reader but just registered to ask this. Could you share what evidence that Kremlin poisoned Scripals is solid in your view?
- Grue3 8y agoThe interview of Petrov and Boshirov on Russia Today. They basically confirm that all evidence previously revealed by UK side is not made up, but was actually real all along. And their excuses for their itinerary are laughable. This was basically Russian government confirming "yes, we did it, and we don't give a shit". There's no way to spin that interview into Russia not being somehow involved with the poisoning.