4 ms·

The attempted murder of Sergei Skripal by Russia is a conspiracy theory? Who else would poison him with a nerve agent? Who else would have the motive? Who'd ha

The attempted murder of Sergei Skripal by Russia is a conspiracy theory? Who else would poison him with a nerve agent? Who else would have the motive? Who'd have access to such an agent?

sneak 6y ago
All of the evidence that it was Russia is entirely circumstantial, if we're being strictly accurate here, which is... convenient. On the other hand, exactly zero other groups seem to be using those nerve agents to assassinate people, so it's a great calling card if they wish to discourage others from following in the victims' footsteps.
- mprovost 6y ago
  They know who did it - two colonels and a general in the GRU. I suppose you can say it was circumstantial in that nobody caught them actually putting the poison on their doorknob, but it's pretty well accepted that 3 officers from Russian intelligence travelled to Salisbury using false identification on the day of the poisoning and then left the country. Unless you believe their explanation that they were there to "see the cathedral." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48801205 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48801205
  - Udik 6y ago
    But why the hell did they do it?
    - mprovost 6y ago
      Sergei Skripal was a colonel in the GRU who was also a spy for MI6 and who moved to the UK as part of a prisoner swap. Apparently he hadn't quite retired and was still briefing western intelligence services just before his poisoning. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/14/sergei-skripal-briefed-european-intelligence-services-reports-say https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/14/sergei-skrip...
      - Udik 6y ago
        > Apparently he hadn't quite retired and was still briefing western intelligence services He had stopped been a Russian agent in 2004. Then, after being released from prison and moving to the UK, he had 8 years to brief the UK services about everything he knew. What kind of briefing could he do, exactly? Note that if you read carefully the article that you linked, it says repeatedly that none of Skripal's activity was new, or uncommon, or important. Despite the subheader saying "may offer motive for poisoning" the various experts mentioned in the article repeatedly say that those "neither explained nor justified the nerve agent attack", "dismissed them as a likely motive for the poisoning attack".
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Circumstantial evidence can be extremely powerful. There's no conflict between saying that the evidence is both extremely strong and also circumstantial. There's video of two Russians walking around Salisbury; there's an interview with them on Russian state TV where they totally fail to give a coherent explanation of their movements as revealed by CCTV on the day of the poisoning. And they traveled to the UK under fake IDs. I don't know what other conclusion to draw.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
osipov 6y ago
I'm training a machine learning model that honeypots commenters like you with provocative news articles. Next, the comments section is cleaned up to eliminate commenter spam. It works amazingly well!
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Udik 6y ago
What would be Putin's motive in the case of Skripal? And if he really wanted him dead, there would have been a thousand other ways to do it without basically writing "Russia" with a spray can all over the body. To be clear, I'm not saying he didn't do it. Just that it's not as completely obvious as it seems. Why would Putin and Russia lose billions (because that's the economic impact of the West's reaction) to kill an ex spy in the most damning way?
- Twixes 6y ago
  Writing "Russia" in a nevertheless plausibly deniable way might exactly be the point though.

The attempted murder of Sergei Skripal by Russia is a conspiracy theory? Who else would poison him with a nerve agent? Who else would have the motive? Who'd have access to such an agent?

sneak 6y ago

All of the evidence that it was Russia is entirely circumstantial, if we're being strictly accurate here, which is... convenient. On the other hand, exactly zero other groups seem to be using those nerve agents to assassinate people, so it's a great calling card if they wish to discourage others from following in the victims' footsteps.

mprovost 6y ago
They know who did it - two colonels and a general in the GRU. I suppose you can say it was circumstantial in that nobody caught them actually putting the poison on their doorknob, but it's pretty well accepted that 3 officers from Russian intelligence travelled to Salisbury using false identification on the day of the poisoning and then left the country. Unless you believe their explanation that they were there to "see the cathedral." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48801205 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48801205
- Udik 6y ago
  But why the hell did they do it?
  - mprovost 6y ago
    Sergei Skripal was a colonel in the GRU who was also a spy for MI6 and who moved to the UK as part of a prisoner swap. Apparently he hadn't quite retired and was still briefing western intelligence services just before his poisoning. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/14/sergei-skripal-briefed-european-intelligence-services-reports-say https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/14/sergei-skrip...
    - Udik 6y ago
      > Apparently he hadn't quite retired and was still briefing western intelligence services He had stopped been a Russian agent in 2004. Then, after being released from prison and moving to the UK, he had 8 years to brief the UK services about everything he knew. What kind of briefing could he do, exactly? Note that if you read carefully the article that you linked, it says repeatedly that none of Skripal's activity was new, or uncommon, or important. Despite the subheader saying "may offer motive for poisoning" the various experts mentioned in the article repeatedly say that those "neither explained nor justified the nerve agent attack", "dismissed them as a likely motive for the poisoning attack".
roywiggins 6y ago
Circumstantial evidence can be extremely powerful. There's no conflict between saying that the evidence is both extremely strong and also circumstantial. There's video of two Russians walking around Salisbury; there's an interview with them on Russian state TV where they totally fail to give a coherent explanation of their movements as revealed by CCTV on the day of the poisoning. And they traveled to the UK under fake IDs. I don't know what other conclusion to draw.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

osipov 6y ago

I'm training a machine learning model that honeypots commenters like you with provocative news articles. Next, the comments section is cleaned up to eliminate commenter spam. It works amazingly well!

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Udik 6y ago

What would be Putin's motive in the case of Skripal? And if he really wanted him dead, there would have been a thousand other ways to do it without basically writing "Russia" with a spray can all over the body. To be clear, I'm not saying he didn't do it. Just that it's not as completely obvious as it seems. Why would Putin and Russia lose billions (because that's the economic impact of the West's reaction) to kill an ex spy in the most damning way?

Twixes 6y ago
Writing "Russia" in a nevertheless plausibly deniable way might exactly be the point though.