What's new

Russia’s frantic parade of lies

Not gonna bother w/Russian propaganda
It adds up. The washington post story has big holes in it.
You might be right about fisk. But then would western mainsyream media journalists retain their jobs or get a place in white house and pentagon breifings if they start questioning the dominant narrative?

In the end, we believe what we want to believe.
 
It adds up. The washington post story has big holes in it.
You'll have to identify them. As an editorial rather than a straight article the writers don't have to present evidence but instead implicitly rely on their newspaper's articles as source material for their arguments.

But then would western mainsyream media journalists retain their jobs or get a place in white house and pentagon breifings if they start questioning the dominant narrative?
Depends on the news organization's bias, not that of government officials.

In the end, we believe what we want to believe.
You have the right to your own opinions but not your own facts. Sure, you can believe the earth is flat - but why should you have the right to deny people from learning otherwise, either through force or through drowning out info via nonsense or endless repetition?
 
You'll have to identify them
For starters,
Well novichoks are relatively unstable compounds. They disintegrate. How come high purity novichik substance was found 15 days after the incident?
Novichoks are extremely toxic. How come skripal and his daughter are alive with latter now almost fully recovered?
Lavrov said they have asked opcw to investigate if its possible for high purity novichik substance to be present after 15 days.
"No one has proved who did it"
Then why was russia accused by may and boris johnnson and russian diplomats expelled?
 
Well novichoks are relatively unstable compounds. They disintegrate. How come high purity novichik substance was found 15 days after the incident?
opcw_logo.png
ORGANISATION FOR THE PROHIBITION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS

THE HAGUE, Netherlands — 12 April 2018 — The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) transmitted yesterday to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) the report of the OPCW’s mission to provide requested technical assistance in regard to the Salisbury incident on 4 March 2018.

The results of the analysis by the OPCW designated laboratories of environmental and biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team confirm the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury and severely injured three people...

So the substances were found, regardless of their alleged instability. The OPCW has issued updates on the Salisbury incident, including one today: link
 
@Solomon2, I am not denying that thesubstance was not found.
But consider this: lavrov said this after recieving the report which was given to state parties and not made public: '. The report only gives the chemical formula, which, according to our experts, points to an agent that had been developed in many countries and does not present any particular secret'.

The name 'Novichok' comes from a book written by Vil Mirzanyanov, a 1990s immigrant to the U.S. from the former Soviet Union. It describes his work at Soviet chemical weapon laboratories and lists the chemical formulas of a new group of lethal substances.

AFP interviewed the author of the 'Novichok' book about the Salisbury incident:

Mirzayanov, speaking at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, said he is convinced Russia carried it out as a way of intimidating opponents of President Vladimir Putin.
...
The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book to make such a weapon.
The formulas are public. They are not secret. The OPCW report does not say anything about the source of these chemicals. In short anyone could havemade them. The article you posted also says 'No one has proved who did it'. So my question is this:
Why was Russia accused by May without any evidence and over a 100 diplomats expelled?

Also after poisoning by these extremely toxic and 'high purity' chemicals, how come Skripals are alive and almost fully recovered?
 
Last edited:
So my question is this: why was russia accused by May and over 100 diplomats expelled?
I suppose because nobody believes anyone other than Russia had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime. And MMO is always what detectives zoom in on in any murder mystery.

The accused can always claim, "I was framed, X wanted to make me look bad, Y was there, and Z could have had a similar weapon" but in the absence of data supporting such a conspiracy, or pointing to another party checking all three MMO boxes, the accused is going to be considered guilty - and will likely be convicted.

The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas in his book to make such a weapon.
If you've ever had anything to do with synthesizing chemicals you'd know that you need not just a formula but appropriate equipment, feedstock, and protective equipment. Moreover, in the case of chemical weapons you need a delivery vehicle of some sort that won't kill the user and usually an additional substrate to fully weaponize the chemicals. As far as I know there is no evidence that anyone other than the USSR/Russia has done all these things and deployed them for the purpose of assassination.

One more thing: while we can be sure that chemical weapons were used in Salisbury and everything points to Russian culpability there I am not 100% sure that the Russian-supported Assad regime actually used chemical weapons in Douma. I doubt the U.S. would have struck Syria so precipitously if Russia had owned up to Salisbury.
 
@Solomon2 , if Mr.Mirzayanov, says that its possible for someone to use the formulas in his book to make such a weapon, then we should believe him. He worked in the laboratories where they were first made. He is also a putin critic and defected from russia.
 
@Solomon2 , if Mr.Mirzayanov, says that its possible for someone to use the formulas in his book to make such a weapon, then we should believe him.
Make it, perhaps. Handle, weaponize, and deploy it safely? Most unlikely anyone other than the Russians can do it. And that still leaves the motive and opportunity boxes unchecked.
 
One more thing: while we can be sure that chemical weapons were used in Salisbury and everything points to Russian culpability there I am nonott 100% sure that the Russian-supported Assad regime actually used chemical weapons in Douma. I doubt the U.S. would have struck Syria so precipitously if Russia had owned up to Salisbury.
I gather from your statement that while assad may not have used chemical weapons, syria was bombed because putin used chemical agents in uk and was given an answer in syria? Am I right?
 
I gather from your statement that while assad may not have used chemical weapons, syria was bombed because putin used chemical agents in uk and was given an answer in syria? Am I right?
Wait until test results of Douma people are made public.
 
Handle, weaponize, and deploy it safely?
So much capability and still failed to kill the skripals with one of the most lethal chemicals ever and with 'high purity'?

As for motive is concerned, its a domain of speculation. You can have an endless debate on who could have what motives. Its a subjective thing.
My point was that 'facts' don't point a finger at russia. But people believe what they want to believe.

Wait until test results of Douma people are made public.
We will wait. But such reckless behaviour is possible. The US does have a rather unenvious history in this regard. The gulf of tolkien incident. And how many people died on both sides later.
And more recently WMDs in iraq. Collin powell later said he was misled by his own administration. And a country was occupied and its government overthrown, what mess middle east is in right now because of that. I wonder what the 'motive' was in iraq if they knew there were no WMDs.
 
So much capability and still failed to kill the skripals with one of the most lethal chemicals ever and with 'high purity'?
Chemical weapons are not noted for their reliability in causing death as they are in causing horrible injury. As a teen I met a distant relative who had been gassed in WWI: he was still hospitalized and disabled over sixty years later.

As for motive is concerned, its a domain of speculation. You can have an endless debate on who could have what motives. Its a subjective thing.
No doubt someone could imagine a scenario plastering "motive" on anybody but to bring one down to earth you have to consider who had a LIKELY motive. It seems only Russia had a likely motive for attacking the Skirpals; even if a Western country possessed the technical means to do it none would have discouraged future Russian defections by attacking an old defector.

My point was that 'facts' don't point a finger at russia -
Yeah, the facts do.
 
Yeah, the facts do.
Which facts?

As far as I know there is no evidence that anyone other than the USSR/Russia has done all these things and deployed them for the purpose of assassination
Israel. And others too.
Israel maintains a robust chemical weapons research facility at Nes Ziona, which produces numerous potential lethal chemical agents on behalf of the Mossad’s Kidon unit, which carries out such assassinations. The research institute was founded by none other than future-Israeli president, Ephraim Katzir. A curious fact is that Israel most infamous spy, Marcus Klingberg, was the deputy director of Nes Ziona, and shared its secrets with the Soviets for years before he was caught, tried in secret, and imprisoned for over a decade.

In 1997, Mossad hit men injected a fatal nerve agent into Khaled Mashal in Jordan. It was only through the alertness of bystanders who pursued the killers and captured them, that Jordan’s King Hussein was able to demand an antidote to save Mashal’s life. In 2008, another Mossad team traveled to Dubai to assassinate Hamas arms dealer, Mahmoud al Mabouh. They used a different chemical agent injected into him. This time they were more “successful” as the only witnesses to the murder were the killers inside his hotel room. However, that killing too boomeranged because the so-called greatest spy agency in the world hadn’t banked on Dubai’s ever-present public surveillance system to track the 27 Israeli agents’ every move. The assassination and subsequent discovery of Israeli abuse of passports by several European countries caused the expulsion of at least two Mossad station chiefs and a noted cool-down in relations with them.
 
Wikipedia says it was an opiod, not a nerve agent like Novichok.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Plus do you believe they took all the risk to inject him with opiod. Why would you innect someone with opiod anyway. What about the dubai assasination?

A Guardian article:

Winston Churchill's shocking use of chemical weapons
The use of chemical weapons in Syria has outraged the world. But it is easy to forget that Britain has used them – and that Winston Churchill was a powerful advocate for them




Giles Milton

Sun 1 Sep 2013 14.30 EDTFirst published on Sun 1 Sep 2013 14.30 EDT

Secrecy was paramount. Britain's imperial general staff knew there would be outrage if it became known that the government was intending to use its secret stockpile of chemical weapons. But Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for war, brushed aside their concerns. As a long-term advocate of chemical warfare, he was determined to use them against the Russian Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1919, 94 years before the devastating strike in Syria, Churchill planned and executed a sustained chemical attack on northern Russia.

The British were no strangers to the use of chemical weapons. During the third battle of Gaza in 1917, General Edmund Allenby had fired 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas at enemy positions, to limited effect. But in the final months of the first world war, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret "M Device", an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it "the most effective chemical weapon ever devised".


Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. "If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill's irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war."

He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: "Why is it not fair for a British artilleryman to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?" he asked. "It is really too silly."


A staggering 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.

The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom