[skinster]

Yes, exactly. The man is nuts and he is not being gangstalked for, apparently, writing a bad book review.

This is again bullshit. You haven't looked up the case at all.

I would not expect the British intelligence apparatus to immediately make all evidence available not less than a month out of the killing. Which Russia has done before, and which you also claim there is no evidence for despite there being an entire Wikipedia page (skip to the polonium section) outlining Litvenenkos's assassination, and how they came to the conclusion that Russia was behind it.

Well if it's on Wikipedia, it must be true!

Part of the reason I suspect they would not immediately release that information is that they do not want to tip their hand to Russia.

The Tory govt. immediately accused Russia before providing any evidence, what?

And there still is none.

But obviously, it's much easier to believe that the Russian Oligarchy values human life, blah blah blah

Nobody claims that. This has nothing to do with this whole charade that you've eaten up, without evidence. I bet you believed in WMDs in Iraq. Holy gullible.

Stop watching RT skinster.

I watch lots of different media, I'm not going to stop just because a liberal in America who votes for murderous politicians like Hillary Clinton, says so. Stop voting for murderers.

And frankly, fuck Russia. And China.

Spoken like an empire-cuck. This is the crux of your opinion on this. You hate any rivals to America but you must accept that you don't own the world, and celebrate the decline of this great country, like I do.

[SpecialOlympian]

I guess you would have a point if that were true but you're just making shit up. Making shit up about some obscure journalist to discredit a user on some backwater interwebz forum isn't exactly bugnuts crazy but it isn't the picture of mental health either. You might want to take a step back and try to get some perspective.

It was, at the time skinster posted the tweet, in his Twitter bio which is how I found it. You could easily have Googled it. It is the first result for "Neil Clark stalking" and it's a direct link to his fundrazr page. He believes multiple news agencies and their employees are targeting him.

Why didn't the Russians kill him? Scientists were the most pampered group of people in the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the SU they sold their knowledge to the West. They are still trying to cash in on the Skripal case.

Well the Russians didn't kill him, so I guess they've never killed anyone. Sound logic there.

Anyway, to keep this from being a quote sandwich here's my reply to skinster:

-No, I'm not going to bother looking up Neil Clark's saga of being stalked for a decade due to a bad book review. However, I did skim his fundrazr page and lolled at the fact that the man supposedly stalking him pointed out that the only quote pulled from his book in the review was straight off the back of the dust jacket.

-Multiple people in this thread have said it was JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWSSSSSS/Israel.

-This is in no way comparable to Iraq as the UK is the aggrieved party here.

-If the UK government is confident enough to take diplomatic actions against Russia in response to another assassination attempt on their soil then I'm inclined to believe them rather than going down the conspiracy Jew rabbit hole.

In other news, lol:

[Sivad]

It was, at the time skinster posted the tweet, in his Twitter bio which is how I found it. You could easily have Googled it. It is the first result for "Neil Clark stalking" and it's a direct link to his fundrazr page. He believes multiple news agencies and their employees are targeting him.

Yeah I read it, he never claimed he was being "gangstalked", you made that up. He said he was being harassed online by some neocon columnists and editors and that's not really that far fetched. Actually, in light of the phone hacking scandal, it's pretty plausible. It's just "part of the culture of Fleet Street."

[SpecialOlympian]

Yes, Sivad, he never used the word gangstalked. He only said he was being stalked by a gang of people. A fine hair to split

Mind you, this was because he wrote a bad book review.

[Sivad]

Yes, Sivad, he never used the word gangstalked. He only said he was being stalked by a gang of people. A fine hair to split

He didn't say that either. You can't stop making shit up.

Mind you, this was because he wrote a bad book review.

This Kamm character has multiple people accusing him of trolling and harassment. Peter Osbourne, Craig Murray, Noam Chomsky, Neil Clark, and David Lindsay have all been targets of his troll campaigns. The guy is a troll.

[skinster]

It was, at the time skinster posted the tweet, in his Twitter bio which is how I found it. You could easily have Googled it. It is the first result for "Neil Clark stalking" and it's a direct link to his fundrazr page. He believes multiple news agencies and their employees are targeting him.

You could also read the details linked from his fund raiser page, which outline exactly why Clark is suing Oliver Kamm; a decade+ long campaign of harassment online. This journalist for The Times did the same to other left journalists, like John Pilger, George Galloway, Noam Chomsky and Nafeez Ahmed. Kamm used various aliases while harassing these journalists, along with Clark's wife. Trying to gaslight Clark for this court case, that you and Prosthetic Conscience did, is really sad, and an ad-hom because you don't like what Clark writes about Russia or the UK government. It's as simple as that.

Well the Russians didn't kill him, so I guess they've never killed anyone. Sound logic there.

Nobody said Russia is incapable of killing people. Stop putting words in people's mouths. I for one am very clear about what I'm saying.

-No, I'm not going to bother looking up Neil Clark's saga of being stalked for a decade due to a bad book review. However, I did skim his fundrazr page and lolled at the fact that the man supposedly stalking him pointed out that the only quote pulled from his book in the review was straight off the back of the dust jacket.

More gaslighting. You don't really know the details of this case, stop pretending you do.

-Multiple people in this thread have said it was JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWSSSSSS/Israel.

Mossad are a suspect, just like Russia is, just like the CIA are, just like MI5 are.

-This is in no way comparable to Iraq as the UK is the aggrieved party here.

It is insofar as people like you trusting government claims without any evidence. You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a cuck to Tory politicians claims when they are yet to prove them. I am ashamed of yourself because of this nonsense.

-If the UK government is confident enough to take diplomatic actions against Russia in response to another assassination attempt on their soil then I'm inclined to believe them rather than going down the conspiracy Jew rabbit hole.

You've already gone down the conspiracy theory rabbit hole by trusting the Tory government's claims. This is all a conspiracy theory at this stage.

[Rich]

You should be ashamed of yourself for being such a cuck to Tory politicians claims when they are yet to prove them.

I believe SO is a Gay man. (apologies if I've got that wrong. The cuck insult only really makes sense for heterosexual men. Or men who are at least pretending to be heterosexual.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I believe SO is a Gay man. (apologies if I've got that wrong. The cuck insult only really makes sense for heterosexual men. Or men who are at least pretending to be heterosexual.

The cuck insult only really makes sense if the target had a right to expect support from some entity, but that entity has secretly allied themselves with someone else. The point of saying "cuck" now isn't to make someone feel bad; it's the person who says it declaring they are influenced by alt-right culture. This is what skinster is confirming - she's becoming more and more pro-Trump.

[William Bennett]

Do not insult other members - Prosthetic Conscience, Political Circus mod

[William Bennett]

I'm not even sure what's going on here, but you've convinced me in whatever it is you're trying to prove.[/Professed belief in something you do not understand is quite common.

[skinster]

The cuck insult only really makes sense for heterosexual men. Or men who are at least pretending to be heterosexual.

I mean it more in the sense of people believing shit from particular people (Tory politicians), which ought to have been obvious if you look back at that sentence.

Lol at Prosthetic Conscience still trying to tar me as a Trump supporter. I suppose it's all he has.

[SpecialOlympian]

He didn't say that either. You can't stop making shit up.

You can't read.

You could also read the details linked from his fund raiser page, which outline exactly why Clark is suing Oliver Kamm; a decade+ long campaign of harassment online.

Nah, I'm not going to bother reading an insane man's paranoid delusions. I know you will continue to champion him because he is an RT contributor, and that seems to be your preferred media source, but I value my time too much.

Nobody said Russia is incapable of killing people. Stop putting words in people's mouths. I for one am very clear about what I'm saying.

Yes, we get it, you enjoy RT conspiracy theories.

Mossad are a suspect, just like Russia is, just like the CIA are, just like MI5 are.

And where is your precious ~evidence~ for this, which is so important to you, other than RT misdirection?

Russia done fucked up this time and misjudged how the West would respond.

[skinster]

Nah, I'm not going to bother reading an insane man's paranoid delusions. I know you will continue to champion him because he is an RT contributor, and that seems to be your preferred media source, but I value my time too much.

As I said already, this journalist from The Times has for over a decade, harassed leftwing journalists, created aliases to do the same and gone to the extent of harassing Neil Clark's wife. After over a decade of this harassment, Clark decided to press charges. There's nothing paranoid about it. It's not based on delusions. Neil Clark isn't insane because you don't like what he writes. That's called gaslighting, stop doing that. As for trying to smear me for reading RT, you might have an argument if all my posts sourced from RT. They don't, I post articles from a lot of places. And neither you or Prosthetic Conscience who started on the ad-homs against Clark, challenged anything he wrote, it's all just ad-homs because that's all you have, obviously.

Yes, we get it, you enjoy RT conspiracy theories.

So you couldn't prove that nobody claimed - as you suggested - that Russia is incapable of committing any crimes, so you go back to trying to smear me for using RT as a source. The only one indulging in conspiracy theories is you, since you love this one on the Russian agent's poisoning. Apparently somehow you know Russia was responsible, even though it hasn't been proven either way, who is.

And where is your precious ~evidence~ for this, which is so important to you, other than RT misdirection?

If I said "I have evidence Israel or Britain is responsible", you might have a point. Nobody claimed that. I said they are just as likely responsible as Russia is.

Russia done fucked up this time and misjudged how the West would respond.

Working in the banking world looks like it turned you into a huge empire-baby.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

So you couldn't prove that nobody claimed - as you suggested - that Russia is incapable of committing any crimes, so you go back to trying to smear me for using RT as a source. The only one indulging in conspiracy theories is you, since you love this one on the Russian agent's poisoning. Apparently somehow you know Russia was responsible, even though it hasn't been proven either way, who is.

the issue is quite an obvious false-flag

You have already declared Russia innocent. You say it's a "false-flag". You claim that you know Russia didn't do it, and after that, you're casting around for someone else to blame it on. And yes, declaring this a false-flag is you calling it a conspiracy theory. You claim it's a conspiracy to make Russia look bad. You say that "the party line imho is very likely bullshit, since it usually is" (this was so important to you that you quoted yourself saying it). You assume there is some deeper conspiracy, and say that people who believe that Russia is to blame are "morons".

You have suggested MI5 or Israel really did it. You claim "there was no evidence for the Litvenyenko story", although the report showed the radioactive trail left behind by the 2 named Russian agents. It's absurd for you to start pretending that you haven't spent your time trying to exonerate Russia, and blaming other countries. You are, for some reason, desperate for people to look anywhere apart from at Putin.

[skinster]

I said Russia are likely innocent and this looks like a false flag. This point of view isn't controversial and how can we know anyway when no proof has been presented either way? Unlike you and SO, I didn't claim X state did anything, just that a number of states could be responsible, when we consider who benefits from this story (not Russia).

Conspiracy theory is what you and SO are indulging in. Unless you have any evidence Russia is responsible??? Prove me wrong, go on, I keep asking but you guys bring nothing.

Which report on Litvenyenko are you talking about? Want to like share a link for anything once in a while? I don't know why you think your opinion has much weight given what you've shown yourself to be on this issue.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The evidence is that Skripal was a Russian who had given secrets to foreign powers. Russia benefited from his death, by frightening others who might do the same. No other country has any motive. For all other countries, they get involved in diplomatic spats from which they lose. But Russia got to kill a traitor, and show it's still willing to do so.

The report:

There is abundant evidence that Mr Litvinenko met Andrey Lugovoy and his associate
Dmitri Kovtun for tea at the Pine Bar of the Millennium Hotel in Mayfair during the
afternoon of 1 November 2006. The forensic evidence shows that the Pine Bar was
heavily contaminated with polonium 210. The highest readings were taken from
the table where Mr Litvinenko was sitting and from the inside of one of the teapots.
No comparable levels of contamination were found in any of the other places that
Mr Litvinenko visited that day.
...
I am sure that Mr Lugovoy and Mr Kovtun placed the polonium 210 in the teapot at
the Pine Bar on 1 November 2006. I am also sure that they did this with the intention
of poisoning Mr Litvinenko.
...
When Mr Lugovoy poisoned Mr Litvinenko, it is probable that he did so under the
direction of the FSB. I would add that I regard that as a strong probability. I have found
that Mr Kovtun also took part in the poisoning. I conclude therefore that he was also
acting under FSB direction, possibly indirectly through Mr Lugovoy but probably to his
knowledge.
10.16 The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and
also by President Putin.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 95-web.pdf

Remembering that polonium 210 needs nuclear expertise to produce. It's not something any old chemist can produce.

Of course claiming this is a false flag is controversial. It would involve a conspiracy by many people to attempt to kill 2 people they have nothing against, and put more people at risk, just for the sake of causing havoc in international relations. That is Bond-villain-level behaviour. That you think you can state it isn't controversial shows you've been spending too much time reading or talking to extremists. You're losing your grip on reality.

[skinster]

The evidence is that Skripal was a Russian who had given secrets to foreign powers. Russia benefited from his death, by frightening others who might do the same. No other country has any motive. For all other countries, they get involved in diplomatic spats from which they lose. But Russia got to kill a traitor, and show it's still willing to do so.

This is not evidence, this is your opinion. Do you have any evidence?

The report:

You cite as proof that Russia is responsible, even though the report doesn't claim that outright. It does use language like:

"probable"
"strong probability"
"probably"

Moreover, there is no evidence to connect Russia to Litvinenko’s death. But this didn’t stop the British government from grandstanding, sending an extradition request for Lugovoi in July 2007. The British government sent the request despite the facts that there is no extradition treaty between Britain and Russia and the Russian constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens. Epstein suggests that the purpose of the extradition request was to block the Russian government from investigating Litvinenko’s death in London. Litvinenko had a false passport provided by the British government. A real investigtion might have opened up the shadowy world of security consultants in which Litvinenko rubbed shoulders with former British police and intelligence officials.

The Russians asked to see the evidence. The case file delivered by the British contained nothing of substance. Not even the autopsy report was provided to the Russians. Epstein managed to convince the Russians to let him see the file and to question them about the case. In brief, if the British have a case, they are withholding the evidence.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/03/24 ... hell-game/

Another report on this topic, worthy of reading.

That you think you can state it isn't controversial shows you've been spending too much time reading or talking to extremists. You're losing your grip on reality.

I'm a Trump-loving extremist, losing my grip on reality. If only your ad-homs had any effect, beyond being amusing and showing me that this is all you have.

[SpecialOlympian]

As I said already, this journalist from The Times has for over a decade, harassed leftwing journalists, created aliases to do the same and gone to the extent of harassing Neil Clark's wife. After over a decade of this harassment, Clark decided to press charges. There's nothing paranoid about it. It's not based on delusions. Neil Clark isn't insane because you don't like what he writes. That's called gaslighting, stop doing that. As for trying to smear me for reading RT, you might have an argument if all my posts sourced from RT. They don't, I post articles from a lot of places. And neither you or Prosthetic Conscience who started on the ad-homs against Clark, challenged anything he wrote, it's all just ad-homs because that's all you have, obviously.

I'm not going to waste further time reading about the paranoiac RT journalist's harrowing story about how a book review destroyed his life.

It is not an adhominem. The man begged online to fund his gangstalking lawsuit. Which, again, was because of a bad book review.

If I said "I have evidence Israel or Britain is responsible", you might have a point. Nobody claimed that. I said they are just as likely responsible as Russia is.

Yes, it's just as likely that countries which had no motive for the killing are as equally likely to have committed it as the country that has a clear, obvious motive and a history of doing the exact same thing. Just listen to yourself. For a person taking a nominally neutral position and professing to keep an open mind you are repeating a lot of RT talking points, including comparing this event to the Iraq War despite the UK being the victim of the attack in this case.

[skinster]

As predicted, no evidence for anything, just more ad-homs on a journalist you don't like and a weird expectation to trust your opinion because you say so. You should stick to making jokes.

[SpecialOlympian]

"I'm a skeptic! No evidence that Putin assassinates his enemies! None whatsoever!"

"Also, it's obviously clear that Israel [or the UK working with AMERICA] could be the only culprit[s]! What, you need evidence? What are you, some kind of skeptic?"