UK has no proof of Russia’s role in Skripal poisoning - Page 17 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14911868
Well, I'm sure you consider yourself at least smart since, unlike "deep thinker" me, you seem to know Russia was responsible for the poisoning of the Skripals, even though oddly you can't provide any evidence for the same (17 pages later) and people like me asking for evidence (repeatedly) for claims made on a political messageboard are just complete fucking idiots for asking for proof for what you say, because we should just accept what the Tory government, its corporations-serving media and its cheerleaders like you tell us to accept. :lol:

I'm the guy in Zoolander right now that feels like he's eating crazy pills, since this is what I'm dealing with.
#14911935
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Uh, no, @skinster , that was me taking the piss out of you, Atlantis and others for using what Russian state TV tells you, and thinking that makes you 'deep thinkers' who can see beyond what others see:


It's inside the quotes. That's what you are coming across as saying. You are the ones saying "the obvious culprit can't possibly be the culprit". You, for instance, agreed with Atlantis' comment about "duping the masses"; you two see yourselves as farsighted sages who aren't falling for the story in the west, because the RT version is just so much preferable to you.


In conclusion, PC,

- you don't have a thread of evidence,
- you blindly believe one side of the story,
- you deliberately ignore arguments against your allegations,
- you deliberately ignore the contradictions in the government's case,
- you refuse to follow a simple train of logic when it is served to you on a silver platter.

Instead of thanking me for my infinite patience in explaining, you now turn around to make unfounded allegations about me personally.

That shows that you don't only have no argument, but that you don't discuss in good faith either.

It is always sad to find one has wasted so much time on somebody who has no intention of discussing in good faith.
#14911945
Isn't it possible that Russia managed to cover up everything important and left no trace for the British to find concrete evidence?

In this case, the British government can be entirely passive in this matter. If you are the victims' loved ones, what will you think of Britain if they (literally) are unable to give any reaction?

Some of you guys' conclusions are sowing salt in the wound.

I, of course, should not comment any further unless I have knowledge of evidence myself.
#14911976
Patrickov wrote:Isn't it possible that Russia managed to cover up everything important and left no trace for the British to find concrete evidence?


That applies even more to the British.

- The Brits control the crime scene (used for chemical weapons maneuver Toxic Dagger),
- they control the poison (manufactured a more 8 miles from the crime scene),
- they control the victims (kept incommunicado in violation of British and international law),
- they control the witnesses (kept away from the public eye),
- they control the CCTV footage (kept secret),
- they control the media by a D-Notice (on the ground of national security),
- they control the narrative by the global Anglophone media,
- they pressured Nato allies for diplomatic/economic sanctions,
- they influence the OPCW results by the narrow demand of merely confirming British results.

In the absence of any evidence presented to support British claims, the Russians cannot prove that the non-existing evidence is wrong. That is logically impossible.

Add to that that the Russians don't have motive, while the Brits have motive, opportunity and means, you don't have to be a rocket scientists to know what's what.

PS: If the Russians "covered up everything" as you suggest, then why should they use a top secrete chemical weapon that is rightly or wrongly associated with the Soviet Union in the West? That is a contradiction in itself. They either want to cover up everything or they want to disclose their responsibility. You can't have it both ways.
#14912018
The Rissian scientist involved in the development of the nerve agent CATEGORICALLY STATED that, anyone subject to the said agent is a dead person.

That being said, the FACT is, the Skripals have survived,which implies that the said agent could be a replica of the real thing.

That would definitely implicate Porton Down & the British government.

Not only that, it's somewhat curious how the father,who,though older,would be taller\heavier,possibly requiring a larger dosage than his daughter for it to be as effective, yet he was the last to recover.

I think that the hospitalisation period was choreographed for propaganda purposes,in order to attempt to embarass President PUTIN further & to gain the maximum political advantage.

The British people are pretty dumb in sucking everything up that a TORY government dishes out to them.

The TORY government's ALWAYS use scaremongering against RUSSIA to increase 'defence' spending & to use as a figleaf to cover their disgraceful mishandling of the economy.
#14912024
Atlantis wrote:- they control the victims (kept incommunicado in violation of British and international law),


And those in this thread who claim to care about the Skripals being poisoned by Russia don't ever ask about their status or why we don't hear from them to find out what happened to them.

It seems all their game is, is to demonize Russia, while crying crocodile tears about Russia's evidence-free crime of poisoning the Skripals and berating those of us who ask questions about something we don't know the answers to. It's kind of fascinating.

Russian Ambassador calls out people pretending to be journalists for not doing journalism like they're supposed to :D :
#14912369
skinster wrote:And those in this thread who claim to care about the Skripals being poisoned by Russia don't ever ask about their status or why we don't hear from them to find out what happened to them.


What's the point of arguing with you guys about their status if they are reported to have recovered already?
#14912402
Do you know where they are? Do you care that Yulia said she wanted to go home(Russia) when communicating with her cousin?

UK media told to conceal connections between Sergei Skripal and MI6
A D-notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) is used by the British state to veto the publication of potentially damaging news stories. Formally a request to withhold publication, the slavishness of the mainstream media ensures these notices function for the most part as gag orders.

Craig Murray initially reported the claims of famous whistleblower Clive Ponting that a D-notice had likely been issued in relation to some aspect of the Skripal affair. He then noted Channel 4 journalist Charles Thomson’s confirmation that a D-notice had, in fact, been issued and that it related specifically to censoring the identity of Skripal’s MI6 handler.

Murray suggests that the MI6 agent in question is called Pablo Miller.

As Murray notes, the specific attempt to protect Miller’s identity is highly significant. Miller is an associate of former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, first in espionage operations in Russia and more recently in the activities of Steele’s private intelligence firm, Orbis Business Intelligence.

Steele was responsible for compiling the Trump–Russia dossier, comprising 17 memos written in 2016 alleging misconduct and conspiracy between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and the Putin administration. The dossier, paid for by the Democratic Party, claimed that Trump was compromised by evidence of his sexual proclivities in Russia’s possession. Steele was the subject of an earlier (unsuccessful) D-notice, which attempted to keep his identity as the author of the dossier a secret.

If Miller and, by extension, Skripal himself were somehow involved in Orbis’ work on the highly-suspect Steele–Trump dossier, alongside representatives of British and possibly US intelligence, then all manner of motivations can be suggested for an attack on the ex-Russian spy and British double agent by forces other than Russia’s intelligence service, the FSB.

Miller’s official career comprised a period of service in the British Army—the Royal Tank Regiment and the Royal Green Jackets—and then postings as a diplomat in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Nigeria from 1992, Tallinn in Estonia from 1997, and Warsaw in Poland from 2010 to 2013. In 2015, he was awarded an OBE by the Queen “for service to British foreign policy.”

In 2000, the FSB accused Miller of being “head of British intelligence in Tallinn” and claimed he had turned an FSB officer, Valery Ojamae, for MI6. Seven years later, Miller was again named as an intelligence operative, this time in connection with another MI6-recruited former Russian security officer, Vyacheslav Zharko. The FSB statement at the time indicated that Miller had also been suspected of involvement in the turning of Sergei Skripal.

His connections with Skripal do not end there. On March 7, before the government had got its narrative in order, the Telegraph newspaper reported that the Russian had been close to a “security consultant” living nearby: “The consultant, who The Telegraph is declining to identify [i.e. has been told not to], lived close to Col Skripal and is understood to have known him for some time.”

Miller, according to his LinkedIn profile—swiftly deleted following the Skripal affair—had retired from British diplomacy/intelligence to settle down in Salisbury. The same profile also reportedly listed Miller’s “consultancy work” at Orbis Intelligence, linking Skripal, Miller and Steele.

When this connection was first made in early March, the BBC’s security correspondent Gordon Corera and Guardian ’s Luke Harding rushed to issue denials. Corera tweeted:

“No link Chris Steele to Sergei Skripal: sources close to Orbis Intelligence—ex MI6 officer Chris Steele’s company which did Trump ‘dossier’—tell me no links whatsoever to Russian targeted with nerve agent.”

Harding joined him, saying, “The @Telegraph story claiming a link between Sergei #Skripal and Christopher Steele’s company Orbis is wrong, I understand. Skripal had nothing to do with Trump dossier. Nor did unnamed ‘security consultant’ ever work for Orbis.”

At the time, replies to Harding pointed out that, though Miller’s LinkedIn page had been deleted, a search for “Pablo Miller” and “Orbis Business Intelligence” still brought the dead page up first on Google’s listings—with none of the other Pablo Millers on the site featured in the results. Another pointed to a forum on which the presence of Orbis Intelligence on Miller’s profile was mentioned, with a link to the same LinkedIn address.

Beside these points, there is the timing of Steele’s, Miller’s and Skripal’s intelligence activities in Russia. Miller, as we have seen, was closely involved with the turning and handling of Russian double-agents at least during his time in Tallinn from 1997 to 2010. Skripal was passing information to the British from 1995. Steele was posted to Moscow as a spy between 1990-1993, returned to London as part of a group of Kremlin specialists and was head of MI6’s Russia desk by 2006.

As to why Corera and Harding omitted any research along these lines, in Corera’s case, one could point to the recent National Security Capability review which cited the BBC as an element of Britain’s programme for advancing its geostrategic position. Harding, on the other hand, seems to have a telepathic link with the minds of Britain’s leading security personnel. His most prominent work of late consists of hatchet jobs on Julian Assange and Edward Snowden and propaganda pieces against Russia.

While the precise nature of the relations between Skripal, Miller, and Steele are hidden, enough is already known to raise sharp questions about Skripal’s ongoing involvement with British intelligence.

Was he, as Murray suggests hypothetically, in fact, a participant in the creation of Steele’s Trump dossier? Did he have inconvenient knowledge of ongoing British operations in and against Russia? And, most significant of all, was he targeted by MI6 or the CIA in a preemptive strike to ensure his silence?

These revelations come amid the latest expression of the ongoing collapse of the official Skripal narrative. Yesterday, the UK’s National Security Advisor, Sir Mark Sedwell, admitted that the security agencies had no suspects in the Skripal case.

On April 20, the Daily Telegraph reported, “Police and intelligence agencies have identified key suspects in the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia… Counter-terrorism police are now trying to build a case against ‘persons of interest,’ who are believed to be back in Russia.”

The Telegraph had “been told” that “a search of flight manifests in and out of the UK has yielded specific names in the hunt for the Skripal’s would-be assassins.”

This story had a shelf-life of eleven days. None of these issues will be probed by the media because the war drive against Russia will suffer no criticism.
http://truepublica.org.uk/united-kingdo ... l-and-mi6/
#14912413
Oh no.

A former Russian intelligence agent.... has a handler. I also totally find the last sentence of that article to be a great demonstration of the author's integrity, honesty, and complete lack of bias lmfao.

Mr. Thomas Scripps, the author of the article, appears to be a blogger for the World Socialist Website. That's a good start, but how many international cabals of bakers, valets, and maitre'ds are conspiring to destroy him and where can I donate to his legal fund?
#14912437
I'll gladly cede that all of it is true because I don't care to check. But it's entirely possible for a random blogger, the most trustworthy source one can find, to come to stupid conclusions with true facts. Such as:

If Miller and, by extension, Skripal himself were somehow involved in Orbis’ work on the highly-suspect Steele–Trump dossier, alongside representatives of British and possibly US intelligence, then all manner of motivations can be suggested for an attack on the ex-Russian spy and British double agent by forces other than Russia’s intelligence service, the FSB.


The piss tape is involved and it's time to speculate wildly (about any country that isn't Russia)! Also, apparently people involved in grand international conspiracies to frame Russia for a crime it definitely has not committed before have LinkedIn profiles. This is clearly a sophisticated, well oiled machine we are dealing with and the bloggers are going to unravel this tapestry of enigmas!

Lol just why would a Western power go after anyone involved in the Steele dossier years after it has been fully published and released to the public? Good job, random blogger.
#14912441
The Steele Dossier connection is exactly why you're in this thread, because your love for Hillary and sadface for her not winning is what started the US version of Russiagate, something that went over the Atlantic ocean to the UK. Thankfully it unraveled in the UK much quicker than it did in America. :D

Complaining about alternative media while trusting the corporations'-serving Mainstream Media will continually be amusing for me. If you think that is effective, lol.

I won't hold my breath for you to prove anything you say.
#14912757
Skripal with Hindsight: Salisbury May Yet Be Corbyn’s Finest Hour (the Piece the Huff Wouldn’t Publish)
I wrote and submitted the following piece weeks ago, on the 14th of March. The Huffington Post – who I’ve written for on and off over the last 8 years – refused to publish it. When I emailed them (twice) to ask why, I received no reply. The contempt and indifference they have for their writers is staggering. Writers, without whom their “for the exposure” profit extraction model, could not exist. Unfortunately, this is a rant for another time.

The period immediately after Skripal exposed (once again) the flimsy quality of our democracy, the limits of our “free and open society” and the cowardice of our brave and intrepid “free press”. A range of media, ranging from the increasingly discredited BBC, to the eternally discredited Daily Mail, have demonstrated a tour de force in the wilful promulgation of State propaganda.

Scepticism has not been permitted. Credulity to the all-powerful British executive was expected and willingly adopted by the media, on both right and ‘left’ of the political establishment. Those who cautioned to show the mildest degree of restraint before we bellicosely cast accusatory aspersions at Russia were called “Russian stooges” and “Kremlin apologists.”

But hey, thank goodness we don’t live in an oppressive country like Russia, where the state dictates the truth and the media are forced to comply….. Although, in the UK, media seemingly choose to comply. Not only did they comply, but seemed to proactively publicly police and admonish those who dared to deviate from it. Surely this is far more disturbing?

Yet today’s revelations (Tuesday the 3rd of April) have highlighted that the medias servility to the May Government’s account at the inception of the crisis – as many of us cautioned – was unfounded. In doing so, they gifted her a Falklands moment, based upon a dubious evidential rationale.

Porton Down have stated categorically that they could not directly attribute the so-called nerve agent to Russia:


This is in direct contradiction to what the paragon of truth, Boris Johnson, originally asserted on behalf of the government.


And so, in light of the above, now seems a good time to return to my original article with the full benefit of hindsight. I hope it reveals, once again, that skepticism of the state when it makes such bold claims with significant repercussions for our national security should be the medias default setting, not the exception. They have again fallen foul of the “Shock Doctrine”: fallen into suspended animation, and grovellingly turned to an agenda laden state for truth when they should have been finding it for themselves. This skeptical failure is all the more incredible considering the government in question are buried in a steaming heap of scandal and failure they’d be happy to escape from.

Our brave media have proven to be the real stooges of state power.

Note: the following was written on the 18th of March and was not published by the Huffington Post
Salisbury May Yet Be Corbyn’s Finest Hour:

Russia may yet be proven responsible for Salisbury, but the vociferous defence of the government’s allegations, despite a lack of evidence, has demonstrated what historian Mark Curtis describes as, “a remarkable obedience to authority”, both by the media commentariat and the political establishment.

Scepticism should be obligatory in the post-Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan era, yet once again it is conspicuous in its absence. Despite a context of recent foreign policy disasters, the government still has the audacity to demand unwavering fealty to its conclusions. Further, it is insisted that we place a religious faith in the accounts of intelligence agencies; agencies historically tainted by their routine use of deception to facilitate desired foreign policy objectives.

Predictably the media have formed an unthinking mob of Dad’s Army, war-ready, jingoists. Against this tied of vocal reactionaries – front and back – stands, once again, Jeremy Corbyn. Corbyn, “the traitor”, but who inconveniently for his critics, is a Foreign Policy Nostradamus, whose bloody predictions have been vindicated time and again. Instead the media prefer the judgements of the same New Labour cheerleaders of the aforementioned blood baths, the so-called “moderates” and “centrists” who Owen Jones aptly describes as “…splashed across the media as statesman, as sensible hard-nosed individuals who understand reality…..”

The media just don’t get it.

Almost a year has passed since Corbyn slapped the Westminster nexus round the face with a big wet fish, yet the Salisbury saga again highlights a fundamental inability by media to understand the seismic shift Corbynism represents – namely the public’s preferred dove foreign policy – and shows again how out of the sync the media are with this reality.

Like so many others, I came of age during the Iraq war. As a clueless 15 year old, I recall shouting support at the TV as death rained down on Baghdad. I later discovered that the BBC had carried ten pro-war voices for every one anti, so perhaps my youthful jingoistic exuberance was inevitable. The subsequent revelations of systematic lying by government, intelligence, military, media, the mass deaths, the wasted resources, and the terrorism it subsequently unleashed, has embedded in me, and many of the public, a deep distrust of state power (a principle you might expect Conservatives to sympathise with….).

Of course, every subsequent foreign policy event we are assured is nobler. “Yes, Iraq was terrible Josh, but Libya is different” I was assured by liberal friends at Warwick University. We then proceeded to destroy the country, created a staging ground for ISIS, and unleashed a refugee crisis that helped dismember the EU.

Those of us who stood firm during such times were maligned as ‘cranks’, ‘apologists’ ‘naïve’ etc…just as we were when we stood by Corbyn prior to the election, isolated against a barrage of conventional wisdom. The alienation many of us were wrongly made to feel during this period has created a strong affinity for Corbyn’s unapologetic principled stance and within us an uncompromising defiance of state narratives even in the face of an onslaught of mockery.

Corbyn’s reluctance to embark on foreign adventures and his deep scepticism of elite agendas should surely be the norm in any functioning democracy.

As such, contrary to the beliefs of blowhards like Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall, and the falsely labelled “centrist” John Woodcock brigade, Corbyn’s cautious approach to Russia is far more aligned with public opinion, conservative even. My advice to such war mongering “centrists” is to tread carefully: such figures in the Labour Party are again highlighting their fundamental incompatibility with the new Corbyn era, and their residual allegiance to the Neo-Imperial Foreign Policy of New Labour. Their latest insurrection against Corbyn’s leadership on Russia may yet prove another significant milestone in their further alienation from the party membership – in short, they have no future.

So Salisbury is yet another revealing and disturbing moment in British political life. Our idealised fantasy of an open democracy, a free press, plurality of opinion, the celebration of skepticism and dissent, has once again come crashing down after colliding with energetic demands for mass conformity by those in power. It reveals that on matters of foreign policy, the hive mind amongst elites still prevails. Deference to executive authority seems to be sacrosanct and etched in stone during such times, yet it is exactly during these fluid periods of uncertainty, when so much is at stake, that irreverence and skepticism are essential . As Laura Kuenssberg revealing stated on the BBC 10 O’Clock News:
“It’s tradition that the two parties stick together when it comes to foreign policy”

She was referring of course to the government and the opposition, but she could have just as easily meant government and the media.
https://thesocialistskiinstructor.blog/ ... nest-hour/
#14912808
No wonder they didn't publish it (or anything else by him in the last year). It's a rambling, substanceless mess of a blog post from another crank who thinks a ground war with Russia is right around the corner. Just from an editorial standpoint, if you're going to repeatedly refer to Corbyn you might actually want to state what his views are.

Thanks for another blog from a crank skinster, two more and you get a free sub.
#14914085
In a lengthy two-part piece, Jürgen Cain Külbel, former criminal investigator of the GDR and investigative journalist, comes to the conclusion that the Skripals were probably poisoned by the British secret services:

Mordsache Skripal: Eine verdeckte Operation des britischen Geheimdienstes MI6?

According to a a number of witnesses in the UK, Russia and Germany, Sergei Skripal wanted to return to Russia and enable the marriage of his daughter Yulia with Stepan Vikeev who works for the Russian secret services and who disappeared after the Salisbury incident. The FSB would have had concerns about the marriage of one of their men with the daughter of the traitor Sergei Skripal who lives in the UK and who may still be working for the British secret service. Witnesses state that Skripal was in frequent contacts with "the boys" from the Russian embassy in London.

Due to Skripal's proximity to Pablo Miller, his former handler who also lives in Salisbury, it is likely that Skripal was one of the "sources" for the Steel Dossier about Trump's activities in Moscow. Miller worked for Steel's company and all three knew each other.

Külbel believes that Sergei Skripal may have offered his knowledge about the Steel dossier to the Russians as a way of mending ties for his homecoming. MI6 involvement in the fabrication of the Steel dossier would have seriously embarrassed the British government.

Poisoning the Skripals with a laboratory sample of Novichok from Porton Down would have solved the British problem while at the same time assembling an anti-Russian alliance in preparation for for the next false-flag operation planed by MI6 via the White Helmets in Syria. Must have sounded like a win-win to the spooks. Now they are busy with the cover-up.
  • 1
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 34
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]