Wheel Out the Skripal Story Again

Ooops?? He also thinks I want to exterminate the Rohingyas.

 

Resin syringes for humans and a non-existent Lord Rothschild quote.

Fcuk me Cerb, they seem to be regular contributors to Dopey and Smokey's Make Believe Book of Whacky-Backy Logic for Adults Who Never Grow Up.

Move over Harry Potter, new Wizards are in town...

 

Well, my understanding of WMD's included
Nuclear
Biological
Chemical

But the Capitalist Press claims that Saddam Hussein had no WMD's.
After reporting Hussein gassed the Iranians and the Kurds.
Go figure.

So WMD's cannot obviously include chemical weapons.
Nuclear? The Israelis put an end to that.
Biological? The UN saw an end to that.

 

The Putin-apologists claim that the UK government did it, in order to ... do something bad to poor little Russia.
The Putin-obsessives claim that he did it, because he's evil and wanted to show that he could.

But because someone does some crimes, doesn't mean he does all crimes.

Mostof this article is behind a paywall, but Ben McIntyre in yesterday's (London) Times, spells out in convincing (to me) detail why the Skripal hit was not a professional job and could well have been carried out by some of his former buddies in the GRU, people who are intelligence analysts but not trained hitmen..

Here's the first paragraph:
Only this can be said with certainty about the hit squad that came to Salisbury last March: they weren’t very good.

They failed to kill the target, and have so far managed to poison four defenceless people. They left their novichok nerve agent in puddles across Wiltshire, suggesting they had little real idea of the substance they were dealing with.


Sergei Skripal was a former paratrooper who joined Soviet military intelligence and later betrayed his former comrades
And now, in a staggering display of ineptitude, they appear to have abandoned the attempted murder weapon, possibly a poison-bearing syringe, in a public place for others, including the police, to find. That was not just lethally reckless but exceptionally unwise, since it gives investigators another pin on the map from which to scour CCTV footage, and probably some hard forensic evidence, perhaps even fingerprints.



We have precedent for this. In the Iranian theocracy, there were those, in the 1990s, who began to organize the systematic murder of domestic critics: liberal-minded college professors and the like. They are known as the 'Chain Murders' ... and were either undertaken on private initiative by elements of the theocracy's security services, or the theocrats decided it was too embarrassing and changed their minds about killing off their college professors. My money is on the former, and I think this is what we may have here as well.

 

Just to be clear, since you find this argument convincing, just how does one inject jellified Nocichok into a human vein and not suffer an immediate deadly embolism?

Secondly, how did the dastardly ex GRU assassin manage to depress the plunger to extrude jellified Novichok on to the door knocker of Skripal's front door -- assuming this was a typical medical syringe and bore the usual tiny narrow-guage needle (for liquid use) that is used by doctors, nurses and junkies?

Or was it that the Russian GRU assassin used (and then leave for the druggie two-some) a handy resin syringe that comes in the giant size as used by builders and decorators? And if it was that, how did the two victims manage to get that blunt-ended plastic tool into their veins?

Clarity is needed about what is being inferred here by the ever so nice Mr. McIntyre of The Times?

And since I don't (and I guess few members here also don't) subscribe to that newspaper, I leave it to you the poster to answer these bewildering questions.

If you don't mind that is.

 

I have the printed paper, not a paywall-breaching subscription ... so I can't post the rest of the argument unless I scan it and it doesn't do anything but ask the same questions that I asked the day after this event.

But I'm not sure what you're arguing. Who do you think did it?

There seem to be three possibilities:

The Russian state did it.
The British state did it.
Some non-state actors did it, Russian intel guys seeking revenge, Russian expats dealing with ... what, someone who owed them money, who stole someone's girlfriend, who knows ... if you really want to get conspiracy-theory-minded. then think about our Islamist friends, who certainly benefit from driving a wedge between Russia and the West.

The ineptitude of the whole thing, to my mind, points to the last. Just asking cui bono about the first two makes it at least not obvious that either of them did it.

As for the strange details -- syringes, etc. -- it beats me. Sometimes smart people do dumb things. Ask Diana Oughton.

 

What’s injecting someone using resin syringe got to do with anything?

By the way resin syringes can be the same size as normal syringes, just a diffeence in gauge size, think of the ones used to give liquid medicine to small children orally.

You claimed that a syringe could not of been used in the original poisoning beacause a resin or jelly form of Novichok was used. Therefore for looking for a syringe now was another atempt at spin. I pointed out that a syringe could of easily been used originally.

As for the second event, I have no idea how they were contaminated and I never claimed it was via injecting themselves with a contaminated syringe. Has this been given as a reason by the government or just a theory in the media or just yours.

The working theory is via a missed contaminated item, not injecting themselves.

Maybe it was a contaminated syringe that they picked up think they could reuse it who knows.

I was only pointing out the error in your claim that looking for a syringe now was another lie and pointless.

 

An FBI Agent by the name of Peter Strozk, who shares a similar MO, has spent some time in London. Could he have been involved in this investigation?

 

I find it thoroughly depressing that there are so many on this thread with zero insight but they evidently don't realize it; indeed, they actually believe that they're informed.

 

No one on here is informed enough to make a decision, yet it hasn't stopped a lot of people on here from deciding that the UK government is responsible or that Russia are in no way responsible.

I find it disappointing that people have made their minds up with ZERO evidence on way or the other.

 

There are so many suspicious inconsistencies it was obviously a staged event. You might not think so, but others do, and the number is increasing. Did you ask me a question from your original post, as I requested? I had to go out yesterday PM and might have missed it.

 

You introduced the resin syringe argument into this thread, not me. Maybe you need to try to remember what nonsense you waffle before proceeding. This is what you said yesterday: "Syringe are used to delivery resins all of the time, proved by the fact that you can buy resin syringes designed for this purpose." (post No. 128 HERE)

On sizes, yes there are all different types of sizes, massive lumber punch ones etc. But drug addicts do not mainline with them, which is the argument being made.

Already covered by me at length and ignored by you. How can anyone inject themselves with a gel and not suffer an embolism?

See your post No. 128 linked above. Your "working theory" yesterday was that a resin syringe was possible.

But, of course, the ever changing alleged facts of story is what I, and others, continually object to. Two days ago it was a syringe, today the media are saying it was a "container" that they touched. It as if once one daft theory is shot down in flames another different theory is presented in the hope that a gullible public will accept it, although it seems to me, more and more people - and some media are now waking up to reality.



According to The Independent this morning, the police haven't even found the supposed "source of the contamination" (HERE), so how the hell they know it was even a container, syringe or bar of tasty Novichocolate beats me. Meanwhile, the Daily Bellylaugh emphatically state (no caveats):

"Tests have revealed that the Amesbury couple were exposed to the nerve agent after touching a contaminated item with their hands." (HERE).

Reprise the Skripal balls.

It seems that every few days the facts change, exactly as they kept doing with the original Skripal affair.

Very sadly, Dawn Sturges has died.

 

Go on Cerb, admit it. You really are Lord Rothschild aren't you...

 

I have no idea.

 

I distinctly recall the first report being that the Novichok had been sprinkled on their plates in Zizzi's (which would make it in powder form?), and residue was found on the actual table they sat at. But instead of the table being taken away for analysis, it was instantly carted off and burnt. They seem to be making it up as they go along??

 

Seems my little inside joke was a little too much inside.

 

I wish!

 

Bit too subtle do you think, Fred? I didn't get it either.

 

Not once you say. Ever. Lets see:

Post #144 - March this year and on the same subject as this thread

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ected-poisoning.527909/page-8#post-1068800114

Post #97 - January this year

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ad-embassy-deal.523539/page-5#post-1068562064

That looks like two links to me. Looks like my talk & trousers are in pretty good shape.

However, I will now do something you are apparently incapable of - admit error. I misremembered our exchange. The subject was a Rockefeller, not a Rothschild - it is so hard to keep up with the 'R' section of the conspiracy nut canon given how large it is.

You posted a supposed Rockefeller quote that was very clearly dubious and treated it as established fact. I did some digging & discovered it was anything but. In fact, no one is at all clear who recorded it or where it was supposedly spoken. Usually a good sign that something is questionable (that and the quote just being too perfect).

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...personic-nukes-cant-be-stopped.527494/page-23

Cue typically lengthy, typically evasive and typically abusive response followed by feet stamping and storming off. As expected you never did provide a credible source of any sort for the quote.

 

Says the guy who refused to accept evidence from all over the world by bodies representing thousands of researchers and physicians on the subject of cancer vaccines all because of a single quote from a doctor on the radio that didn't even address the topic.

Zero insight is you on a good day. No wonder you run about after Stripey so.

 

And I'm still not convinced. For instance, can it be guaranteed that a vaccination will prevent the disease? I think not, otherwise everybody on the planet would be clamouring to have it, irrespective of cost. And a supplementary question - seeing that cancer is such a haphazard and spontaneous condition, let's suppose an individual has a vaccination and doesn't contract it? How can it be proven they wouldn't have contracted it if they hadn't had the vaccination? Answer - there is no way of proving it. Second supplementary question - let's suppose someone didn't have the vaccination but does contract cancer? Is there any way of proving that if they had had the vaccination, they wouldn't have contracted it? I put it to you that despite all the evidence, most of it somewhere between qualified and dubious, that your rationale is specious, and that's putting it mildly.

 

What facts all I have seen is current theories and speculation by the media? Has anyone stated that this is what has definitely happened?

It's a no win for the government, they can supply there current theory and then accused of a coverup when that theory changes or say nothing as they cannot say for sure and then get accused of a cover up for not saying anything.

Maybe you should stop taking everything you read as facts and see them for what they are working theories and opinions.

You decided to jump on the fact that a syringe was mentioned as proof it was all spin as a syringe could not have been used in the original attack.

All I did was point out that that assumption was wrong.

Who knows maybe the container is a syringe, no one knows at this stage but to dismiss it as impossible because it doesn't fit your narrative is just as bad as what you accuse everyone else of.

At the moment everyone is going around shouting theories and you jump on every single inconsistency between them as proof of UK involvement

Maybe because a discard container is the most likely? So that's their working theory so that's what they are looking for?

So few options really then, it's a container that has kept nerve agent viable which they came into contact with or that they were deliberately poisoned or that someone is going around contaminating random objects.

It's not really worth debating it anymore your convinced that is the UK and Russia cannot be involved in anyway with no proof, because it just is.

 

Not really, no. But it's a good strategy to talk yourself up immediately before making a startling admission of error, even if you do so grugdingly.

Good on you Big Yella. That must've really hurt. A round of applause is due and given.

By the way, does the Conspiracists Handbook have an entry for "tired and emotional"? Just curious...

However, since we appear to be having a grudging love in, I'll also confirm that I did quote "Rothschild" in the first linked post, albeit as an aside (why I also misremembered, I suspect), and in the second link you provided, Rothschild was mentioned in the body of the text I posted - in other words I didn't mention Lord loadsa money, but the writer of the Newsbud article did. So nothing really to do with me.

No one is clear about the David Rockerfeller quote? Well, that's not really true is it (as usual with you).

I expounded on the video link you were so agitated about in my responding post no. 451, where I posted an extract from page 405 of Rockerfeller's autobiography "Memoirs" where he openly confirmed that he was, indeed, guilty as charged of being part of a "secret cabal working against the interests of the United States... and "conspiring to build a more global integrated political and economic structure - One World, if you will..."

Anyway, let me repeat: Page 405 of David Rockerfeller's Autobiography "Memoirs", as per the above linked thread.

As to lengthy yes, because I take time to explain as accurately as I can.

I'll leave the abusive response to you, it's your normal style after all.

If the foregoing satisfies your vulpine appetite, can we now return to the focus of this particular thread, namely the Amesbury incident and its obvious linkage to the dodgy Skripal affair?

 

Maybe you should stop putting nonsense theories like resin syringes into the thread?

Not really. tour beloved media were full of reports that it was a syringe that both culprits found and implied they used them. This included our newspaper of report, The Times. It's not only fair comment to respond, it's important to try to get the actual facts out in the open and discuss/dispute the appalling propaganda the media are wheeling out.

You're fact distorting again. Yes, it was wrong, and I was the one who pointed that out to begin with. Whereas you still tried to wedge a round peg in a square hole with the resin syringe in order to support the ridiculous authorised narrative.

Since we're speculating, maybe it wasn't even Novichok - or perhaps those dreaded Russian mobster emigres got involved. We don't know because the available facts are few and while the evidence is still being collected - and the delivery instrument whether it be syringe container, mainlined into a vein, or touched with their hands remain entirely speculative - this hasn't stopped the government of accusing Russia, even when they have zero evidence of who dunnit.

Well, media involvement anyway. And the government's blame of Russia without a single shred of evidence.

But on Saturday it was a syringe, so who the hell knows if it is a container now? More likely to have been a spray imo., or ingested through a drink or food.

Not true. But I am convinced that we, the British public, are being led by our noses to believe something that is not supported by any factual evidence and that the government is a party to this. If there is clear evidence Russia is involved then I'll say so. If there is clear evidence a Russian emigre was responsible, I'll accept that too. If there is clear evidence that Christopher Steele and Orbis were involved, ditto.

 

Still dodging the issue I see. The quote in the video isn't from his memoirs. It doesn't seem to be from anywhere. Nowhere in post 451 do you deal with that quote, you deal with another quote that you posted. Now you have done the exact same thing again. Last time you got the benefit of the doubt. This time you are are either deliberately obfuscating or lying.

Just repeating that you have a source when you don't doesn't make it magically appear. Claiming a quote is from a source when it very clearly is not is a deliberate attempt to mislead....or perhaps even you don't really read the stuff you post.

This is the point where you either produce a credible source, keep dodging or storm off in a huff because you know you can't prove the quite is legit.