Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

UK Launching Anti-Russian Propaganda War

Russia

  • Please log in to reply
241 replies to this topic

#141 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 09 June 2018 - 03:25 PM

https://sputniknews....legations-bill/


  • 0

#142 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 09 June 2018 - 03:26 PM

https://sputniknews....pal-uk-germany/


  • 0

#143 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 10 June 2018 - 04:20 PM

http://tass.com/world/1008994


  • 0

#144 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 10 June 2018 - 04:22 PM

https://www.rt.com/n...ernational-law/


  • 0

#145 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 11 June 2018 - 05:08 PM

Joining Some Dots On The Skripal Case:
 
Part 4 - The Dodgy Dossier
 
 
 
 
 
June 11, 2018
 
 
 
 
 
So far in this series of pieces, I have attempted to demonstrate why I believe the official story of the poisoning of the Skripals doesn't add up (Part 1). I have then pointed to some of the most significant pieces of the jigsaw, which have either been largely ignored or quietly forgotten (Part 2). And I then went on in Part 3 to show what I believe to be perhaps the key to the whole case; that Mr Skripal became agitated in Zizzis restaurant, not because he was physically unwell and suffering from the effects of poisoning hours earlier, but rather because he had an appointment to keep.
 
But before coming on to propose a theory of what may have happened, I need to first present a theory of why it might have happened. I emphasise the word theory, because that is all it is - neither more nor less. And of course, it could be well wide of the mark. Make of it what you will!
 
In a recent blog, Craig Murray, the former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, linked to a very interesting piece by Paul Gregory that appeared in Forbes in January 2017. Mr Gregory is Professor of Economics at Houston University, and research fellow at both the Hoover Institution and the German Institute for Economic Research, and he also has extensive knowledge about Russia and the Soviet Union. Here's what he had to say about the so-called Trump Dossier, just a few days after it was published by Buzzfeed:
 
"As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian, whose command of English is far from perfect and who follows the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference. It was written, in my opinion, not by an ex-British intelligence officer but by a Russian trained in the KGB tradition [my emphasis]."
 
Now, we know that there is a link between the apparent author of the Trump Dossier, Christopher Steele and Mr Skripal's MI6 recruiter and handler, Pablo Miller. And we know that Miller and Skripal met regularly. Not only this, but we also know that there is a direct link between Steele and Skripaldating back to the late 1990s, early 2000s. There is, then, a clear link between the man credited (if that be the right word) with writing the Dossier, and a certain ex-Russian intelligence officer, who would have been trained in the KGB tradition (he was actually in the GRU), living in Salisbury. In fact, the Daily Telegraph helpfully pointed out this connection a day before the Government slapped a D-notice on reporting on the issue.
 
But is there another clue? I think there is. By itself, it would mean nothing, but it is an interesting possibility in connection with what I have just stated.
 
According to the Czech magazine, Respekt, Mr Skripal had links with Czech Intelligence. This included a meeting in Prague back in 2012, but there were also subsequent meetings where Czech Intelligence officers came to meet with him in Britain. We are not told when or where this took place, suffice it to say that there was an ongoing connection.
 
If we then turn to the Trump Dossier itself, we find this in the sections dated August and October 2016:
 
"Kremlin insider reports TRUMP lawyer COHEN's secret meeting/s with Kremlin officials in August 2016 was/were held in Prague.
 
We reported previously (2016/135 and /136) on secret meeting/s held in Prague, Czech Republic in August 2016 between then Republican presidential candidate Donald TRUMP's representative, Michael COHEN and his interlocutors from the Kremlin working under cover of Russian NGO Rossotrudnichestvo…
 
Speaking to a compatriot and friend on 19 October 2016, a Kremlin insider provided further details of reported clandestine meeting/s between Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP's lawyer Michael COHEN and Kremlin representatives in August 2016. Although the communication between them had to be cryptic for security reasons, the Kremlin insider clearly indicated to his/ her friend that the reported contact/s took place in Prague, Czech Republic."
 
Mr Cohen has of course vehemently denied this claim, saying that he has never been to Prague. Whether he has or hasn't is not for me to say, but it is in any case irrelevant to the point I am making. That point is this: Sergei Skripal had what looks like extensive connections with Czech Intelligence, and claims - whether true or false -, which presumably came from Czech sources, are found in the Trump Dossier.
 
Putting these three things together - the Steele/Miller/Skripal connection; the Czech claims in the Dossier; and the emphatic claim made by Paul Gregory that the Dossier itself was compiled by a Russian "trained in the KGB tradition" - then you can begin to see where this might be pointing.
 
Now, you'd think from the way the BBC and others have reported on Mr Skripal that he was just some old chap enjoying his retirement in the quiet city of Salisbury, where he was in the habit of frequenting local restaurants and pottering about in his garden. Yet his continued work for British Intelligence, which saw him travelling to the Czech Republic and Estonia in 2016 to meet with intelligence officers, paints a somewhat different picture. Also, remember this is a man who once sold out hundreds of his fellow countrymen in the late 1990s and early 2,000s for filthy lucre. The fact that he continued to work for British Intelligence after being settled in Salisbury suggests not only that there was not what you might call deep repentance, but also presents the possibility that he continued to be lured by the promise of cash.
 
And so one wonders whether the man who was bought for a price by MI6 back in the 1990s might have still been buyable after he settled in Salisbury. Might Steele, who had been commissioned by Fusion GPS on behalf of the Democrats to put together some dirt on Donald Trump, have asked Skripal to cobble something together? Might Skripal have used his contacts in places like the Czech Republic and Estonia to give it some semblance of credibility? Might Skripal have been swayed by the promise of more money to put together a Dossier full of salacious and unverifiable gossip?
 
And be in no doubt, the Trump Dossier is a Dodgy Dossier. I write this as someone who thinks that Donald Trump is a walking disaster area, and as someone who has no desire to defend him. Yet the fallaciousness of the Dossier, which has formed the basis of the attempts to smear and possibly impeach him, is clear, as Paul Gregory articulated well in his piece for Forbes:
 
"The Orbis dossier is fake news … [It] makes as if it knows all the ins-and-outs and comings-and-goings within Putin's impenetrable Kremlin. It reports information from anonymous 'trusted compatriots,' 'knowledgeable sources,' 'former intelligence officers,' and 'ministry of foreign affairs officials.' The report gives a fly-on-the-wall account of just about every conceivable event associated with Donald Trump's Russian connections … There are two possible explanations for the fly-on-the-wall claims of the Orbis report: Either its author (who is not Mr. Steele) decided to write fiction, or collected enough gossip to fill a 30-page report, or a combination of the two ."
 
Indeed, the whole thing has all the look and feel of having been written by a firm that wanted a payday, but never in their wildest dreams expected the contents of it to become public knowledge. And they never expected it to be revealed because they never expected Mr Trump to win the 2016 election. In the infinitesimally small chance that he did win, I don't suppose it even occurred to them that it might be taken seriously by US Intelligence.
 
And so here is the supposition as to the "why" of this case: The Democrat Party paid Fusion GPS to dig up some dirt on Donald Trump. Fusion GPS contracted this out to British Intelligence, who put them on to Orbis Business Intelligence, a private security firm owned by former MI6 officer Christopher Steele. Steele took the money and farmed the project out to Skripal who, because of his knowledge of Russia and his contacts with intelligence agencies in other countries, could make it sound reasonably plausible, at least to those who were paying for it.
 
But then - and this like that bit in the Lord or The Rings when it says that the Ring came into the possession of the unlikeliest creature - the Dodgy Dossier somehow found its way into the hands of US Intelligence agencies, and instead of seeing it as the obvious fraud that it was, amazingly they took it seriously. So seriously, in fact, that it became what the then Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division, Peter Strzok, described in a text message to his mistress, Lisa Page, as "an insurance policy" - that is, insurance against the unthinkable happening and Donald Trump becoming President.
 
But of course the unthinkable did happen. Against all expectations, Mr Trump won, and suddenly that same "insurance policy", full of salacious gossip and unverifiable information, took on a life of its own, with all of the Beltway talking about it, and then with Buzzfeed eventually releasing it into the public domain. And so what was meant to be a product with enough plausibility to satisfy those paying for it, became the foundation for the attempts to bring down a sitting President.
 
If the above is correct - and let me reiterate once again that it is simply a theory, not necessarily a fact - then Sergei Skripal, not Christopher Steele, was the main author of the Trump Dossier. If that was the case, isn't it possible that he might have sought a payment to keep quiet about its origins and the nature of its contents? And isn't it possible that there might have been others who would seek to keep him quiet by other means?
 
In the final part of this series, I'll attempt to propose a theory as to what actually happened on the evening of 4th March in Salisbury.
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
 
 

  • 0

#146 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 12 June 2018 - 10:09 AM

https://sputniknews....k-skripal-case/


  • 0

#147 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 15 June 2018 - 12:58 PM

Joining Some Dots on the Skripal Case:
 
Part 5 - An Educated Guess
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 15, 2018
 
 
 
 
 
 
I want in this piece to start joining some dots together on this case, using some of the facts, clues and suppositions that I have set out in the previous parts. I said at the end of Part 4 that there would be one more piece. That has turned out to be wishful thinking on my part, and there will in fact be a further article after this one. In this piece, I want to propose a theory - or maybe educated guess is a better term - for what I think may have happened on 4th March. Then I will need one final piece to show why I think this theory helps to explain a number of other events and incidents connected with the story. Think of that final part as tying up some loose ends.
 
So what of the theory?
 
Back in Part 2, I made the claim that two of the most important clues in the whole Skripal case are:
 
The people who were seen on CCTV walking through the Market Walk towards The Maltings at 15:47 who were very clearly not Sergei and Yulia Skripal
 
The red bag that one of them was carrying
 
These clues are very important, because one of the first witnesses on the scene, Freya Church, testified that she saw a red bag at Yulia Skripal's feet. In addition, we know that a red bag was placed in an evidence bag and taken away from the scene.
 
Of course, it could be that the red bag seen near the bench was not the same red bag carried by the person walking through The Maltings. Then again, large red bags like that are not exactly very common (walk around a town and see how many you spot). If the people and the bag have been ruled out, I haven't heard anything to that effect in the media. Rather, they have been quietly forgotten about in the midst of a lot of nonsense about door handles and deadly nerve agents that don't kill. This itself raises suspicions, and it is therefore entirely reasonable to suppose that these two people are important, and that the red bag seen on CCTV is the same one seen next to the bench.
 
There is also something else quite odd about those people, which at first glance you may not have spotted. Although the footage is not very clear, and I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about this, I believe that a careful look at the two people shows that they are both wearing gloves. This would not be especially remarkable, given that it was fairly cold that day, but what is odd is that the gloves they are wearing are white. Certainly, their hands appear to be far whiter than their faces. Why is this strange? As I said in Part 2, although I'm not 100% sure of the sex of the person nearest the camera (looks like a woman to me, but others disagree), I am very, very sure that the person furthest from the camera is male. And as you are probably aware, men don't tend to wear white gloves. Of course, there may not be any importance in this, but it does seem to add to the already large mountain of intrigue in the case.
 
Anyway, 10-15 minutes or so before these two people walked through the Market Walk, Sergei and Yulia Skripal left Zizzis restaurant. They did so after Mr Skripal became extremely agitated, demanding the bill at the same time as the main course, which he ate (the food that is, not the bill). However, this was not down to his being physically unwell, or showing signs of suffering any effects of poisoning, as the fact that he ate the lunch shows quite clearly. As I argued in Part 3, the most likely reason for his agitation and obvious desire to leave as quickly as possible was that he had an appointment to keep - one that he was perhaps nervous about, but one that he could not afford to miss.
 
Let's now construct a timeline of the events that followed:
 
15:35 - Sergei Skripal and Yulia leave Zizzis. They make their way to The Maltings, presumably along Market Walk (although strangely there is no CCTV footage of this), a walk of about two minutes or so.
 
15:37 - When they got to The Maltings, they appear not to have gone straight to the bench, but to the Avon Playground (approximately 50 yards from the bench), where they spent some time feeding ducks. They presumably then went over to the bench, a few minutes after this.
 
15:47 - The mysterious pair, one of whom is carrying a red bag, are seen on CCTV walking through Market Walk in the direction of The Maltings.
 
16:03 - One of the first witnesses to the scene, Freya Church, who was working in the nearby Snap Fitness, leaves work at 16:00 or thereabouts, and sees the Skripals on the bench at approximately 16:03. According to her account, they were already "out of it", which suggests that they had been poisoned some minutes previously. She noted that there was a red bag on the floor next to Yulia's feet.
 
16:15 - Emergency services are called and the pair are taken to Salisbury District Hospital, Yulia by helicopter and Sergei by ambulance. Upon admittance, the hospital believed that the pair had overdosed on Fentanyl, and treated this as an opioid poisoning for at least 24 hours after the incident.
 
Later that evening - Police remove the red bag, and it has never been heard of or mentioned in connection with the story since.
 
Assuming that the red bag seen next to Yulia Skripal is the same as the one carried by the person nearest the camera in the Market Walk - who was not Yulia Skripal - we can begin to make some educated guesses as to what happened in those crucial minutes, from 15:47 to 16:03.
 
In Part 4 of this series, I made the case that there is a strong possibility that Sergei Skripal, not Christopher Steele, was the author of the Trump Dossier. Certainly, the connections between Steele and Skripal make that plausible, as does some of the material contained therein, as does the fact that Russia experts, such as Paul Gregory and Craig Murray, are convinced that the Dossier was written by a Russian "trained in the KGB tradition."
 
My (hopefully educated) guess is therefore that Mr Skripal, who knew much about the origins, the contents and the falsehoods of the Dossier, was hoping to be paid off to keep quiet about it. Furthermore, my guess is that he was due to meet someone for this purpose at the park bench in The Maltings at about 3:45pm on 4th March (NB. even if the theory about the money is wide of the mark, I would still say that the rest of the clues tend to suggest that he was due to meet someone at the park bench).
 
Why meet on the park bench and why drag Yulia along with him? In both instances, as an insurance policy. Meeting out in public, albeit at a time on a Sunday afternoon when few people would be about, would perhaps be "safer" than meeting at home. Taking Yulia along with him would also add another layer of "safety". Even so, if my supposition is anywhere close to the truth, Mr Skripal would have been apprehensive about the rendezvous, hence his agitation in the restaurant.
 
According to this scenario, the people seen walking along Market Walk at 15:47 approached the bench. This would have been about 15:48. Perhaps a few words were exchanged, or perhaps the bag was simply put down on the floor, and the pair who had delivered it walked away.
 
My guess is that over the next few minutes, both Sergei Skripal and Yulia looked into the bag where, amongst other things, there was some kind of toxic substance (which may explain the reason for the white gloves).
 
What was the substance?
 
First let's say what it was not. It was not a lethal nerve agent, 5-8 times more deadly than VX. If it had been a lethal nerve agent, 5-8 times more deadly than VX, then they would either have died over the next few minutes, or they would have been hospitalised and suffered irreparable damage to their nervous system. Since neither of these things happened, it is safe to say that whatever the substance was, it was not A-234. Indeed, it defies logic, reason and all common sense to maintain that it was.
 
What was it? It is impossible to say for sure, but given the fact that they were fairly quickly incapacitated, yet suffered no long lasting and irreparable damage, what we are probably looking at is some kind of non-lethal incapacitating nerve agent. For the point was not to kill Mr Skripal - that would have inevitably led to a whole can of worms being opened about who he was and what he was doing - but to incapacitate him and hospitalise him for a time, with a substance that looked like it could be some kind of opioid poisoning, in order to send him a message.
 
Can we say more? I think so. The hospital treated the case as that of a Fentanyl poisoning for at least 24 hours. The reason for this can only have been because the symptoms exhibited were roughly consistent with the effects of poisoning by Fentanyl. What were those symptoms? Let's turn to the testimony of various witnesses to the scene, all of which largely agree with one another (I have highlighted those bits that I see as most crucial in pointing to possible substances):
 
"He was doing some strange hand movements, looking up to the sky. I felt anxious, I felt like I should step in, but to be honest they looked so out of it that I thought even if I did step in, I wasn't sure how I could help. So I just left them. But it looked like they'd been taking something quite strong" - Freya Church.
 
"It was like her body was dead. Her legs were really stiff… you know when animals die, they have rigor mortis. Both her legs came together when people pulled (her), and when she was on the floor her eyes were just completely white. They were wide open but just white and frothing at the mouth. Then the man went stiff: his arms stopped moving, but he's still looking dead straight" - Jamie Paine.
 
"He was quite smartly dressed. He had his palms up to the sky as if he was shrugging and was staring at the building in front of him. He had a woman sat next to him on the bench who was slumped on his shoulder. He was staring dead straight. He was conscious but it was like he was frozen and slightly rocking back and forward' - Georgia Pridham.
 
"The paramedics seemed to be struggling to keep the two people conscious. The man was sitting staring into space in a catatonic state" - Graham Mulcock.
 
"I saw quite a lot of commotion - there were two people sat on the bench and there was a security guard there. They put her on the ground in the recovery position, and she was shaking like she was having a seizure. It was a bit manic. There were a lot of people crowded round them. It was raining, people had umbrellas and were putting them over them" - Destiny Reynolds.
 
Okay, so what do we have?
 
Firstly, we can say that it is a substance that possibly causes hallucinations ("out of it" "staring at the building" "palms up to the sky"
 
Secondly, it also causes mydriasis (dilation of the pupils) ("her eyes were completely white")
 
Thirdly, it seems to cause something like stupor ("he was staring dead straight", "like he was frozen" "catatonic state")
 
Fourthly, it can cause tremors ("rocking back and forth" - see here for details on tremors, the effects of which include an unintentional, rhythmic muscle movement involving to-and-fro movements
 
Fifthly, it can cause shaking and seizures (she was shaking like she was having a seizure)
 
Sixthly, it can cause frothing at the mouth (which can be caused by seizures or pulmonary edema - fluid accumulation in the tissue and air spaces of the lungs)
 
There are a number of substances that fit these descriptions reasonably well. For instance, there is Carfentanil, which is an analogue of Fentanyl, only much stronger. Here is a description of some of its symptoms:
 
"Carfentanil has rapid onset [following IM administration] in animal patients, and is metabolized by the liver and excreted in the bile or by the kidneys … Signs and symptoms of exposure are consistent with opioid toxicity and include pinpoint pupils, respiratory depression, and depressed mental status. Other signs and symptoms include dizziness, lethargy, sedation, nausea, vomiting, shallow or absent breathing, cold clammy skin, weak pulse, loss of consciousness, and cardiovascular collapse secondary to hypoxia and death" - Lust et al. (2011).
 
Another possibility is 3-Quinuclidinyl-Benzilate (or BZ):
 
"Depending on the dose and time postexposure, a number of CNS [Central Nervous System] effects may manifest. Restlessness, apprehension, abnormal speech, confusion, agitation, tremor, picking movements, ataxia, stupor, and coma are described. Hallucinations are prominent, and they may be benign, entertaining, or terrifying to the patient experiencing them. Exposed patients may have conversations with hallucinated figures, and/or they may misidentify persons they typically know well. Simple tasks typically performed well by the exposed person may become difficult. Motor coordination, perception, cognition, and new memory formation are altered as CNS muscarinic receptors are inhibited" - Holstege CP and Baylor M; CBRNE - Incapacitating Agents, 3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate. (May 24, 2006)
 
Let me clarify that I am not saying that it was either of these substances that was used to poison the Skripals. However, it is abundantly clear that the behaviour they exhibited, as described by various witnesses, far more closely matches the descriptions of the effects of substances like Carfentanil and BZ than it does A-234.
 
And so the sum and substance of this theory is as follows:
 
That Sergei Skripal had arranged to meet someone at around 3:45pm at the park bench in The Maltings.
 
That this was something to do with his involvement in and possible authorship of the so-called Trump Dossier.
 
That the people he met were the same people who were spotted on a CCTV camera in Market Walk at 3:47.
 
That the red bag that one of them was carrying is the same red bag that was seen by witnesses at the bench.
 
That it was in this bag that some sort of incapacitating substance had been placed.
 
That both Sergei and Yulia Skripal became incapacitated after looking inside the bag.
 
That the bag was later taken away, and probably subsequently destroyed.
 
Of course, if this theory has any credibility, it does raise one huge question. How did we go from Mr Skripal being targeted with an incapacitating substance, to wild and wholly absurd claims of him being targeted with the most deadly nerve agent known to man?
 
The answer to that, I believe, is that it all went a bit wrong, there was a panic, and in that panic a cover up of frankly bizarre proportions.
 
In the final piece, I will be explaining how I think it went wrong, and then tying up some loose ends to show how I think the theory I have advanced is backed up by some of the subsequent occurrences connected to this very strange case.
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#148 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 09:34 AM

Diplomat warns British special services can be implicated in Salisbury incident
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 15, 2018
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The whole "Skripal affair" was launched by the UK government in an attempt to attain certain political goals, Zakharova believes
 
 
The UK intelligence services could be involved in orchestrating the Skripal case, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Friday.
 
"The circumstances only confirm the British authorities' provocative motives and their obvious desire to use the orchestrated Skripal case for their own unscrupulous anti-Russian purposes," she said. "Also, it is not improbable that British officials, including the intelligence services, could be involved in the Salisbury provocation." 
_________________________________________________________________
 
READ ALSO
 
Yulia Skripal
 
Russian envoy comments on Yulia Skripal's statement
_________________________________________________________________
 
The Skripal affair was fabricated in an attempt to show that Britain is in the forefront of world politics, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman added. 
 
"The whole affair was launched by the Theresa May government in an attempt to attain internal political aims and apparently to demonstrate that Britain is in the forefront of foreign political activity," Zakharova said.
 
On March 4, former Russian military intelligence officer Sergei Skripal, 66, who had been earlier sentenced in Russia for spying for the UK, and his daughter Yulia, 33, were found unconscious on a bench near the Maltings shopping center in Salisbury, the UK. Police said they had been exposed to a nerve agent.
_________________________________________________________________
 
READ ALSO
 
Russian Foreign Ministry's spokesperson Maria Zakharova
 
Diplomat slams UK's claims about Russia's involvement in Skripal case as lies
_________________________________________________________________
 
Later on, London claimed that the toxin of Novichok-class had been allegedly developed in Russia. Moscow rejected all of the United Kingdom's accusations, saying that a program aimed at developing such a substance had existed neither in the Soviet Union nor in Russia.
 
Salisbury District Hospital announced on May 18 that Sergei Skripal had been discharged from it, while his daughter Yulia was released from the hospital on April 10.
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
 
 
 
 

  • 0

#149 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 09:56 AM

Op-Ed:
 
Official narrative on Skripal poisoning has little credibility
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 14, 2018
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Skripal poisoning narrative began over 3 months ago. Both Yulia Skripal a Russian citizen and her father Sergei Skripal a former Russian double agent were found unconscious on a park bench in Salisbury UK and admitted to Salisbury Hospital on March 4.
_________________________________________________________________
 
The whole case has fallen off the media radar screen. What appears now from time to time are various politicians or officials simply asserting or alluding to the official narrative usually as part of larger narratives showing how evil Russia is. Just reporting what authorities say and making no comment is regarded as objective journalism in the sense you are not expressing opinions.
 
Recently some sources have provided useful timelines of events and also analyses. One of these these sources is the blog "Disobedient Media" that provides a detailed extensive report of events from before the poisoning up to now. Another source with numerous articles on particular aspects can be found at "the saker". Both sources have numerous links to other articles such as those by blog Moon of Alabama and Craig Murray. The appended video shows an interview with a former BBC reporter who discusses a few of the problems with the official narrative and the pitiful mainstream media response.
 
Earlier Digital Journal articles on the Skripal poisoning
 
Digital Journal has earlier published several of my articles dealing with earlier events. The first on March 31st argued that the case against Russia was not even plausible. On April 10th an article showed how everything was kept under wraps when Yulia was released from the hospital.
 
On May 18 there was an article on Sergei Skripal's release from the hospital but there was no news conference and thus no questions as to what the Skripalès version of events was.
 
A more recent article on May 25th shows how a supposed interview with Yulia also keeps most everything under wraps as well. It was not actually an interview but a video of Yulia reading off a text in Russian but showed also an English translation. The text probably resulted from negotiation. Surprisingly, she was allowed to say that she hoped eventually to return to Russia. This is an amazing statement from someone who according to the official story has just been subject to an attempt to kill her by Russia. However, she has never been allowed to meet the press and her handlers have kept her away from any communication with relatives, and of course from Russian officials. Yulia conveniently says that she does not want consular help at this time.
 
What have the Skripals had to say about what happened?
 
Given that both Skripals have been released from hospital authorities must have interrogated them about what happened on the day of their poisoning. If what the Skripals testified supported the official narrative it would have been immediately broadcast far and wide and offered up as confirming the official version of events.
 
This has not happened. Instead both Skripals are kept away from the press, relatives, and any communication they have is no doubt monitored and even negotiated. To mimic the official story, the only plausible explanation of events is that the Skripal's testimony does not support the official narrative blaming the Russians.
 
The official narrative is as full of holes as Swiss cheese
 
The official narrative is often so meandering and inconsistent as to be risible. The various statements about where the Skripals came into contact with the poison is a good example. Independent journalist, Caitlin Johnstone, sums up the story: "The poison was placed in Yulia Skripal's suitcase. Actually no, they got that wrong, it was the air vents in their car. Wait, no, that doesn't work either. Maybe it was administered via weaponized miniature drone! Wait, no, it was the family's car door handle. Actually, scratch that, it was the front door of the house. Definitely the front door of the house. We're absolutely sure. Either that or Sergei Skripal's favorite Russian cereal. They were given 100 grams of Novichok. Wait, no, that's ridiculous, we retract that. Okay, maybe we have no idea what happened. Oh hey, their pets were completely unaffected by the poison. Let's incinerate them."
 
This is just a brief sampling of objections to the official narrative. Much more in great detail can be found in the two recent sources cited earlier and the many links to relevant articles.
 
The Skripal case is a prime example of how unsubstantiated accusations can have extremely negative consequences such as the tit-for-tat removal of diplomats from various countries as a result of holding Russia responsible for the poisoning. Yet the mainstream press has voiced little criticism of the official account and helped ensure that criticism is below mainstream media radar. The official narrative is now simply used as given in much political discourse in the mainstream press. What should be fake news has become legitimized.
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
 

  • 0

#150 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 09:56 AM

Op-Ed:
 
Official narrative on Skripal poisoning has little credibility
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 14, 2018
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Skripal poisoning narrative began over 3 months ago. Both Yulia Skripal a Russian citizen and her father Sergei Skripal a former Russian double agent were found unconscious on a park bench in Salisbury UK and admitted to Salisbury Hospital on March 4.
_________________________________________________________________
 
The whole case has fallen off the media radar screen. What appears now from time to time are various politicians or officials simply asserting or alluding to the official narrative usually as part of larger narratives showing how evil Russia is. Just reporting what authorities say and making no comment is regarded as objective journalism in the sense you are not expressing opinions.
 
Recently some sources have provided useful timelines of events and also analyses. One of these these sources is the blog "Disobedient Media" that provides a detailed extensive report of events from before the poisoning up to now. Another source with numerous articles on particular aspects can be found at "the saker". Both sources have numerous links to other articles such as those by blog Moon of Alabama and Craig Murray. The appended video shows an interview with a former BBC reporter who discusses a few of the problems with the official narrative and the pitiful mainstream media response.
 
Earlier Digital Journal articles on the Skripal poisoning
 
Digital Journal has earlier published several of my articles dealing with earlier events. The first on March 31st argued that the case against Russia was not even plausible. On April 10th an article showed how everything was kept under wraps when Yulia was released from the hospital.
 
On May 18 there was an article on Sergei Skripal's release from the hospital but there was no news conference and thus no questions as to what the Skripalès version of events was.
 
A more recent article on May 25th shows how a supposed interview with Yulia also keeps most everything under wraps as well. It was not actually an interview but a video of Yulia reading off a text in Russian but showed also an English translation. The text probably resulted from negotiation. Surprisingly, she was allowed to say that she hoped eventually to return to Russia. This is an amazing statement from someone who according to the official story has just been subject to an attempt to kill her by Russia. However, she has never been allowed to meet the press and her handlers have kept her away from any communication with relatives, and of course from Russian officials. Yulia conveniently says that she does not want consular help at this time.
 
What have the Skripals had to say about what happened?
 
Given that both Skripals have been released from hospital authorities must have interrogated them about what happened on the day of their poisoning. If what the Skripals testified supported the official narrative it would have been immediately broadcast far and wide and offered up as confirming the official version of events.
 
This has not happened. Instead both Skripals are kept away from the press, relatives, and any communication they have is no doubt monitored and even negotiated. To mimic the official story, the only plausible explanation of events is that the Skripal's testimony does not support the official narrative blaming the Russians.
 
The official narrative is as full of holes as Swiss cheese
 
The official narrative is often so meandering and inconsistent as to be risible. The various statements about where the Skripals came into contact with the poison is a good example. Independent journalist, Caitlin Johnstone, sums up the story: "The poison was placed in Yulia Skripal's suitcase. Actually no, they got that wrong, it was the air vents in their car. Wait, no, that doesn't work either. Maybe it was administered via weaponized miniature drone! Wait, no, it was the family's car door handle. Actually, scratch that, it was the front door of the house. Definitely the front door of the house. We're absolutely sure. Either that or Sergei Skripal's favorite Russian cereal. They were given 100 grams of Novichok. Wait, no, that's ridiculous, we retract that. Okay, maybe we have no idea what happened. Oh hey, their pets were completely unaffected by the poison. Let's incinerate them."
 
This is just a brief sampling of objections to the official narrative. Much more in great detail can be found in the two recent sources cited earlier and the many links to relevant articles.
 
The Skripal case is a prime example of how unsubstantiated accusations can have extremely negative consequences such as the tit-for-tat removal of diplomats from various countries as a result of holding Russia responsible for the poisoning. Yet the mainstream press has voiced little criticism of the official account and helped ensure that criticism is below mainstream media radar. The official narrative is now simply used as given in much political discourse in the mainstream press. What should be fake news has become legitimized.
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
 

  • 0

#151 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 10:17 AM

Russian Embassy:
 
London Refusing to Cooperate in Glushkov, Skripal Cases
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 16, 2018
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
London still refuses to cooperate with Moscow in investigating Russian businessman Nikolai Glushkov's murder and the alleged poisoning of former Russian military intelligence (GRU) Colonel Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, a spokesman for the Russian embassy in the UK told the Russian media.
 
"Great Britain remains deafeningly silent, still refusing to provide answers to questions by the Russian Prosecutor General's Office and the embassy about the progress concerning Moscow's requests about the murder of a Russian citizen and the attempted murder of Russian citizens on British soil," the spokesman said, TASS reported.
 
 "We must say that Great Britain has shown a zero level of cooperation in investigating these high-profile cases. We believe that it is harmful to law enforcement activities aimed at finding the truth and restoring justice," the embassy added.
 
Glushkov was found dead at his London home on March 12. The Metropolitan Police said he had died from compression to the neck. At the same time, according to media reports, the businessman was strangled with a dog lead so investigators believe that the killer could have aimed at giving his death the appearance of suicide. On March 16, Russia's Investigative Committee launched a criminal case over Glushkov's murder.
 
According to London, Sergei Skripal, who had been convicted in Russia of spying for Great Britain and later swapped for Russian intelligence officers, and his daughter Yulia suffered the effects of an alleged nerve agent in the British city of Salisbury on March 4. Claiming that the substance used in the attack had been a Novichok-class nerve agent developed in the Soviet Union, London rushed to accuse Russia of being involved in the incident. Moscow rejected all of the United Kingdom's accusations.
 
The British media initially reported that the Skripals were in critical condition and their odds of survival were minimal but both managed to recover. Yulia was discharged from the hospital in early April but her whereabouts have been unknown since then.
 
The Russian embassy in London many times requested the British authorities provide consular access to the Skripals who are both Russian citizens but all requests were rejected. "Considering all the facts, we now have more reasons to qualify this situation as an abduction of the two Russian nationals. We will continue to seek the truth and demand answers from the British side," Russian Ambassador to the United Kingdom Alexander Yakovenko said in this regard.
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
 
 

  • 0

#152 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 10:19 AM

http://tass.com/politics/1009820


  • 0

#153 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 16 June 2018 - 10:24 AM

https://sputniknews....n-skripal-case/


  • 0

#154 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 17 June 2018 - 10:03 AM

https://www.nytimes....propaganda.html


  • 0

#155 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 17 June 2018 - 10:08 AM

https://www.smh.com....617-p4zlyn.html


  • 0

#156 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 03:23 PM

https://sputniknews....isbury-skripal/


  • 0

#157 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 22 June 2018 - 03:24 PM

https://sputniknews....tenberg-remark/


  • 0

#158 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 23 June 2018 - 08:13 AM

Russian ambassador sends letter to Prince Charles over visit to Salisbury
 
 
 
 
 
 
June 23, 2018
 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________________________________________________________
 
Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko said he had set forth Russia's position on the incident and stated his country's full non-involvement in what had happened
_________________________________________________________________
 
Russian Ambassador in London Alexander Yakovenko
_________________________________________________________________
 
Russian Ambassador in London, Alexander Yakovenko, sent a letter to Prince Charles on Friday over a visit to Salisbury made by the Prince and his spouse, Camilla Duchess of Cornwall made earlier on Thursday.
 
Their Royal Highnesses made a fact-finding tour to Salisbury to get familiarized with successes in the program for bringing life there back to normal after the March 4 alleged poisoning of the former Russian intelligence office and British spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia.
 
British media claim the incident affected the tourist industry in the city, slashing the number of visitors by 15%
 
Ambassador Yakovenko said he had set forth Russia's position on the incident and stated his country's full non-involvement in what had happened, recalling at the same time Moscow had already notified the British government on it,
 
He said the Russian side had not received a single answer to its questions from the Foreign Office and had not given Russian consular officers any access to the Skripals.
 
Yakovenko expressed the hope the UK authorities would not uphold their current position endlessly and would eventually give the Russian diplomats access to Yulia Skripal, who is a Russian citizen. The sooner it happens, the better, he added.
 
On March 4, 2018, Sergei Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, got exposed to an alleged use of a poisonous chemical agent, which London claimed later was one of a class provisionally called Novichok.
 
The British authorities mounted an impressive media campaign, claiming Novichok had been developed in Russia. On the basis of the claims, they charged Moscow with involvement in the Salisbury incident.
 
Russia has strongly denied any accusations and claims against it, saying programs for developing the agents like the one presumably used in Salisbury had never existed either in the USSR before August 1991 or afterwards.
 
Without producing any verifiable evidence, London ordered expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats and launched a sequence of other anti-Russian measures.
 
Russia expelled a symmetric number of British diplomats, closed down the British Consulate General in St Petersburg and cut short the operations of the British Council on the Russian territory.
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
 
 
 

  • 0

#159 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 25 June 2018 - 09:42 AM

https://www.rt.com/u...-skripal-house/


  • 0

#160 grog

grog

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4058 posts

Posted 25 June 2018 - 09:43 AM

https://sputniknews....uyout-reaction/


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Russia

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2018 Pravda.Ru