1. The Russians are masters of subterfuge, and the idea that they would conduct a very public operation with all the obvious clues pointing to Moscow is risible. They are much cleverer than that.

    The problem the UK has is that all its politicians, including May, are mere pygmies on the world stage, having been trained only in the role of foot-servants to the EU hierarchy, and as such are incapable of acting rationally and with any display of informed leadership. The foolishness of poking the Russian bear with a sharp stick over some wild and unsubstantiated theories merely highlights her inability to fulfill the role she is in. Putin is vastly superior to her in intellect, experience, leadership qualities and cunning. She can forget any fantastical notions she might have of outmaneuvering him – he’ll just smile his enigmatic smile and cut her off at the knees.

    We can only hope that the current posturing and chucking out of diplomats won’t escalate any further than that, because if it does, the the shit will hit the fan big time.

    • Nisakiman,
      The truth of the matter is that the old KGB, the CIA, MI6 and Mossad, among others, routinely murder opponents all over the world. We still don’t really know what happened at Blackfriars Bridge all those years ago for God’s sake.
      And then there is interfering in elections. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Yanks were all over Russia and they admitted afterwards that they did everything they could to have Boris Yeltsin elected.
      Putin has no motive for this attack and indeed, he has many reasons not to commit something like this. I don’t believe for a moment that the Russians did it but that prompts the question, who did and why? Like 9/11, the official version of events i utterly wrong on so many counts but the who and why questions about that monumental event are still un-answered.
      And then there is this from Newsweek no less: “Lost in the hyper-politicized hullabaloo surrounding the Nunes Memorandum and the Steele Dossier was the striking statement by Secretary of Defense James Mattis that the U.S. has “no evidence” that the Syrian government used the banned nerve agent Sarin against its own people. This assertion flies in the face of the White House (NSC) Memorandum which was rapidly produced and declassified to justify an American Tomahawk missile strike against the Shayrat airbase in Syria. Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency.”
      See: http://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542

      If Assad didn’t use chemical weapons against his people then who did? And if Mattis knew he didn’t why is Washington officially blaming him for it?
      It is a murky dirty world at the moment where the innocent parties are getting all the blame from the truly guilty ones.

  2. A hypothetical situation.

    It is reported in the MSM that a former double agent, who used to pretend to be a Russian Agent, but who, in reality, was a British Agent, has been murdered. The MSM go into hysterics and lots of accusations are cast about. But no one actually says, in words of one syllable, how the person was murdered. There are suggestions that the person was poisoned, and the poison was roughly identified, but no one knows how the poison was administered. Was it injected; was it drunk; was it eaten; was it sprayed using a aerosol?
    When a person is murdered, the method used must be known, otherwise it might not be murder. It could be suicide, or a accident or whatever. How was the polonium administered in the earlier assassination?
    Those considerations are not trivial. People do not habitually carry around with them lumps of polonium or aerosols of nerve agents. A MASSIVE amount of very expensive ‘expertise, protection and care’ must have preceded the acts.
    So why bother trying to assassinate an old man and his daughter in full daylight, using dubious methods? Why not have an armed Agent chose a quite moment in a quiet place to simply shoot them dead? But why bother at all?

    So if PM May says that it was the Russians what done it, how does she say that they actually administered the poison?
    My point is that it seems to be becoming commonplace to make the accusations without describing how the accused could have done the deed.
    There are implications which extend a long way into the methodology of anti-smoker logic. I am sick to death of repeating the same logic: If hardly any smokers get LC (which is true), and it takes decades for a smoker to develop symptoms of’smoking related diseases’, why should it not take centuries for SHS to have the same effect, considering that SHS is massively dispersed?

    It is hard to know how politicians can be punished for their mistakes, but they manifestly MUST be in today’s world.

    • I agree. The other thing is that if you are going to accuse any party of attempted murder, you must show the proof, otherwise the accusation is unfounded. After WMD and the lies told then to justify murdering over a million Iraqi innocents, I find myself mistrusting most Western Governments. It would make no sense at all for the Russians to have done this deed in Salisbury but perhaps it makes perfect sense for some people in the West to commit this act themselves in order to falsely blame the Russians for it. In the absence of proof from the UK I tend towards believing the latter scenario.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>