This month the Coroners' Court announced the indefinite suspension of the inquest into the death of Dawn Sturgess. Ms. Sturgess was allegedly poisoned by deadly "developed-in-Russia" Novichok nerve agent carelessly discarded by Russian assassins intent on murdering Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the quiet English cathedral city of Salisbury.
Sergei Skripal was a Russian double agent, convicted of treason and jailed in Russia before being pardoned and released under a spy swap agreement.
Skripal's daughter, Yulia, was so far as the public has been informed, an innocent Russian citizen who happened to be visiting with her father when evil Putin's assassins arrived in England to dispatch him with Russian trade-marked nerve toxin.
Dawn Sturgess was the live-in friend of Charley Rowley, a scavenger who fished a perfume spray bottle containing Novichok that had been discarded in a public waste bin by Putin's assassins (so it is claimed by the ever trustworthy British authorities). Charley gave the deadly spray bottle to Ms. Sturgess who promptly sprayed herself to death, albeit unintentionally.
The official story of the death of Ms. Sturgess has always seemed questionable as we have discussed at length in a number of earlier posts. The indefinite suspension of the inquest into her death, raises the question of whether, in fact, Dawn Sturgess actually died.
Rather, it seems that the official account of the Skripal poisonings was a farrago of nonsense intended to smear Russia at the time that Russia was hosting the World Cup soccer tournament. In that case, Dawn Sturgess was most likely an actor in a idiotically badly planned false-flag event.
And if that were so, Dawn Sturgess was not a sad victim of Russian villainy, but a participant in a fraud on the public and a gratuitous assault on the reputation of the Russian Government. Further, it would mean that Dawn Sturgess is almost certainly now living under a different name, with the benefit of a face-lift and a new hair-do, all at the expense of a deceived British public.
Showing posts with label Salisbury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salisbury. Show all posts
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Were the Skripal Poisonings a British Intelligence Service Hoax?
In an interview conducted in the Kremlin on June 19, this year, Vladimir Putin answered questions from American film director, Oliver Stone. The discussion turned to the case of Sergei Skripal, the pardoned Russian traitor, resident in Salisbury, England where he and his daughter, Yulia, were reported by British authorities to have been poisoned by Russian security service operatives who painted the deadly nerve agent Novichok on the knob of the front door of Sergei Skripal's house.
Concerning that incident, Stone's conversation with Putin included the following:
Putin is certainly not acknowledging Russian responsibility for the Skripal poisonings, yet he said the Brits weren't responsible either. So the Russia position seems to be that the poisonings were a hoax to smear Russia, and that no one was actually poisoned with the deadly nerve agent, Novichok.
As far as we know, Dawn Sturgess did die, and if the circumstances of here death are as reported by British authorities, her death was certainly tragic.
But if the incident was part of a propaganda exercise, then Ms. Sturgess may still be alive and living at public expense under another name?
But if Dawn Sturgess is still alive, then she must have been one of the actors in a British operation to discredit Russia, a possibility suggested by the surveillance camera image of a women who might well have been Dawn Stugess accompanied by a man who might well have been Pablo Miller, Segei Skripals MI6 handler.
The CCTV image, taken at around the time of the alleged poisonings, is from a camera in the lane connecting Zizzi's restaurant in Salisbury, where the Skripals had just eaten, with the park where they are supposed to have been poisoned.
The woman in the photograph is carrying a red bag, which is interesting in view of the report of a witness at the scene of the poisoning who said, referring to Yulia Skripal:
| Stone: What has happened to Skripal? Where is he? Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. He is a spy, after all. He is always in hiding. Oliver Stone: Who poisoned him? They say English secret services did not want Sergei Skripal to come back to Russia? Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not quite believe this. Oliver Stone: Makes sense. You do not agree with me? Vladimir Putin: If they had wanted to poison him, they would have done so. Oliver Stone: Who did then? Vladimir Putin: After all, this is not a hard thing to do in today’s world. In fact, a fraction of a milligram would have been enough to do the job. And if they had him in their hands, there was nothing complicated about it. No, this does not make sense. Maybe they just wanted to provoke a scandal. |
Putin is certainly not acknowledging Russian responsibility for the Skripal poisonings, yet he said the Brits weren't responsible either. So the Russia position seems to be that the poisonings were a hoax to smear Russia, and that no one was actually poisoned with the deadly nerve agent, Novichok.
But if that were the case, why? Why would the British Government engage in such charade? Presumably as part of the UK–US deep state project to to create an obstacle to a US/Russian rapprochement.
But if so, surely there would have been a pretext. And if there were a pretext, it must have been the visit to Salisbury of the alleged Russian security service operatives, Petrov and Boshirov, immediately prior to the poisoning of the Skripals with the deadly, "developed-in-Russia," nerve agent that proved curiously undeadly, at least in the case of the Skripals.
According to British authorities, Petrov and Boshirov were in Salisbury to paint Novichok on the knob of Sergei Skripal's front door. But what if they were there for some entirely different clandestine purpose? Then a faked poisoning might have been judged by the UK as a good means of retaliation, since it could be blamed on Russia, by virtue of the presence of the Russian agents.
But there was also the case of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, reported by British authorities to have been poisoned with Novichok contained in a perfume bottle that they found in a rubbish bin in Salisbury.
Apparently Dawn Sturgess died as a consequence of applying the contents of the bottle, which she took to be perfume, which if true is inconsistent with the idea that the Novichok poisonings were simply a piece of theatre intended to sway public opinion. But then perhaps it was precisely to create such an apparent inconsistency that Dawn Sturgess had to "die."
 |
Is thatDawn Sturgess carrying a red
bag and accompanied by and Pablo
Miller, Sergei Skripal's MI6 handler?
Image source. |
But if the incident was part of a propaganda exercise, then Ms. Sturgess may still be alive and living at public expense under another name?
But if Dawn Sturgess is still alive, then she must have been one of the actors in a British operation to discredit Russia, a possibility suggested by the surveillance camera image of a women who might well have been Dawn Stugess accompanied by a man who might well have been Pablo Miller, Segei Skripals MI6 handler.
The CCTV image, taken at around the time of the alleged poisonings, is from a camera in the lane connecting Zizzi's restaurant in Salisbury, where the Skripals had just eaten, with the park where they are supposed to have been poisoned.
The woman in the photograph is carrying a red bag, which is interesting in view of the report of a witness at the scene of the poisoning who said, referring to Yulia Skripal:
She had a red bag at her feet.So perhaps we need no longer mourn for Dawn Sturgess, who may yet be living comfortably at public expense, albeit under a different name.
Wednesday, July 3, 2019
Did Vladimir Putin Just Admit Russian Responsibility for the Novichok Poisonings in England's Green and Pleasant Land?
As anyone visiting here on a more or less regular basis will know, we have written a number of posts about the Novichok poisonings in England of the Russian traitor, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Julia, and also the British citizens, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess.
Throughout, we have been skeptical of the British position that the poisonings were perpetrated by the Russian state, roused to seek vengeance against Skripal, despite having formerly pardoned him in connection with a spy swap. Rather, it seemed to us more probable that the poisonings were a charade undertaken by British security services as means to stoke public antipathy toward Russia.
Our assessment has now to be questioned in light of Vladimir Putin's remarks on the case that were addressed to former UK Prime Minister Teresa May during the recent G20 summit.
Specifically, Putin said:
Sounds pretty much like a confession of Russian responsibility to me, which in itself, makes the statement remarkable. But if it is a confession, it raises the question: for what was Sergei Skripal being punished? Not presumably, for the treasonous acts for which he was formerly convicted, jailed and subsequently pardoned.
The Russian State English Language broadcaster, RT, puts some spin on Putin's comment, stating:
Which, does not, it seems to me, settle the matter. Putin has exceptional skill in the diplomatic use of words, and RT's spin does little negate what seems the most plausible interpretation of his comment.
However, it is possible that Putin's statement was, in fact, a taunt, a taunt based on the knowledge, shared with Theresa May to whom his remark was addressed, that Sergei Skripal was a triple agent, who, having moved to England, ostensibly to continue in the service of the British to whom he had betrayed Russia, was in fact, acting in the service of Russia.
It might well then have been that his allegiance to Russia, having been discovered by the Brits, became the justification for a British charade intended to demonize Russia. That would explain the look of disgust, or is it despair, on Theresa May's face, during her interaction with Putin at the G20 Tokyo summit.
One hopes that Rob Slane, former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, and others who have been skeptical of the official British narrative of this peculiar case will offer their perspective on Putin's comment.
Throughout, we have been skeptical of the British position that the poisonings were perpetrated by the Russian state, roused to seek vengeance against Skripal, despite having formerly pardoned him in connection with a spy swap. Rather, it seemed to us more probable that the poisonings were a charade undertaken by British security services as means to stoke public antipathy toward Russia.
Our assessment has now to be questioned in light of Vladimir Putin's remarks on the case that were addressed to former UK Prime Minister Teresa May during the recent G20 summit.
Specifically, Putin said:
| “Treason is the gravest crime possible and traitors must be punished. I am not saying the Salisbury incident is the way to do it, but traitors must be punished.” |
The Russian State English Language broadcaster, RT, puts some spin on Putin's comment, stating:
| At the same time, [Putin] made it clear that the poisoning of the former double agent Sergei Skirpal and his daughter Yulia, which took place in the British town of Salisbury back in March 2018 and was blamed on Russia by London, is definitely “not the way to do it.” The president explained that the former Russian intelligence colonel already received his punishment under Russian law as he served his time in prison and was therefore “off the radar.” He reiterated that this whole affair had little to do with Russia, while maintaining that London has failed to present any sufficient proof of Moscow’s alleged guilt to the public till this day. |
However, it is possible that Putin's statement was, in fact, a taunt, a taunt based on the knowledge, shared with Theresa May to whom his remark was addressed, that Sergei Skripal was a triple agent, who, having moved to England, ostensibly to continue in the service of the British to whom he had betrayed Russia, was in fact, acting in the service of Russia.
It might well then have been that his allegiance to Russia, having been discovered by the Brits, became the justification for a British charade intended to demonize Russia. That would explain the look of disgust, or is it despair, on Theresa May's face, during her interaction with Putin at the G20 Tokyo summit.
One hopes that Rob Slane, former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, and others who have been skeptical of the official British narrative of this peculiar case will offer their perspective on Putin's comment.
Monday, September 24, 2018
Craig Murray Nails Theresa May's Latest Lies on the Skripal WMD Poisonings
For all the lies, bunk and bullshit with which it is bestrewn, the alt media still provide vastly better information, if you know where to look, than the pathetic lying and fortunately dying, mainstream media. As proof, one needs only to read Ambassador Craig Murray's latest piece on the Skripal Poisonings story. In it, Murray entirely destroys the narrative as announced by Britain's Prime Misformer, Theresa May, and repeated with variations and elaborations by the entire UK and foreign corporate media, and the Western government propaganda agencies the BBC, the Gruniard, the CBC, VOA, etc.
What Murray demonstrates is that the British Government's "proof" of guilt of the Russians, Petrov and Boshirov, in the Skripal poisonings as announced by Theresa may in the House of Commons, is a farrago of nonsense, and that while it remains unknown, the real story of the poisonings (if indeed the Skripals were indeed poisoned, a fact for which, as I have argued, there is reason to doubt) has to be something entirely different from May's bollocks delivered to Parliament. In fact, May's Parliamentary statements about the Skripal poisonings are so obviously mendacious that a competent opposition would have by now forced the Prime Minister to resign for lying to Parliament.
Here, I will not endeavor to summarize Murray's article which has the clarity and brevity characteristic of Murray's blog posts. Rather, anyone remotely interested in the mechanics of the anti-Russian propaganda op. involving the Russian traitor, Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, should read Murray's article, The Incredible Case of Boshirov and Petrov’s Visas, for themselves.
Related:
Southfront.org: ANOTHER VERSION ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN TRIP OF ‘GRU AGENTS’ PETROV AND BOSHIROV TO SALISBURY
What Murray demonstrates is that the British Government's "proof" of guilt of the Russians, Petrov and Boshirov, in the Skripal poisonings as announced by Theresa may in the House of Commons, is a farrago of nonsense, and that while it remains unknown, the real story of the poisonings (if indeed the Skripals were indeed poisoned, a fact for which, as I have argued, there is reason to doubt) has to be something entirely different from May's bollocks delivered to Parliament. In fact, May's Parliamentary statements about the Skripal poisonings are so obviously mendacious that a competent opposition would have by now forced the Prime Minister to resign for lying to Parliament.
Here, I will not endeavor to summarize Murray's article which has the clarity and brevity characteristic of Murray's blog posts. Rather, anyone remotely interested in the mechanics of the anti-Russian propaganda op. involving the Russian traitor, Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, should read Murray's article, The Incredible Case of Boshirov and Petrov’s Visas, for themselves.
Related:
Southfront.org: ANOTHER VERSION ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN TRIP OF ‘GRU AGENTS’ PETROV AND BOSHIROV TO SALISBURY
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Ambassador Craig Murray Probes the Alibi of Petrov and Bashirov, the Alleged (by Theresa May) Skripal/Novichok Poisoners
On reading the interview given by the Russians, Petrov and Bashirov, alleged by the British Government to have poisoned the Russian traitor, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, by painting the, as-developed-in-Russia, WMD, Novichok (allegedly seven times deadlier than Britain's own deadly nerve agent, VX), on the front door-knob of Sergei Skripal's house, I was far from convinced of the innocence of their weekend visit to Britain.
To be unconvinced of their innocence, is not of course, to be convinced of their guilt, but it does mean remaining open to the possibility that their visit at the time of the Skripal nerve agent poisonings was not coincidental (or perhaps we should say alleged Skripal nerve agent poisonings, since the resident in Emergency Medicine at the Salisbury hospital to which the Skripals were taken for treatment denied that anyone had been admitted to the hospital with symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning).
Likewise, Ambassador Craig Murray was, initially, far from convinced by their account of the innocence of Petrov and Bashirov. On reflection, however, he concluded, for reasons set forth in this blog post, that the story offered by the Russians, is in fact, entirely credible, and, in this, I think Murray's arguments are compelling.
The Russians, Murray concludes, could very well have been, as they claim, on a weekend break to see the sights in and around Salisbury, including the city's superb Norman cathedral, and the nearby ancient settlement of Old Sarum, but were prevented from making the two-mile expedition from Salisbury to Old Sarum by the unseasonable snowfall that shut-down public transport that weekend.
Thus, the story of the Skripal poisonings remains what it was at the outset: an allegation against Russia by the British Government unsupported by any convincing evidence made known to the public. Indeed, since the now reportedly recovered victims of the crime have been kept entirely from public view with the exception of one video-taped statement by Yulia Skripal, a statement that, as I have previously explained, could very well be entirely fake, it is open to question whether any crime against the Skripals actually occurred.
More certainly, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess of Amesbury, England were poisoned, with deadly effect in the case of Dawn Sturgess, by what the police report to be Novichok contained in a perfume spray bottle that Charlie Rowley scavenged from a litter bin in Salisbury. But how that connects with Russia, if indeed it does connect with Russia, has never been explained by British authorities.
It seems then, that the case against Russia consists in the following facts:
(1) The alleged victims of an (alleged) attack with the nerve agent, Novichok, were Russian.
(2) One of the alleged victims was a Russian spy turned traitor who, however, had been pardoned by the Russian state and released from Russian gaol some years ago under an international spy swap.
(3) The nerve agent by which the Russian victims were allegedly poisoned was developed in Uzbekistan, then a member of the Soviet Union, and is thus Russia-connected. The connection is essentially meaningless, however, since Novichok can be readily synthesized by any competent organic chemist, and has been synthesized in various countries, including, probably, the U.K.
(4) The Russians, Petrov and Bashirov, happened to be on a weekend visit to Salisbury, as tourists so they say with apparent plausibility (along with probably a number of other Russians), the weekend that the Skripals were poisoned.
(5) In May, two months after the Skripal poisonings (or rather we should say alleged poisonings), the police were reported, this month, (see the George Galloway video included in my earlier blog post, after 9 min and 12 seconds) to have investigated the London hotel room where Petrov and Bashirov apparently shared a bed on the night of March 3rd. There, the police report finding a trace of Novichok, yet despite the deadliness of this nerve agent, the police neither warned the hotel's proprietor of what they had found, nor instigated a chemical WMD clean-up at the hotel, and thus did nothing whatever to save from harm the many people who, since March 4th, have presumably slept in that Novichok-contaminated room.
The implication seems clear, the alleged Novichok contamination of the room of the "flea-pit" (George Galloway's description of the hotel) where the Russians stayed must have been so slight as to be (a) totally harmless, and (b) and to make its supposed identification questionable. Indeed, if Galloway's description of the hotel as a "flea-pit" is appropriate, it could well be that the organo-phosphorus compound found in the hotel room and claimed by the police to be Novichok was, in fact, a regular organo-phosphorus pesticide that is likely used on a regular basis in cheap London hotels catering to poorer people from around the world, many of them likely carrying with them fleas, bed bugs, and lice.
If there is other relevant evidence against Russia, the British Government has not revealed it, which suggests that the case against Russia has been fabricated as a justification for intensified Western economic sanctions against Russia, which provides both a military and, with its revival of Russian ethnic nationalism and Christianity, a cultural threat to the elites that rule the Western nations and seek to force the submission of the European peoples to global governance through the promotion of multi-culturalism and mass replacement immigration.
Petrov and Bashirev might perhaps seek to reverse their present ill-fortune by suing Theresa May for defamation of character.
Postscript:
In response to the RT interview with the Petrov and Bashirov, Theresa May has stated through a spokesperson that:
[T]he suspects' comments [i.e., the comments of Petrov and Bashirov] were "an insult" and "deeply offensive."
To be unconvinced of their innocence, is not of course, to be convinced of their guilt, but it does mean remaining open to the possibility that their visit at the time of the Skripal nerve agent poisonings was not coincidental (or perhaps we should say alleged Skripal nerve agent poisonings, since the resident in Emergency Medicine at the Salisbury hospital to which the Skripals were taken for treatment denied that anyone had been admitted to the hospital with symptoms of nerve-agent poisoning).
Likewise, Ambassador Craig Murray was, initially, far from convinced by their account of the innocence of Petrov and Bashirov. On reflection, however, he concluded, for reasons set forth in this blog post, that the story offered by the Russians, is in fact, entirely credible, and, in this, I think Murray's arguments are compelling.
The Russians, Murray concludes, could very well have been, as they claim, on a weekend break to see the sights in and around Salisbury, including the city's superb Norman cathedral, and the nearby ancient settlement of Old Sarum, but were prevented from making the two-mile expedition from Salisbury to Old Sarum by the unseasonable snowfall that shut-down public transport that weekend.
Thus, the story of the Skripal poisonings remains what it was at the outset: an allegation against Russia by the British Government unsupported by any convincing evidence made known to the public. Indeed, since the now reportedly recovered victims of the crime have been kept entirely from public view with the exception of one video-taped statement by Yulia Skripal, a statement that, as I have previously explained, could very well be entirely fake, it is open to question whether any crime against the Skripals actually occurred.
More certainly, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess of Amesbury, England were poisoned, with deadly effect in the case of Dawn Sturgess, by what the police report to be Novichok contained in a perfume spray bottle that Charlie Rowley scavenged from a litter bin in Salisbury. But how that connects with Russia, if indeed it does connect with Russia, has never been explained by British authorities.
It seems then, that the case against Russia consists in the following facts:
(1) The alleged victims of an (alleged) attack with the nerve agent, Novichok, were Russian.
(2) One of the alleged victims was a Russian spy turned traitor who, however, had been pardoned by the Russian state and released from Russian gaol some years ago under an international spy swap.
(3) The nerve agent by which the Russian victims were allegedly poisoned was developed in Uzbekistan, then a member of the Soviet Union, and is thus Russia-connected. The connection is essentially meaningless, however, since Novichok can be readily synthesized by any competent organic chemist, and has been synthesized in various countries, including, probably, the U.K.
(4) The Russians, Petrov and Bashirov, happened to be on a weekend visit to Salisbury, as tourists so they say with apparent plausibility (along with probably a number of other Russians), the weekend that the Skripals were poisoned.
(5) In May, two months after the Skripal poisonings (or rather we should say alleged poisonings), the police were reported, this month, (see the George Galloway video included in my earlier blog post, after 9 min and 12 seconds) to have investigated the London hotel room where Petrov and Bashirov apparently shared a bed on the night of March 3rd. There, the police report finding a trace of Novichok, yet despite the deadliness of this nerve agent, the police neither warned the hotel's proprietor of what they had found, nor instigated a chemical WMD clean-up at the hotel, and thus did nothing whatever to save from harm the many people who, since March 4th, have presumably slept in that Novichok-contaminated room.
The implication seems clear, the alleged Novichok contamination of the room of the "flea-pit" (George Galloway's description of the hotel) where the Russians stayed must have been so slight as to be (a) totally harmless, and (b) and to make its supposed identification questionable. Indeed, if Galloway's description of the hotel as a "flea-pit" is appropriate, it could well be that the organo-phosphorus compound found in the hotel room and claimed by the police to be Novichok was, in fact, a regular organo-phosphorus pesticide that is likely used on a regular basis in cheap London hotels catering to poorer people from around the world, many of them likely carrying with them fleas, bed bugs, and lice.
If there is other relevant evidence against Russia, the British Government has not revealed it, which suggests that the case against Russia has been fabricated as a justification for intensified Western economic sanctions against Russia, which provides both a military and, with its revival of Russian ethnic nationalism and Christianity, a cultural threat to the elites that rule the Western nations and seek to force the submission of the European peoples to global governance through the promotion of multi-culturalism and mass replacement immigration.
Petrov and Bashirev might perhaps seek to reverse their present ill-fortune by suing Theresa May for defamation of character.
Postscript:
In response to the RT interview with the Petrov and Bashirov, Theresa May has stated through a spokesperson that:
[T]he suspects' comments [i.e., the comments of Petrov and Bashirov] were "an insult" and "deeply offensive."
Exactly how they were an insult, and deeply offensive, except inasmuch as that, if true, they implied that Theresa May is a big fat liar, was not explained by the Prime Minister's Spokesperson who went on to say:
"The lies and blatant fabrications in this interview given to a Russian state-sponsored TV station are an insult to the public's intelligence" and "More importantly they are deeply offensive to the victims and loved ones of this horrific attack," but again, no explanation is given as to how the claim of innocence when charged with murder can be considered offensive.
Furthermore, the prime minister's spokesperson told reporters that police had set out "very clearly" the evidence against the two suspects although, oddly enough, the public seems to have no idea what that evidence is, other than the claimed trace of Novichok in the London hotel room where Petrov and Bashirov are said to have stayed the night, a trace so insignificant that the police forgot to tell the hotel owner about it or do anything about a cleanup of the contaminated room. Indeed a trace so slight that the evidence that it actually was Novichok has never been made public.
PostPostscript:
And while we are dealing with unsubstantiated claims, here's what seems like a hypothesis worthy of consideration that was offered by CalDre at Craig Murray's blog:
Daily Mail: EXCLUSIVE: Owner of hotel where novichok spies stayed for two nights was only told by police about his killer guests YESTERDAY - and he still doesn't know which room they were in
"The lies and blatant fabrications in this interview given to a Russian state-sponsored TV station are an insult to the public's intelligence" and "More importantly they are deeply offensive to the victims and loved ones of this horrific attack," but again, no explanation is given as to how the claim of innocence when charged with murder can be considered offensive.
Furthermore, the prime minister's spokesperson told reporters that police had set out "very clearly" the evidence against the two suspects although, oddly enough, the public seems to have no idea what that evidence is, other than the claimed trace of Novichok in the London hotel room where Petrov and Bashirov are said to have stayed the night, a trace so insignificant that the police forgot to tell the hotel owner about it or do anything about a cleanup of the contaminated room. Indeed a trace so slight that the evidence that it actually was Novichok has never been made public.
PostPostscript:
And while we are dealing with unsubstantiated claims, here's what seems like a hypothesis worthy of consideration that was offered by CalDre at Craig Murray's blog:
... Sergei was a triple agent and these two gents were his handlers, probably sent to pick up something. UK discovered he was a triple agent, and the planned drop, and “attacked” the Skripals, blaming his handlers, to kill two birds with one stone.Related:
Daily Mail: EXCLUSIVE: Owner of hotel where novichok spies stayed for two nights was only told by police about his killer guests YESTERDAY - and he still doesn't know which room they were in
Monday, July 9, 2018
UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, Gears Up to Demolish the Lies About the Amesbury Poisonings From Thereason May's Law 'n Order minister, Savidge Javidge
| Russia has a decade long secret programme of producing and stockpiling novichok nerve agents. It also has been training agents in secret assassination techniques, and British intelligence has a copy of the Russian training manual, which includes instruction on painting nerve agent on doorknobs. The Russians chose to use this assassination programme to target Sergei Skripal, a double agent who had been released from jail in Russia some eight years previously. Only the Russians can make novichok and only the Russians had a motive to attack the Skripals. The Russians had been tapping the phone of Yulia Skripal. They decided to attack Sergei Skripal while his daughter was visiting from Moscow. Their trained assassin(s) painted a novichok on the doorknob of the Skripal house in the suburbs of Salisbury. Either before or after the attack, they entered a public place in the centre of Salisbury and left a sealed container of the novichok there. The Skripals both touched the doorknob and both functioned perfectly normally for at least five hours, even able to eat and drink heartily. Then they were simultaneously and instantaneously struck down by the nerve agent, at a spot in the city centre coincidentally close to where the assassins left a sealed container of the novichok lying around. Even though the nerve agent was eight times more deadly than Sarin or VX, it did not kill the Skripals because it had been on the doorknob and affected by rain. Detective Sergeant Bailey attended the Skripal house and was also poisoned by the doorknb, but more lightly. None of the other police who attended the house were affected. Four months later, Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess were rooting about in public parks, possibly looking for cigarette butts, and accidentally came into contact with the sealed container of a novichok. They were poisoned and Dawn Sturgess subsequently died. Source |
[T]here is still the case of the suspicious couple [in the Skripals poisoning case] on CCTV back in march, that very much resemble [latest poisoning victims] Charlie and Dawn!
I summarised [the photo evidence] here. Feel free to spread.
Yes, its a convincing match.
Related:
CanSpeccy: Understanding Theresa May's Novichok Bollocks
Thursday, June 14, 2018
The Novichok File (30)
March 18,2018: Skripal Tripal
April 5, 2018: NoviJoke: To Russia With Hate
April 11, 2018: Are the Skripals in Mortal Danger From the British State?April12, 2018: Novichok: Russia's Antidote to Seafood Poisoning?
April 13, 2018: Why Yulia Skripal, Released From Hospital, Is Being Held in UK Police Custody
April 15, 2018: 3-Quinuclidinyl Benzilate: The Antidote to Novichok
April 16: The UK's Novichok Poisoning Cover-up
April 23, 2018: British Intelligence: An Oxymoron
June 15, 2018: The Skripal Poisonings: How? By Whom? With What? And Where Are the Skripals Now?
July 4, 2018: More Skripal Tripal From the Land of Thereason May
July 8, 2018: Theresa May's Tangled Web Of Toxic Nerve Agent Deception
July 4, 2018: More Skripal Tripal From the Land of Thereason May
July 8, 2018: Theresa May's Tangled Web Of Toxic Nerve Agent Deception
July 9, 2018: UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, Gears Up to Demolish the Lies About the Amesbury Poisonings From Thereason May's Law 'n Order minister, Savidge Javidge
July 12, 2018: Skripal Tripal, No. 39: Where the Skripals Crossed Paths With the "Amesbury Poisonings" Couple
July 12, 2018: Skripal Tripal, No. 39: Where the Skripals Crossed Paths With the "Amesbury Poisonings" Couple
July 13, 2018: Novichok on a Door Knob: An Official Conspiracy Theory
July 24, 2018: Understanding Theresa May's Novichok Bollocks
July 27, 2018: Britain's Novichok Poisonings: An Opportunistic Anti-Russian Propaganda Operation?
August 28, 2018: The ducks that didn't die
August 29, 2018: Ambassador Craig Murray Examines the British Deep State's Connection with the Skripal Nerve Agent Poisonings
September 6, 2018: Theresa May's New Statement on Russia's Nerve Agent Attack in England's Green and Pleasant Land Drives Intelligence Irregulars to Renewed Effort on the Novichok File
September 13, 2018: Ambassador Craig Murray Probes the Alibi of Petrov and Bashirov, the Alleged (by Theresa May) Skripal/Novichok Poisoners
April 16, 2019: MOON OF ALABAMA CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump
April 16, 2019: ROB SLANE: Trump in Dumps as Spook Picks Sick Kids’n’Dead Duck Trick Pics
April 18, 2019: CRAIG MURRAY, The Official Skripal Story is a Dead Duck
July 23, 2019:Were the Skripal Poisonings a British Intelligence Service Hoax?
October 17, 2019: Skripal Tripal Part 2: Well Wadderyerknow — the Conroner's Inquest Into the Death of Dawn Sturgess Has Been Adjourned indefinitely
March 7, 2020: Craig Murray - Pure: Ten Points I Just Can’t Believe About the Official Skripal Narrative
June 17, 2020: Craig Murray - The Miracle of Salisbury: The BBC Enters 'Propaganda Hall Of Fame' With Skripals Story
June 19, 2020: 5 Facts BBC’s “The Salisbury Poisonings” Forgot to Mention
July 30, 2020: Dances With Bears: AUSTRIA CONFIRMS OPCW REPORT ON SKRIPAL FAKING BY THE BRITISH – VIENNA EXPOSES FINANCIAL TIMES LIES AND COVER-UP
July 24, 2018: Understanding Theresa May's Novichok Bollocks
July 27, 2018: Britain's Novichok Poisonings: An Opportunistic Anti-Russian Propaganda Operation?
August 28, 2018: The ducks that didn't die
August 29, 2018: Ambassador Craig Murray Examines the British Deep State's Connection with the Skripal Nerve Agent Poisonings
September 6, 2018: Theresa May's New Statement on Russia's Nerve Agent Attack in England's Green and Pleasant Land Drives Intelligence Irregulars to Renewed Effort on the Novichok File
September 13, 2018: Ambassador Craig Murray Probes the Alibi of Petrov and Bashirov, the Alleged (by Theresa May) Skripal/Novichok Poisoners
April 16, 2019: MOON OF ALABAMA CIA Director Used Fake Skripal Incident Photos To Manipulate Trump
April 16, 2019: ROB SLANE: Trump in Dumps as Spook Picks Sick Kids’n’Dead Duck Trick Pics
April 18, 2019: CRAIG MURRAY, The Official Skripal Story is a Dead Duck
July 23, 2019:Were the Skripal Poisonings a British Intelligence Service Hoax?
October 17, 2019: Skripal Tripal Part 2: Well Wadderyerknow — the Conroner's Inquest Into the Death of Dawn Sturgess Has Been Adjourned indefinitely
March 7, 2020: Craig Murray - Pure: Ten Points I Just Can’t Believe About the Official Skripal Narrative
June 17, 2020: Craig Murray - The Miracle of Salisbury: The BBC Enters 'Propaganda Hall Of Fame' With Skripals Story
June 19, 2020: 5 Facts BBC’s “The Salisbury Poisonings” Forgot to Mention
July 30, 2020: Dances With Bears: AUSTRIA CONFIRMS OPCW REPORT ON SKRIPAL FAKING BY THE BRITISH – VIENNA EXPOSES FINANCIAL TIMES LIES AND COVER-UP
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Are the Skripals in Mortal Danger From the British State?
British Prime Minister, Theresa May, claims that the Russian spy turned British double agent, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, were the victims of an attempted nerve-agent assassination conducted on British soil on the direct orders of President Putin.
However, the evidence presented by the British state to substantiate its extraordinary allegation is, as we discussed, here, (and here, and here) essentially non-existent. Rather it appears from the circumstances that the incident was staged by the British state to stoke Russophobia. That would explain the timing, in advance of this week's almost certainly fake chemical weapons attack on civilians in Syria by, so Western media assert without evidence or question, Russia's ally, the Government of Syria.
Consistent with that inference is that the two incidents have been acclaimed with joy by warmongers in both London and Washington, DC as justification for NATO intervention in support of ISIS head-choppers in Syria against the Russian-backed Syrian Government.
Who then constitutes the greatest threat to the well-being of the Skripals? Is it the British state that apparently mounted either a fake or a failed nerve agent attack on them, an attack it then vociferously blamed on the Russians? Or is it the Russians who pardoned Sergei Skripal and released him from gaol years ago?
As long as one or both of the Skripals lives, whether under their own name or another, they represent a risk to the government of British Prime Minister, Theresa May, since they might reveal what actually happened in Salisbury when they were, according to the unsubstantiated claim of the British Government, exposed to the deadliest known nerve agent on the direct orders of President Putin.
In that context, the British Government, with assistance from the CIA is offering the Skripals the opportunity to depart the scene for new lives in the US or elsewhere under new identities.
For the Skripals, the opportunity can hardly be appealing. Not only must they sever all ties with family and friends in Russia and elsewhere, but the offer entails obvious personal risk.
Having induced them to depart the scene in name, why would the British state or their friends in America, not have them depart the scene in body and spirit also. Their identities already erased, supposedly for their own good, who would know, or even think to ask, whether they had also been silenced permanently by the hand of a British or American state assassin?
To the Russians, however, the Skripals are more valuable alive than dead as witnesses to a British operation designed to stoke Western Russophobia as a prelude to war. That they are of potential value to the Russians, is of course, the reason why the appear to be at great risk as long as they remain in the hands of the British state.
Related:
MofA: Trump Asks Russia To Roll Over - It Won't
Craig Murray: Yulia Skripal Is Plainly Under Duress
Peter Ford, Former UK Ambassador to Syria: At the Edge of Armageddon:
RT: Russia accuses US of plan to destroy evidence of fake chemical weapons attack in Syria
Stephen Lendman: The Nerve Agent Saga: Are the Skripals Being Held Against Their Will in Britain?
However, the evidence presented by the British state to substantiate its extraordinary allegation is, as we discussed, here, (and here, and here) essentially non-existent. Rather it appears from the circumstances that the incident was staged by the British state to stoke Russophobia. That would explain the timing, in advance of this week's almost certainly fake chemical weapons attack on civilians in Syria by, so Western media assert without evidence or question, Russia's ally, the Government of Syria.
Consistent with that inference is that the two incidents have been acclaimed with joy by warmongers in both London and Washington, DC as justification for NATO intervention in support of ISIS head-choppers in Syria against the Russian-backed Syrian Government.
Who then constitutes the greatest threat to the well-being of the Skripals? Is it the British state that apparently mounted either a fake or a failed nerve agent attack on them, an attack it then vociferously blamed on the Russians? Or is it the Russians who pardoned Sergei Skripal and released him from gaol years ago?
As long as one or both of the Skripals lives, whether under their own name or another, they represent a risk to the government of British Prime Minister, Theresa May, since they might reveal what actually happened in Salisbury when they were, according to the unsubstantiated claim of the British Government, exposed to the deadliest known nerve agent on the direct orders of President Putin.
In that context, the British Government, with assistance from the CIA is offering the Skripals the opportunity to depart the scene for new lives in the US or elsewhere under new identities.
For the Skripals, the opportunity can hardly be appealing. Not only must they sever all ties with family and friends in Russia and elsewhere, but the offer entails obvious personal risk.
Having induced them to depart the scene in name, why would the British state or their friends in America, not have them depart the scene in body and spirit also. Their identities already erased, supposedly for their own good, who would know, or even think to ask, whether they had also been silenced permanently by the hand of a British or American state assassin?
To the Russians, however, the Skripals are more valuable alive than dead as witnesses to a British operation designed to stoke Western Russophobia as a prelude to war. That they are of potential value to the Russians, is of course, the reason why the appear to be at great risk as long as they remain in the hands of the British state.
Related:
MofA: Trump Asks Russia To Roll Over - It Won't
Craig Murray: Yulia Skripal Is Plainly Under Duress
Peter Ford, Former UK Ambassador to Syria: At the Edge of Armageddon:
RT: Russia accuses US of plan to destroy evidence of fake chemical weapons attack in Syria
Stephen Lendman: The Nerve Agent Saga: Are the Skripals Being Held Against Their Will in Britain?
By Finian Cunningham: Skripal Poison Case Becoming British Hostage Scenario
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Will the UK Diplomat Booted By the Lying Blair Government Bring Down the Lying May Government?
Former UK Ambassador, Craig Murray, who called out UK Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson for lying about the poisoning, in Salisbury England, of former Russian spy, Sergei Skrypal, and his daughter Yulia, has returned to the attack with three new pieces posted at his blog:
April 3, 2018:
Breaking News: Porton Down to Make Public Statement
April 4, 2018:
Johnson and May Hide as their Lies Dissolve
April 4, 2018:
The Poison in our Body Politic
We may yet see a man dismissed from the service of the British Government by a lying Blair government, play a critical role in the dismissal of Theresa May's lying government from the service of the people.
April 3, 2018:
Breaking News: Porton Down to Make Public Statement
April 4, 2018:
Johnson and May Hide as their Lies Dissolve
April 4, 2018:
The Poison in our Body Politic
We may yet see a man dismissed from the service of the British Government by a lying Blair government, play a critical role in the dismissal of Theresa May's lying government from the service of the people.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Salisbury Terror Nerve Gas Attack: How We Know Putin Did It
Theresa May, House of Commons, March 12, 2017:
The fact that the incident in Salisbury occurred days before the Russian Presidential election has of course nothing to do with it.
The fact that the incident in Salisbury occurred just a couple of months before Russia is to host the World cup has of course nothing to do with it.
The fact that the incident in Salisbury occurred in the months leading up to completion of the NordStream II gas line to deliver Russian natural gas to North Western Europe, a project that US interests still seek to block to the benefit of US exporters of liquefied natural gas, a surplus byproduct of oil fracking, has of course nothing to do with it.
The fact that Trump is gunning for a war on a Russia-backed Iran for which the incident in Salisbury may yet provide a pretext, is not to be thought of.
The fact that Putin has no reason to seek a war for which the incident in Salisbury could so readily serve as a pretext, at a time when Russia and China are still racing to surpass the US in arms both quantitatively and qualitatively, is of course irrelevant.
No, clearly, Putin decided that since now was the worst possible time to murder a Russian spy — a man already pardoned by the Russian state — using a terror weapon with Russia’s signature on it, on foreign soil, then this was, in fact, the best time since no one would believe the Russians to be that damn stupid. Trouble for Putin is that everyone is so damn stupid that they really do think the Russians are that damn stupid.
* May defends use of drones to kill British terrorists overseas
Re: The poisoning of Segei and Yulia Skirpal in Salisbury, EnglandSo folks, no actual evidence, but still it's best just to place your trust in the politicians who in your hearts you know do what’s absolutely best for you, like, for example, bringing on the next ME war, with potential for escalation to World War III.
Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down; our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so; Russia's record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations*; and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations; the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
Mr. Speaker, there are therefore only two plausible explanations for what happened in Salisbury on the 4th of March.
Either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country.
Or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.
The fact that the incident in Salisbury occurred days before the Russian Presidential election has of course nothing to do with it.
The fact that the incident in Salisbury occurred just a couple of months before Russia is to host the World cup has of course nothing to do with it.
The fact that the incident in Salisbury occurred in the months leading up to completion of the NordStream II gas line to deliver Russian natural gas to North Western Europe, a project that US interests still seek to block to the benefit of US exporters of liquefied natural gas, a surplus byproduct of oil fracking, has of course nothing to do with it.
The fact that Trump is gunning for a war on a Russia-backed Iran for which the incident in Salisbury may yet provide a pretext, is not to be thought of.
The fact that Putin has no reason to seek a war for which the incident in Salisbury could so readily serve as a pretext, at a time when Russia and China are still racing to surpass the US in arms both quantitatively and qualitatively, is of course irrelevant.
No, clearly, Putin decided that since now was the worst possible time to murder a Russian spy — a man already pardoned by the Russian state — using a terror weapon with Russia’s signature on it, on foreign soil, then this was, in fact, the best time since no one would believe the Russians to be that damn stupid. Trouble for Putin is that everyone is so damn stupid that they really do think the Russians are that damn stupid.
* May defends use of drones to kill British terrorists overseas
* Tracking US drone strikes and other covert actions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia
Related:
The Star: Canada’s Russia policy raises many questions (such as why expel diplomats in the complete absence of evidence of wrongdoing? Because it's all bollocks, that's why.)
Related:
The Star: Canada’s Russia policy raises many questions (such as why expel diplomats in the complete absence of evidence of wrongdoing? Because it's all bollocks, that's why.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)