• You are losing out on amazing benefits because you are not a member. Join for free. Register now.
  • Big Two-Day Giveaway - Win an Amazon Kindle, a Mystery Gadget and Branded Gear. Enter Here.
  • Test your broadband speed and win prizes worth R5,000. Enter here.

[UK] Critically ill man is former Russian spy

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
12,532
#41
Oh good, the bat f**k insane conspiracy theories from /r/t_d are coming out to play.
Don't dodge the question, who stands to gain?

In the same way they had nothing to gain from murdering Litvinenko or invading Ukraine?
Litvenko was taken out within a month of "defecting", one could argue he was silenced before he could do any real damage. Whatever damage Skripal was going to do has already been done ages ago, ergo Russia does not stand to gain anything by killing him now.

Ukraine invasion? Oh please, who's indulging in batshyte conspiracy theories now? Russia's presence anywhere other than Crimea remains nothing more than unproven allegations and conjecture even now. When it comes to Crimea, they had established military bases for years and have always been present there with Ukraine's official consent, hardly an "invasion".

Russia did indeed stand to gain from the Crimean annexation, but then again Russia freely admits its role in Crimea, so nobody is left guessing.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,185
#42
You forgot #3:
3. The CIA (or choose your sinister covert organization) did it specifically to goad the UK into their anti-Russia rhetoric and ensured the victims were discovered

The question to always start with at times like this is: who stands to gain? Russia does not stand to gain by either the death of the victims nor the discovery of the attempt.

So who stands to gain from either of those things?
I am just curious, is your family Russian or do you have some personal connection with a Russian?
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
12,532
#43
I am just curious, is your family Russian or do you have some personal connection with a Russian?
Is your family American/British or do you have some personal connection with America/Britain?

Something that might explain the irrational blind trust in anything they do or say? I prefer to question rather than trust, not my fault the parties that generally insist we all just trust them blindly happen to be American.
 

zippy

Executive Member
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
9,479
#44
You forgot #3:
3. The CIA (or choose your sinister covert organization) did it specifically to goad the UK into their anti-Russia rhetoric and ensured the victims were discovered

The question to always start with at times like this is: who stands to gain? Russia does not stand to gain by either the death of the victims nor the discovery of the attempt.

So who stands to gain from either of those things?
The "ex"spy was known to be meeting with Russian embassy officials in recent months. If the Russians believed he was trying recruit for any western intelligence agency that would be motive enough.

There is no evidence that the CIA has this nerve agent, There is only evidence that the Russian military has it.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
2,185
#45
Is your family American/British or do you have some personal connection with America/Britain?

Something that might explain the irrational blind trust in anything they do or say? I prefer to question rather than trust, not my fault the parties that generally insist we all just trust them blindly happen to be American.
Yes my family is British.

I am genuinly curious, you just remind me of someone I know personally who's attitude to Russia changed quite remarkeably due to his relationship and eventual marriage to a russian women. We are very good friends

Not implying you are incorrect, I welcome different points all the time. As I said before this was out of simple curiosity.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
12,532
#46
Not implying you are incorrect, I welcome different points all the time. As I said before this was out of simple curiosity.
Fair enough, my wife happens to identify as "Russian" and her home language is Russian, although she is and always has been a Latvian national.

I've held my opinions since before I met her though :p
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
12,532
#48
There is no evidence that the CIA has this nerve agent, There is only evidence that the Russian military has it.
The CIA would just need $22 to spare:
Commercially, Web sites and companies sell many products based on polonium 210, with labels warning of health dangers. By some estimates, a lethal dose might cost as little as $22.50, plus tax. “Radiation from polonium is dangerous if the solid material is ingested or inhaled,” warns the label of an antistatic brush. “Keep away from children.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/weekinreview/03broad.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
16,884
#51
Your hyperbole knows no bounds, "WMD" :crylaugh: sweet jesus, my sides are aching, that's some mass destruction right there with two people hospitalized and no deaths or destruction whatsoever :crylaugh:
Thanks for showing us your ignorance once again. The use of Novichok in this incident has no impact on whether or not its a WMD. Its like letting off a nuke in the ocean where nobody dies and saying look nukes aren't WMDs. The fact is Novichok is a chemical agent and thus gets the WMD tag. Your buddies let off a WMD and deserve whatever response from the UK that comes their way.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
12,532
#52
The fact is Novichok is a chemical agent and thus gets the WMD tag
The fact is a weapon of mass destruction actually has to have the potential to create mass destruction, regardless of what your brainwashing has taught you.

A nuclear reactor in a power plant is not a WMD, a dangerous substance used in quantities that couldn't kill even its intended target, let alone any bystanders, is not a WMD.

But hey don't take my, correct, word for it, ask google:
weapon of mass destruction
noun
plural noun: weapons of mass destruction
a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon able to cause widespread devastation and loss of life.
or Wikipedia:
A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures
or Britannica:
Weapon of mass destruction (WMD), weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction on such a massive scale and so indiscriminately that its very presence in the hands of a hostile power can be considered a grievous threat
Without the scale the definition simply is not met. QED.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
16,884
#55
Not in the minimal quantity used in this case, your point is erroneous, plain and simple.
There is nothing on quantity of nerve agent in the definitions, as per your own goal definitions. Your definitions and you talk about potential, so yeah a WMD was used in the UK, albeit on a small scale.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
12,532
#56
There is nothing on quantity of nerve agent in the definitions, as per your own goal definitions. Your definitions and you talk about potential, so yeah a WMD was used in the UK, albeit on a small scale.
Sufficient quantity to cause mass destruction is implied, else the potential for mass destruction does not exist.

A small nuke and a small quantity of nerve agent does not have the potential to cause mass destruction. A nuke with a 1 gram TNT force does not have the potential for mass destruction, only a weaponized nuke with sufficient force to cause mass destruction would be a WMD.

I guess quantity would have been explicitly mentioned if they wanted to make the definitions idiot proof, luckily some of us can put two and two together and aren't idiots.

The rest, yeah maybe they will continue to incorrectly label things that cannot cause mass destruction as WMDs. I don't lose sleep over others wallowing in their ignorance.
 

The_Assimilator

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
5,923
#57
Don't dodge the question, who stands to gain?
Russia... I was under the impression this was so obvious as not to need elucidating, but I forgot what attempting to argue with you is like.

Litvenko was taken out within a month of "defecting", one could argue he was silenced before he could do any real damage. Whatever damage Skripal was going to do has already been done ages ago, ergo Russia does not stand to gain anything by killing him now.
As the Joker says, it's about sending a message. To other Russian defectors: a reminder that matter who you are or who is "protecting" you, if you betray the Motherland, you will pay... even if it takes a while. To the West: a reminder that Russia is not "weak", but still perfectly capable of carrying out extrajudicial assassinations at will; and that the West is actually the weak one because it cannot stop Russia from doing this. There is also an implied message/expectation, namely that the West will react in the same way that they did to Litvinenko and Ukraine: indifferently, because they are too afraid/weak to retaliate against Russia.

Ultimately however, these messages are also intended for the Russian people, to remind them that the Motherland is still strong and capable of projecting its power at length and at will... and, of course, that this is all thanks to the leadership of Comrade Putin. Who would very much like to get record numbers in his upcoming rigged election.

Ukraine invasion? Oh please, who's indulging in batshyte conspiracy theories now? Russia's presence anywhere other than Crimea remains nothing more than unproven allegations and conjecture even now. When it comes to Crimea, they had established military bases for years and have always been present there with Ukraine's official consent, hardly an "invasion".

Russia did indeed stand to gain from the Crimean annexation, but then again Russia freely admits its role in Crimea, so nobody is left guessing.
I never imagined I'd meet a human being incapable of understanding the difference between "invited military presence" and "invasion".

Tell me, if the USA decided to seize every nation where it has a military presence, you wouldn't consider that an invasion, right?
 

crackersa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 31, 2011
Messages
29,033
#58
Why don't you head outside and shout "it was Russia" at the top of your lungs a few times, see if it does anything for you :D

The house intel committee found nothing on the BS election meddling front and the UK will find nothing concrete with this murder:


What all these retards completely fail to appreciate is: if it really was Russia, they wouldn't be caught out ...
Lol

I gotta give you a 9/10


They wouldn’t get caught? They so bad ass but they couldn’t even keep their navy afloat.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
12,532
#59
As the Joker says, it's about sending a message. To other Russian defectors: a reminder that matter who you are or who is "protecting" you, if you betray the Motherland, you will pay... even if it takes a while. To the West: a reminder that Russia is not "weak", but still perfectly capable of carrying out extrajudicial assassinations at will; and that the West is actually the weak one because it cannot stop Russia from doing this. There is also an implied message/expectation, namely that the West will react in the same way that they did to Litvinenko and Ukraine: indifferently, because they are too afraid/weak to retaliate against Russia.

Ultimately however, these messages are also intended for the Russian people, to remind them that the Motherland is still strong and capable of projecting its power at length and at will... and, of course, that this is all thanks to the leadership of Comrade Putin. Who would very much like to get record numbers in his upcoming rigged election.
Much too abstract a "gain" to be had there for the risk involved. That's just not their style, it is the style of another super power though ...

Tell me, if the USA decided to seize every nation where it has a military presence, you wouldn't consider that an invasion, right?
That depends if the nation they're hypothetically invading fits all these criteria:
- it was actually mainland US territory for its entire existence and consists mainly of Americans
- it was bargained away by a drunkard against the will of the people of the territory and against the will of mainland Americans
- USA had a contractual right to forever have substantial military presence and free passage to this territory as a way to appease them
- the territory in question is of paramount strategic value to the USA
- the territory is intentionally placed under threat via a staged coup by the USA's biggest enemies
- the territory is given a choice and votes in a referendum whether they'd like to be annexed or not

With all of those boxes ticked I'd have to say I'd understand the USA taking drastic and decisive action to secure the territory.
 

NarrowBandFtw

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
12,532
#60
They wouldn’t get caught? They so bad ass but they couldn’t even keep their navy afloat.
They wouldn't, which foreign intelligence / counter terror / special ops organizations are the leaders in the craft today?

Let's say the CIA, FBI, NSA, SEALs etc are certainly on the list. Who else? Do you honestly think the FSB, Spetsnaz etc wouldn't be there too? It's not about them being "so badass", it is about them being among many sinister groups around the world that can do this shyte without getting caught, just like the CIA. Hell the NSA collected the entire world's data for years without being caught, it took an insider turning whistle-blower before they were outed.

A single assassination is child's play compared to that scale. Not sure how you reckon their navy factors in at all, the USSR fell apart, budgets had to be cut. Do you think they'd cut intelligence service budgets anywhere near the level of a capital intensive thing like the navy?
 
Top