Poisoned Russian spy.

[Victorian]

BJ's claim of specific intelligence is confirmation of what was already obvious.     The existence of specific knowledge concerning the activities of Russia.     

[Jambo-Jimbo]

20 minutes ago, jake said:

As the evidence of Russia and it's involvement in the US elections implodes isn't it convenient that this story surfaces.

And I dare say Russian skills at assassination could have used things commonly obtained from a chemist.

Or substances that are not detectable.

But of course no.

They chose a poison that they would be associated with .

Interesting the company the victim had been keeping lately.

 

Must have imagined the 13 Russians having charges levelled against them for meddling in the US election, the setting up of several fake facebook & twitter accounts amongst other things.

 

Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was asked that very question during an interview by Sky News and he said that Putin doesn't care, Putin is sending out a message and that Putin wants not only the World but the exiles to know who exactly carried out the attack and the reason is because he's showing everybody how strong and powerful he is.

https://news.sky.com/story/former-georgia-president-mikheil-saakashvili-says-the-west-should-fear-putin-11291712

 

If what Saakashvili says is true, if seems totally crazy to us that Putin would want everyone to know it was him, but we're thinking about this as Westerners, it might be better to look at this through the eyes of the Russians and former Soviet states' eyes, only then might we get a better understanding of the reasons why people like Putin do what they do.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

22 minutes ago, Victorian said:

BJ's claim of specific intelligence is confirmation of what was already obvious.     The existence of specific knowledge concerning the activities of Russia.     

 

Of course we'll get the inevitable shaking and banging of fists from the Kremlin who will demand to see the evidence, which of course we won't provide them with, probably because it will put lives or assets at risk, and obviously because the intelligence won't be all over the internet the usual suspects will cry 'It's a conspiracy'.

[jake]

2 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Must have imagined the 13 Russians having charges levelled against them for meddling in the US election, the setting up of several fake facebook & twitter accounts amongst other things.

 

Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was asked that very question during an interview by Sky News and he said that Putin doesn't care, Putin is sending out a message and that Putin wants not only the World but the exiles to know who exactly carried out the attack and the reason is because he's showing everybody how strong and powerful he is.

https://news.sky.com/story/former-georgia-president-mikheil-saakashvili-says-the-west-should-fear-putin-11291712

 

If what Saakashvili says is true, if seems totally crazy to us that Putin would want everyone to know it was him, but we're thinking about this as Westerners, it might be better to look at this through the eyes of the Russians and former Soviet states' eyes, only then might we get a better understanding of the reasons why people like Putin do what they do.

The 13 Russians charged.

For fake facebook and Twitter accounts.

 

Meddling by posting propaganda against Clinton.

Tell me how much money Clinton spent on propaganda in the election and how much money did she receive from foreign powers.

 

If the Russians wanted everyone to know they could have executed him while he was their prisoner No?

 

Anyway no doubt the Russians play their own game as do we.

Amusing to watch the left slide ever further to the right though.

[Victorian]

16 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Of course we'll get the inevitable shaking and banging of fists from the Kremlin who will demand to see the evidence, which of course we won't provide them with, probably because it will put lives or assets at risk, and obviously because the intelligence won't be all over the internet the usual suspects will cry 'It's a conspiracy'.

 

Indeed.     The type of intelligence involved here will only be shared at the very highest security clearance and with key allies.     It's unlikely that even the leader of the opposition and other Privy Council members will get the details.     More likely they will be given an outline briefing and cast iron assurances regarding the veracity of what is known.    

 

[AlphonseCapone]

20 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Indeed.     The type of intelligence involved here will only be shared at the very highest security clearance and with key allies.     It's unlikely that even the leader of the opposition and other Privy Council members will get the details.     More likely they will be given an outline briefing and cast iron assurances regarding the veracity of what is known.    

 

 

Wouldn't trust Corbyn with shopping list. 

[felix]

1 hour ago, southcap said:

If you wish to go down to the route of quoting Russians, shall I quote Putin's threat to the spies that were exchanged?

Yes ..and with specific reference to the translation of the phrase "kick the bucket"..and find any reference to that phrase, quoted in the press at the time of the speech (2010) which related to how Russia no longer kills spies (I know it's a lie) but it would be strange for him to say traitors will kick the bucket in that context, no ?

 

1 hour ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

I don't know if you are intentionally playing dense but a random member of the public on JKB not having factual evidence isn't proof it doesn't exist.

. 

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I thought  you'd be able to grasp that.

And as for saying evidence is "never going to happen" in the public domain - .you didn't follow the Litvinenko trial did you ?

[jake]

An important key to identifying a false flag is the knowledge of who is to blame before the evidence .

 

 

[Ulysses]

Some people are very naive.

 

The Russians did it.

 

That was wrong, if you're the UK or one of its allies. That was right, if you're Russia or one of its allies.

 

The British do likewise when they have to.  Everyone does likewise when they have to. That does not make it alright when the Russians do it to Britain.

 

Why?  Because they're Russian, and not British, that's why. 

 

That's how it ****ing works, and that is how countries look after their interests and their assets.

 

Anyone who spouts any other nonsense needs to grow up.

[AlphonseCapone]

53 minutes ago, felix said:

Yes ..and with specific reference to the translation of the phrase "kick the bucket"..and find any reference to that phrase, quoted in the press at the time of the speech (2010) which related to how Russia no longer kills spies (I know it's a lie) but it would be strange for him to say traitors will kick the bucket in that context, no ?

 

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I thought  you'd be able to grasp that.

And as for saying evidence is "never going to happen" in the public domain - .you didn't follow the Litvinenko trial did you ?

 

What you aren't grasping is the simple fact; because you or I have no evidence, does not mean evidence doesn't exist. Kids around the age of 3 learn object permanence, maybe you skipped it? 

 

I followed it closely. It was an inquiry. You maybe aren't skeptical enough if you believe all the evidence was released. 

Edited March 18, 2018 by AlphonseCapone

[Adam Murray]

10 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

Some people are very naive.

 

The Russians did it.

 

That was wrong, if you're the UK or one of its allies. That was right, if you're Russia or one of its allies.

 

The British do likewise when they have to.  Everyone does likewise when they have to. That does not make it alright when the Russians do it to Britain.

 

Why?  Because they're Russian, and not British, that's why. 

 

That's how it ****ing works, and that is how countries look after their interests and their assets.

 

Anyone who spouts any other nonsense needs to grow up.

 

The trouble with this theory is, there are many on this board, and in this country, that dislike the UK, and the UK Government that much, particularly the Tories, that they are more than willing to believe the Russian side of things.

 

If the internet was up and running years ago i'm sure the same people would be saying that Mr Hitler was entitled to re-occupy the Rheinland in 1936 (Russia in Crimea), and that the British Government were making it up (false flag) when he entered Vienna a couple of years later.

 

Governments of all countries are always economical with the truth in these kind of situations. They certainly aren't going to release information to the highly informed, tinfoil hat wearing Joe Bloggs, sitting in his grannies basement, that may expose where the information was gained, or more importantly, that may put OUR men and women in the field, in any kind of danger.

 

They may be a sh*t Government, but they're OUR sh*t Government.

[SE16 3LN]

On ‎16‎/‎03‎/‎2018 at 20:00, Pans Jambo said:

Nope. Made my mind up long before I read that. 

 

I dont beleive a word Teresa May says. 

 

Said it before, if the proof points to the Russians then they deserve all they get. Thus far theres hee haw proof and everyone who has a brain knows it. 

But you believe what Putin says. 

[Pans Jambo]

43 minutes ago, SE16 3LN said:

But you believe what Putin says. 

Nope!

Any other words you want to put in my mouth or opinions you think I may have???

 

UK Govt LIED to us about:

Bloody Sunday

Hillsborough

Iraq WMD’s

Syria

Libya

Westmister expenses

Weatminster Paedo rings

Brexit

The list goes on but they are REALLY telling us the truth this time though...honestly. 

 

[SE16 3LN]

w

37 minutes ago, Pans Jambo said:

Nope!

Any other words you want to put in my mouth or opinions you think I may have???

 

UK Govt LIED to us about:

Bloody Sunday

Hillsborough

Iraq WMD’s

Syria

Libya

Westmister expenses

Weatminster Paedo rings

Brexit

The list goes on but they are REALLY telling us the truth this time though...honestly. 

 

I agree they lied about WMD's, the rest were cover ups by the military or Police. Brexit wasn't a govt. policy and the grown ups voted for it with all the facts in front of them. The Westminster Paedo rings came from the imagination of a fantasist. You come on here spouting insane conspiracy theories and complain people are putting words in your mouth when they challenge you...

[Watt-Zeefuik]

18 hours ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

I think the “tin foil hat” posters on here have a much greater knowledge of what’s going on geo politically in the world, and, how/why the media in either country say things to manipulate public opinion for the states involved. 

 

“Tin foil hat” posters also watch the MSM and get other information from other just as “credible” outlets. 

Dunning-Kruger Effect: (n) See the above post.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Ugly American

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, SE16 3LN said:

w

I agree they lied about WMD's, the rest were cover ups by the military or Police. Brexit wasn't a govt. policy and the grown ups voted for it with all the facts in front of them. The Westminster Paedo rings came from the imagination of a fantasist. You come on here spouting insane conspiracy theories and complain people are putting words in your mouth when they challenge you...

Pish. 

Folk like you voted No at the Indy ref because you believed their pish. Probably voted to leave the EU because of the extra 300million quid for the NHS on the side of a battle bus. They canny even afford kids lunches!

 

you havent challenged me, just tried the usual “So, you must think that...” crap that folk on here sprout when they disagree with them. 

 

Conspiricies like WMD’s, no Peado rings in Westminster and the Government didnt know anything about Bloody Sunday (I’m sure the apologised for that one)?

 

If you want to bend over and receive what Westminster gives you then crack on mate but real grown ups are not gullible and rightly challenge the garbage that they spew out. 

 

[Rocco_Jambo]

10 hours ago, southcap said:

Can anyone point me to any factual evidence that Luke Mitchell killed Jodie Jones? No? How did he get convicted then? Ah, circumstantial evidence. 

 

You don't need a smoking gun when the evidence says the suspect owned the gun, was in the area of the crime when it happened, had motive to commit the crime and has no alibi. 

 

Can anyone show any evidence that someone else other than the Russian's committed it? I await it. 

 

I'm getting flashbacks of John Brown shouting 'show us the deeds' here.

 A Criminal trial with a jury and all evidence disclosed is exactly the same as what is being talked about at the moment. 

[Bridge of Djoum]

On 3/14/2018 at 14:52, Thunderstruck said:

 

Or 

 

or...

 

[Bridge of Djoum]

On 3/14/2018 at 14:52, Thunderstruck said:

 

Or 

 

or...

 

[southcap]

37 minutes ago, Rocco_Jambo said:

 A Criminal trial with a jury and all evidence disclosed is exactly the same as what is being talked about at the moment. 

Of course not.

 

Just pointing out that large amounts of circumstantial evidence is just as good as any scientific evidence. 

[Rocco_Jambo]

27 minutes ago, southcap said:

Of course not.

 

Just pointing out that large amounts of circumstantial evidence is just as good as any scientific evidence. 

 

Okay. So bears shit in the woods.

[southcap]

20 minutes ago, Rocco_Jambo said:

 

Okay. So bears shit in the woods.

Your point is completely lost on me? 

[Rocco_Jambo]

i thought that your initial post I responded to was nonsense .Your post about circumstantial and scientific evidence being similar is something that is pretty obvious. The "bears shit it in the woods' comment was implying that you are stating something that is very obvious.

[southcap]

19 minutes ago, Rocco_Jambo said:

i thought that your initial post I responded to was nonsense .Your post about circumstantial and scientific evidence being similar is something that is pretty obvious. The "bears shit it in the woods' comment was implying that you are stating something that is very obvious.

 

You seem to be both agreeing and disagreeing me.

 

You said what I said was nonsense, i explained myself, then you say I'm staying the obvious.

 

So what is it, am I stating the obvious or talking nonsense? Can't be both at once.

[jake]

It's now beginning to look like accusing the Kremlin was rash.

Even mainstream media is beginning to realise this.

[Ulysses]

9 minutes ago, jake said:

It's now beginning to look like accusing the Kremlin was rash.

Even mainstream media is beginning to realise this.

 

Links?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Funny, I just got done reading a (very US-based MSM) article about a bevy of evidence that Russia has recently undergone extensive expansion of chemical and biological weapons facilities.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/poisoning-of-russian-ex-spy-puts-spotlight-on-moscows-secret-military-labs/2018/03/18/9968efb6-2962-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html

 

Evidence by itself is neither exculpatory nor incriminating, it's only either in the context of other information. However, evidence there is.

[Ibrahim Tall]

6 hours ago, jake said:

It's now beginning to look like accusing the Kremlin was rash.

Even mainstream media is beginning to realise this.

 

Where? Literally the only stories I can find not stating the UK government view are “Putin claims...”.

 

[scott herbertson]

3 hours ago, Ugly American said:

Funny, I just got done reading a (very US-based MSM) article about a bevy of evidence that Russia has recently undergone extensive expansion of chemical and biological weapons facilities.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/poisoning-of-russian-ex-spy-puts-spotlight-on-moscows-secret-military-labs/2018/03/18/9968efb6-2962-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html

 

Evidence by itself is neither exculpatory nor incriminating, it's only either in the context of other information. However, evidence there is.

 

Trouble is evidence is only worthwhile if independently checked. I don’t see anything like that in the article you quote, and here’s one of the USA papers leading on Putin destroying Russia’s last chemical weapons while USA still retained hers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/world/europe/russia-putin-chemical-weapons.html

 

Hamid Ali Rao, the deputy director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a Hague-based body that polices adherence to the 1993 convention, declared the event “a truly momentous occasion.”

He said that it “signals the full elimination of all chemical weapon stockpiles declared by the Russian Federation.”

Edited March 19, 2018 by scott herbertson

[Bindy Badgy]

2 hours ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

Where? Literally the only stories I can find not stating the UK government view are “Putin claims...”.

 

 

Not seen any myself either. Although the BBC are leading with a story about the OPCW coming to the UK to test the samples. Might have been wise to do that before saying "Russia definitely did it"?

[Ibrahim Tall]

1 minute ago, Stokesy said:

 

Not seen any myself either. Although the BBC are leading with a story about the OPCW coming to the UK to test the samples. Might have been wise to do that before saying "Russia definitely did it"?

 

Depends, it's only stupid if they have a different finding. Could argue it shows how certain we are of the result if the government has been willing to put its reputation and standing on the line.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

26 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

Depends, it's only stupid if they have a different finding. Could argue it shows how certain we are of the result if the government has been willing to put its reputation and standing on the line.

 

I would agree, to blame Russia before getting Independent verification either shows a complete 100% belief/knowledge that the Russians were to blame or the biggest diplomatic own goal ever.

 

What I don't understand is how will the OPCW be able to say where the nerve agent was made, I mean it's not as if it'll have 'Made in Russia' stamped on it, maybe it's chemical signature or isotopes or some other process will say where it was manufactured, but this sort of science is completely over the top of my head.

[John Gentleman]

1 hour ago, scott herbertson said:

Hamid Ali Rao, the deputy director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a Hague-based body that polices adherence to the 1993 convention, declared the event “a truly momentous occasion.”

He said that it “signals the full elimination of all chemical weapon stockpiles declared by the Russian Federation.”

That's the trouble with these lofty proclamations — they only focus on one aspect, in this case "declared stockpiles". What about "capability"? If a nation-state has the infrastructure, recipe and ingredients, a very nasty cocktail can be mixed and deployed in a matter of days. The UK clearly still has the infrastructure (Porton Down) and it would be naive to believe that the usual 'other suspects' have decommissioned or destroyed theirs. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 hours ago, scott herbertson said:

 

Trouble is evidence is only worthwhile if independently checked. I don’t see anything like that in the article you quote, and here’s one of the USA papers leading on Putin destroying Russia’s last chemical weapons while USA still retained hers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/27/world/europe/russia-putin-chemical-weapons.html

 

Hamid Ali Rao, the deputy director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a Hague-based body that polices adherence to the 1993 convention, declared the event “a truly momentous occasion.”

He said that it “signals the full elimination of all chemical weapon stockpiles declared by the Russian Federation.”

 

Assuming everything was declared that is.

 

Over the last week I've seen interviews on the TV where Kremlin spokesmen initially stated that they had never heard of this 'Novichok' nerve agent and that Russia had never made this type of thing, now some Kremlin spokesmen are saying that they destroyed all their stocks of the 'Novichok' nerve agent years ago.

Well how can you destroy something which you have claimed you don't know anything about and have never made.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Sraman]

Why has it taken this long to get the OPCW involved? Should they not have been on the ground from day one? It was day one that the British Govt. started making the claims after all.

[southcap]

11 minutes ago, Sraman said:

Why has it taken this long to get the OPCW involved? Should they not have been on the ground from day one? It was day one that the British Govt. started making the claims after all.

It took 8 days for them to lay the blame on Russia.

[Sraman]

1 minute ago, southcap said:

It took 8 days for them to lay the blame on Russia.

 

They knew, or claimed to know, that it was a nerve agent on day one/two. It doesn't matter who they point the finger at, if it's a nerve agent then OPCW should have been involved from then.

[scott herbertson]

22 minutes ago, John Gentleman said:

That's the trouble with these lofty proclamations — they only focus on one aspect, in this case "declared stockpiles". What about "capability"? If a nation-state has the infrastructure, recipe and ingredients, a very nasty cocktail can be mixed and deployed in a matter of days. The UK clearly still has the infrastructure (Porton Down) and it would be naive to believe that the usual 'other suspects' have decommissioned or destroyed theirs. 

 

15 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Assuming everything was declared that is.

 

Over the last week I've seen interviews on the TV where Kremlin spokesmen initially stated that they had never heard of this 'Novichok' nerve agent and that Russia had never made this type of thing, now some Kremlin spokesmen are saying that they destroyed all their stocks of the 'Novichok' nerve agent years ago.

Well how can you destroy something which you have claimed you don't know anything about and have never made.

 

I dont disagree. Just pointing out that certainties are unlikely here.

 

theres no doubt that by far the likeliest scenario is Russian state intervention.  If the OCPW can state the nerve agent follows a Russian origin formula then we will be on fairly sure ground for taking action.

[Sraman]

5 minutes ago, scott herbertson said:

 

 

I dont disagree. Just pointing out that certainties are unlikely here.

 

theres no doubt that by far the likeliest scenario is Russian state intervention.  If the OCPW can state the nerve agent follows a Russian origin formula then we will be on fairly sure ground for taking action.

 

We will only have grounds for action if the OPCW comes back and states that this particular agent was MADE in Russia by Russians, as the Amerkins and Uzbekies, at the very least, also have the formula(s) given that the facility was in Uzbekistan and was decommissioned by the Amerkins. All of this is, of course, only viable if the Russians actually had a formula for these Novichoks as that also seems to be in some doubt.

 

Having said all of that, if Blustering Boris says it's true then ????????

[scott herbertson]

Just now, Sraman said:

 

We will only have grounds for action if the OPCW comes back and states that this particular agent was MADE in Russia by Russians, as the Amerkins and Uzbekies, at the very least, also have the formula(s) given that the facility was in Uzbekistan and was decommissioned by the Amerkins. All of this is, of course, only viable if the Russians actually had a formula for these Novichoks as that also seems to be in some doubt.

 

Having said all of that, if Blustering Boris says it's true then ????????

There’s no chance they will be able to say that though. 

 

If it is of a Russian type, then it is one piece of circumstantial evidence. The fact these people were enemies of the Russian state is another. Motive and means - the missing element would then be opportunity which hopefully can be proved 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 minutes ago, Sraman said:

Why has it taken this long to get the OPCW involved? Should they not have been on the ground from day one? It was day one that the British Govt. started making the claims after all.

 

As far as I know, there isn't a team of weapons experts & scientists sitting around waiting on a call to go here there or wherever to test for nerve agents or other chemicals, it takes many days to put a team together, I'm guessing experts have to come from many places around the globe and that takes time to assemble a team like that.

The OPCW have been involved to some degree since at least the 8 March when the UK officially informed them what agent had been used, this was only 4 days after this attack took place and the same day that the UK determined exactly what kind of nerve agent was used.

 

I think it was more the media who were saying this was Russia from day one, the Government didn't officially blame Russia until last Monday, which was over a week after the attack had been carried out.

Granted there had been many MP's & Government ministers who were blaming the Russians before then, but officially the Government/UK hadn't blamed the Russians until last week. 

 

I will agree that perhaps the UK should have called in the OPCW sooner, but we don't know what communications have been taking place between the UK & the OPCW over the last 10 days or so, for all we know the OPCW could have asked the UK to wait before asking for help, I'd guess that these experts have day jobs and the right people might not have been available until now, but none of us know what is going on behind the scenes.

[Sraman]

So you think that the OPCW is a bit like the International Rescue teams from all over the world, that have day jobs and wait a week or so to get their shit together to go out to a natural disaster to help out? 

 

As you say, no-one is privvy to any information here but many on this thread, and throughout the UK/Western world, have already made up their mind without any information anyway?? How does that work? I'm guessing it's a trust thing. Well forgive me for not trusting a Govt. we know (for a fact) lies to it's people. So far, that is the only fact in this whole sorry affair. 

[Ibrahim Tall]

4 minutes ago, Sraman said:

So you think that the OPCW is a bit like the International Rescue teams from all over the world, that have day jobs and wait a week or so to get their shit together to go out to a natural disaster to help out? 

 

As you say, no-one is privvy to any information here but many on this thread, and throughout the UK/Western world, have already made up their mind without any information anyway?? How does that work? I'm guessing it's a trust thing. Well forgive me for not trusting a Govt. we know (for a fact) lies to it's people. So far, that is the only fact in this whole sorry affair. 

 

In contrast with the Russian government which for example mistakenly announced in the Durma the Volgodonsk apartment bombing three days before it actually happened?

 

The UK isn't perfect, far from it, but it's significantly less dishonest than Russia.

[jake]

https://news.sky.com/story/sergei-skripal-who-and-what-could-be-behind-poison-attack-11281026

 

Some views expressed on here why it's highly unlikely and without precedent that this was Kremlin sanctioned.

[southcap]

11 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

In contrast with the Russian government which for example mistakenly announced in the Durma the Volgodonsk apartment bombing three days before it actually happened?

 

The UK isn't perfect, far from it, but it's significantly less dishonest than Russia.

The series of apartment bombings. Would that happen to be when FSB agents were caught and arrested for planting explosives in Ryazan?

City	Date	Deaths
Buynaksk	4 September	64
Moscow	9 September	94
Moscow	13 September	118
Volgodonsk	16 September	17
Ryazan	22 September	prevented

 

Funny how the bombings stopped after that.

Edited March 19, 2018 by southcap

[Notts1874]

7 minutes ago, jake said:

https://news.sky.com/story/sergei-skripal-who-and-what-could-be-behind-poison-attack-11281026

 

Some views expressed on here why it's highly unlikely and without precedent that this was Kremlin sanctioned.

Article is 10 days old and out of date

[Sraman]

4 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

In contrast with the Russian government which for example mistakenly announced in the Durma the Volgodonsk apartment bombing three days before it actually happened?

 

The UK isn't perfect, far from it, but it's significantly less dishonest than Russia.

 

On the one hand we have a bunch of massive liars, on the other hand we have a massive bunch of liars. Who to trust?

 

Here's a counter example for you: The Russians didn't join us in Iraq for Shock and Awe! But hey, we don't kill our own citizens, on foreign soil or even our own soil, do we?

 

[jake]

5 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Article is 10 days old and out of date

Still gives an insight as to why it's unlikely to be Kremlin sanctioned.

 

So relevant .

 

[Notts1874]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

Still gives an insight as to why it's unlikely to be Kremlin sanctioned.

 

So relevant .

 

No It doesn't and no it isn't. They didn't even know the nerve agent used when this was written.

 

It's nothing more than supposition and speculation.

[Geoff the Mince]

35 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

 

In contrast with the Russian government which for example mistakenly announced in the Durma the Volgodonsk apartment bombing three days before it actually happened?

 

The UK isn't perfect, far from it, but it's significantly less dishonest than Russia.

Not only that but the FSB agents caught planting the same explosives in another apartment block.  I see another poster mentioned this 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Geoff the Mince
correction