Salisbury alleged Russian connection [Merged]

[carryfast]

Rjan:
I accept that a tendency toward “social engineering” (actually, political and economic transformation of a progressive nature) is more characteristic of left-wing leaders - that’s why I say Stalin and Mao can be fairly described as left-wing, because their agenda was transformative.

I don’t accept that an abhorrence of nationalism defines the left at all. Stalin argued for “socialism in one country”, Mao for “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. Castro was himself a national revolutionary who was happy to adopt a socialist agenda, once it became apparent which superpower’s side his bread would be buttered on, and when it became apparent what effects economic sanctions would have on the Cuban economy. Tony Benn was strongly socialist but had significant nationalist sympathies.

As for the Nazis, they were clearly nationalist - the fact that they were expansionary and imperialist does not mean they wished to see the German nation dissolve, nor does war against and conquest of other nations characterise them as “internationalists”. What the Nazis lacked was any concept of socialism - they were strongly anti-Marxist and thoroughly illiberal, and it is this that characterises them as far-right.

You say I “airbrushed the socialist part of the title”, but of course I did completely the opposite and tackled it head on, you silly person!

I am suggesting Hitler resisted and merely tolerated the word “socialist” in the title, because he is on record as such.

I also accept that “worker” was part of the title, but that is not inconsistent with the fact that Hitler was working class, and a decorated war hero to boot, and his organisation was a grassroots one. But so are gangsters and mafiosi - the mere fact that someone is working class does not make them a socialist, or make them sympathetic to the working class in general. Many working class people are quite content with the structure of society, and simply feel that the roles within it have been improperly distributed (and they want to join the ranks of the exploiters) or that the incumbent elite are incompetent or corrupt on account of their personal bad character or disloyalty. A war hero like Hitler could quite reasonably have taken that latter view in the 1920s. Hitler’s agenda was not to overhaul or transform Germany society, but to restore it’s former prestige and autonomy - the very things he’d valorously risked his life to defend in WW1.

Hitler also supported zionism and the creation of a Jewish nation (this is what Ken Livingstone got into trouble for saying), not because of any sympathy with or support for Jews, but as a rational way of removing Jews from German society, and perfectly consistently with his nationalist outlook. His racist and pro-Aryan views were not radical in the day, but simply taking common sense to it’s logical conclusion. It’s not unheard of even nowadays to hear people casually expressing the view that the poor are breeding rather too much, and that elements of society have bad character on account of their breeding rather than their rearing. Nor is it uncommon to hear, amongst the far-right, that Muslims are breeding rather too much, or that the country is “full” and facing a Malthusian crisis.

As for your same old bs that nationalist means fascist that would by definition obviously have to apply to Michael Collins too. In which case it’s clear that Nationalist means centre and Hitler was of the far left just like Stalin.With Hitler having used the Nationalist logo as an electoral trick.Just like Corbyn is using the Labour one to impose a far left Socalist agenda and Sturgeon is using the Nationalist one to impose her Socialist agenda and the DDR called themselves ‘democrats’.Also followed by the LibDems calling themselves ‘democrats’ while,like Sturgeon,also standing for the EUSSR federal dictatorship.

Nationalist does not necessarily mean “fascist” - it would depend on the context whether they are being conflated. As I say, Castro was a nationalist much more than he was a socialist - a nationalist revolutionary leader - but he was not a fascist. By all accounts he was pretty moderate in ideological terms, until he was forced to lurch to the left and forge an alliance with the Soviets, by the behaviour of the Americans.

Generally speaking, nationalists are more likely to be fascists if they are in control of what are already the strongest nation-states of the world, whereas nationalists in weaker nations tend to be left-wing resistance or transformative movements (i.e. tend to be resisting other colonial or imperial nations, or attempting to build up a strong central state and national identity for the first time). In Stalin and Mao’s cases, industrial development and proletarianisation was their primary agenda, in order to bring forward their economic capacity.

The SNP is a centre-left party (it was originally a centre-right party), whose popular support is defined mainly by their resistance to the Tories and Blairites at Westminster.

I don’t have much to say on the rest of your post that I have cut, except to say I reject its analysis, mostly.

Firstly the definition and very idea of a Third Reich/Greater German Reich and the first steps in it’s creation ( ironically,unlike the bs establishment script,that being firstly all about the takeover of western Europe ) in the form of the puppet regimes such as Vichy France and Hitler’s plan to install Edward V111 as head of the UK one in that regard ) proves that Hitler was no Nationalist.He wanted a centralised German dominated European Federation of subservient non sovereign puppet states without National borders similar to the EU.

While Stalin,like Lenin,was all about the expansionist and similarly anti nation state idea of the Soviet Union certainly not limiting the Soviet Socialist takeover of government to just Russia.IE it’s what Socialists do they can’t help themselves because they are ideologically programmed towards Borg like one size fits all centralised government with you also clearly having nailed your colours to that typical Socialist anti Nation state agenda.

As for Benn yes,like Shore and Hoey now,he was a Nationalist.Remind us what happened when Labour ran into the same old ideological Nationalist v Socialist contradictions that we see now.Oh wait he was comprehensively defeated by Callaghan’s anti Nation State rabble.On that note I’ll say it again Nationalist means centre not right.While Socialist means far left.While Heath,Thatcher,Major,Blair and Cameron all fit the description of the far right.With ironically Socialist,being all about power not what’s good for the people and as a result often being naturally attracted to the far right.Which is why the far right Blairites have always found a welcome in the Labour Party because the far left and the far right are both exploitative in nature and all about wanting power for the sake of power.With the Socialist tendency towards social engineering and anti nation state ideology being a key asset to them in that aim.

So there we have it for the clarification of the Winseer type vote far left = Stalin,Hitler,Mao,Callaghan,Jinping,Sturgeon,Cable,Merkel.While far right = Thatcher, Blair,Nixon,Bush,Obama,Macron,May.While centre = Benn,Shore,Michael Collins,Hoey,Orban and Batten.But with the jury being out regards Putin and Trump in that regard but with all the signs being at least Putin is a Nationalist,unlike Stalin.

I’d guess that the voting masses finally understanding and getting those definitions correct would be a game changer regarding the political landscape and the direction of future election results.While also explaining the Machiavellian tactics being employed by the ‘far right’ establishment and their far left allies in maintaining their power base v the unarguably centre Nationalist groups.

[wheel_nut]

dieseldog999:
^^^^^
i dunno about you,but im just thinking.“gusset”…

I think I would sooner ■■■■ on a gusset soaked in Novochok than read this ■■■■■■■■.

It’s copy and paste from a dictionary with missing pages. [emoji846]

[rjan]

Carryfast:

Rjan:
[…]

Firstly the definition and very idea of a Third Reich/Greater German Reich and the first steps in it’s creation ( ironically,unlike the bs establishment script,that being firstly all about the takeover of western Europe ) in the form of the puppet regimes such as Vichy France and Hitler’s plan to install Edward V111 as head of the UK one in that regard ) proves that Hitler was no Nationalist.He wanted a centralised German dominated European Federation of subservient non sovereign puppet states without National borders similar to the EU.

But you can’t have a “federation of subservient states” without there being a master nation state at the centre. And even a “federation” is a misnomer when what you really mean is a colonial empire.

And indeed, it is impossible to exploit a “subservient state”, unless you treat it as a state, with a populace who are more or less tied to it and prevented from emigrating - otherwise it’s not a state, it’s merely a geographic region, and if you try to exploit the people in a specific geographic region without there being borders or some mechanism of keeping them where they are, then they’ll just flee (including into the “master” nation).

Anyway there’s no point haggling on the matter. I know you use the word “nationalist” in a special way that doesn’t reflect the accepted meaning of the word - your definition deviates from the English language as we know it.

While Stalin,like Lenin,was all about the expansionist and similarly anti nation state idea of the Soviet Union certainly not limiting the Soviet Socialist takeover of government to just Russia.IE it’s what Socialists do they can’t help themselves because they are ideologically programmed towards Borg like one size fits all centralised government with you also clearly having nailed your colours to that typical Socialist anti Nation state agenda.

Most political unions aren’t one-size-fits-all, although there has to be some common policy that applies to all at once (otherwise it is not a union, and any common policy would be merely temporary and coincidental).

The irony of the EU at the moment is that it does have a matrix of national vetoes and 100% majorities on matters of common policy, and thus it actually reflects the sort of so-called “democracy” that you’ve argued for.

As for Benn yes,like Shore and Hoey now,he was a Nationalist.Remind us what happened when Labour ran into the same old ideological Nationalist v Socialist contradictions that we see now.Oh wait he was comprehensively defeated by Callaghan’s anti Nation State rabble.On that note I’ll say it again Nationalist means centre not right.

Benn was defeated democratically. You can argue people were wrong, but there were no shenanigans against Benn - he lost the argument at the time fair and square. Meanwhile, the neoliberal form that the EU has taken was one promoted by Thatcher, Major, and Blair.

While Socialist means far left.While Heath,Thatcher,Major,Blair and Cameron all fit the description of the far right.With ironically Socialist,being all about power not what’s good for the people and as a result often being naturally attracted to the far right.Which is why the far right Blairites have always found a welcome in the Labour Party because the far left and the far right are both exploitative in nature and all about wanting power for the sake of power.With the Socialist tendency towards social engineering and anti nation state ideology being a key asset to them in that aim.

I agree some on the far-left actually resemble those on the far-right when it comes to democracy, which is why they have no democratic support amongst the people (unless there is no democracy in a country anyway and it is badly mismanaged by an existing authoritarian class, in which case people may well support an alternative authoritarian class who are progressive in some way - Robert Mugabe springs to mind as a modern example, of a left-wing revolutionary who, once apartheid was smashed, became a right-wing dictator, but he was still more moderate and progressive than the white dictators that preceded him).

So there we have it for the clarification of the Winseer type vote far left = Stalin,Hitler,Mao,Callaghan,Jinping,Sturgeon,Cable,Merkel.While far right = Thatcher, Blair,Nixon,Bush,Obama,Macron,May.While centre = Benn,Shore,Michael Collins,Hoey,Orban and Batten.But with the jury being out regards Putin and Trump in that regard but with all the signs being at least Putin is a Nationalist,unlike Stalin.

I’d guess that the voting masses finally understanding and getting those definitions correct would be a game changer regarding the political landscape and the direction of future election results.While also explaining the Machiavellian tactics being employed by the ‘far right’ establishment and their far left allies in maintaining their power base v the unarguably centre Nationalist groups.

The voting masses certainly won’t get any definitions correct by listening to you on the matter. You claim to be a “centrist”, but in fact you simply have an incoherent mix of left- and right-wing views, some of which I’d call “radical” if they made any real sense.

[carryfast]

Rjan:
But you can’t have a “federation of subservient states” without there being a master nation state at the centre. And even a “federation” is a misnomer when what you really mean is a colonial empire.

And indeed, it is impossible to exploit a “subservient state”, unless you treat it as a state, with a populace who are more or less tied to it and prevented from emigrating - otherwise it’s not a state, it’s merely a geographic region, and if you try to exploit the people in a specific geographic region without there being borders or some mechanism of keeping them where they are, then they’ll just flee (including into the “master” nation).

Anyway there’s no point haggling on the matter. I know you use the word “nationalist” in a special way that doesn’t reflect the accepted meaning of the word - your definition deviates from the English language as we know it.

While Stalin,like Lenin,was all about the expansionist and similarly anti nation state idea of the Soviet Union certainly not limiting the Soviet Socialist takeover of government to just Russia.IE it’s what Socialists do they can’t help themselves because they are ideologically programmed towards Borg like one size fits all centralised government with you also clearly having nailed your colours to that typical Socialist anti Nation state agenda.

Most political unions aren’t one-size-fits-all, although there has to be some common policy that applies to all at once (otherwise it is not a union, and any common policy would be merely temporary and coincidental).

The irony of the EU at the moment is that it does have a matrix of national vetoes and 100% majorities on matters of common policy, and thus it actually reflects the sort of so-called “democracy” that you’ve argued for.

Benn was defeated democratically. You can argue people were wrong, but there were no shenanigans against Benn - he lost the argument at the time fair and square. Meanwhile, the neoliberal form that the EU has taken was one promoted by Thatcher, Major, and Blair.

I agree some on the far-left actually resemble those on the far-right when it comes to democracy, which is why they have no democratic support amongst the people (unless there is no democracy in a country anyway and it is badly mismanaged by an existing authoritarian class, in which case people may well support an alternative authoritarian class who are progressive in some way - Robert Mugabe springs to mind as a modern example, of a left-wing revolutionary who, once apartheid was smashed, became a right-wing dictator, but he was still more moderate and progressive than the white dictators that preceded him).

The voting masses certainly won’t get any definitions correct by listening to you on the matter. You claim to be a “centrist”, but in fact you simply have an incoherent mix of left- and right-wing views, some of which I’d call “radical” if they made any real sense.

All the examples we’ve got of Federations actually remove the sovereign status of the states that make them up.IE the Federation becomes the relevant reference point which is why the Soviet Union replaced Russia just like all the rest of the previous states that made it up.While whatever power struggles for dominance might take place within that to suit local interests are totally irrelevant to that fact.Which is how Russia actually ended up with a Georgian leader in the form of Stalin.Not because Georgia wanted to or even could dominate Russia,but because at that point Russians and Georgians all regarded themselves as citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialists and if not they were forced to.

Just as you want us all to regard ourselves as bleedin EU citizens under a far right and left allied anti nation state Socialist and corrupt globalist ‘Capitalist’ regime before all else.It seems obvious who is going by the same old radical failed despotic ideology here.As usual lying its way into power by calling itself ‘democratic’,just like the DDR,when it’s clearly anything but.Which explains why Corbyn has chosen Starmer as shadow minister for Brexit and not Hoey.

As opposed to the Nationalist centre clearly fighting on the centre ground of being clearly opposed to both sides of that radical far left and far right anti nation state alliance.Which explains why Corbyn has chosen remainer Starmer as shadow minister for Brexit not Hoey.While at the same time trying to fool the electorate into believing that ideologically anti nation state far left Socialists like you,who’ve hijacked the Labour Party rather than standing where you belong with the SLP,would honour a clearly Nationalist Brexit vote.Yeah right.

As for the topic it’s clear that the whole thing is an EU instigated false flag op,just like all the other EU sabre rattling,directed against Russia.All as part of the ongoing far left and far right alliance ideological attack on Nationalist centreism.With Russia clearly,probably correctly,perceived as having ditched Socialism in favour of Nationalism and now doing nothing more than defending its legitimate National interests in not wanting NATO playing aggressive war games on its borders.Nor the EU telling it that the Crimea is part of Europe not Russia.Nor having EU/NATO instigated espionage going on against it dressed up as ‘detente’.

[winseer]

Maybe it really is a time for a “New World Order” then? We’re told that’s the last thing anyone on Earth wants, but what’s the alternative?

Outgrowing the Earth like we are, catastrophic conflict inevitable, because we cannot agree on anything without some moaners that lose out making trouble from the latest round of political “Winners”?

If anyone knew that in say, a decade’s time - 25% of the world’s population are going to be wiped out by WWIII - then like in a game of Chess - there are only three ways to deal with such a forthcoming disaster, surely as there would be should we pick up a large asteroid on collision course with the Earth right now…

(1) Change our world economy so that the efficient are rewarded, and the wasters are disenfranchised. This policy, could be argued as close to fascism of course. “You get pushed aside, because there’s too many of you, too little talent, and definitely too many worthless mouths to feed among that particular social group.”

(2) Change our world economy so that the inefficient are upheld and encouraged by the efficient. This policy, is the Socialist model. “You take from those that have, can, and do - and give it to those that have not, cannot, and won’t” This works OK, until you eventually run out of everyone else’s resources.

(3) You “open up the ends” of this closed system, so we can “go forth and multiply” as we did at the dawn of civilization, and the discovery of the new world. Those “new elements” we bump into along the way - fared badly of course, because we had technological advantage over them. Perhaps the third stage of such “opening up the ends” would be to expand into Space.
…What’s wrong with this however, is that there is no guarantee that when we eventually make contact with an alien race as we one day must - there’s no guarantee that they won’t do to us what we once did to our own primitives on this planet.

Now Space is BIG. There’s a good chance we could expand into space for thousands of years without bumping into any sentient life that has any kind of political collective organized society, i.e. an actual Alien Civilization.

That means to someone like myself that expanding into space is the best bet for humanity to survive, even the remainder of this century. If we don’t get off this ball of dirt before long, we’ll eventually all wipe each other out. It’s human nature to destroy when on the defensive. It’s been many years since our so-called “Elected” governments actually did things from start to finish that were for the good of their own people.
Therein, they sow the seeds of destruction of us all.

Our political system needs reform badly. “Left” and “Right” and “Socialism” and “Imperialism” just don’t cut it any more. They are out of date and obsolete. We need a new system. We need it to go to the stars, and we need to go to the stars to survive.

Which world leaders are closest to such a lofty goal right now?

Trump, Putin, and Jinping. The world’s three superpowers, all with leaders not respected very much by the rest of the world right now.

If we don’t want to get into bed with any of these three, then where do we see ourselves as being just a generation from now? None of these three will likely be alive in 25 year’s time.
It’s for the rest of us to “avoid being destroyed in the faux-war we could well have” in the meantime. If you can’t get with the bigger picture for humanity’s survival - then chances are you, we, and our entire faction formally known as the United Kingdom - will not survive either.

Bugger the plans of the Globalists, who don’t dream of Space Flight - but just controlling other countries, influncing the wrong groups of people, and generally creating mischief.

For all we know, Trump getting rid of Rex Tillerson recently - might have been about him being “nothing beyond a globalist” rather than “A man with a plan” that could be said of the three main world leaders I’ve already named.

Starter for Ten: WHO should we politically throw under the bus in THIS country - to get us back onto the straight-and-narrow again?

I already reckon May, Hammond, Rudd, and now Johnson - are ripe for the dustbin of history.

What say everyone else?

[dieseldog999]

Wheel Nut:

dieseldog999:
^^^^^
i dunno about you,but im just thinking.“gusset”…

I think I would sooner ■■■■ on a gusset soaked in Novochok than read this ■■■■■■■■.

It’s copy and paste from a dictionary with missing pages. [emoji846]

^^^^^^^^^^^
i dont think they are taking any notice of that remark…ho hum…back to the next thrilling episode of war and peace trucknet style.
the pic just makes me think.female tennis player and cheerleader though,…

[carryfast]

Winseer:
Bugger the plans of the Globalists, who don’t dream of Space Flight - but just controlling other countries, influncing the wrong groups of people, and generally creating mischief.

Even if it was possible or even desirable to colonise space exactly the same ideological argument would apply there just the same as on Earth.

IE they are all the same type of ideological zb control freaks wherever they are and choose to go whether on Earth or in Space.

youtube.com/watch?v=SFnM8jNfAew

youtube.com/watch?v=P4KBPaS-1PU

So we colonise space the Federation does a false flag on the Planetists human or alien to give it an excuse to attack and carry out regime change and to expand the Federation.They can’t help themselves they are control freak nutter zb Federalists/Soviets it’s who they are and its what they do on Earth as they would in Space.IE it would still leave the question of sides are we for the self determination of the Planetists or the imposition of the rule of the Federation.

In this case read EU trooper.

[franglais]

Sorry Juddian.
My scoffing at a delayed reaction nerve agent seems misplaced.
“High concentration of novochok found on front door of victim’s home”.

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

[the_maoster]

Personally and despite being affected herself (bungled?) I’d be taking a close look at the daughter.

[wheel_nut]

the maoster:
Personally and despite being affected herself (bungled?) I’d be taking a close look at the daughter.

My thoughts from Day One. Flown in from Russia to see Daddy, mother and brother both dead under dubious circumstances and haulier friend who picked her up from airport hoping they turn off the life support!!!

[carryfast]

Franglais:
Sorry Juddian.
My scoffing at a delayed reaction nerve agent seems misplaced.
“High concentration of novochok found on front door of victim’s home”.

It just seems to confirm Juddian’s suspicions.

Let’s get this right a deadly WMD that they were contaminated with at home presumably having been painted on the front door by under cover Russian ‘agents’ wearing full NBC kit to protect themselves with one holding the bucket and one with the paint brush.But which then,after somehow getting from the front door onto the victims,allowed the victims to drive into town then park the car then go for dinner and only after all that started to have effects which themselves seem to be survivable.Also bearing in mind the supposed WMD can be safely dealt with by just putting any contaminated clothing in the washing machine so not exactly a doomsday scenario.So at least the postman and junk mail leaflet distributors were all safe.

Then after all that Putin tells May to do one he didn’t do it and if she doesn’t like it she can zb off and don’t forget that Russia is a nuclear power.Obviously no need for him to mess about with chem nasties which can do as much damage to the supposed hit man as the supposed mark.When it’s obvious from his actual warning that he’s only interested in nuking us if we keep on messing him about.With NATO having no intention of meeting that threat in kind.Because,for all its mouth,NATO hasn’t got the bottle for it even if it had been a genuine defcon 1 situation.But which they know it obviously isn’t because it’s a false flag op.

Meanwhile May and the US government ( forget Trump he’s in office but not in power ) get what they wanted.In the form of a perceived closer EU,including the convenient end of even whatever Brexit she might have had planned for us,and with it confirmation of the diversionary targets in which the US fights Russia to the last European ( and maybe Australian ).But with the old school mutually assured destruction option obviously being off the table regardless.

[carryfast]

the maoster:
Personally and despite being affected herself (bungled?) I’d be taking a close look at the daughter.

Blimey let me guess she was under Russian state mind control to deliver a WMD as a suicide mission to knock off her own father and that could only conveniently be traceable back to Putin as a warning.But which for some reason he then decided to change to a threat of nukes instead when the scary May and her posse went after him.

Or maybe they just told her don’t worry it’s not that bad you only need to wash it off your hands with some washing up liquid and put any contaminated clothes in the washing machine you’ll be fine.We only intend to scare your dad for a laugh not take out the whole of Wiltshire.

[wheel_nut]

Yulia is making good progress and is off the critical list

[dipper_dave]

This would be very embarrassing if it turns out the pair of them had just had a severe ‘whitey’ after smoking some dodgy weed.

[the_maoster]

Dipper_Dave:
This would be very embarrassing if it turns out the pair of them had just had a severe ‘whitey’ after smoking some dodgy weed.

Never gonna happen Dave, the police found no evidence whatsoever of empty crisp packets or chocolate wrappers nearby!

[juddian]

Reckon we could save £billions by shutting down the BBC propaganda department and get our news from George Galloway, he was at least a week ahead of the MSM.

I wonder if the imaginary village idiot would be assassin was given a heroes welcome back in the Kremlin, did they do a HIGFNY one wonders and pin a virtual order of Lenin honour on a tub of lard?

Really this farce has made Blair’s WMD fairy tale (a Grimm one truly which resulted in millions of innocents dead and wounded, whole countries destroyed and generations displaced) appear almost professional in comparison…
message to May, get Tone in next time when false flag planning

[winseer]

Still no footage of perps ANYWHERE in Salisbury. FFS they’ve got a big Waitrose there, so you’d think they’d have some cameras about, especially with the tallest spire in the country, right there as a possible camera mount point?

The Front Door gets guarded by what? PSO’s is that? I wonder what clearence you don’t need to be standing within ten feet of something that’s supposed to kill you with a smear on your skin…

What’s the score for this “Novichok” so far? 0 out of 3 isn’t it?

I reckon DOGGIchok could do more damage than that!
Poor Mutts… All that diabetes!

[carryfast]

Juddian:
message to May, get Tone in next time when false flag planning

The zb was probably too busy pushing her ongoing remain agenda to take the time out for another false flag stunt.I’d guess the phone call from Blair to her went along the lines of go for it.You saw how easy it was in the case of Saddam,so you know you can do it in the case of Putin,what could possibly go wrong.To which her reply was absolutely I’ve subbed the job out to the Ukrainians as part of their EU membership application.

[carryfast]

Winseer:
The Front Door gets guarded by what? PSO’s is that? I wonder what clearence you don’t need to be standing within ten feet of something that’s supposed to kill you with a smear on your skin…

What’s the score for this “Novichok” so far? 0 out of 3 isn’t it?

I reckon DOGGIchok could do more damage than that!
Poor Mutts… All that diabetes!
1

To be fair the police girl looks suitably terrified.Obviously the budget doesn’t allow for full NBC kit and she hadn’t been told not to worry just wash it off and take the uniform to the local launderette,if any gets on you off of the door,at that point.

[winseer]

muckles:

Franglais:
A ■■■ for tat exchange of Nukes would have made Brexit talks somewhat dedundant. !

Bloody remianers, they’ll go to any lengths to avoid Brexit.

Franglais:
May etc having some motive? Possibly but I’d think they’d use subtler methods? Maybe not.
Putin has motive and the means and gave him a (unnecessary!) boost in the elections.

Sent from my GT-S7275R using Tapatalk

For whoever did it, I assume the rather strange method was chosen to have maximum public impact, for whatever motive they had.
A standard assassination would have been far easier and far more difficult to apportion blame to certain parties, whether Russia wanted to send out a message to the West and any dissidents or it was a plot to discredit Russia, after all they’re a thorn in the side of the West and being blamed for electoral interference and supporting the rise in populist movements in the West.

Russians were assassinating people back in the 70’s - by walking past them, and firing a small tube of hydrogen cyanide into the victim’s face, like a pepper spray.

The gas dissipates, and it then looks like the victim died of natural causes.

There’s no reason why this very effective method of “getting rid of dissidents” would not be used today, rather than some 70 years past it’s sell-by-date gas made by another geezer, Vil Mirzayanov who not only invented the stuff in the first place - but now lives as a dissident exile himself? If I were Putin, and behind all this - I would have silenced this naughty boy first, dontya think?
As for Mirzayanov’s bizzare claim that “only a state could weaponize this susbtance” when it was designed in the first place to be safer to handle for the assailants using it. In other words, he’s contradicting what it says on the tin of the very stuff he invented. FFS you can’t make this crap up!

I suggest that either the subtance used was not Novichok then, or a spent supply no longer effective was used - taken from Porton Down Labs, where they have all kinds of samples of nasty stuff that would be illegal to be held anywhere else in the world, such as Iraq who had over a million of their citizens killed BY NATO forces - over WMDs that he didn’t even have, and was not properly investigated in not having them.

I believe that this “Salisbury Incident” is shaping up to be another rather serious “False Flag” event, with the motive that NATO wants more funding, the EU wants the UK to drop Brexit, and come back in with it’s financial support and military personnel to go to war - not against Islamic State, that are currently aiding NATO member Turkey in killing Kurds in Syria, nor against Islamic Terrorists in general - who are afforded so many human rights by Strasbourg - that they are now all but above the law, once geographically within the EU. Instead, NATO and the EU would risk starting a war against a nuclear superpower which we cannot possibly win, due to the “Mutually Assured Destruction” scenario, just in case anyone thinks that Putin’s “Dead Man’s Switch” is a bluff on his part.

Our mainstream news channels - don’t cover this story of the past week of course. It’s now two nuclear superpowers we are up against, rather than one. Solidarity cuts both ways, in a world where “Mud Slinging” is now more commonplace than “getting things done for your people” in politics.

- YouTube