Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It would support the conspiracy theory put forth by the May government.
The explanation creates a motive where there was none before. It explains why the early Russian reaction was that he was accidentally exposed outside of the highly secure labs in Porton Down.
It would also make sense to create a weakened version of chemical nerve gas if you're going to intentionally expose civilians to it for show but not actually cause casualties or pose a risk to the White Helmets who would be handling them. Hence, he and his daughter may not have been in mortal danger from exposure.
So it's the British government that is saying that Skripal was working directly against the interests of the Russian state?
I won't be surprised to learn that the "job offer" came to him from CIA, via its British counterparts.
That's probably why Americans wanted to whisk him away now as soon as they could.
So it's the British government that is saying that Skripal was working directly against the interests of the Russian state?
I won't be surprised to learn that the "job offer" came to him from CIA, via its British counterparts.
That's probably why Americans wanted to whisk him away now as soon as they could.
The conspiracy theory is that the Russians assassinated him. One of the main criticisms is that the the Russian government lacked a motive. The Russians don't really need to kill him. They could just off the other UK or US officers captured in E. Ghouta. The other criticisms are the lack of effect on people who rendered first aid and the weak effect for a military grade nerve gas considered 5-10 times more powerful than the one that killed Kim Jong Nam.
People who are skeptical of these sham stories put forth by the government and the media are often branded as conspiracy theorists since the pushers of the lies lack any concrete argument in defense. They are merely skeptics which would put them on the opposite end of the spectrum from conspiracy theorists.
The conspiracy theory is that the Russians assassinated him. One of the main criticisms is that the the Russian government lacked a motive. The Russians don't really need to kill him. They could just off the other UK or US officers captured in E. Ghouta. The other criticisms are the lack of effect on people who rendered first aid and the weak effect for a military grade nerve gas considered 5-10 times more powerful than the one that killed Kim Jong Nam.
People who are skeptical of these sham stories put forth by the government and the media are often branded as conspiracy theorists since the pushers of the lies lack any concrete argument in defense. They are merely skeptics which would put them on the opposite end of the spectrum from conspiracy theorists.
That was my question all alone, because without the motive I don't see a reason for Russians to do that - the whole thing looked more like someone wanted to frame Putin.
Another thing that no one was able to answer me so far is why Skripal's pets have died?
I mean didn't the investigation go straight to his house, after they found him ( and his daughter) poisoned?
And if they did, why couldn't they take care of the pets before there was a need to euthanize the cat?
Maxim posted some funny stuff from Russian sites here ( - a reflection on events kinda, because so many things don't add up,) and this is one of them.
The conspiracy theory is that the Russians assassinated him. One of the main criticisms is that the the Russian government lacked a motive. The Russians don't really need to kill him. They could just off the other UK or US officers captured in E. Ghouta. The other criticisms are the lack of effect on people who rendered first aid and the weak effect for a military grade nerve gas considered 5-10 times more powerful than the one that killed Kim Jong Nam.
People who are skeptical of these sham stories put forth by the government and the media are often branded as conspiracy theorists since the pushers of the lies lack any concrete argument in defense. They are merely skeptics which would put them on the opposite end of the spectrum from conspiracy theorists.
That's all well and good since many government's lie, but a lot of actual conspiracy theories fail when put to the test. For example the 9/11 one. Now it's entirely possible for the government to be behind it, but a lot of the alternative theories put forth fall apart when subjected to physics. They keep using controlled demolition to try and justify their position, despite the fact that the collapse could not have logically happened any other way.
PS: Even though we likely will disagree on many fronts, I owe you an apology for the flat out offensive remarks I made in one of my past posts. That was definitely out of line.
When on 1 may 1960 over the Soviet Union shot down the spy plane Lockheed U-2, President Eisenhower, not knowing that Powers ' pilot is alive and kicking, like a drum, announced powers nevinnoubiennyh meteorologist who was killed "crazy Russian spy". You think Eisenhower apologized?
can you specify the time when russians had more liberties than now?
1905-1917, 1991-1998
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
