Alleged Russian assassins on TV

[Hamster]

8 hours ago, Scully said:

YOUR first post in the thread. I’m not on my own; you don’t care anymore than the rest of us. If you did you’d  be out there campaigning; it’s so much easier to tap a keyboard though and berate others from the comfort of your own chair. 

My first post was RESPONDING to one Mungler had made in which he'd specifically mentioned MY name, can you really not comprehend the significance of that ? Had he not done so I may not have even bothered with a reply because judging by previous similar threads as soon as things get a bit tasty they get locked ! 

The only tedious thing is that you keep saying you're off then come back and say the same mundane things like what are you gonna do about it. TALKING about is what I'm doing because this is a forum, don't like it fine...................don't read on, you do know that is allowed ?! 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Hamster said:

My first post was RESPONDING to one Mungler had made in which he'd specifically mentioned MY name, can you really not comprehend the significance of that ? Had he not done so I may not have even bothered with a reply because judging by previous similar threads as soon as things get a bit tasty they get locked ! 

The only tedious thing is that you keep saying you're off then come back and say the same mundane things like what are you gonna do about it. TALKING about is what I'm doing because this is a forum, don't like it fine...................don't read on, you do know that is allowed ?! 

Yes, of course I can comprehend the significance of that. Can you not comprehend the significance of responding to a thread regarding Russian Assassins, with your very first post, by instantly dragging it back to the middle east and your favoured 'eyerak' and its treatment by 'murica'? It's like a default setting. 

I said I was 'off' from a different thread, when you dragged that particular one away from its topic and onto yet another 911 conspiracy theory.

I have no problem with you or anyone else talking about anything at all, but I do object when you deride or ridicule those you refer to as 'sheeple' ( basically anyone who doesn't subscribe to your conspiracy theories ) and other comments designed to belilittle those who don't care, particularly when you don't care yourself. Now that is tedious.  

[KB1]

21 hours ago, Scully said:

😂 You just can’t stop yourself can you! First post and you’re back in the middle east! Just what is it you’re trying to prove? Do you seriously believe that anyone believes that ‘eyerak’ ( good grief) was invaded because of WMD? Do you seriously believe that us ‘sheeple’ believe our politicians never sanction anything unlawful; do you seriously believe we all believe Dr Kelly’s death isn’t suspicious etc etc etc? We’ve all seen the YouTube film of The Shining which reportedly proves the moon landings were faked on a film set, and Roswell, and JFK etc etc etc. Very interesting but who cares? Nor me and not you. It doesn’t matter what we believe, or don’t believe, the simple fact is that we just don’t care. Nobody cares, certainly not enough to do anything about it. Kids are dying on a daily basis in Syria and elsewhere.....do we care...no. We see it on the news; we neither know nor care who is responsible; we tut and shake our heads and say how awful it is before getting up to put on the kettle and channel hopping to see what time the film is on, and go to bed without a concern. We all have our lives to get on with.

 Do you care? No. You come on here and belittle us for our apparent lack of concern and ridicule us for being ‘sheeple’, when the fact is we just aren’t interested enough to care. What is the point of your boringly repetitive and incessant rambling if you don’t care enough to do anything about it? What do you want us to do? Again...what is it that you’re trying to prove? 

I’d be very impressed if you badgered politicians as much as you badgered the forum, but the fact is you obviously don’t have the courage to back up your convictions. 

Concise and to the point👍

[Mungler]

So, just got back from work and seen the RT interview. Wow, it is the Baby Food Factory Mk II.

I do wonder and I ask myself does anyone still think the Russian state didn’t do it?

The best shot the conspiracy theorists have is:

1. The Russian state would have sprung for a better hotel, and;

2. The Russians would have done a better job of actually managing to assassinate the target and not get photo’d / caught 

...but all of that ignores the evidence and what is now the bleedin obvious.

Indeed given the Russian States tv interview in reply I do think they are that daft.

[12gauge82]

Yes, I think it's ridiculous after watching the interview with those two ""tourists" to suggest it was anything other than a Russian state sponsored hit.

•  
• Quote
•  
• Edit

[Mighty Ruler]

Of course the Russians didn’t do it, and these two blokes are undercover agents sent in by the Salisbury Tourist board.

[KB1]

1 minute ago, Mighty Ruler said:

Of course the Russians didn’t do it, and these two blokes are undercover agents sent in by the Salisbury Tourist board.

Be careful, you'll have a few on here signing up to that theory😎

[Mungler]

4 minutes ago, Mighty Ruler said:

Of course the Russians didn’t do it, and these two blokes are undercover agents sent in by the Salisbury Tourist board.

Very good

😝😝😝

[Hamster]

The interview "performance" of the "suspects" did strike me as unconvincing too, I still don't for one moment think the Russian state had anything to do with the poisoning mind you, just that these guys came across as suspicious in their own right. I too don't believe visiting Salisbury Cathedral etc, for a couple of middle aged friends is plausible. It IS plausible that they were simply here on ne'er do well illegal stuff for the Russian Oligarch/underworld and just happen to be a good fit for the assassin story. 

[12gauge82]

3 minutes ago, Hamster said:

The interview "performance" of the "suspects" did strike me as unconvincing too, I still don't for one moment think the Russian state had anything to do with the poisoning mind you, just that these guys came across as suspicious in their own right. I too don't believe visiting Salisbury Cathedral etc, for a couple of middle aged friends is plausible. It IS plausible that they were simply here on ne'er do well illegal stuff for the Russian Oligarch/underworld and just happen to be a good fit for the assassin story. 

Seriously? Ive an open mind and am fully aware that the west's behaviour has been every bit as bad and worse than Russia's at times, but there's no way after that explanation that Russia did not order that hit.

[henry d]

6 minutes ago, Hamster said:

The interview "performance" of the "suspects" did strike me as unconvincing too, I still don't for one moment think the Russian state had anything to do with the poisoning mind you, just that these guys came across as suspicious in their own right. I too don't believe visiting Salisbury Cathedral etc, for a couple of middle aged friends is plausible. It IS plausible that they were simply here on ne'er do well illegal stuff for the Russian Oligarch/underworld and just happen to be a good fit for the assassin story. 

To be plausible it needs to be reasonable or possible, without evidence it is not plausible, you seem to have projected something into the existing evidence.

[Hamster]

1 minute ago, 12gauge82 said:

Seriously? Ive an open mind and am fully aware that the west's behaviour has been every bit as bad and worse than Russia's at times, but there's no way after that explanation that Russia did not order that hit.

Yes totally serious, the small matter of MOTIVE remains, Russia simply wouldn't need the sheer hassle of sanctions and diplomats being sent home etc, etc, they just would not do it for a nobody that they themselves had released from prison, that coupled to the tons of other flawed stuff surrounding this, as I keep saying there are MANY other entities that would benefit greatly from this, Russia stood ONLY to gain negatives. 

Manufactured enemies are always needed. 

[Hamster]

4 minutes ago, henry d said:

To be plausible it needs to be reasonable or possible, without evidence it is not plausible, you seem to have projected something into the existing evidence.

There is no irrefutable evidence anywhere from any side, it's all theorising. We make our own deductions based on a host of different variables, supplied information and pre-existing conditions. 

As an example I find it absurd that the hotel they stayed at is supposed to have shown "traces" of such a dangerous substance and yet these guys and the staff or other guests who presumably went in the same room have suffered no ill effects. Besides, why would there even be traces of the material there ? Are we seriously suggesting they opened the bottle for a looksee to make sure they had brought the right stuff ? 

[islandgun]

3 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Yes totally serious, the small matter of MOTIVE remains, Russia simply wouldn't need the sheer hassle of sanctions and diplomats being sent home etc, etc, they just would not do it for a nobody that they themselves had released from prison, that coupled to the tons of other flawed stuff surrounding this, as I keep saying there are MANY other entities that would benefit greatly from this, Russia stood ONLY to gain negatives. 

Manufactured enemies are always needed. 

who would benefit from this, ?  a Russian motive could be "you wrong us we will kill you....eventually" .  have you ever heard of the saying "dont get mad get even"

[Hamster]

1 minute ago, islandgun said:

who would benefit from this, ?  a Russian motive could be "you wrong us we will kill you....eventually" .  have you ever heard of the saying "dont get mad get even"

I have already provided the names of several countries that would be rubbing their hands with glee over this saga. 

[12gauge82]

22 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Yes totally serious, the small matter of MOTIVE remains, Russia simply wouldn't need the sheer hassle of sanctions and diplomats being sent home etc, etc, they just would not do it for a nobody that they themselves had released from prison, that coupled to the tons of other flawed stuff surrounding this, as I keep saying there are MANY other entities that would benefit greatly from this, Russia stood ONLY to gain negatives. 

Manufactured enemies are always needed. 

So what about Alexzander litvinenko, are you suggesting they didn't wack him to?

[Mungler]

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

So what about Alexzander litvinenko, are you suggesting they didn't wack him to?

Of course he is.

Yes, you couldn’t make this up now 😀

[islandgun]

9 minutes ago, Hamster said:

I have already provided the names of several countries that would be rubbing their hands with glee over this saga. 

being gleeful enough to attempt murder and frame another country ? why would Russia expose these two most unconvincing church architecture loving men. to me this is very much a stiff finger from Putin to the rest of the world, simply,  dont  ==== with me because we will get even

[Hamster]

1 minute ago, islandgun said:

being gleeful enough to attempt murder and frame another country ? why would Russia expose these two most unconvincing church architecture loving men. to me this is very much a stiff finger from Putin to the rest of the world, simply,  dont  ==== with me because we will get even

Yes of course, you make it sound like it's never happened before ! 

Russia didn't "expose" them, the UK did. A large chunk of the world has been belly laughing about the Skirpal story since its inception, these guys are just a continuation of it, they have been shown on the news waiting at a train station or walking in the street somewhere whilst being Russian, there is no "proof" they did it. 

Sorry but I think even a half baked state would make a better job of disguising the identities of its assassins, these guys look identical to their pictures, did they REALLY think they wouldn't have to cover up ? 

10 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

So what about Alexzander litvinenko, are you suggesting they didn't wack him to?

I honestly don't know enough about that case so no idea. 

[KB1]

21 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Yes of course, you make it sound like it's never happened before ! 

Russia didn't "expose" them, the UK did. A large chunk of the world has been belly laughing about the Skirpal story since its inception, these guys are just a continuation of it, they have been shown on the news waiting at a train station or walking in the street somewhere whilst being Russian, there is no "proof" they did it. 

Sorry but I think even a half baked state would make a better job of disguising the identities of its assassins, these guys look identical to their pictures, did they REALLY think they wouldn't have to cover up ? 

I honestly don't know enough about that case so no idea. 

Don't see why so many are hell bent on exonerating the Russians on here, after all, the spy/defector assissination business is nothing new.

Putin's 'KGB' didn't have to make it look like something out of 'Mission Impossible' because they really couldn't give a toss what you or I think.  And, without the inevitable Trial by Media environment that exists, I'm sure our Government (Who need this like a hole in the head) would have handled it differently.

 

PS.  I want so much for one of the conspiracy theories to be correct, because I don't want Abramovich taking his money out of Chelsea FC😢

Edited September 13, 2018 by KB1

[islandgun]

13 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Yes of course, you make it sound like it's never happened before ! 

Russia didn't "expose" them, the UK did. A large chunk of the world has been belly laughing about the Skirpal story since its inception, these guys are just a continuation of it, they have been shown on the news waiting at a train station or walking in the street somewhere whilst being Russian, there is no "proof" they did it. 

Sorry but I think even a half baked state would make a better job of disguising the identities of its assassins, these guys look identical to their pictures, did they REALLY think they wouldn't have to cover up ? 

I honestly don't know enough about that case so no idea. 

They could have disappeared into Russia easily. Britain cant do the slightest thing about it. Perhaps an enemy of the UK will send a couple of students into Russia with some of the left over poison and then blame it on the UK..... Im sorry mate im not buying it 

[hambone]

12 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Good post SpringDon.

I wasnt going to get involved with what will be the 4th (and soon to be locked) thread about Salisbury.

What would have been better, would be to wait until the presumed dead GRU officers/Underwear salesman/pharmacutical workers/tourists  (delete as applicable) made their televised statement/confession/excuse..
The fact that the media is referring to them by their presumed false names is a little strange dont you think ?
Maybe at the media 'outing' one of them will pull a face mask off and reveal himself to be none other than Vlad Putin, muttering "And Id have gotten away with it if it wasnt for them damn scientists making me a bad batch"

Whilst some go right out of their way to ridicule others stance, and others say they dont care, and are totally disinterested (yet keep coming back for a bite) it seems there are 2 distinct camps.

Those that believe the official line (because its on telly so it must be true innit)

And those that dont.

The fact is ,if you are happy with the 'official line' why are you even participating in what has become The Salisbury Conspiracy Thread(s) ?
If it means nothing to you, why are you here ?
Springdon and Scully pointed out that no one really gives a monkeys anyway, Hamster keeps going back to the M E because for hereditary reasons, thats where his heart lies.
I personally find it interesting to see what people will believe given the right (dis)information.
They say the bigger the lie, the easier it is to believe, the reason being, that no one would dare tell such a massive porkie.
That, in itself is worth considering.

As Ive mentioned before, and no one has challenged it, Sergei left his house that morning around 9am, there is evidence (CCTV) that he was driving around Salisbury at 9.15am.
There is evidence that they pulled into the car park in town at 1.30pm.
There is NO evidence he went back to his house, no CCTV, phone logs, sightings ect.
He and his daughter are reluctant or forbidden to state whether they did or not for some reason.
If he didnt go back, he couldnt have been contaminated by the 12 ish hit on his door handle.
Its small things like this that lend weight to my (conspiracy) theory.

Meanwhile in Russialand, the supposed 'spies' need a week to get their story straight before speaking to the press ?
But nobody outside of Russias going to believe them anyway, so why waste the time ?

Bit torn on these statements...(A) Don't believe all I see on tv and certainly not politicians...(B) Don't believe those I believe are off with the fairies. Apologies to OP and Mods I've lost track about what the threads about.  

[Mungler]

Turns out the 2 Russian tourists booked 3 separate return tickets (which would explain how they arrived at Gatwick and went home via Heathrow).

Now I don’t know about you lot but when I book a weekend foreign trip, I always book a minimum of 3 separate airport return leg tickets.

Waiting for the tin foil hat brigade to rationalise this 🙄

[henry d]

11 hours ago, Hamster said:

 It IS plausible that they were simply here on ne'er do well illegal stuff for the Russian Oligarch/underworld and just happen to be a good fit for the assassin story. 

 

10 hours ago, Hamster said:

There is no irrefutable evidence anywhere from any side, it's all theorising. We make our own deductions based on a host of different variables, supplied information and pre-existing conditions.

Ok, a deductive reason is one where the initial premise is true and leads us to a true conclusion, so the first statement has no truth in it, it is assumed, so the conclusion is also not true. If you don`t mean you used deductive reasoning and meant inductive, then the best outcome from that is it could be possibly true. The evidence we have is their version of events, but as you say below you, and I and many others, thought it unconvincing and this allows us to ask "Well why were they there?". To then say they could be doing some other nefarious thing is absurd and you have no evidence for it, there is evidence, however scant, for them to be involved with the poisoning of the Skripals.

 

11 hours ago, Hamster said:

The interview "performance" of the "suspects" did strike me as unconvincing too, <section snipped for clarity>, just that these guys came across as suspicious in their own right. I too don't believe visiting Salisbury Cathedral etc, for a couple of middle aged friends is plausible.

 

[Hamster]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

 

Ok, a deductive reason is one where the initial premise is true and leads us to a true conclusion, so the first statement has no truth in it, it is assumed, so the conclusion is also not true. If you don`t mean you used deductive reasoning and meant inductive, then the best outcome from that is it could be possibly true. The evidence we have is their version of events, but as you say below you, and I and many others, thought it unconvincing and this allows us to ask "Well why were they there?". To then say they could be doing some other nefarious thing is absurd and you have no evidence for it, there is evidence, however scant, for them to be involved with the poisoning of the Skripals.

 

 

Scant evidence is no evidence, you cannot prosecute people on scant, if there is strong evidence actually linking these two to a poisoning crime then let the government show us. In the absence of actual irrefutable evidence they're just guilty of being Russians in Salisbury.