Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy attack

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby Jerky » Mon Mar 19, 2018 3:40 pm

If you think that isn't a conscious, purposeful visual reference to political art of the past, then you don't understand what motivates political cartoonists.

Also - BRAVO to whoever created that recent one!

J.
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:27 pm

Jerky » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:40 pm wrote:Also - BRAVO to whoever created that recent one!


Really? It's political malpractice, dumb as rocks, and an aesthetic crime. A kind of illustration of everything wrong with the Russia conspiracy fantasy - everyone's fascism (and Catalonia's harmless nationalism, which has been met with the suspension of democracy and rights in Spain) exonerated as a foreign plot.

At least this bullshit wasn't going full-on yet in 2015 or I would have had to hear how the Greek NO referendum was also Putin's fault, and probably would have punched someone.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby alloneword » Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:40 pm

Rory » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:21 pm wrote:Alloneword, I know Steve Bell pretty well. I've not seen a huge amount of his work the last few years but over time I would see it every other week or so, for a couple of decades. I'd go as far as to say I like him and what he does - if I was generous, id say he misjudged the tone of this cartoon a bit. Certainly, given the direction his employers have gone, he's done well not to have his reputation shellacked the way most of their journalists have. The outfit has no credibility anymore, except perhaps in a few far flung corners of the former empire.

...

The regime propaganda broadcaster came out with a rare bit of unintentional honesty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-polit ... ssion=true


Rory, I absolutely agree with you regarding the 'outfit' that signs Bell's paycheques - a nest of shit-weasels, with standards of journalistic integrity personified by that clown Luke Harding. I frankly wouldn't wrap my chips in it.

I'm left wondering whether the first impression of the 'spider' cartoon, c/w Red Star - of it being genuinely 'anti-Russian' - was maybe what got it past the censors... I mean I can't see Harding penning a piece likening May's propaganda efforts to Goebbels anytime soon.

Good spot on the BBC slip there... that sort of thing is usually reserved for page 9 or so of The Times. :wink:
User avatar
alloneword
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby Sounder » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:00 pm

One of the best things I ever learned was from a book by IIRC Peter Lang titled Philosophical style.

He said that back in the day 'teachers' would make exaggerated expressions of orthodoxy as their only means of waking up or providing a clue to their students that, 'things are not quite right'.

This solved many a puzzle because I liked to read very old books.

Thanks Jack, sappy I know, but you help me maintain faith in humanity.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby Jerky » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:14 pm

Spare us the mock shock at the use of the octopus as a symbol for conspiracy, please, oh slingers of bullshit.

Here's a little history lesson, defending the NRA, so it isn't even politically simpatico with me. But it IS historically accurate about the use of octopuses as symbols of conspiracy.

Image

MANY links at original: https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007 ... ses_an.php

Of Octopuses and NRA

POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 19 APRIL 2007 11:40 AM
The Associated Press launched a story that, because an NRA cartoon had shown Bloomberg as an octopus trying to take over, and there were Nazi cartoons depicting Jews as octopuses, NRA must be antisemitic. The media picked it up, quite uncritically. "The eight-armed sea animal has been used as the Nazi representation of Jewish conspiracy and control, and was referenced by Adolf Hitler in "Mein Kampf,"" says AP.

A few minutes of research would have shown that the "octopus taking over" cartoon theme has been used by everybody to depict everybody (especially corporate and business interests), and in WWII was more often used by the Allies, with the fascists cast as the octopus.

Here, for example is a British cartoon depicting the fascist Japanese government as an octopus.

Here's an American leaflet (aimed at Japanese soldiers, and hence written in their language) that shows the Japanese hold on Taiwan as an octopus caught between FDR and Chiang Kai-Shek (translated, the message is that the alliance of China and the US will doom Japan).

And here's a wartime image showing the American eagle attacking the fascist octopus.

After the war, the octopus was used to depict the Soviets, and Stalin in particular and more recently, World Trade Organization. Here's a French cartoon that puts Bill Gate's head on a world-hugging octopus.

And in 19th century newspapers, the octopus was used to depict the liquor industry and the Southern Pacific Railroad's monopolistic plans, And in a 1904 Russian cartoon, it is used to depict British capitalists taking over Europe.

In fact, there's a website devoted to octopus propaganda, from which I got several of these images. It begins:

"Cephalopods are major figures in one of man's least noble popular enterprises: propaganda.

Despite their generally shy, retiring habits, octopus have long been used to connote villainy and dark intent. As such, they have also long been staples of propaganda illustrations....

Typically, the Enemy Octopus stands in for a nation or distinct community, and not as an individual. The octopus has been cast as Nazi, fascist, Jewish conspiracist and English imperialist. They've stood in for Antwerp, of all places. Stretch out the arms and they span the distance from 1904 Japan to 2003 internet, anti-Russian sentiment to anarchist website."
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby JackRiddler » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:50 pm

It's not the octopus metaphor as such. I have used the term Kochtopus, and described the U.S. parastate (or covert policy realm or the "CIA-plus") as an octopus with 50 heads and a thousand shared and unshared tentacles. I think the latter is as useful a way of understanding the structure as any.

It's also not organizational charts as such, of which after all the octopus concepts are a subset.I don't want to prohibit the use of octopus drawings because at times it has been used to propagate falsehoods and calumnies. Rather, I spoke in particular to the graphic you praised. The problem is that it's dumb as rocks, hooey that manages to be both paranoid and xenophobic, and at the same time to exonerate certain fascists of being home-grown. Also, I'll forgive you your holding an opinion I find false, but it would disturb me about you if you couldn't admit that the Putin octopus graphic is worthy of artistic misdemeanor charges, at the least.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby Jerky » Mon Mar 19, 2018 8:52 pm

In terms of pure stylistics, I am an admirer of the artist's smooth and chunky style. His caricatures are spot-on, both in physiognomy and physicality.

As for forgiving home grown fascists for accepting a leg-up from Putin's Kremlin, I would never dream of doing such a thing. Just as I hold the American Green Party and assorted Far Left Tankies in extremely low regard. As for Spain and Catalonia, well, there's an extremely complex history to be taken into account there.

Here's a decent primer from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29478415

Suffice it to say that it's not at all clear that even 50 percent plus one of the residents of Catalonia wish to break away from Spain (which would significantly fuck people in the rest of the country, by the way) and even all that is beside the point of Russian organized crime's ongoing investment in Catalonia (and other areas in Spain) as a Mediterranean pied-a-tere for their operations.

Anyway. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's curious how Julian Assange, the on air staff at RT and other Useful Idiots and intel assets shed so many Twitter tears over the heavy handed police tactics in Spain, praising independence movements in toto, while remaining mum on Russia's take-over of chunks of Ukraine, Georgia, and whatever else lies in wait from some people's favorite Gangster/Dictator for Life, Putin.

J.
User avatar
Jerky
 
Posts: 2240
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: Toronto, ON
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby Rory » Tue Mar 20, 2018 10:50 am

alloneword » Mon Mar 19, 2018 1:40 pm wrote:
Rory » Mon Mar 19, 2018 2:21 pm wrote:Alloneword, I know Steve Bell pretty well. I've not seen a huge amount of his work the last few years but over time I would see it every other week or so, for a couple of decades. I'd go as far as to say I like him and what he does - if I was generous, id say he misjudged the tone of this cartoon a bit. Certainly, given the direction his employers have gone, he's done well not to have his reputation shellacked the way most of their journalists have. The outfit has no credibility anymore, except perhaps in a few far flung corners of the former empire.

...

The regime propaganda broadcaster came out with a rare bit of unintentional honesty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-polit ... ssion=true


Rory, I absolutely agree with you regarding the 'outfit' that signs Bell's paycheques - a nest of shit-weasels, with standards of journalistic integrity personified by that clown Luke Harding. I frankly wouldn't wrap my chips in it.

I'm left wondering whether the first impression of the 'spider' cartoon, c/w Red Star - of it being genuinely 'anti-Russian' - was maybe what got it past the censors... I mean I can't see Harding penning a piece likening May's propaganda efforts to Goebbels anytime soon.

Good spot on the BBC slip there... that sort of thing is usually reserved for page 9 or so of The Times. :wink:


It amazes me Harding has a public facing, paid job. He's a plagiarist - caught red handed, admitted on his part, yet he still, somehow, has gainful employment in a "respected" media outlet. I see him posted on here, every time he has some hack, Russia bullshit. It's amazing really - cognitive dissonance rules the roost for certain folk.

I'm prepared to admit my reaction to Bell's cartoon might not give him the credit he deserves. Without confirmation I have no way of knowing for sure, but I'm happy to say he maybe is sanitizing the NATO propaganda campaign re Russia, and that its a subtle rebuke of their growing nazi esque tendancies.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Mar 20, 2018 9:14 pm

The scientist who developed “Novichok”: “Doses ranged from 20 grams to several kilos”

20.03.2018

The Bell was able to find and speak with Vladimir Uglev, one of the scientists who was involved in developing the nerve agent referred to as “Novichok”. According to British authorities, a nerve agent from the “Novichok” series was used to poison former Rusian intelligence agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia. Vladimir Uglev, formerly a scientist with Volsk branch of GOSNIIOKHT (“State Scientific-Research Institute for Organic Chemistry and Technology”), which developed and tested production of new lethal substances since 1972, spoke for the first time about his work as early as the 1990s. He left the institute in 1994 and is now retired.


Vladimir Uglev. Credit: Uhlev’sown photo archive
– The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs insists that there was no research nor development of any substance called “Novichok”, not in Russia, nor in the USSR. Is that true?

– In order to make it easier to understand the subject matter, I will not use the name “Novichok” which has is now commonly used by everyone to describe those four substances which were conditionally assigned to me to develop over a period of several years. Three of these substances are part of the “Foliant” program, which was led by Pyotr Kirpichev, a scientist with GOSNIIOKHT (State Scientific-Research Institute for Organic Chemistry and Technology). The first substance of a new class of organophosphorous chemical agents, I will call it “A-1972”, was developed by Kirpichev in 1972. In 1976, I developed two substances: “B-1976” and “C-1976”. The fourth substance, “D-1980”, was developed by Kirpichev in the early 1980s. All of these substances fall under the group referred to as “Novichkov”, but that name wasn’t given to the substances by GOSNIIOKHT.

All four chemical agents are “FOS” or organophosphorous compounds which have a nerve paralyzing effect, but they differ in their precursors, how they were discovered and in their usage as agents of chemical warfare.

In the scientific group led by Kirpichev, several hundred modifications of this class of agents were discovered. Therefore, I can say with a high degree of certainty that no matter which new substances were developed, none of them exceeded the toxic properties of those listed above.

One of these substances was used to poison the banker, Ivan Kivelidi and his secretary in 1995. A cotton ball, soaked in this agent, was rubbed over the microphone in the handset of Kivelidi’s telephone. That specific dose was developed by my group, where we produced all of the chemical agents, and each dose which we developed was given its own complete physical-chemical passport. It was therefore not difficult to determine who had prepared that dose and when it was developed. Naturally, the investigators also suspected me. I was questioned several times about this incident.

In contrast to former GOSNIIOKHT scientist Vil Mirzayanov, who emigrated to the U.S. and is the author of the book “State Secrets: An Insider’s Chronicle of the Russian Chemical Weapons Program”, Uglev didn’t leave Russia. Mirzayanov gave several interviews over the past few days; these interviews provided most of what is known about “Novichok”. Russian authorities did not officially confirm the development of these nerve agents, actually, quite the opposite: on the 17th of March, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated that there was never, not in Russia, nor in the USSR, “any research which was called or had the code name ‘Novichok’.” Zakharova also named the U.S., UK and other countries as the most likely sources of the chemical agents. However, RIA Novosti published an interview today with a person called Leonid Rink, who is also identified in the text as the “developer of ‘Novichok’.”

– For what purpose were the chemical agents developed?

– This fell under the “Foliant” program which was ordered by the Ministry of Defense. The agents were designed as alternative to the Soviet analogy of the American nerve agent, VX.

– Which specific laboratory developed the chemical agent which we now refer to as “Novichok”?

– The Volsk branch of GOSNIIOKHT, which is in the Saratov region.

– Where was the pilot produced and in what quantity?

– In the laboratory itself. Sometimes in pilot production, but also using the laboratory table and equipment. Doses generally ranged from 20 grams to several kilos.

– Where was the agent stored?

– Small doses were stored by Pyotr Kirpichev and myself – in our working room in a metal sealed box safe. Large doses were stored in a special warehouse in sealed packaging. I don’t know anything else about what then happened to the doses beyond where they were stored.

– Did you work on these agents for a long time?

– According to my records, from 1972 until 1988.

Subscribe to our English newsletter and be the first to get our scoops and insider view on major Russian news.

– If a chemical agent was first synthesized in the 1970s, would it be possible that there might have been later, improved versions, after you stopped working?

– I don’t think so. Pyotr Kirpichev’s group synthesized several hundred analogues of this series.

– It is possible to say with confidence that Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned with an agent from the “Novichok” series, or could it be confused with a nerve agent like, for example, VX (an organophosphorous poisonous agent first developed in the UK in 1952 – The Bell)?

– It’s unlikely to be confused with VX, but with Zoman and Zarin (nerve paralyzing gases – The Bell), it’s possible, but only before the laboratory investigation has begun. The chemical agents in our, as you called it, series, are extremely tenacious.

– In a recent interview which he gave to “Novaya Gazeta”, Mirzayanov says that a comparative analysis, was most likely conducted using samples from the victims of the poisoning, by comparing these samples with a formula which British specialists could have taken from his book. Could that be true?

– If you take a formula from that book you could conduct screening for several years. But specific agents and precursors for these agents are not included in his book.

– How could the person who poisoned Skripal and his daughter have done so without put himself in danger?

– Agents should be transported in a container suitable for combat use. It is likely that within this container the chemical agents were put on some kind of carrier (cotton balls, powder, ready-made poisonous elements). All of the container’s external surfaces must be covered in a degassing solution and wiped with a solvent. Therefore, the person who carried out the attack does not need to defend himself.

– The Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson said that in order to specifically identify the chemical agent which was used, the British authorities must have had a sample of the nerve agent in their possession. How could the British have gotten their hands on a sample?

– The British, just like the Germans, are excellent chemists who can with one hint do what in Moscow is classified as top secret. In addition, the secret was already 20 years old in 1993. So the question should be directed to those specialists charged with protecting state secrets: is it possible to keep such information secret without any leaks?

– Why is Russia demanding that the British send a blood sample from the victims?

– From the remains of the chemical agents in the blood, it is possible, with the aid of various types of analyses, to determine where the specific dose was produced and by whom. I suspect that modern methods of analysis have even improved on what we had some 30 years ago.

– Is there even a minimal chance that the victims of the poisoning might recover?

– If Skripal and his daughter received a lethal dose of B-1976, C-1976, or D-1980, then, most likely, they will suffer the same fate as earlier victims. There is no antidote to these agents. I can say with nearly 100% certainty that if Skripal and his daughter are taken off of life support, they will die, although they are now only technically alive.

– Who could know the chemical formula for “Novichok”?

– In Russia, I would estimate, several dozen people.

– Did you ever share the formula? For example, in the media in the mid-1990s, when they were trying to confirm the development of new chemical agents?

– I never shared and I don’t intend to share the chemical formula for those agents. I never said which type of chemical combinations they are produced from. [I have said] only that they are related to the class of new generation nerve paralyzing agents.

– Why did the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) under the United Nations, if one finds their minutes from their meetings to be true, fail three times to find proof of production of this agent (searches began after the publication of Mirzayanov’s book in 2008)?

– It’s impossible to find a black button in a dark room. Moreover, the cat simply wasn’t there, because there wasn’t any production in the USSR, and Russia then was preoccupied with other things. The fact that the OPCW totally ignored our mutual statement with Mirzayanov in 1993 about the existence of agents of chemical warfare in Russia was a gross violation of the (Chemical Weapons) Convention, as signatory countries to the Convention are required to report the development of new substances, the most powerful of which are agents of chemical warfare (Russia only signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997 – The Bell).

– The media reported that “Novichok” supposedly exists as a “binary weapon” – the toxin is transferred via two less dangers substances, and when it is time to use the chemical agent, only then are the substances mixed together. It has also been suggested that “Novichok” could have been used for the attempt in London. Are the series of agents referred to as “Novichok” binary weapons?

– No one ever had any binary weapons. I think that several of my colleagues, just like I did, tried to work on this idea, but I don’t know a single binary weapon, not for VX, not for other types of chemical weapons. At least for the period up until 1994.

– In which form do the nerve paralyzing agents which we refer to as “Novichok” come in?

– Of the four substances, only the last one, D-1980, can be in powder form. The other three are liquid.

– How did British scientists manage to determine that the victims were poisoned with “Novichok”?

– So far, I have only read the confirmation by Theresa May that Skripal and his daughter were poisoned by nerve paralyzing agents. British scientists have not said anything yet.

– What was role did Vil Mirzayanov, now commonly referred to as the developer of “Novichok”, really play in the development of the agent? What was he actually responsible for?

– Mirzayanov didn’t have any role in the creation or even testing of synthesis methods to develop the technology behind “Novichok”, as he was in GOSNIIOKHT, and as far as I know, he was the head of the foreign counterintelligence department. His role, just like his department’s role, was to develop methods for control and for controlling the air space around the territory of GOSNIIOKHT in Moscow. His role as a scientist was only chromatography. Valeria Novodvorskaya first referred to Mirzayanov as the developer and “father of ‘Novichok’”, and Mirzayanov, it appears, really liked this, although he himself never confirmed this to be true, but Mirzayanov also never denied it when journalists described him as such.

I believe that it is time to say that Pyotr Petrovich Kirpichev is the only person behind the new type of FOS (organophosphorous compounds), a new category of specialized chemistry, and that this talented and modest chemist was responsible for the scientific discoveries in this area. I find it my duty to state this in his name and in his memory.

– And Leonid Rink, who is referred to in today’s RIA Novosti interview as the developer of “Novichok”, did you know him?

– Leonid Rink did actually work in our institute. But his group was responsible for the development [of those substances] only at the very end, when it became clear that a binary agent could not be developed from them. My group and Rink’s group both reported to Kirpichev. Rink’s group was tasked with developing my technology. At that point in time, it was clear to everyone that the days for chemical weapons in the USSR were already numbered.
https://thebell.io/en/the-scientist-who ... ral-kilos/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Mar 21, 2018 5:42 am

Image
Daniel Sandford Verified Account
@BBCDanielS

I am Home Affairs Correspondent for BBC News.
Police, prisons, law, crime and terrorism.
Before that Moscow Correspondent so still tweet about Russia/Ukraine.



Daniel Sandford retweeted Russian Embassy, UK

Russia still demanding access to Yulia Skripal. A bit like a father under suspicion of trying to kill his daughter demanding to be allowed to see her in hospital.

Russian Embassy, UK

Verified Account

@RussianEmbassy

15 days passed since the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. UK hasn’t complied with its obligation under the Vienna consular convention to provide access to the Russian citizens and to the course of investigation.


08:22 - 19. March 2018


https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/9 ... 9440905216


Click on the link to see the 83 responses to this shamelessly warmongering spook hack. Encouragingly, those responses are almost unanimously sane and scornful.


@cosmicblueprint
19. March
Reply to @BBCDanielS

The pro-Establishment anti-Russian bias is so apparent in the mainstream media, you can almost begin to imagine MI5/MI6 operatives work clandestinely inside the BBC, ITV and Fleet Street.


@MisterSWH
21hours ago

MI5 even had an office at the BBC to screen staff until the late 60s. Saville slipped through though.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby alloneword » Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:49 am

Cheers for that, Mac... restored my faith a little.

My favourite:

알렉산더 대왕
‏ @Binomo_Rebel
Replying to @BBCDanielS

It looks like you do not befriend your head, Daniel, and it highly or even overwhelmingly likely is incurable

12:33 PM - 20 Mar 2018
User avatar
alloneword
 
Posts: 902
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:19 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:24 am

Russian spy poisoning: chemist says non-state actor couldn't carry out attack

Vil Mirzayanov, who worked with the chemical novichok under Soviets for 30 years, says even he would not know how to weaponize it

Tom McCarthyLast modified on Fri 16 Mar 2018 22.12 EDT

The Russian chemist who revealed the existence of the novichok family of chemical agents to the world has dismissed the notion that a non-state actor could be behind the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England, earlier this month.


Vil Mirzayanov, 83, said the chemical was too dangerous for anyone but a “high-level senior scientist” to handle and that even he – who worked for 30 years inside the secret military installation where novichok was developed and gained extensive personal experience in handling the agent – would not know how to weaponize it.

He said he did not see how a criminal organization or other non-state group could pull off such an attack.

“It’s very, very tough stuff,” Mirzayanov told the Guardian at his home in New Jersey, where he has lived in exile since 1996. “I don’t believe it.

“You need a very high-qualified professional scientist,” he continued. “Because it is dangerous stuff. Extremely dangerous. You can kill yourself. First of all you have to have a very good shield, a very particular container. And after that to weaponize it – weaponize it is impossible without high technical equipment. It’s impossible to imagine.”

The British government has announced sanctions against Moscow over the poisoning of Skripal, and the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, said on Friday it was “overwhelmingly likely” that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, personally took the decision to use the nerve agent against the ex-spy.

But the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said on Wednesday that the chemical agent identified in the Salisbury attack could have been used by someone else other than the Russian state, and a Corbyn spokesperson suggested a “mafia-like group” or “oligarchic interests in London” might have been responsible.

Mirzayanov said those theories did not make sense owing to the facilities and multiple layers of expertise that would be required to prepare such an attack.

Chemists synthesizing the agent would have to be working somewhere with an antidote close at hand, he said, and they would have to be working with someone who knew how to weaponize it, which, he emphasized, he himself did not.

“We had no idea how to weaponize it,” he said. “We don’t know because it’s not our business.”

Weaponization would also need to take place at a different facility from the one where the agent was made, he said.

Mirzayanov said the perpetrator of the attack must have been the Russian state.

“No one country has these capabilities like Russia, because Russia invented, tested and weaponized novichok,” he said.

The theory that the agent was stolen for use in a crime was weak for similar reasons, Mirzayanov said.

“If you steal it, and after that, what to do with that?” he said. “You cannot weaponize, no exceptions, you cannot weaponize that.”

Mirzayanov further said that there was probably no current stockpile of novichok to steal, because it has a limited shelf life and the preferred form would be a binary version in which two relatively benign, non-banned substances were mixed to produce novichok.

“The final product, in storage, after one year is already losing 2%, 3%. The next year more, and the next year more. In 10-15 years, it’s no longer effective.”

Mirzayanov worked inside the secret military installation where novichok was developed; his job was testing the surrounding air and soil for traces of novichok.

When he realized that Moscow’s military was lying about the possible applications of novichok and that the program risked undermining global chemical weapons bans, he said, he decided to expose it, publishing his first account in the Russian press in 1991.

He was arrested in 1994 and charged with divulging state secrets. Intervention by the US government, the Soros foundation and activists including his wife Gale, an American, secured his asylum in the United States.

Mirzayanov thinks the Salisbury attack was performed with a binary version of the agent brought through customs and automatically mixed at the time of the attack.

Quick guide
How hard is it to make a nerve agent?

“I believe they brought binary version,” Mirzayanov said. “It’s two ampules, small containers, like a big bullet, put them together in a spray or something, and after that, some mechanism which is mixing them, a couple seconds and after that you’re shooting.”

Mirzayanov said the danger for people in the area of the attack before or afterward would depend on the dosage used. “It’s extremely poisonous, about 10 times more potent than VX gas,” he said. “It could touch any skin and in a couple minutes would take effect.”

The first sign of exposure is a shrinkage of pupils and darkening of vision, he said. “After that vomiting, [difficulty] breathing and convulsions.”

An antidote can delay or partially reverse the effects of the poison but would not necessarily save the life of the victim, he said.

Mirzayanov said he did not feel fear for himself or his family in speaking about novichok and Russia.

“It may be a little bit crazy, but when I decide something, I’m going exactly to do it, without any distraction, to some goal,” he said. “I’m a very determined person. Because of that, if I’ve decided, all of it is gone, any fear – I don’t feel any fear.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... are_btn_tw
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby American Dream » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:04 am

https://thegerasites.wordpress.com/2018 ... -the-soul/

Novichok for the Soul

By Connor P

Jeremy Corbyn and the murder of the Russian spy

People with unpalatable opinions rarely broadcast them in all their glory to the world. Instead they obfuscate by making impossible demands for evidence; deflect with whatabouttery, and make false equivalences with vague references to historical wrongs. The casual observer can never glean their true motives and opinions without undertaking more than a little work.

George Galloway, for example, would rage eloquently against the mendacity and double standards of the capitalist West for the BBC’s cameras without ever disclosing his own rotten values in full. A well-meaning viewer with a casual interest in politics might easily have caught Galloway on Question Time in 2004, in the midst of one of his famous tirades on the hypocrisy of US foreign policy — as it suffocating Iran with sanctions while simultaneously lining the pockets of Saudi Arabia with oil money and gorging itelf on arms deals — and think, “the man’s got a point”. You had to dig a bit deeper to find Galloway’s fawning interviews with the holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Press TV, or personally slobbering over Saddam Hussein in his palace.

Those who have followed the career of Galloway’s old friend Jeremy Corbyn know that he too is a veteran of the same section of the hard left that spent a generation in the political wilderness before launching its successful conquest of the Labour Party two years ago. But where Galloway’s narcissism, bullying and outright enthusiasm for fascism eventually revealed him for the fraudulent crank he is, Corbyn’s total lack of ambition prior to 2015 and gentle, fuddy duddy demeanour have shielded him from the same level of exposure.

For those that have followed Corbyn’s career, his attitude towards foreign despots has always been a source of anxiety. While he has never entered the same realms of brazen dictator worship as Galloway (with the notable exception of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro), Corbyn’s tendency towards tyrants of a certain nature has always been one of limp indifference at best and sympathy bordering on admiration at worst.

Corbyn’s reaction to the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal has shown him at his most troublingly — and publicly — equivocal over a dictator since he entered the spotlight of British politics. Since Theresa May confirmed her belief in Russian — and more specifically Vladimir Putin’s — culpability for the attack on Skripal, Corbyn has set to work busily debunking this logical conclusion with a level of conspiratorial scepticism and deflection that was once rarely seen in mainstream politics.

Corbyn has repeatedly cast doubt on “the evidence” that Russia and Putin were behind the attack, and, a week after May announced her conclusion, he still refuses to blame Moscow outright for commissioning it.

Corbyn claims to need “an absolute, definitive answer” on who supplied the novichok to murder Skripal before he rushes to judgment. But what grounds are there, really, for doubting Russian responsibility? Mr Skripal is a former spy and an enemy of the Russian state, who has been attacked with a chemical weapon created by the Soviet Union which is only realistically available to the Russian government. Russia has a history of similar attacks in Britain, and Vladimir Putin has a taste for ruthless displays of power and manufactured foreign threats — particularly at election time. Add to that the total absence of any other plausible explanation, and it is difficult to see how anyone could conclude that there was any reasonable doubt as to Russia’s guilt.

But this is apparently not enough to satisfy Corbyn. What would? Corbyn has remained vague and faintly ridiculous on this — absurdly suggesting that trustworthy Russia should be allowed to test the novichok used in order that they can confirm their culpability once and for all. The fact that Russia has already been given an opportunity to engage constructively with the UK, and has responded with contemptuous scorn and sarcasm, has apparently not swayed Corbyn from believing in the wisdom of this course of action.

Not content with this unmerited scepticism, Corbyn has also deflected attention away from Russia and Putin at every opportunity he has been given, either through the classic hard left tactic of raising the straw man of Western hypocrisy, or through simply talking about something similar but unrelated. Rather disgracefully, following Prime Minister’s Questions last week, Labour called into question the reliability of our own chemical weapons intelligence, making a not-so-subtle and totally specious comparison to the fabricated evidence used to justify entering the Iraq war. The fact that the two situations are not remotely analogous (for those seeking clarification: Russia attacked the UK; Iraq did not) would not deter him from, again, deliberately casting doubt on Russian responsibility.

Corbyn has also raised the two red herrings of war with Russia and Russian oligarchs. In an article for the Guardian, he urged the UK not to “slide into war” with Russia or to “create a division where none exists” before making more phoney calls for “dialogue”. The reality that in fact the only mainstream politicians mentioning war at all are Corbyn and his acolytes has not prevented him from using it as yet another way of deflecting attention away from the seriousness of the attack. Corbyn’s sudden interest in Russian oligarchs who stash their ill-gotten gains in London property is equally misleading: this is a good cause to raise at any time in Parliament except now, because whatever else they are guilty of (and that is a long list), “the oligarchs” are not responsible for the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal — and if any are, then they are accessories to Putin and his inner circle.

What is so frustrating about Corbyn is his ability to disguise his conspiracism in the language of measured, calm rationalism. In isolation, his words seem reasonable. As with Galloway, the casual observer could easily be forgiven for hearing Corbyn’s measured calls for “caution” and “evidence”, his warnings against war and subtle references to previous government failures that seem superficially relevant but actually aren’t, and think “the man’s got a point”.

But if one takes any time to think about it, it is clear that Corbyn’s reactions have been anything but rational. For what rational person could reach the conclusion — on no evidence whatsoever — that “mafia-like groups” are as likely to have obtained novichok and used it to murder an enemy of the state as Putin and his government cronies are? What rational person responds to a deliberate chemical attack on British soil, that puts the lives of several British citizens at risk, with whatabouttery? What rational person sees the expulsion of some diplomats — in response to a chemical weapon attack — as a disproportionate act of war?

It takes some effort to see Corbyn’s comments for what they really are. Unlike Galloway, Corbyn does not scream conspiracy, he implies it. He does not directly voice support, or make open apologies for Putin, but he does his work for him when he casts doubt on clear evidence of his guilt and employs open apologists like Seumas Milne and Andrew Murray as advisers. His foggy and equivocal stance on Russia should not be compared with the Theresa May’s — instead it should be compared to the clear and unambiguous terms in which he (often justifiably) condemns the USA, calls for immediate sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Israel and slams the Tories on domestic policy.

This makes being a Corbyn critic hard work. The task of first researching and then explaining his history to those with better things to do is long and arduous. Corbyn and his supporters maintain a veneer of respectability that makes it difficult for people with only a passing interest in politics to understand their insidiousness. As his critics work themselves into a frenzy over the morsels they are given, latching on to his associations with terrorists, anti-Semites and fascists that no one can remember anymore, in a desperate attempt to persuade an apathetic public that actually his “failures to condemn” and the people he calls his friends MEAN something, the majority laugh them off as the cranks, rather than the mild, kind-bearded leader of the opposition.

Perhaps the Skripal episode will change people’s minds. But it probably won’t.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby Elvis » Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:54 pm

"Conner P" wrote:

While he has never entered the same realms of brazen dictator worship as Galloway (with the notable exception of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro), Corbyn’s tendency towards tyrants of a certain nature


The quote above is all I need to know about "Conner P"—whether he consciously promoting the neoliberal line, or is merely their dupe. Literally wrapping Chavez and Maduro—both popular elected leaders (in case people need to be reminded)—in the words "dictator" and "tyrant."

I don't see anything "Pro-Democracy" about Thegerasites, in fact I see the opposite, I see all the usual neoliberal propaganda talking points


Here's what makes the article especially worthless, except as an example of imperialist opinion-making to be studied:

What is so frustrating about Corbyn is his ability to disguise his conspiracism in the language of measured, calm rationalism.


The last thing we need is measured, calm rationalism, right? And conspiracies exist only in the fervid imaginations of democracy-haters, right?

As much as anyone, "Conner P" and Theresa May and all the others are putting forward conspiracy theories. Like most of the worst, most gullible and adamant "conspiracy theorists," they have all the evidence they need.

What makes May's conspiracy theories so much more dangerous than those of the 500-lb guy in his mother's basement is that depending how she acts on them, a million people might be killed as a result.

More examples: Robert Mueller's investigation is based on developing conspiracy theories—that's how prosecutors proceed in such cases. Manafort was indicted for conspiracy. Watergate convictions were for conspiracy. Forged Niger documents were the product of a conspiracy. Etc. ad nauseum.


:?: Has the question been answered, why Putin and/or "the Russians" waited eight years to kill Skripal?

And, who benefits?
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Skripal: Theresa May set to hit back Russia over spy att

Postby DrEvil » Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:11 pm

^^Yeah, wow, that article was pretty fucking bad. One long character assassination. The guy could have just tweeted "Corbyn is a swivel-eyed loon. LOL!" and saved himself some time.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3972
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests