How plausible is this alternate theory of the UK Russian spy poisoning?
Here's the theory: Back in the 1980s, the Soviets provided the nerve agent to one of the governments in the Middle East, perhaps Libya. During a recent conflict, the facility where it was stored was captured by ISIS or some other terror group and the poison fell into their hands. The terrorists targeted a known Russian spy in England to stir up an incident between the West and Russia, ideally to spark a conflict wherein the two biggest enemies of ISIS fight each other. .... .... ... ... ... ... . Terrorism is asymmetric warfare, you should expect the unexpected. ....... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... Of course this is just a theory, but what do you think, is it plausible?
It's possible. It's also possible that the West got their hands on some, as was SOP during the Cold War.
I guess that's the other foreseeable alternate theory: a false flag. When I look at the shrill tone of the British response, and the speed at which they reached the decision to blame it on Russia, the way the rest of the West has moved in lock step to condemn Russia without anyone demanding additional proof, they seem to be awfully ... enthusiastic... a little too certain. Where do they get their certainty from? Nothing they've disclosed publicly makes me certain. If it was a false flag though, it would explain their certainty.
Excepting the wary alliance during WW II, Russia has been viewed as our enemy for a century, at least. The Cold War cemented that into the American psyche. Hollywood has played that up for decades, as have prominent authors. Americans, by and large, have a deep distrust of Russia, as does the West overall. Ironically, all the books, all the movies, indeed, all the politicians who have fueled the distrust have done so by portraying the Russians as being exceptionally clever at clandestine endeavors.
Yet suddenly, we are told that Russia is inept at...well, pretty much everything. A teenage hacker could do a better job of covering their tracks than we are told the Russian government did. Our "intelligence" agencies determined with "high confidence" that Russia hacked the DNC without ever examining anything. Personally, that leads me to believe more in the ineptness of our government than Russia's.
Russian hacking is the narrative the public had been fed, however, and most have eagerly swallowed it. While the Democrats have really pushed this narrative, the reality of the two-party illusion was clearly demonstrated by the 517-5 vote in favor of sanctioning Russia. The message is clear, Russia is our enemy. Not just America's, but the West's. Following the claims of Russia hacking our election, we heard about them meddling in several European countries as well, and with the same ineptness, leaving obvious fingerprints all over. Anyone with an ounce of sense should be able to see through this. For the 45 years of the Cold War, Russia was a formidable enemy...yet now they couldn't hack as well as a 12-year old nerd?
The bottom line is that we always have to have an enemy. For 45 years, Russia filled that position, longer than anyone else, and so easy to portray again as such. Since 2001, the enemy has been Muslim terrorists...but as opposition to more and more migrants and refugees from the ME grows, governments are trying to downplay their effect in countries that are overwhelmed with them. Look at Europe, the MSM there doesn't accurately report what is happening. European governments are responding to anyone who speaks out about it by levying fines, raiding homes, imprisoning them, threatening social media platforms with fines unless such posts are immediately censored, and banning people from visiting countries.
So suddenly Russia once again becomes the boogie man...but not everyone is buying the sloppy hacking narrative. So now we have a sloppy assassination, with obvious fingerprints announcing the culprit. The speed and certainty with which the West condemn others of misdeeds is striking to me. Color me jaded, Maze, but I think my scenario more likely than yours.
As always...JMHO
Interesting article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news...ssia-says.html
Yeah, that is interesting. Have you seen this one?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news...air-vents.html
Interesting. Not believable, but interesting.
Let's see if I have this correct: First it was thought it was put in the daughter's suitcase, then in the house (which doesn't negate the suitcase theory), and now it was administered via the car's ventilation system. Hmmm.
The suitcase theory is just stupid. Aside from the fact it would definitely target the daughter, but not necessarily the father, a suitcase could be randomly searched at the airport, completely missing the supposed target.
They will have to pretzelate their story if they settle on the car's ventilation system, as the officer being treated in the hospital for exposure was not at the scene where the two were found, but sent to the house to investigate. Not to mention that they spent some 3-3-1/2 hours in town prior to being found on the bench. Inhalation of such a deadly substance doesn't gibe with that. Now conceivably someone could have tampered with their car while they were in one of the establishments they visited that day, but the likelihood it happened that way is next to nil, as there are CCTV cameras everywhere.
Did you know the daughter used to work at the US Embassy in Moscow? Just an interesting aside.
And here's another take on things:
https://www.irishtimes.com/opin...ning-1.3425736
What I'm fairly sure of is that barring a false flag, it wasn't a major state actor. The amateurish nature of the attack is witness to that.
Besides, I've never heard any rational explanation from Russia's accusers of what Russia was hoping to have happen there. You know? Like, if you're Putin and you order that attack, what's the best case scenario?
Agreed.
Russia had him in prison prior to the swap. If they wanted him dead he would have been dead.
Oh, and another interesting aside: The man who invented Novichok currently lives in the US.
Everything is possible, but is it plausible? I'd call no, not in this case. Terrorist organizations are quite straight-forward in their methods, they cannot rely on other people doing their job for them. It's like chess and checkers. The board is pretty much the same, but the game is different. Both the US and USSR were playing chess, but the silly ragheads (sorry if that sounds racist) were going for checkers. These days, though, they have developed more sophisticated tactics, in which case such a scenario would be possible.
I think the reporter, who figured out this "plot" has had a bit too much LSD. I should know. I recognize the symptoms.
A terrorist would more likely call the media 5 minutes later and say. "We did it!" They want the attention.
As many countries and even private companies, who have or have developed nerve agents of the decades, almost any scenario is possible.
Anything is plausible...and there is a lot fishy going on...happy someone posted about it....
I've even heard that some Canadians have started to play hockey, on ice! Can't believe that could be true... You don't even know what the puck looks like... It's like a bowling ball, but not quite similar to it.
You must be getting confused with curling...ha.
Well, I am competing in the brain-dead category, but...
I hear the people of Finland are the happiest in the world... Why is that?
We drink a lot of coffee and read a lot of literature?
Almost anything is plausible. The only thing to be sure of is that whatever the governments and media say is definately not it.