Pages

Sunday, August 2, 2020

So, If It Wasn't 'The Russians,' Who Was It?

This is really awkward. Via Zerohedge, it appears that the supposed Novichok poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal by "the Russians" was, well, made up by the British. In other words, the evidence was submitted to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and OPCW said, Nope, nothing Russian about this stuff. But the British kept saying it was, anyway, and even got The Financial Times to help fake the story.

Austria officially confirmed this week that the British Government’s allegation that Novichok, a Russian chemical warfare agent, was used in England by GRU, the Russian military intelligence service, in March 2018, was a British invention.
Investigations in Vienna by four Austrian government ministries, the BVT intelligence agency, and by Austrian prosecutors have revealed that secret OPCW reports on the blood testing of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, copies of which were transferred to the Austrian government, did not reveal a Russian-made nerve agent.
Two reports, published in Vienna this week by the OE media group and reporter Isabelle Daniel, reveal that the Financial Times publication of the cover-page of one of the OPCW reports exposed a barcode identifying the source of the leaked documents was the Austrian government. The Austrian Foreign Ministry and the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz und Terrorismusbekämpfung (BVT), the domestic intelligence agency equivalent to MI5 or FBI, have corroborated the authenticity of the documents.
The Austrian disclosures also reveal that in London the Financial Times editor, Roula Khalaf, four of the newspaper’s reporters,  and the management of the Japanese-owned company have fabricated a false and misleading version of the OPCW evidence and  have covered up British government lying on the Skripal blood testing and the Novichok evidence.

This leaves my whole worldview in smoking ruins so please don't try to tell me there's a Chris Steele angle to this story--not while I'm still in mourning for my lost innocence.

The next thing you know, we'll be asked to believe that the CIA fabricated the "Russiagate" evidence, that "the Russians" didn't actually hack the DNC. 

Oh, the disillusion!

14 comments:

  1. Mr. Wauck,

    There is actually--a Steele angle that is. I know you were being sarcastic, but you didn't include any links. Steele was apparently the MI6 handler either for Skripal or one of Skripal's mentors. I can't remember, it's been a while since I've read up on this; I've found the best source to be this British blog. https://www.theblogmire.com/category/skripal-case/

    He doesn't flat out say the Russians didn't poison the Skripals, only that whoever did it didn't use Novichok, which seems irrefutable by the fact that the alleged victims of the world's deadliest nerve agent are still alive.

    Before Igor Danchenko was unmasked, speculation had it that Skripal might have been one of the sources for the dossier. That seems much less likely now, as all fingers point to Danchenko having made the whole thing up. There is another theory based on confirmed reports that the daughter was homesick and wanted to return to Russia; under this theory MI6 dosed the Skripals with a high dose of Fentanyl in order to convince them that Putin was trying to kill them, a strange thing to do by a man who had approved their exchange just a few short years previously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to ASS-U-ME that was sarcasm and you were aware of the Steele connection to the Skripal farce.

      Delete
    2. Right. I screwed up the comments. The one I intended as a reply is beneath.

      Delete
  2. Ah, thanks. I have things to do this afternoon, so I was hoping someone would pick up that thread. Thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Reminds me of the story of Kim Jong-Un supposedly murdering his own brother with weird poison in some place like Singapore. The brother was apparently fond of western life, and was next in line to govern North Korea. So Kim murders his own brother? Um - I don't know but I can think of a huge Communist country (Not North Korea) with massive secret police who would NOT want a pro-western North Korea, and which has the means and the will to murder anybody they want with any fake "evidence" they want to spread, to keep everybody under control. But China didn't kill Kim's brother, and Kim is just too crazy to control, and China just doesn't know what to do about him. Yeah. OK. Sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought I heard somewhere that it was his half brother and that it was Kim's reportedly psycho sister who ordered it.

      Or was it ... Putin!

      Delete
  4. The Salisbury Poisonings Two Years On: A Riddle, Wrapped in a Cover Up, Inside a Hoax

    The official story:
    -------
    13:40 – Sergei and Yulia Skripal go to The Mill pub.

    14.20 – The Spripals eat at the Zizzi restaurant.

    15:35 – The Skripals leave the Zizzi restaurant.
    ------

    ==========

    What really happened:
    ------
    The Skripals went to Zizzis between about 2:00pm and 2:45pm, and then on to the Mill from around 3:00pm to 3:30pm.
    ------

    British Intelligence officials tried to seize the Skripals at the Mill, but something went wrong there.

    The Skripals intended to travel back to Russia, where Sergei Skripal intended to tell what he knew about Christopher Steele.

    British Intelligence officials intended to stop the Skripals from traveling to Russia. After those officials failed to seize the Skripals at the Mill, they concocted a false story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huge story, but it'll be buried by the complicit media.

      Delete
  5. re "the CIA fabricated the evidence"

    I read this stuff almost 4 years ago.

    How could this information sit there for 4 years, and no one uses it in a productive way?

    It just boggles the mind.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Like Pan Am 103? 30+ years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Next thing the Austrians or some other third rate intelligence capability will be telling us (ha ha) that they can prove that John Brennan doesn't always tell the truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Incontheivable!

      Delete
    2. Right, or maybe that getting into a land war in (Eur)Asia is a good idea.

      Delete
    3. But...we've always been at war with Eurasia.

      Delete