nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Skripal Salisbury Spooks

ShatterAlan

They are now suspected of blowing up a Czech installation 4 years before they nipped into England undetected and got wasted on dope and then smeared Novichok onto a door handle.

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Big Ears

I would think if anybody else started this thread it wouldn't even be in the conspiracy theory forum.

While it was initially a conspiracy to commit this act, the "interview" the two Russians gave once they got back home was so unbelievable (and probably intentionally so) it was basically admitting guilt.

I would say you'd be hard pressed finding people in the general population who didn't believe they did it, but of course that's the wonder of internet forums.

Dohnjoe

Big Ears wrote: »

I would think if anybody else started this thread it wouldn't even be in the conspiracy theory forum.

While it was initially a conspiracy to commit this act, the "interview" the two Russians gave once they got back home was so unbelievable (and probably intentionally so) it was basically admitting guilt.

I would say you'd be hard pressed finding people in the general population who didn't believe they did it, but of course that's the wonder of internet forums.

On the original threads for this, even the most hardcore conspiracy theorist on boards admitted it was obvious the GRU pulled it off

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You're trying to deflect.

Or paint me into a corner. And you'll trot out the "incredulity" argument again. You'll say that just because "I DON'T BELIEVE IT" doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Well, just because YOU believe it doesn't mean it DID happen. A laughable fairytale about two Russians who smoked a load of weed and left the most deadly (apparently) remnants in their hotel room, then went to Salisbury and smeared this crap on a door handle. It was then determined to be the most highly proofed poison EVER yet it was still exposed to bacteria and the elements. So toxic that they had to demolish the house but all other neighbours' houses were grand. The two victims of this assassination were found by the chief medical officer of the British Army, The victims have NEVER been spoken to.....Oh and the two clumsy perpetrators who could have just put a bullet in Skripla's head if that was the endgame, are now also part and parcel of an explosion in Tschecia.

Stay real, dude.:pac:

Oh christ I almost missed this. Again, you bring up incredulity, then you plunge into your versions of various facts surrounding the case acting incredulous at each one. Yes, apparently the two men did smoke weed, and according to a witness had a prostitute over the night before, and yes they did find traces of Novichok at that hotel, that doesn't fit into your movie/tv view of Russian agents? did something else happen?

I have no idea what "highly proofed poison" is, Novichok is a nerve agent, if someone sprays it on an object, e.g. a door handle, and you touch it, you aren't going to have a good time..

As far as I'm aware they didn't demolish the Skripal house, it was bought by the council last I heard, Dawn Sturgess's flat was demolished, surprisingly no one wants to live at a high profile property that was part of a nerve agent attack..

Yes, an army nursing colonel was one of the first people to help the Skripals, that didn't happen or?

The victims were repeatedly spoken to by doctors, nurses at the local hospital, police, investigators, and god knows who from UK internal security, Yulia did give an interview, and for obvious reasons they are both in hiding, but according to you, they weren't poisoned?

The "clumsy perpetrators" went to Salisbury, poisoned their target with a highly identifiable nerve agent and got out. That was their job. If they are poisoning an ex-spy with something so obvious as Novichok, they are hardly going to make an effort to cover their tracks. After claiming they were "nutritionalists" on national television, their photos were discovered in a military academy, they weren't exactly trying very hard. Likewise, when Litvinenko was poisoned with Polonium 210, it's not like the perpetrators really cared about covering their tracks either, they left evidence everywhere. And earlier this year, after Navalny was poisoned by Novichok, a fake call to the FSB revealed the plot. The whole point of these attacks was to leave the victims and rest of the world under no illusions who the perpetrators are.

Your version of events is?

mcmoustache

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You're trying to deflect.

Or paint me into a corner. And you'll trot out the "incredulity" argument again. You'll say that just because "I DON'T BELIEVE IT" doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Well, just because YOU believe it doesn't mean it DID happen. A laughable fairytale about two Russians who smoked a load of weed and left the most deadly (apparently) remnants in their hotel room, then went to Salisbury and smeared this crap on a door handle. It was then determined to be the most highly proofed poison EVER yet it was still exposed to bacteria and the elements. So toxic that they had to demolish the house but all other neighbours' houses were grand. The two victims of this assassination were found by the chief medical officer of the British Army, The victims have NEVER been spoken to.....Oh and the two clumsy perpetrators who could have just put a bullet in Skripla's head if that was the endgame, are now also part and parcel of an explosion in Tschecia.

Stay real, dude.:pac:

Did you get this stuff from Craig Murray?

The actions of the two KGB officers and their identity is well documented. They were caught on camera and their real identities were scraped from publicly available pictures online. If you think they were there to see the cathedral's spire (did you know it's 123 metres tall?), I'm not sure what to tell you.

ShatterAlan

robinph wrote: »

In case you'd forgotten, although it was quoted in the post you were responding to so not sure how you missed it... You proposed the following...

I just set out what evidence you'd need to provide in the event of you mermaid claims actually being made. Never said anything about if you'd actually made those claims, just giving you some pointers in how you'd need to support your potential theories.

You just stated that ALL the evidence points towards state involvement.

If you would care to provide a shred of this evidence I would be most grateful.

Again, you said ALL evidence. Could you provide just SOME of that "ALL", please?

ShatterAlan

robinph wrote: »

You'd need to start by providing details from your mermaid/ man experts and how they came to their conclusions, details on how the death of Jesus happened and of them being in the vicinity at the time, details in the age of them seeing as the Jesus character is thought to have lived 2000 odd years ago and details on their ability to control icebergs and the strong evidence around the ice berg having been behaving oddly at the time.

Saying you've got experts and strong evidence isn't the same as either actually existing.

Forgive me for being curt, but is this a rant fuelled by substances?

ShatterAlan

Fighting Tao wrote: »

It seems like a lot of conspiracy are terrified of communism being implemented via a great reset, yet they are pro-Russia who’s leader is rolling back on freedoms. Very odd altogether.

I’d be on board with this conspiracy too. The evidence is pointing at Russia.

It doesn't seem like that to me in the slightest. If it's your outlook then good luck to you.

And once again "the evidence is pointing at Russia".

I don't see any evidence pointing anywhere. So could you table this evidence/proof?

I'd be happy to review it and your findings.

ShatterAlan

mcmoustache wrote: »

Did you get this stuff from Craig Murray?

The actions of the two KGB officers and their identity is well documented. They were caught on camera and their real identities were scraped from publicly available pictures online. If you think they were there to see the cathedral's spire (did you know it's 123 metres tall?), I'm not sure what to tell you.

And that's evidence, is it?

Or is it just something that you want to believe?

I've heard (even from a mod) that ALL evidence points to Russian state involvement. Everyone on here seems to be an expert in how to "off" somebody, Polonium being the most efficient method, apparently.

Not a word from the Skripals, not a word from the British Army medic who allegedly found them. Not a word from the hotel staff who cleaned their room yet traces of this Novichovk was found there. How deadly is/was this toxin? A ridiculous story about it being put in Yulia's bag on a plane, then it was smeared on a door-handle but because it was so dreadfully toxic that the house had to be bulldozed but next door was grand, Another retarded story about it being on a cigarette butt.

Then our two MEN FROM U.N.C.L.E <Joe Stalin> are responsible for a Czech bombing years prior. :pac:

Who's the believer in flat Earth here?

robinph

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Forgive me for being curt, but is this a rant fuelled by substances?

Do you have yourself on ignore?

You made the mermaid conspiracy theory suggestions. I gave you the outline of what kind of evidence you'd need to provide in the event of you putting forward the mermaid situation. You then seem to be trying to make out that you didn't invent the crazy idea.

Try going back and re reading your own posts.

Also, you keep mentioning in various posts about mods responding to you which I think might be referring to me. Just an FYI on how forums work, I'm not a mod here. I'm just a user of this forum, although I hesitate to say "like yourself".

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

You just stated that ALL the evidence points towards state involvement.

If you would care to provide a shred of this evidence I would be most grateful.

Again, you said ALL evidence. Could you provide just SOME of that "ALL", please?

Evidence has already been provided in this thread, you haven't addressed it.

You haven't provided an alternative.

You haven't addressed my questions.

ShatterAlan

robinph wrote: »

Do you have yourself on ignore?

You made the mermaid conspiracy theory suggestions. I gave you the outline of what kind of evidence you'd need to provide in the event of you putting forward the mermaid situation. You then seem to be trying to make out that you didn't invent the crazy idea.

Try going back and re reading your own posts.

Also, you keep mentioning in various posts about mods responding to you which I think might be referring to me. Just an FYI on how forums work, I'm not a mod here. I'm just a user of this forum, although I hesitate to say "like yourself".

You have completely missed the point. Completely.

My talk of mermaids and unicorns and people rising from the dead are predicated on hearsay and rumour. That's why I brought said analogies up in the first place.

The reason for this, and I believe it's not difficult to digest, is that it cast a doubt on rumour and hearsay.

The RUMOUR (sans evidence) is that two guys travelled to England and poisoned a man and his daughter. It has been tabled that ALL evidence points to this being the case and with Russian governmental involvement.

Nothing, but nothing, proves this. Nothing other than talk.

The reason I brought up mermaids and unicorns is for JUST that fact. There is talk of their existence and yet that's all it is...talk. Nothing of proof or substance.

So if my analogies, metaphors, paradoxes and contradictions are too much to absorb, then fine. I don't wish to discuss things that I have never said were factual. Only to doubt things that are classed as factual because some people said they were.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Evidence has already been provided in this thread, you haven't addressed it.

You haven't provided an alternative.

You haven't addressed my questions.

What evidence?

I don't have to provide an alternative. We've been down this path before and it's a cul-de-sac that you are fabricating.

A poster said that ALL evidence points to Russian state involvement. You, or anyone else ought to be able to provide any of that evidence. Yet you can't.

You can't provide ANY of this evidence so your go-to is to demand that I provide an alternative explanation.

We can go back to Santa Claus if that helps. I don't believe that a fat man in a red costume can fly across the sky and squeeze down a chimney and leave gifts by the hearth. Your comeback is that "The gifts are there! Explain otherwise. Else you are just arguing from incredulity. You don't believe that reindeer can fly hence that's a good enough reason for stating that it didn't happen"

Do you see the game you're trying to play?

Your argument from incredulity trick carries no water whatsoever so you should probably try something a bit more convincing.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

What evidence?

You can start with my points in this post
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116987725&postcount=34

I don't have to provide an alternative.

You are denying something happened and you are too lazy to give an alternative.

Your argument so far is "The Russians didn't do it because I can't believe it, but I can't explain otherwise".

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

We can go back to Santa Claus if that helps. I don't believe that a fat man in a red costume can fly across the sky and squeeze down a chimney and leave gifts by the hearth. Your comeback is that "The gifts are there! Explain otherwise. Else you are just arguing from incredulity. You don't believe that reindeer can fly hence that's a good enough reason for stating that it didn't happen"

This is wrong and it demonstrates you don't understand the concept at all.

Scoffing at evidence is not a valid argument against it. Acting incredulous about some event in history doesn't mean it didn't happen. Doing this repeatedly, and then refusing to provide any counter-explanation demonstrates that you are stuck using the same bad logic over and over

mcmoustache

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You can start with my points in this post
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116987725&postcount=34

You are denying something happened and you are too lazy to give an alternative.

Your argument so far is "The Russians didn't do it because I can't believe it, but I can't explain otherwise".

It's tricky to come up with an alternative when the two Russians pretending to be fitness instructors on Russia Today admitted to being in Salisbury and were soon identified as GRU from open source data.

ShatterAlan

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's tricky to come up with an alternative when the two Russians pretending to be fitness instructors on Russia Today admitted to being in Salisbury and were soon identified as GRU from open source data.

Why is it tricky?

Let's just say they were GRU or OGPU or KGB or whatever was said.

It was said that the woman in Iran serving time for spying was a foreign asset. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe.

It's been said that Assange raped a pair of women, despite the two vehemently denying it.

It's been said that Chelsea Manning has put lives in danger by exposing war crimes and was, as a result subjected to incarceration and torture.

It's been said that Venezuelans have to eat flamingoes in order to stave of starvation and that the rightful heir to the throne is none other than Juan Guaido, a complete and corrupt puppet educated in the methods of imperial conquest in the United States.

So, I suppose my question is this. These two Salisbury spooks are guilty of the most pathetic attempt to assassinate someone of ZERO significance because it is maintained they were in the GRU and because the Russian bogeyman is bad OR all states pull scummy little stunts like this?

Are you familiar with the term "information warfare"? It's very similar to religion in that it scares people and makes them believe complete untruths.

But then again I am probably going to be accused of engaging in "whataboutery".

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

Why is it tricky?

Let's just say they were GRU or OGPU or KGB or whatever was said.

Twin investigations uncovered their identities

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/26/skripal-suspect-boshirov-identified-gru-colonel-anatoliy-chepiga/

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/10/09/full-report-skripal-poisoning-suspect-dr-alexander-mishkin-hero-russia/

These two Salisbury spooks are guilty of the most pathetic attempt to assassinate someone of ZERO significance because it is maintained they were in the GRU and because the Russian bogeyman is bad OR all states pull scummy little stunts like this?

Because they were both in Salisbury the same day the poisonings happened, they travelled in on false identities, the victims were poisoned by Novichok: a nerve agent developed by Russia, they were caught on CCTV and their route took them close to the Skripal house, they immediately left the country after the poisonings and the hotel where they stayed was found to contain traces of Novichok (which was confirmed to have been used)

Sergei Skripal wasn't of "zero" significance, he was an ex-Russian military intelligence officer who was continuing to pass information to the UK and West, and as we've seen from Litvinenko's assassination, Putin is a) not fond of that and b) not afraid to attempt assassinations on foreign soil with exotic methods that leave a very obvious calling card

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Twin investigations uncovered their identities

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/26/skripal-suspect-boshirov-identified-gru-colonel-anatoliy-chepiga/

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/10/09/full-report-skripal-poisoning-suspect-dr-alexander-mishkin-hero-russia/

Because they were both in Salisbury the same day the poisonings happened, they travelled in on false identities, the victims were poisoned by Novichok: a nerve agent developed by Russia, they were caught on CCTV and their route took them close to the Skripal house, they immediately left the country after the poisonings and the hotel where they stayed was found to contain traces of Novichok (which was confirmed to have been used)

Sergei Skripal wasn't of "zero" significance, he was an ex-Russian military intelligence officer who was continuing to pass information to the UK and West, and as we've seen from Litvinenko's assassination, Putin is a) not fond of that and b) not afraid to attempt assassinations on foreign soil with exotic methods that leave a very obvious calling card

"bellingcat"

Now this is the opening line from that crap that you have posted:

"Bellingcat and its investigative partner The Insider – Russia have established conclusively the identity of one of the suspects in the poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal, and in the homicide of British citizen Dawn Sturgess."

Has this "conclusive" evidence been passed on to Interpol and been circulated? Or is it just more crap?

DohnJoe, you certainly fall for a lot of....let's say it...crap.

Right. So a bought and paid for sh1tstirrer is a viable source of the truth but RT is a propaganda sewer?

The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are ragmags because they produce findings that you dislike.

You traduce people and in your own words "table youtube videos" and then you come up with "bellingcat"

Have some digniity and a smidgen of self respect, man.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Twin investigations uncovered their identities

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/26/skripal-suspect-boshirov-identified-gru-colonel-anatoliy-chepiga/

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/10/09/full-report-skripal-poisoning-suspect-dr-alexander-mishkin-hero-russia/

Because they were both in Salisbury the same day the poisonings happened, they travelled in on false identities, the victims were poisoned by Novichok: a nerve agent developed by Russia, they were caught on CCTV and their route took them close to the Skripal house, they immediately left the country after the poisonings and the hotel where they stayed was found to contain traces of Novichok (which was confirmed to have been used)

Sergei Skripal wasn't of "zero" significance, he was an ex-Russian military intelligence officer who was continuing to pass information to the UK and West, and as we've seen from Litvinenko's assassination, Putin is a) not fond of that and b) not afraid to attempt assassinations on foreign soil with exotic methods that leave a very obvious calling card

One last question. How deadly is this "Novichok"?

Actually I'll add to that.......what POSSIBLE advantage or outcome could have benefitted, Russia, Putin, the spooky Ruskis, Muslims, Castro <insert enemie du jour here> in trying AND FAILING to kill a low grade, retired spook?

If he was living in a fairly modest 2 up 2 down in England but was still such a threat to Russia and passing on information to the Brits and that's why he had to be offed then I would imagine he would have been a valuable guy who wouldn't be so exposed as to be able to go for a pizza and then get poisoned but not killed by two of the (apparently) deadliest hit men in the world, who have since blown up a Czech arms factory.

If these lads can blow up an arms depot and not be detected for almost a decade then they should be able to just rock up to someone and put a few bullets into them. I would imagine that they might even have the capacity and wherewithall to make sure that a body was never found. Possibly they could dress up as circus clowns and head off to Brighton with Sergei and maybe Yulia in a wagon only to be picked up by an offshore submarine and disposed off at sea.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

"bellingcat"

Now this is the opening line from that crap that you have posted:

"Bellingcat and its investigative partner The Insider – Russia have established conclusively the identity of one of the suspects in the poisoning of Sergey and Yulia Skripal, and in the homicide of British citizen Dawn Sturgess."

Has this "conclusive" evidence been passed on to Interpol and been circulated? Or is it just more crap?

Interpol red notice, UK and European arrest warrants

You didn't address any of the evidence, just went on a rant.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

One last question. How deadly is this "Novichok"?

It's a lethal nerve agent. It killed one person (Dawn Sturgess). It depends on concentration and exposure

Actually I'll add to that.......what POSSIBLE advantage or outcome could have benefitted, Russia, Putin, the spooky Ruskis, Muslims, Castro <insert enemie du jour here> in trying AND FAILING to kill a low grade, retired spook?

Sends a clear message to anyone thinking of leaking information on Russia

If he was living in a fairly modest 2 up 2 down in England but was still such a threat to Russia and passing on information to the Brits and that's why he had to be offed then I would imagine he would have been a valuable guy who wouldn't be so exposed as to be able to go for a pizza and then get poisoned but not killed by two of the (apparently) deadliest hit men in the world, who have since blown up a Czech arms factory.

Reality doesn't seem to fit your world view

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a lethal nerve agent. It killed one person (Dawn Sturgess). It depends on concentration and exposure

Sends a clear message to anyone thinking of leaking information on Russia

Reality doesn't seem to fit your world view

So lethal it can be found in a hotel and had no effect on the staff or the dudes who were supposed to be carrying it around?

So lethal that it can be smeared on a doorknob to the point that anyone touching that doorknob is as good as dead. The house had to be bulldozed but the pets inside were fine. Of course they were taken and gotten rid of too.

So amazingly lethal that one could die from it by touching a cigarette butt in a park.

And all of this was to leave "a calling card"
"We didn't whack Sergei or his daughter, because our poisons are crap, but let the world know that we're a massive threat and that we can send a message that everyone should fear us. We don't have the brains, nor the method nor the experience to kill some guy in England with a simple bullet yet we have the genius to take Crimea in one swift motion.

And that's your big theory.

Beautiful

:pac:

Reality doesn't seem to be something with which YOU are familiar in the slightest.

Perhaps Bellingcat can set us all straight.

[Deleted User]

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So lethal it can be found in a hotel and had no effect on the staff or the dudes who were supposed to be carrying it around?

So lethal that it can be smeared on a doorknob to the point that anyone touching that doorknob is as good as dead. The house had to be bulldozed but the pets inside were fine. Of course they were taken and gotten rid of too.

So amazingly lethal that one could die from it by touching a cigarette butt in a park.

So you're claiming that nerve agent isn't lethal?
What an odd thing to claim...

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And all of this was to leave "a calling card"
"We didn't whack Sergei or his daughter, because our poisons are crap, but let the world know that we're a massive threat and that we can send a message that everyone should fear us. We don't have the brains, nor the method nor the experience to kill some guy in England with a simple bullet yet we have the genius to take Crimea in one swift motion.

And that's your big theory.

Beautiful

:pac:

Reality doesn't seem to be something with which YOU are familiar in the slightest.

Perhaps Bellingcat can set us all straight.

So what's the alternative theory you believe?
What support does your theory have beyond Russian state media?

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

So lethal it can be found in a hotel and had no effect on the staff or the dudes who were supposed to be carrying it around?

Traces of it were found in the hotel. Trace amounts aren't lethal. Read my post carefully see where I wrote: "It depends on concentration and exposure"

Are you suggesting these people weren't poisoned with Novichok? You know more than the OPCW, of which Russia is a member? and what's your source?

So lethal that it can be smeared on a doorknob to the point that anyone touching that doorknob is as good as dead. The house had to be bulldozed but the pets inside were fine. Of course they were taken and gotten rid of too.

The house hasn't been bulldozed. You need to actually read this thread.

And all of this was to leave "a calling card"
"We didn't whack Sergei or his daughter, because our poisons are crap, but let the world know that we're a massive threat and that we can send a message that everyone should fear us. We don't have the brains, nor the method nor the experience to kill some guy in England with a simple bullet yet we have the genius to take Crimea in one swift motion.

Why was Litvinenko poisoned with Polonium 210?
Why was opposition politician Navalny poisoned with Novichok?

They could have silently killed these people in any number of ways, but they chose to attempt assassination in a very extreme and headline grabbing way, why is that?

You have any explanation?

According to you the Skripals weren't poisoned or they were? with what? by whom? and evidence for that? very interested in your sources, better not be Craig Murray's blog

Again, you haven't countered a single piece of evidence, you haven't provided any explanations for any of this. You seem to have granted yourself the special position of being able to blindly deny events whilst not having to explain what happened.

mcmoustache

King Mob wrote: »

So you're claiming that nerve agent isn't lethal?
What an odd thing to claim...

So what's the alternative theory you believe?

You're unlikely to get one. The way that the Russian Firehose of Falsehood disinformation system works is not that it provides an alternative narrative for its consumers to believe - rather it bombards them with a loads of competing and contradictory fragments of information to convince them that the truth is unknowable and therefore that any narrative, including the obvious one, cannot be true.

You see it here all the time. Victims of this sort of disinformation campaign never have a competing version of events that fits the available evidence. In fact, they won't even look at the evidence a lot of the time so there's no competing narrative to be formed. Instead what you get is incredulity and nitpicking which coincidentally, you also find on Russian TV and their English-speaking surrogate media.

In many ways, it's funny to see it in action but like I said, you're unlikely to get a counter narrative, especially not one that fits the evidence.

[Deleted User]

mcmoustache wrote: »

You're unlikely to get one. The way that the Russian Firehose of Falsehood disinformation system works is not that it provides an alternative narrative for its consumers to believe - rather it bombards them with a loads of competing and contradictory fragments of information to convince them that the truth is unknowable and therefore that any narrative, including the obvious one, cannot be true.

You see it here all the time. Victims of this sort of disinformation campaign never have a competing version of events that fits the available evidence. In fact, they won't even look at the evidence a lot of the time so there's no competing narrative to be formed. Instead what you get is incredulity and nitpicking which coincidentally, you also find on Russian TV and their English-speaking surrogate media.

In many ways, it's funny to see it in action but like I said, you're unlikely to get a counter narrative, especially not one that fits the evidence.

I've been seeing this kinda pattern a lot in other conspiracy theories these days. I wonder if it's something conspiracy mongers are aping from real disinformation agents, or vice versa.

But it's very odd to see how eager some conspiracy theorists are to swallow this really Orwellian stuff from state media.

ShatterAlan

mcmoustache wrote: »

You're unlikely to get one. The way that the Russian Firehose of Falsehood disinformation system works is not that it provides an alternative narrative for its consumers to believe - rather it bombards them with a loads of competing and contradictory fragments of information to convince them that the truth is unknowable and therefore that any narrative, including the obvious one, cannot be true.

You see it here all the time. Victims of this sort of disinformation campaign never have a competing version of events that fits the available evidence. In fact, they won't even look at the evidence a lot of the time so there's no competing narrative to be formed. Instead what you get is incredulity and nitpicking which coincidentally, you also find on Russian TV and their English-speaking surrogate media.

In many ways, it's funny to see it in action but like I said, you're unlikely to get a counter narrative, especially not one that fits the evidence.

There is no onus to provide an alternative when one is doubting a narrative. That is a trick that YOUR ilk use to try and defend your position.

I've used the example of the dead body with multiple stab wounds in his back. The official narrative is that it's suicide. You swallow this hook, line and sinker whereas others express absolute disbelief. Your angle is to then demand an alternative if it couldn't be suicide.

It's not short of demanding proof of a negative. Prove it wasn't suicide. Prove God or Santa or the Tooth Fairy don't exist. Prove the spooks didn't poison Skripal.

Dohnjoe

ShatterAlan wrote: »

There is no onus to provide an alternative when one is doubting a narrative.

Again, creating this bizarre special rule for yourself.

You can't just pluck events from history and deny they happened based on your own personal disbelief and then expect to be taken seriously in any way.

[Deleted User]

ShatterAlan wrote: »

There is no onus to provide an alternative when one is doubting a narrative. That is a trick that YOUR ilk use to try and defend your position.

No, you don't have to provide an alternative.
But the fact that you're doing everything but even suggesting a possible alternative just highlights what Dohnjoe and mcmoustache are saying.

You don't have an alternative because you are only parroting the doubts you read a swallow from conspiracy websites. You can't provide an alternative because these sources don't and can't without sounding idiotic.
You can't make up your own as this requires some critical thought on your part, or alternatively, you realise that there is no alternative you can provide that doesn't sound ridicilous.

If this isn't the cause, why else are you unable to provide an alternative.
No one is dumb enough to buy this idea that you're not providing one because you aren't daining to.

ShatterAlan wrote: »

I've used the example of the dead body with multiple stab wounds in his back. The official narrative is that it's suicide. You swallow this hook, line and sinker whereas others express absolute disbelief. Your angle is to then demand an alternative if it couldn't be suicide.

But in this case, the alternative explanation is obvious and can be easily explained.

What's happening here is that there's a dead body with multiple stab wounds in the shape of Putin's name.
Meanwhile you're saying "knifes aren't even deadly! I use a knife all the time to butter my toast! "

ShatterAlan wrote: »

It's not short of demanding proof of a negative. Prove it wasn't suicide. Prove God or Santa or the Tooth Fairy don't exist. Prove the spooks didn't poison Skripal.

It's weird that you seem to understand this concept when you think it suits you. There's been a bunch of times when you've demanded negative proof as if it was a killer tactic.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's a lethal nerve agent. It killed one person (Dawn Sturgess). It depends on concentration and exposure

Sends a clear message to anyone thinking of leaking information on Russia

Reality doesn't seem to fit your world view

Why would Russia risk its reputation so close to the World Cup?

Why would Russia take 8 years to exact vengeance?

Why would Russia jeopardise future spy swaps by ordering an assassination of a swapped spy?

The only answer you'll get to these questions is that Putin is a baddie or some other infantile excuse.