Inquiry says Putin probably killed Alexander Litvinenko. Duh.

[The Merchant]

I've passed on your details to MI5. I'm sure Police Scotland's Special Branch will be along shortly for a nice little chat

Joking aside, the only people who claim Litvinenko wasn't assassinated on the orders of Putin are either paid Russia Trolls, or what the Russians themselves refer to as, "useful idiots".

I guess we now know which one you are

I love how you don't even admit to be wrong you just move the goal posts to include "useful idiots". Russians never termed the phrase useful idiots, that's a misattribution to lenin. Plus it's used for ideological reasons not cause you disbelieve a UK Government report.

See you're almost making rational points but not quite there.

I've never been accused when making debates of being an agent of a foreign country. Perhaps you should take a walk along princess street get a job holding up that golf sign and start reading. You're bordering on paranoid delusional and you don't even seem to know it. Now I think i'll leave you to shitting in your hands and clapping.

 

[The Merchant]

"The term originated in early 1950s America in reference to members of the Socialist Party, allegedly promoted by the malevolent KGB to weaken America as a nation.

As a subjective label, the term is often abused. There are reasonable differences on matters of rhetoric and tactics in any ideological movement, but these differences can be unjustly smeared as idiocy with this label. Nor are all poor representatives of a position necessarily useful idiots: a useful idiot is specifically a poor representative who is raised as a figurehead by a third party with malign intentions"

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Nothing to do with what you're trying to speak on. Being wrong won't change you though you'll just shrug off the cognitive dissonance and convince yourself it was me that was the problem, not your own incompetence or paranoid mindset. You just got into a debate where your first genuine thought was "it must be a Russian Troll" and you're trying to pass this off as "reasonable thought" It's actually Paranoid Delusion. Totally fucked up.

This exchange will now be making it's way to various Scottish Message boards so i can report what some of the right-wing scots are saying on American Boards.

 

[The Merchant]

Gosh this Scottish tete a tete is even more thrilling than the Russkies bumping each off .

I've been on the net since late 90's, never in the course of debate has the opening gambit been (paraphrase) "you must be a paid Russian agent in some propaganda department". That is indicative of some seriously fucked up echo-chamber thinking or a tinfoil hat mindset. With almost 30k posts in this place though you can see how the rot would seep in.

 

[Billy no mates]

I've been on the net since late 90's, never in the course of debate has the opening gambit been (paraphrase) "you must be a paid Russian agent in some propaganda department". That is indicative of some seriously fucked up echo-chamber thinking or a tinfoil hat mindset. With almost 30k posts in this place though you can see how the rot would seep in.

That's all well and good but if you haven't at least been called a Nazi,Jew or Russian stooge you've probably been hanging out in the more genteel corners of the internet .

 

[The Merchant]

That's all well and good but if you haven't at least been called a Nazi,Jew or Russian stooge you've probably been hanging out in the more genteel corners of the internet .

Everyone get's called a nazi at some point. But this dude genuinely believed i was a Russian spy, from just one post. All the fucked up shit that must have happened before to get someone to that point is mind boggling.

 

[KnightTemplar]

I've been on the net since late 90's, never in the course of debate has the opening gambit been (paraphrase) "you must be a paid Russian agent in some propaganda department". That is indicative of some seriously fucked up echo-chamber thinking or a tinfoil hat mindset. With almost 30k posts in this place though you can see how the rot would seep in.

You are attempting to discredit the official verdict of a public enquiry into Litvinenko's murder, with absolutely zero evidence. The best you can come up with is a completely uncorroborated statement from one person who claims that Litvinenko admitted to him that he had been involved in smuggling nuclear material. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Indeed, all the available evidence flatly contradicts your position.

When I deconstructed your pitiful arguments, you could only shift the goalposts to include instances where the government covered up illegal activity, and tried to claim this proves the verdict of the public inquiry could not be trusted. Which is of course utter nonsense.

You can understand why I, and other posters, accused you of being a member of the Troll Factory. Only someone paid to troll for the Rodina, or a complete and utter idiot - useful or otherwise - would stick to such a demonstrably wrong position.

You need to tap out, kid. There's no shame in admitting defeat; even Fedor had to.

 

[The Merchant]

You are attempting to discredit the official verdict of a public enquiry into Litvinenko's murder, with absolutely zero evidence. The best you can come up with is a completely uncorroborated statement from one person who claims that Litvinenko admitted to him that he had been involved in smuggling nuclear material. There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Indeed, all the available evidence flatly contradicts your position.

When I deconstructed your pitiful arguments, you could only shift the goalposts to include instances where the government covered up illegal activity, and tried to claim this proves the verdict of the public inquiry could not be trusted. Which is of course utter nonsense.

You can understand why I, and other posters, accused you of being a member of the Troll Factory. Only someone paid to troll for the Rodina, or a complete and utter idiot - useful or otherwise - would stick to such a demonstrably wrong position.

You need to tap out, kid. There's no shame in admitting defeat; even Fedor had to.

You sound like Kelvin Mckenzie speaking to Hillsborough survivors. That's how bad, Kelvin Mckenzie.

No I cannot understand, don't try and normalise accusing someone of being a paid shill after one post just cause you disagree, that's reactionary bullshit in the worst terms and you've not even cited anything, just statements.

Why do you continue to exaggerate and prevaricate? "completely uncorroborated statement" While in fact it was a newspaper interview. Mr Scaramella, an academic and examining magistrate based in Rome and Naples is the person.

In an interview with The Independent shortly after the poisoning became public, Mr Scaramella said that Mr Litvinenko, a friend and professional contact since 2001, told him he had masterminded the smuggling of radioactive material to Zurich in 2000.- citation below

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/litvinenko-smuggled-nuclear-material-426266.html

We have Alexander on tape saying he was providing information to Scaramella.

Mr Litvinenko identifies himself in the tape as a “former KGB and FSB officer” and explains that he had been providing Mr Scaramella with intelligence on a number of individuals – including Mogilevich, who remains today on the FBI’s top 10 most wanted list.

Mr Litvinenko had begun working with Mr Scaramella, a lawyer by trade and one-time consultant for the Environmental Crime Prevention Program (ECPP), in 2003.

They met regularly over the course of the last three years of Mr Litvinenko’s life – in Italy and in London.-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...inenkos-beyond-the-grave-attack-on-Putin.html

Until 2006, Scaramella was best known for a memo claiming that aSoviet submarineleftnuclear minesin theBay of Naplesin 1970. IAEA and IMO official reports confirmed Scaramella statement. He claimed that his team of experts had long been involved in investigating the smuggling of radioactive material by the KGB and its successors

You're some whacked out paranoid delusional person, look at the granduer of your statements. It's not normal to assume someone is a Russian propgandist after one post. Suddenly adding in "useful idiot" when shown to be wrong on the original charge shows a lack of intellectual integrity and then to top it off you wax-lyrical about "deconstructing pitiful arguemts" as if you weren't a delusional weirdo with far too much time spent in the echo chamber of this forum.

No need to tap, there is no damage. I might head off for a bit though, didn't think i'd be "debating" this, just showing that there is substance to some of the claims, and i can show where i get my info, rather than making statements with no citation.

 

[KnightTemplar]

You sound like Kelvin Mckenzie speaking to Hillsborough survivors. That's how bad, Kelvin Mckenzie.

No I cannot understand, don't try and normalise accusing someone of being a paid shill after one post just cause you disagree, that's reactionary bullshit in the worst terms and you've not even cited anything, just statements.

Why do you continue to exaggerate and prevaricate? "completely uncorroborated statement" While in fact it was a newspaper interview. Mr Scaramella, an academic and examining magistrate based in Rome and Naples is the person.

In an interview with The Independent shortly after the poisoning became public, Mr Scaramella said that Mr Litvinenko, a friend and professional contact since 2001, told him he had masterminded the smuggling of radioactive material to Zurich in 2000.- citation below

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/litvinenko-smuggled-nuclear-material-426266.html

We have Alexander on tape saying he was providing information to Scaramella.

Mr Litvinenko identifies himself in the tape as a “former KGB and FSB officer” and explains that he had been providing Mr Scaramella with intelligence on a number of individuals – including Mogilevich, who remains today on the FBI’s top 10 most wanted list.

Mr Litvinenko had begun working with Mr Scaramella, a lawyer by trade and one-time consultant for the Environmental Crime Prevention Program (ECPP), in 2003.

They met regularly over the course of the last three years of Mr Litvinenko’s life – in Italy and in London.-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...inenkos-beyond-the-grave-attack-on-Putin.html

Until 2006, Scaramella was best known for a memo claiming that aSoviet submarineleftnuclear minesin theBay of Naplesin 1970. IAEA and IMO official reports confirmed Scaramella statement. He claimed that his team of experts had long been involved in investigating the smuggling of radioactive material by the KGB and its successors

You're some whacked out paranoid delusional person, look at the granduer of your statements. It's not normal to assume someone is a Russian propgandist after one post. Suddenly adding in "useful idiot" when shown to be wrong on the original charge shows a lack of intellectual integrity and then to top it off you wax-lyrical about "deconstructing pitiful arguemts" as if you weren't a delusional weirdo with far too much time spent in the echo chamber of this forum.

No need to tap, there is no damage. I might head off for a bit though, didn't think i'd be "debating" this, just showing that there is substance to some of the claims, and i can show where i get my info, rather than making statements with no citation.

Son, this was never a debate to begin with. Your opening post was so fucking idiotic that not only myself but at least one other poster thought you had to be a Russian troll. Your arguments are completely without proof or substance. The fact that Scaramella claims Litvinenko told him he was a smuggler cannot be corroborated. Providing information is not the same as smuggling. I know that Scottish and English Law have major differences, but at least in our country, an uncorroborated confession, unsupported by any other evidence, is not enough to convict someone of a crime. In fact, if a Scottish copper was stupid enough to even charge a person on that basis, he would be shit on from a great height by both his superiors and the suspect's legal representation.

You obviously have even less knowledge of how professional assassins work than basic criminal law. You attempt to discredit the assassination theory by questioning why it took three attempts to poison Litvinenko; the CIA tried to kill Castro for decades. Mossad, who have some of the deadliest assassins in the world, shot dead a completely innocent man in Sweden when they were hunting a Palestinian terrorist. Even the SAS sometimes hit the wrong target. The Loughall Ambush was superbly planned and executed, resulting in the greatest loss of life in a single incident for the IRA during the Troubles. But the SAS also shot dead a completely innocent man who just happened to be driving past. It's an old military principal that no plan survives contact with reality. Even the most professional and highly trained Spooks have to change, delay or abort their plans.

The idea that Litvinenko somehow manged to ingest one of the deadliest substances on the planet by accident and without even being aware of it - neither he nor the doctors treating him had any idea he was suffering from radiation poisoning until he had been in hospital for several days - is moronic. And even if we were stupid enough to entertain it, it does not explain why Kovton left radioactive traces in Hamburg a full day before he met Litvinenko in London. Nor why he and Lugovoy left radioactive trails across London and on to planes during the two previous visits. Do you seriously expect us to accept the premise that two senior FSB agents smuggled a highly dangerous, restricted substance - you can't exactly find Polonium on Ebay - into Britain on three separate dates because they were in business with Litvinenko?

I'm glad you're tapping out and moving on. "Debating" with you is like kicking a cripple to death. Sure, it's fun. But you feel kind of guilty about it later

 

[The Merchant]

According to some, certainly

A copper who was one of the first people to try and help the couple is also in a serious condition.

Son, this was never a debate to begin with. Your opening post was so fucking idiotic that not only myself but at least one other poster thought you had to be a Russian troll. Your arguments are completely without proof or substance. The fact that Scaramella claims Litvinenko told him he was a smuggler cannot be corroborated. Providing information is not the same as smuggling. I know that Scottish and English Law have major differences, but at least in our country, an uncorroborated confession, unsupported by any other evidence, is not enough to convict someone of a crime. In fact, if a Scottish copper was stupid enough to even charge a person on that basis, he would be shit on from a great height by both his superiors and the suspect's legal representation.

You obviously have even less knowledge of how professional assassins work than basic criminal law. You attempt to discredit the assassination theory by questioning why it took three attempts to poison Litvinenko; the CIA tried to kill Castro for decades. Mossad, who have some of the deadliest assassins in the world, shot dead a completely innocent man in Sweden when they were hunting a Palestinian terrorist. Even the SAS sometimes hit the wrong target. The Loughall Ambush was superbly planned and executed, resulting in the greatest loss of life in a single incident for the IRA during the Troubles. But the SAS also shot dead a completely innocent man who just happened to be driving past. It's an old military principal that no plan survives contact with reality. Even the most professional and highly trained Spooks have to change, delay or abort their plans.

The idea that Litvinenko somehow manged to ingest one of the deadliest substances on the planet by accident and without even being aware of it - neither he nor the doctors treating him had any idea he was suffering from radiation poisoning until he had been in hospital for several days - is moronic. And even if we were stupid enough to entertain it, it does not explain why Kovton left radioactive traces in Hamburg a full day before he met Litvinenko in London. Nor why he and Lugovoy left radioactive trails across London and on to planes during the two previous visits. Do you seriously expect us to accept the premise that two senior FSB agents smuggled a highly dangerous, restricted substance - you can't exactly find Polonium on Ebay - into Britain on three separate dates because they were in business with Litvinenko?

I'm glad you're tapping out and moving on. "Debating" with you is like kicking a cripple to death. Sure, it's fun. But you feel kind of guilty about it later

Wheest Kelvin. You're debating the narrative, which is fine but itsn't a tool for objective reasoning. I'm trying to investigate the evidence.

Your evidence is "The UK Government had an investigation and told me this" I'm saying but when you go and look at the actual report without dogmatically adhering to it You find the narrative is based on the words of anonymous sources with names like "D3"

The same as everyone bought into the narrative of Hillsborough which also had a public inquiry , but if you read the report you could see all the inconsistencies. I'm not here to debate what story is more plausible or listen to a Walter Mitty try and lecture me on "military principal" (sic) . You're Mutton trying to dress as lamb.

Same with Widgery Tribunal. That's been superseded by the Saville one.

Same with Iraq, the evidence was shady, but the narrative was out there. I've listened to so many people be wrong so many times for someone asserting a narrative to give it any credence. Empiricism beats a good story any day.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Wheest Kelvin. You're debating the narrative, which is fine but itsn't a tool for objective reasoning. I'm trying to investigate the evidence.

Your evidence is "The UK Government had an investigation and told me this" I'm saying but when you go and look at the actual report without dogmatically adhering to it You find the narrative is based on the words of anonymous sources with names like "D3"

The same as everyone bought into the narrative of Hillsborough which also had a public inquiry , but if you read the report you could see all the inconsistencies. I'm not here to debate what story is more plausible or listen to a Walter Mitty try and lecture me on "military principal" (sic) . You're Mutton trying to dress as lamb.

Same with Widgery Tribunal. That's been superseded by the Saville one.

Same with Iraq, the evidence was shady, but the narrative was out there. I've listened to so many people be wrong so many times for someone asserting a narrative to give it any credence. Empiricism beats a good story any day.

Oh, dear. I thought you'd learned your lesson

I will try to explain things in terms so simple even you can understand them. Feel free to stop me if I'm going too fast or using too many big words

1)Past instances of incompetence or corruption - Hillsborough, the Iraq WMD's Scandal etc etc - do not automatically invalidate the inquiry into Litvinenko's assassination. In the same way one cannot use past atrocities to accuse all Muslims of being terrorists, or all Catholic priests of being pedophiles. Each case must be judged on it's individual merits. And the inquiry into the murder of Litvinenko meets all necessary standards of legal rigour. It was carried out by experts in their respective fields, including Law and Radiology. The only people who question it's validity are the Russians, their apologists and morons like you.

2)Of course the inquiry protected certain sources. This happens all the time. During the inquiry into the Iranian Embassy Siege, SAS soldiers who stormed the embassy were referred to only by letters; Soldier I, for example. MI5 Officers and members of elite Police units will also have their identities protected if they give evidence in court, to the extent of testifying behind screens so no one can see what they look like. Any inquiry into an intelligence operation, which is what the assassination of Litvinenko undoubtedly was, will by it's very nature include testimony from people who's real names cannot become public knowledge.

3)You mention Empiricism, but have yet to offer a single piece of Empirical Evidence that contradicts the official position. All you can offer in rebuttal is a single uncorroborated statement that Litvinenko was involved in the smuggling of radioactive material, which flies in the face of all the available evidence.

Seriously, one Scot to another: you're embarrassing our nation with your shit-tier posting. Your conspiracy theories are so pathetic, 9/11 Truthers would laugh at you. Do the right thing. Ask a Mod to delete your account.

 

[The Merchant]

Oh, dear. I thought you'd learned your lesson

I will try to explain things in terms so simple even you can understand them. Feel free to stop me if I'm going too fast or using too many big words

1)Past instances of incompetence or corruption - Hillsborough, the Iraq WMD's Scandal etc etc - do not automatically invalidate the inquiry into Litvinenko's assassination. In the same way one cannot use past atrocities to accuse all Muslims of being terrorists, or all Catholic priests of being pedophiles. Each case must be judged on it's individual merits. And the inquiry into the murder of Litvinenko meets all necessary standards of legal rigour. It was carried out by experts in their respective fields, including Law and Radiology. The only people who question it's validity are the Russians, their apologists and morons like you.

2)Of course the inquiry protected certain sources. This happens all the time. During the inquiry into the Iranian Embassy Siege, SAS soldiers who stormed the embassy were referred to only by letters; Soldier I, for example. MI5 Officers and members of elite Police units will also have their identities protected if they give evidence in court, to the extent of testifying behind screens so no one can see what they look like. Any inquiry into an intelligence operation, which is what the assassination of Litvinenko undoubtedly was, will by it's very nature include testimony from people who's real names cannot become public knowledge.

3)You mention Empiricism, but have yet to offer a single piece of Empirical Evidence that contradicts the official position. All you can offer in rebuttal is a single uncorroborated statement that Litvinenko was involved in the smuggling of radioactive material, which flies in the face of all the available evidence.

Seriously, one Scot to another: you're embarrassing our nation with your shit-tier posting. Your conspiracy theories are so pathetic, 9/11 Truthers would laugh at you. Do the right thing. Ask a Mod to delete your account.

It does when all your evidence amounts to the "The UK government told me", therefore "well the government has lied before" is perfectly acceptable to rebut the aforementioned statement.

Again all you do is repeat a narrative. No reference to the evidence that informs the narrative.All things i know as i've read the Inquiry.

OK one question link me to the Iranian Embassy Siege Inquiry please. The one you cite.

 

[KnightTemplar]

It does when all your evidence amounts to the "The UK government told me", therefore "well the government has lied before" is perfectly acceptable to rebut the aforementioned statement.

Again all you do is repeat a narrative. No reference to the evidence that informs the narrative.All things i know as i've read the Inquiry.

OK one question link me to the Iranian Embassy Siege Inquiry please. The one you cite.

I repeat the narrative because it is supported by all available evidence. You cannot produce a single piece of empirical evidence that contradicts it.

As to the Iranian Embassy Siege Inquest: the documents are held in the National Archives at Kew and haven't been digitised yet. So there is no link. The inquest was widely reported at the time, including the fact that SAS soldiers were given code names. It's also mentioned in books by ex-SAS soldiers who took part in Operation Nimrod. One of them even used it as the title for his book,

SOLDIER I: SAS

 

[The Merchant]

I repeat the narrative because it is supported by all available evidence. You cannot produce a single piece of empirical evidence that contradicts it.

As to the Iranian Embassy Siege Inquest: the documents are held in the National Archives at Kew and haven't been digitised yet. So there is no link. The inquest was widely reported at the time, including the fact that SAS soldiers were given code names. It's also mentioned in books by ex-SAS soldiers who took part in Operation Nimrod.

Wait, you said inquiry, you're talking about a Coroners inquest, not a public inquiry.There is qualitative differences between the two. So like principal and principle. As i said you're just a smidge from being competent.

"During the inquiry into the Iranian Embassy Siege..." You must have googled it saw it was an inquest not an inquiry, changed your word usage and then not even note the change. I can see why you recourse to law so much, the art of sophistry not discovery.

So no inquiry. I can give you all the names of the Soldiers if you would like? To show you they aren't secret.

 

[The Merchant]

I'm reacting to all the subjective nonsense about "shit-posting" and "deleting accounts" and all the other rhetorical tricks that obfuscate the real debate. Once you calm down i'll start making my argument about the narrative with polonium. I had just made a throwaway comment originally as dont spend much time on here, but since that was received in a hilariously paranoid way i've been having fun with the semi-competent Walter Mitty's trying their best to create a diss post, while using wrong words and saying how great they are.

 

[The Merchant]

The Polonium was in Boris Berezovsky's office. Read
Godfather of the Kremlin: The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism
It is the source for what i will be posting regarding him.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Wait, you said inquiry, you're talking about a Coroners inquest, not a public inquiry.There is qualitative differences between the two. So like principal and principle. As i said you're just a smidge from being competent.

"During the inquiry into the Iranian Embassy Siege..." You must have googled it saw it was an inquest not an inquiry, changed your word usage and then not even note the change. I can see why you recourse to law so much, the art of sophistry not discovery.

So no inquiry. I can give you all the names of the Soldiers if you would like? To show you they aren't secret.

I concede that I used the wrong term. Although going Going Full Grammar Nazi is usually a sign one is losing the argument The fact remains that serving SAS soldiers were given code names to protect them while giving evidence.

Naming the soldiers who took part in Operation Nimrod proves nothing. For one thing, anyone can post a bunch of names and claim they served in the SAS. I take it you've heard all the jokes about how many men claim to have been, "second on the balcony". For another, every member of Operation Nimrod has long since retired from the military. Many of them make little effort to conceal their true identity, because there is no real threat to them now. Chris Ryan makes TV series, and his service was far more recent.

If you want to impress me, post empirical evidence that invalidates the official inquiry's findings. Take your time, I'll wait.

 

[KnightTemplar]

The Polonium was in Boris Berezovsky's office. Read
Godfather of the Kremlin: The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism
It is the source for what i will be posting regarding him.

Will you include in your post that Berezosky won a UK libel action against Russian State Television over allegations he murdered Litvinenko in order to frame the Russian government?

 

[The Merchant]

Will you include in your post that Berezosky won a UK libel action against Russian State Television over allegations he murdered Litvinenko in order to frame the Russian government?

Yeah of course. Same with Robert Maxwell , what was the actual truth about the pension funds? Hell even our man Tommy Sheridan won a libel case. Which is an indicator of the laws not their relationship to the truth. You can't just appeal to the authority of libel courts as if they were in some way a mechanism in which to reach the truth. It's totally naive. Justice Eady is well known in Libel laws and doesn't have a good reputation.

We're discussing the intelligence services, which slants the narrative. They have loads of disinformation "principals". Try reading "who framed Colin Wallace" by Paul Foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Wallace

Now I know nothing here is empirical atm, I'm having to challenge the false axioms first being used here.

 

[The Merchant]

Edward J Epstein's contemporaneous piece.

https://www.nysun.com/foreign/specter-that-haunts-the-death-of-litvinenko/73212/

Ok we say he was a journalist, yet when we look at the sworn testimony of private security firm Erinys International. He was working for a subsidary called Triton.

just have a wee read at this testimony.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....enkoinquiry.org/files/2015/04/INQ002972wb.pdf

 

[KnightTemplar]

Yeah of course. Same with Robert Maxwell , what was the actual truth about the pension funds? Hell even our man Tommy Sheridan won a libel case. Which is an indicator of the laws not their relationship to the truth. You can't just appeal to the authority of libel courts as if they were in some way a mechanism in which to reach the truth. It's totally naive. Justice Eady is well known in Libel laws and doesn't have a good reputation.

We're discussing the intelligence services, which slants the narrative. They have loads of disinformation "principals". Try reading "who framed Colin Wallace" by Paul Foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Wallace

Now I know nothing here is empirical atm, I'm having to challenge the false axioms first being used here.

What about the fact that Beresovsky also sued Forbes Magazine because Klebnikov wrote that Beresovsky could, "Show the guys in Sicily a thing or two"? Forbes had to retract part of the story because Klebnikov could not prove his allegations. So why should I give any weight to his allegations in a book that Beresovsky was involved in smuggling radioactive substances?