I've long followed (loosely) a long line of articles showing the "Skripal Poisoning" affair was a big lie, aka a hoax.
Most of these articles I read at Consortium News when it was newsworthy, however, one of the authors of those stories was Craig Murray, who I am now reading at his own website.
The official unofficial "Skripal Poisoning" story appears to be full of train sized holes, obvious to almost anyone who has an understanding of such things.
Some critics of the hoax view countercomplain that we don't have a good alternative explanation. The first defense to that is that we don't need one in order to show the official story is a lie. A serious journalist would stop there to avoid any need for speculation. I do sometimes go farther because I am not a journalist and speculation is my hobby. I would say that we don't know (and have in fact been systematically blocked from finding out) what actually happened. But it was likely one of two things:
1) A false flag attack all the way, contrived to blame Russia.
2) An unfortunate incident of some kind that would have been embarrassing to British Intelligence (Mi6) and so was doctored to blame Russia instead. (I can weave several stories on the drop of a hat for this, such as a illegal drug deal gone bad, but making them conform to all the known information would take a few more minutes than I have allotted to this.)
Now that BBC is rerunning the official story (?) in dramatized form, Murray and others are putting out more debunking. Here are some updated versions (and look at the endless stream of comments following each one...comments streams are often far more interesting than the original post).
Craig Murray comments on the BBC dramatization.
Craig Murray comments after the second episode of the dramatization.
Craig Murray's 2019 debunking of the Skripal Affair (ten still unanswered questions).
Writeup by Rob Slane.
Dances with Bears (I'm buying the book).
I'm already convinced the Skripal Poisoning was a British hoax, but find it insufficiently worthwhile to try very hard to convince my BBC loving friends.
Most of these articles I read at Consortium News when it was newsworthy, however, one of the authors of those stories was Craig Murray, who I am now reading at his own website.
The official unofficial "Skripal Poisoning" story appears to be full of train sized holes, obvious to almost anyone who has an understanding of such things.
Some critics of the hoax view countercomplain that we don't have a good alternative explanation. The first defense to that is that we don't need one in order to show the official story is a lie. A serious journalist would stop there to avoid any need for speculation. I do sometimes go farther because I am not a journalist and speculation is my hobby. I would say that we don't know (and have in fact been systematically blocked from finding out) what actually happened. But it was likely one of two things:
1) A false flag attack all the way, contrived to blame Russia.
2) An unfortunate incident of some kind that would have been embarrassing to British Intelligence (Mi6) and so was doctored to blame Russia instead. (I can weave several stories on the drop of a hat for this, such as a illegal drug deal gone bad, but making them conform to all the known information would take a few more minutes than I have allotted to this.)
Now that BBC is rerunning the official story (?) in dramatized form, Murray and others are putting out more debunking. Here are some updated versions (and look at the endless stream of comments following each one...comments streams are often far more interesting than the original post).
Craig Murray comments on the BBC dramatization.
Craig Murray comments after the second episode of the dramatization.
Craig Murray's 2019 debunking of the Skripal Affair (ten still unanswered questions).
Writeup by Rob Slane.
Dances with Bears (I'm buying the book).
I'm already convinced the Skripal Poisoning was a British hoax, but find it insufficiently worthwhile to try very hard to convince my BBC loving friends.
No comments:
Post a Comment