See other World News Articles
Title: British Operation Kiss kill Instantly Skripals Has Failed to Kill But Succeeded at Covering Up, Almost
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.unz.com/article/british ... cceeded-at-covering-up-almost/
Published: Nov 22, 2024
Author: Horse
Post Date: 2024-11-22 09:22:56 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 194
Comments: 44
This is the comic book version of what really happened, as revealed by the clumsiest judge in England – Anthony Hughes (titled Lord Hughes of Ombersley, lead image, right). Even if all the evidence presented to Hughes and already endorsed by him is true – on the record of six and half years of British Government investigations and twenty-one days of hearings with concealed witness faces, censored documents, missing CCTV — there remains no direct evidence that the Russians attacked the Skripals by poisoning their front-door handle when they were inside their home, four hours before their collapse. Instead, Hughes and his lawyers have directed the police and other witnesses to stretch their circumstantial evidence and dictated their inferences of Russian guilt. In New York, the legal textbook difference between direct and circumstantial evidence is this. To stretch the circumstantial evidence and inferences beyond the criminal standard of reasonable doubt, Hughes has prevented direct evidence from being presented, stopping the Skripals from testifying themselves. Their Home Office lawyer purportedly representing the Skripals in the hearings has said nothing at all; Hughes’s lawyers have manipulated witnesses with leading questions; alternative explanations for the circumstantial evidence have been blocked by Hughes from the hospital doctors and independent experts. The way in which this has been done is comic book jurisprudence. The judges of the former British empire aren’t laughing; this is how they say the means and opportunity of a capital crime must be prosecuted, then judged.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
#1. To: Horse (#0)
My take: Russia would have to have been COMPLETELY INSANE to have conducted this hit for many reasons. #1) Using a military chem weapon on UK soil would be an act of war. #2) Skripal was a spy captured in Russia that was traded straight up for captured spies in the west. To then attack the spy in this way would send a signal to the world that Russia does not honor their spy trades, which damages potential for future spy trade deals. #3) The international fallout & condemnation against Russia was all to predictable and would damage Russia in other ways such as with sanctions and diplomatic expulsions which is exactly what happened. At the time it happened, worldwide condemnation against Assad for alleged chem weapon use there (very possibly all fake accusations) was very well known and Russia was already fighting that diplomatic storm. Would they then decide to use chem weapons in the UK complicating that effort even more? Applying some more intelligent detective sleuthing to the incident, we should ask who would benefit from such an event and had the means, motive & opportunity to do so. That Russia in no way benefited eliminates them as a probable suspect and instead presents a possibility Russia was framed. Who would frame Russia? What was Russia doing at the time? The sophistication of obtaining the Russian chem weapon material basically points to a state actor. It is unlikely this would be done by any rogue terror group, and terror groups generally don't care too much about international relations. At the time, Russia was intervening in Syria's civil war on the side of Assad, bombing ISIS positions with enough effectiveness to allow Syrian loyalists to retake Syrian territory from ISIS. So who would be upset about that? There are 3 countries. The USA, Saudi Arabia & Israel. All 3 of these entities wanted Assad removed from power. Would the USA release a chem weapon in the UK? I say unlikely as the 2 are allies and the danger of discovery too high. I can't see Saudi Arabia stooping to that level either. They are really not that sophisticated. Israel, however, would not have any real reservation about that, having no real love for the UK (or anyone else for that matter). We now know Israel's Mossad has the sophistication to plant bombs in commercial pagers. We know they have conducted assassinations, at least with Iranian scientists and against Arafat. So I say Israel is the prime suspect in the Skripal poisonings. Means, motive & opportunity are all present to frame Russia, and Scotland Yard was all to eager to point the blame at Russia within 24 hours in true Barney Fife fashion.
Yes of course Israel. They do all the bad stuff. I bet Israel also goes to Russia and throws Putins enemies out of windows in tall buildings. Israel probably blew up that pipeline. Israel probably tricked Russia into selling us Alaska.
Actually Israel never commits any crimes at all. They are "God's Chosen People"(TM) after all. Israel did assassinate an Iranian nuke scientist and they sent their agent into Iran by forging an Irish passport. Israel poisoned Arafat. Israel planted bombs in pagers and walkie talkies. Israel hired Pollard to spy on the USA, and then with zero apologies for hiring the guy to commit a serious crime against the USA, lobbied for his early release and rewarded him with citizenship. All of these things are what we know. They are factual and undisputed. and there is zero doubt they have done far more than what we know about. So why is it such as stretch to say Israel poisoned the Skripals? It's far less a stretch to suspect Israel than Russia. Who would you list as a suspect? Who else had a motive to frame Russia?
Being Gods chosen doesn't mean they never do anything wrong. You used to say you were a Christian. Didn't you read the Bible to see that they did many things wrong?
Edomites are not chosen, and you are not a Christian.
I'm definitely saved. It is not of works lest anyone should boast. You on the other hand added words to the book of revelation. According to Revelation if you add to that book you are going to hell. Those are undisputed facts. You are are an idiot. Edom was destroyed centuries ago. The few survivors are mixed with many peoples blood. Jesus doesn't judge people by their race. Every race has people who are saved. You are a racist. You said your wife said you stink. So you are a stinky racist.
If you are born again tell everyone how and when your salvation took place.
I don't answer to you. But I was saved since I was a kid. I don't get everything right, I do things wrong, But I am saved by grace. I don't believe you are not saved if I disagree with you on Edom. That isn't the basis of being saved. Jesus never said if you don't hold watchman's view on Edom you are not saved. That is not the way it works. But truthfully there is scripture about adding to the book of revelation. Which you in fact did do. Hopefully you can repent of it and be saved. Maybe that isn't possible. I'm not sure.
Adding a note in parenthesis is not "adding to the book of revelation". People do it all the time in the margins of their Bible. You're just looking for any flimsy diversion to avoid the issue at hand. As for your salvation, no. You're kidding yourself...with eternal consequences. I see no evidence of rebirth and renewal. Zero fruit.
Lets see. You put something there that wasn't there in the first place. Yep that's adding. That is the definition of adding. You added a note that changes and adds to the meaning. Yeah people add stuff like that all the time. Disobedient to Gods word. You aren't my judge. So the opinion of someone who adds to the book of revelation doesn't mean squat.
You are here bringing Christ's Name to disrepute. You are questioning the Christianity of others. You are speaking blasphemy, that God has granted a questionable people the divine right to kill men, women, and children. You are blasphemous and a false teacher. From Proverbs 6...
You are questioning the Christianity of others. You are speaking blasphemy, that God has granted a questionable people the divine right to kill men, women, and children. You are blasphemous and a false teacher. From Proverbs 6...
Whatever that means...
Have you ever heard look in the mirror? You do everything you accused me of.
My words are not so much to you, but to others who may think poorly about Christ because of you.
But you did say. You You You You four times directed at me.
There are no replies to Comment # 40. End Trace Mode for Comment # 40.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Pinguinite (#1)
So I say Israel is the prime suspect
#7. To: The_Rock (#2)
#11. To: Pinguinite (#7)
Actually Israel never commits any crimes at all. They are "God's Chosen People"(TM) after all.
#15. To: The_Rock (#11)
‘Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.’ John 3:3
#20. To: watchman (#15)
(Edited)
Edomites are not chosen, and you are not a Christian.
#22. To: The_Rock (#20)
I'm definitely saved.
#24. To: watchman (#22)
If you are born again tell everyone how and when your salvation took place.
#25. To: The_Rock (#24)
adding to the book of revelation.
#27. To: watchman (#25)
Adding a note in parenthesis is not
#33. To: The_Rock (#27)
(Edited)
12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth.
13 He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers;
14 Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord.
15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy.
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
#34. To: watchman (#33)
You are here bringing Christ's Name is to disrepute.
#35. To: The_Rock (#34)
#36. To: watchman (#35)
#37. To: The_Rock (#36)
you accused me
#40. To: watchman (#37)
My words are not so much to you,
Replies to Comment # 40.