Poisoned former Russian spy dies

2

Comments

  • jlew24asu wrote:
    didnt you rip someone for making irrelevant comments. its your thread I guess.

    That is relavent. He ordered the work. And he is scary. He is very smart, very wired into the black economy, and perhaps the most telling thing, he was very high in the KGB at one point. You do not get up the ladder in that organization without doing some serious shit. And so I don't sound ethnocentristic, same is true of the CIA.
  • That is relavent. He ordered the work. And he is scary. He is very smart, very wired into the black economy, and perhaps the most telling thing, he was very high in the KGB at one point. You do not get up the ladder in that organization without doing some serious shit. And so I don't sound ethnocentristic, same is true of the CIA.

    'relevant'. sorry, stoned.
  • i guess it was putin (in his name).he is is a real criminal.
  • i guess it was putin (in his name).he is is a real criminal.

    Who still is selling weapons to Iran and refuses to do anything about N. Korea.

    Europe has its hands tied bc it depends on their natural gas. They are not an ally.
    The less you know, the more you believe.
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    didnt you rip someone for making irrelevant comments. its your thread I guess.

    For fuck's sake, what's irrelevant about that? Did you read Litvinenko's death note? Obviously not. He names him, directly!
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    didnt you rip someone for making irrelevant comments. its your thread I guess.

    I guess they don't report this sort of thing on Fox, so here's a transcript from the letter, for you:

    “You succeeded in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.

    “May God forgive you for what you have done not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.”

    If you'd like a link, see here:

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C11%5C25%5Cstory_25-11-2006_pg4_9
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I guess they don't report this sort of thing on Fox, so here's a transcript from the letter, for you:

    “You succeeded in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.

    “May God forgive you for what you have done not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people.”

    If you'd like a link, see here:

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C11%5C25%5Cstory_25-11-2006_pg4_9


    I guess I was expecting a lil more out of the adults on here besides some reference to the bogeyman. after all, you did rip someone for making a stupid comment, did you not? and please dont tell me yuor comment had some level of intelligence. it didnt. excuse me now, let me get back to fox news and you can get back to your night light and ghost stories.

    if anybody has some real insight to the scary russian government, lets talk. I dont need more links for the net either.

    I'll go with this, even though you were stoned ;)
    He ordered the work. And he is scary. He is very smart, very wired into the black economy, and perhaps the most telling thing, he was very high in the KGB at one point. You do not get up the ladder in that organization without doing some serious shit. And so I don't sound ethnocentristic, same is true of the CIA.

    I always felt russian was moving back towards a dictatorship. many freedoms being taken away, such as TV being controlled, and the government taking out those who oppose them. the country is in fast decline.
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    I guess I was expecting a lil more out of the adults on here besides some reference to the bogeyman. after all, you did rip someone for making a stupid comment, did you not? and please dont tell me yuor comment had some level of intelligence. it didnt. excuse me now, let me get back to fox news and you can get back to your night light and ghost stories.

    if anybody has some real insight to the scary russian government, lets talk. I dont need more links for the net either.

    I'll go with this, even though you were stoned ;)


    Stoned? You've got the wrong person, there. You do need links to articles on the Internet, for a start, otherwise you remain completely ignorant of the facts, and can't take part in any discussion. I could easily educate you about why Putin is a chief suspect in Litvinenko's murder. Have you the attention span to handle this lecture? I don't really see why I'm bothering, but here goes ...

    In 1999 a Moscow apartment complex was bombed. The Kremlin used the bombing, as a pretext for the second Chechen war. Next, the FSB tried to implicate Achimez Gochiyayev in collusion with Chechen warlords, in the orchestration of the attacks. Litvinenko countered, that he had evidence to exonerate Gochiyayev.

    Litvinenko blew the whistle on FSB activity, and asserted that the Kremlin was behind the bombings. He was arrested, and charged with abuse of his office. He fled to the UK, was granted asylum, and was tried in his absence by a Russian court.

    Litvinenko then published a book, linking the FSB to the Moscow bombs. The book was seized and banned in Russia.

    Litvinenko continued to be an outspoken critic of Putin as the chief bogeyman responsible for harming Russian society and its people. He was keen to investigate the identities of those particular agents, responsible for the recent fatal shooting of Russian anti-Putin journalist Anna Politkovskaya (who had also been poisoned before, around the time of the Beslan massacre). He was meeting with contacts to establish these identities, on November 1st, the day he was poisoned.

    Now, the Kremlin is countering that Putin is not to blame, and that the more likely culprit is a disaffected oligarch, seeking maximum anti-Putin propaganda by having Litvinenko sacrificed for the "cause".

    Understand now?
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Stoned? You've got the wrong person, there.

    I was refering to the other person I quoted, not you


    You do need links to articles on the Internet, for a start, otherwise you remain completely ignorant of the facts, and can't take part in any discussion. I could easily educate you about why Putin is a chief suspect in Litvinenko's murder. Have you the attention span to handle this lecture? I don't really see why I'm bothering, but here goes ...

    In 1999 a Moscow apartment complex was bombed. The Kremlin used the bombing, as a pretext for the second Chechen war. Next, the FSB tried to implicate Achimez Gochiyayev in collusion with Chechen warlords, in the orchestration of the attacks. Litvinenko countered, that he had evidence to exonerate Gochiyayev.

    Litvinenko blew the whistle on FSB activity, and asserted that the Kremlin was behind the bombings. He was arrested, and charged with abuse of his office. He fled to the UK, was granted asylum, and was tried in his absence by a Russian court.

    Litvinenko then published a book, linking the FSB to the Moscow bombs. The book was seized and banned in Russia.

    Litvinenko continued to be an outspoken critic of Putin as the chief bogeyman responsible for harming Russian society and its people. He was keen to investigate the identities of those particular agents, responsible for the recent fatal shooting of Russian anti-Putin journalist Anna Politkovskaya (who had also been poisoned before, around the time of the Beslan massacre). He was meeting with contacts to establish these identities, on November 1st, the day he was poisoned.

    Now, the Kremlin is countering that Putin is not to blame, and that the more likely culprit is a disaffected oligarch, seeking maximum anti-Putin propaganda by having Litvinenko sacrificed for the "cause".

    Understand now?


    thank you. I knew you had it in you. much better, now I understand. and I only made the comment because you did to someone else. ok enough of that.


    I have always feared that dirty radioactive material would find it to the hands of terrorists from russia. USSR was so big and the arms race with the US grew too large/ I would bet there is alot of radioactive material not accounted for. that is scary.
  • EbizzieEbizzie Posts: 240
    Stoned? You've got the wrong person, there. You do need links to articles on the Internet, for a start, otherwise you remain completely ignorant of the facts, and can't take part in any discussion. I could easily educate you about why Putin is a chief suspect in Litvinenko's murder. Have you the attention span to handle this lecture? I don't really see why I'm bothering, but here goes ...

    In 1999 a Moscow apartment complex was bombed. The Kremlin used the bombing, as a pretext for the second Chechen war. Next, the FSB tried to implicate Achimez Gochiyayev in collusion with Chechen warlords, in the orchestration of the attacks. Litvinenko countered, that he had evidence to exonerate Gochiyayev.

    Litvinenko blew the whistle on FSB activity, and asserted that the Kremlin was behind the bombings. He was arrested, and charged with abuse of his office. He fled to the UK, was granted asylum, and was tried in his absence by a Russian court.

    Litvinenko then published a book, linking the FSB to the Moscow bombs. The book was seized and banned in Russia.

    Litvinenko continued to be an outspoken critic of Putin as the chief bogeyman responsible for harming Russian society and its people. He was keen to investigate the identities of those particular agents, responsible for the recent fatal shooting of Russian anti-Putin journalist Anna Politkovskaya (who had also been poisoned before, around the time of the Beslan massacre). He was meeting with contacts to establish these identities, on November 1st, the day he was poisoned.

    Now, the Kremlin is countering that Putin is not to blame, and that the more likely culprit is a disaffected oligarch, seeking maximum anti-Putin propaganda by having Litvinenko sacrificed for the "cause".

    Understand now?

    To further put it in perspective, I suppose Litvinenko is akin to the "proof" 9/11 conspiracy theorists crave. If someone from the CIA came out with hard evidence to prove the government was responsible for 9/11, the guy would be dead in a hurry. There is no question in my mind that Putin, a man who is far from a Western ally, is responsible for Litvinenko's assassination.
    "Worse than traitors in arms are the men who pretend loyalty to the flag, feast and fatten on the misfortunes of the nation while patriotic blood is crimsoning the plains." -- Abraham Lincoln
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    icarus wrote:
    he wasn't referring to you anyways....

    i don't think he disagrees with you, he was saying you made an idiot comment and now you're trying to argue with him that you're right, but i think you both agree on the same facts.


    you are correct sir
  • Ebizzie wrote:
    To further put it in perspective, I suppose Litvinenko is akin to the "proof" 9/11 conspiracy theorists crave. If someone from the CIA came out with hard evidence to prove the government was responsible for 9/11, the guy would be dead in a hurry. There is no question in my mind that Putin, a man who is far from a Western ally, is responsible for Litvinenko's assassination.


    The interesting thing here, though, is that Litvinenko wasn't killed in a hurry. His death was protracted, agonising and reported all over the world. The purpose of such a killing could easily been a high-profile warning to other dissidents, of the consequences of speaking out against the Russian regime.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Ebizzie wrote:
    . If someone from the CIA came out with hard evidence to prove the government was responsible for 9/11, the guy would be dead in a hurry. .


    you really think so?

    CIA is capable of alot of things but killing one of our own? I dont know. I would like to think not.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    icarus wrote:
    wouldn't the nature of the material and the attack implicate state-involved activity?

    this is what does it for me. someone, at some level of government, had to be involved
  • icarus wrote:
    he wasn't referring to you anyways....

    He should have made that point more clear. The entire post was framed as a response to my post.
    icarus wrote:
    i don't think he disagrees with you, he was saying you made an idiot comment and now you're trying to argue with him that you're right, but i think you both agree on the same facts.

    I made no idiotic comment, as my further points clarified. And I don't care whether anyone agrees with me, or not. There are few facts on which we can agree here, anyway. This story is a continuing mystery. What do we know? Litvinenko, an outspoken former Intelligence officer and opponent of Putin, was given a fatal, radioactive dose of Polonium 210, and that Litvinenko named Putin as his murderer. Putin's regime has been pinpointed several times in the shutting up of dissenting voices. Anyone with knowledge of this last point, who has an opinion on the matter, would state that Putin is the bogeyman at the heart of Russian troubles; a throwback to the Cold War.


    This is an enigma, that we can only try to understand by understanding why Putin is perceived by by his detractors as a bogeyman who will protect his regime at all costs.
  • icarus wrote:
    so what do you think are the odds that a civilian would be able to get his hands on this kind of material and the knowledge to use it? i know russia's probably been selling this stuff on the black market for years, but wouldn't the nature of the material and the attack implicate state-involved activity?


    There's no chance that a civilian could get hold of this. Polonium 210 has to be produced in a nuclear laboratory, is very tricky to create, and furthermore, is even more difficult and hazardous to transport. Whoever administered the poison to Litvinenko must have been at least Litvineko's equal, if not superior, in terms of Intelligence skill. Litvinenko - friends in British Intelligence say - was a diligent man who was very careful to avoid getting poisoned.

    The question might be, then, was Litvinenko poisoned by someone working in his circle? Someone whom he trusted? This might lend weight to the pro-Putin camp's argument that it was one of his fellow dissidents who sacrificed him for their anti-Putin ends. However, as I say, one could speculate that this person was a double agent, a supposed dissident still on the Kremlin payroll.
  • 'Where does polonium-210 usually occur?

    It has industrial uses such as static control and as a heat source for satellite power supplies, but is not available in these areas in a form conducive to easy poisoning.

    It is also present in tobacco.

    Professor Dudley Goodhead, Medical Research Council Radiation and Genome Stability Unit, said: "To poison someone much larger amounts are required and this would have to be man-made, perhaps from particle accelerator or a nuclear reactor."'
  • Here's a good article, in the Independent. I recommend it to everyone:


    http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2013254.ece
  • There's no chance that a civilian could get hold of this. Polonium 210 has to be produced in a nuclear laboratory, is very tricky to create, and furthermore, is even more difficult and hazardous to transport. Whoever administered the poison to Litvinenko must have been at least Litvineko's equal, if not superior, in terms of Intelligence skill. Litvinenko - friends in British Intelligence say - was a diligent man who was very careful to avoid getting poisoned.

    The question might be, then, was Litvinenko poisoned by someone working in his circle? Someone whom he trusted? This might lend weight to the pro-Putin camp's argument that it was one of his fellow dissidents who sacrificed him for their anti-Putin ends. However, as I say, one could speculate that this person was a double agent, a supposed dissident still on the Kremlin payroll.

    I think the disinformation process is in effect, in the media. We're now being told polonium is available on the black market, and that gangland types could easily get hold of it, but I don't buy this. Especially after what we've been told about the difficulty involved in manufacturing and transporting it. I guess Britain stands to lose some money, if it severs diplomatic ties with Russia?
  • icarus wrote:
    theres no way britain would do that. from the very start of this, britain was trying not to distance itself from russia.

    The danger here is in seeing Blair as a synecdoche of Britain and British interests. Peter Hain is outspoken about Putin's regime:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6240104,00.html

    But Blair, on the other hand, might be keen to play down any risk of a diplomatic meltdown between Britain and Russia:


    "Tony Blair has sought to avoid any kind of public confrontation with Moscow over human rights concerns, while tensions have developed over Russia's energy markets. The Government has been asking Russia to open up its gas and oil markets to foreign investment."
  • icarus wrote:
    sure there might be some tensions in the cabinet, but Blair is calling the shots and frankly no one else's opinion really matters.

    No, Blair's finished, and Brown has all but assumed total command. This situation will prove a real test of Blair's residual sway.
  • icarus wrote:
    yea, but its not about how much sway Peter Hain has....

    I wouldn't bet on it...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/26/AR2006112600292.html
  • icarus wrote:
    still doesnt convince me of anything. just because the Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain is saying this doesnt mean anything. you have far more senior figures in the government like Blair and Home Secretary John Reid either saying theyre not going to speculate or that Russia has nothing to do with this.

    the only thing that'll change their tone is if a lot of evidence implicating the Russian government comes out, which i doubt will happen.

    Reid is just Blair's hired thug, soon to be marginalised when Brown takes charge, and Hain will most likely be Brown's deputy prime minister come the changeover. Hain's present ministerial position belies his increasing influence in Labour party politics.

    Also, Hain's political reputation as an activist gives him clout that is unrivalled among the left of the party.

    Edit: I should correct something. Hain has already applied to be deputy prime minister:

    From Wikipedia:

    On 12th September 2006, he announced his candidacy for the position of Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (the current Deputy Leader, John Prescott, is expected to resign at the same time as Tony Blair in 2007).
  • This is an interesting thread - what stands out as a recurring theme is the attitude towards the Kremlin - and with good reason.

    Ever since the tidal wave of the Bolshevik revolution Russia has lived and worked under a culture of fear and oppression - for nigh on a century now. Riddled with corruption and decimated to the extent that 35% of its inhabitants live in conditions of extreme poverty - never has the time been so good for the Kremlin to reassert its domination over the vast majority of the Russian people - they are dispirited and weary - ground down by political posturing over regeneration.

    In the polls Putin still enjoys widespread popularity nearing 65% approval, he has successfully reinstated the domestic media as personal propaganda machine - and while never fully backing the Western-led invasion of certain Arab nations, Chechnya has become his chessboard upon which he demonstrates his sympathies with the war on terror - albeit with a distinctly Russian flavour. While the separatist state has endured untold suffering at the hands of the Kremlin - it is a useful political tool and Vlad knows this only too well. Georgia too has recently become another useful showground to demonstrate Russian power politics.

    Having just signed an energy deal of epic proportions with the UK and with Gordon Brown already showing signs of attempting to distance himself and the next Labour government from America, Russia will again become a key player in western politics - regardless of a renaissance of Soviet-era tactics.

    Any real attempt to investigate those believed to be behind Litvinenko's death will be made by the Russian dissidents that have voiced their concerns all last week and by 'Noveya Gazeta' - one of the only independent Russian newspapers with the audacity to criticise Putin. Anna Politskaya worked there and just a few months before her death - her editor paid the ultimate price for speaking the truth also. Any official inquiry into Litvinenko's death will undoubtedly draw a blank - or be blamed on Donald Duck.

    The culture that ordinary Russians live under is generational. It is all they have known - and all that their families have known. It is very easy to say 'Well, if they all unite then they can face the Kremlin down' - but the main problem with this idea is that they cannot unite - they have been broken down and moulded into a nation that lies prostrate because of fear.

    If the, for now, quiet rumblings of discontent continue from abroad - then who knows - in perhaps 2 or 3 generations time, then Russia can broach the transition from State-dominated to a transparent democracy - but we can rest assured that it is not something that will happen in our lifetime.

    It is interesting to note, however, that Nobel prize winning Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn (88) has been officially re-united with his homeland after almost 40 years living in exile in Paris and America - having spent 8 years in a Siberian gulag for criticising Stalin in print. His entire collected works are to be printed in Russia for the first time next year. Solzhenitsyn, in failing health and realistic about nearing his end, seems to express a faint nostalgia for the old Russia - but the wily old creature may again be up to his old tricks and obliquely alluding to a resurgence in the traits associated with the bad old days.

    While tycoons have been exiled and jailed for percieved meddling in politics - backstairs deals reneged upon - and journalists are being shot for doing their jobs - criminals continue to disarm anti-corruption drives with the tactful diplomacy of the gun - Putin stands smiling - surveying all around him as a monument to the progress he has made. Perhaps thats what Solzhenitsyn was also referring to - though once a nation that was ruled with an iron fist - it was a proud and vibrant one.

    Putin's second term is due to end in 2008, but don't count on it. The Russian constitution is always up for sudden reappraisal.
    What do you call 3 sheep tied together in the middle of Wales? - A Leisure Centre.
  • Nice post, but look what happens to the dissidents, in the process of investigation. They get bumped off. Brown is distancing himself from America, yes, and he does harbour ideas of European federalism too. Yet, I doubt whether he'll be overly-keen to accommodate Putin either, even though there have been big EU moves, to set up bilateral trade links with Russia, and to get it to join the WTO. We'll see.
  • Britain and Russia have problems in regard to the latter's WTO entry, in other areas:

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/24/news/russia.php
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I'm starting to think this could have been an elaborate set up to make it look like the russian government did it. there are so many rogue scientists or labs that could come up with this material.

    why would the russian government use something they know could be traced? why not just put 2 in the back of his head mafia style?
  • jlew24asu wrote:
    I'm starting to think this could have been an elaborate set up to make it look like the russian government did it. there are so many rogue scientists or labs that could come up with this material.

    why would the russian government use something they know could be traced? why not just put 2 in the back of his head mafia style?


    Or, how about one of Putin's FSB departments did it, and their defence is: "Of course it isn't us! Would we be so brazen and obvious about killing him? Of course not! In broad daylight? No, this is a dissident plot to discredit us. Maybe Litvinenko even killed himself!" That's what's known as a double bluff, or reverse psychology: it makes people to think that it would be illogical for the FSB to be so public about killing a defector, while also sending a clear message to the defectors themselves. It's a standard device in espionage.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Or, how about one of Putin's FSB departments did it, and their defence is: "Of course it isn't us! Would we be so brazen and obvious about killing him? Of course not! In broad daylight? No, this is a dissident plot to discredit us. Maybe Litvinenko even killed himself!" That's what's known as a double bluff, or reverse psychology: it makes people to think that it would be illogical for the FSB to be so public about killing a defector, while also sending a clear message to the defectors themselves. It's a standard device in espionage.


    I wonder if the 210 shit can be traced to the source. can it?
Sign In or Register to comment.