Still Flogging The Skripal Dead Horse

The UK government yarn about the so-called 2018 Russian chemical weapons attack in the quiet Wiltshire city of Salisbury is one of the most ludicrous “state propaganda narratives” ever cobbled together. It is as if RICU and MI6 staff went on a bender after a 77th Brigade training weekend and concocted the whole farce for a laugh just to see what level of absurdity they could sell to the public.

If you fancy a wry smile at the state’s Skripal claims, I put this video together a few years ago. It is a joke but then so is the official account.

If you want to try to comprehend the unhinged story of the poisoning of the GRU Colonel and British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia, I highly recommend this excellent breakdown of the timeline of events by the journalist Tim Norman. Tim used nothing but “official” sources, alleged open-intelligence investigations and legacy media “news” reports to expose the gaping logical holes in the state’s Skripal drivel.

As supposedly factual narratives go, the official Skripal poisoning story is more of a string-vest than Swiss cheese. You can read an abridged version of Tim’s work here.

Armed with his shovel, the Mail on Sunday’s security correspondent Abul Taher has recently penned an article in which he continues to dig the Skripal propagandist’s hole. This again drew the attention of Tim Norman, who pointed out the many inconsistencies in this latest iteration of the fantasy.

Aside from Taher’s false claims—the UK government did not move the Dawn Sturgess inquest to an inquiry by choice, Sturgess’ family had to force the government to do it and the government persisted with its cover up—let’s just spend a moment pondering the hole Abul Taher dug for himself. Then we’ll consider why he dug it.

The broad thrust of Taher’s piece is that neither Sergei nor his daughter can possibly testify—even via anonymous audio testimony—because Russian intelligence agencies (the GRU) might use their immense intelligence capabilities and dispatch more deadly assassins to finish the job. Similarly, most of the evidence must be withheld from the Dawn Sturgess inquiry because that too might give the game away and what little is presented by the UK state will have to be heard in secret for the same reasons.

The in-your-face, glaringly obvious problem with this leg of the nonsense is that the Skripal’s were reportedly not assassinated. Apparently they miraculously survived the most deadly nerve agent attack ever, despite their being no antidote. If the official account was plausible—which it certainly isn’t—the GRU “assassins” were utterly useless, not to mention seemingly clueless.

What sort of highly trained “assassins” wanders around in broad daylight—showing their faces to numerous CCTV cameras—before attempting a failed chemical weapons attack and then hang around unnecessarily afterwards and leave all the alleged evidence at the crime scene? And what sort of ruthless intelligence agency undermines any future spy-swap deal it might hope to make by trying to kill a previously swapped double agent—eight years after his release—while he posed absolutely no espionage threat to it whatsoever?

So why is Taher willing to to write this obvious claptrap? Maybe he was just instructed to do so or perhaps he believes what he was told and hasn’t really thought about how ridiculous it is. I can’t speak to his motivation but the effect is pretty obvious.

A real independent judicial inquiry into the death of Dawn Sturgess, one that genuinely examines the evidence, would undoubtedly reveal yet more inconsistencies, gaps and contradictory evidence exposing the moronic Salisbury poisoning fable. Hence Taher’s wobbly article, offered as justification for the continued cover-up, as the UK state tries to maintain the most embarrassing anti-Russian psyop it has ever tried to make stick.