So the Russians have to have figured out a reason, after a decade, that suddenly this man had to die in a grizzly and obvious assassination. Despite the fact they already had him under arrest and decided he wasn't all that important to them. It is very hard to imagine what that reason would be. And on the converse, anglosphere intelligence services have a history of lying.
It is reasonable to question the Salisbury poisoning. It is hard to see what was in it for Russia. There wasn't an outcome here that is good for them, so it is unclear why they would have done it.
I think the point is very much to send a message to current serving Russian intelligence officers to think very carefully before betraying their country.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vladimir-put...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/09/10/traitors-mus...
Skripal was swapped for 10 illegals (the illegals, from 2010). Bringing them back was a propaganda win, they sort of got away with it, and the west got Skripal back in return.
https://twitter.com/eliothiggins/status/1047597999105462272?...
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/06/god...
He was also fired from the foreign office in 2004, make of what I have provided as you will.
The only reason this post is even on HN has more to do with confirmation bias than any truth.
I read some of Murray's doubts - some of them hold weight (as in they are noteworthy), sure, and it's almost certain that SIS cleaned up the story (They aren't the police - the only material that gets published is published because it's useful) but Murray has _zero_ insider knowledge here. If you are questioning that it was a poisoning at all you better have something to stand on.
He has consistently been pointing in the opposite direction to the western line for years, and never correct in any case I can see. He claimed he had spoken to the "person" who leaked the DNC emails - if he actually thinks that he is either unbelievably naive or acting in bad faith.
"The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of Putin I tend to doubt." Make your own mind up.
edit: -2 but no counterargument, wheres the fun in that
Murray also said that he was approached with DNC emails, which means that unless he was lying someone has sounded him out as a source (and we know where they came from)
edit: mouthpiece not source.
For example Kremlin dismissed photos of Salisbury suspects as fake news, and Murray jumped right into it without critical thinking or distrust against Kremlin as source. NATO chemical weapons exercise taking place on Salisbury Plain seems like better explanation to him.
For these and other reasons I can't trust his reporting to be factual. We should find other sources.
He claimed to have inside information from the Foreign Office, that the government was negotiating an agreement with the EU with the intention of breaking it later. I don't think anyone else reported this at the time.
A little under a year later, it seems that what he reported was true.
Boris Johnson to skirt around law and violate treaty isn't exactly out of character.
No it doesn't; it merely seems that the outcome of the conspiracy he fabricated last year is similar to the possible outcome of something that might happen in the future. Broken clocks etc.
No major news source is covering this to the extent Craig Murray is. That in itself should be more worrying than Murray's views on other matters. His reporting on Assange has been very good. There are other sources, but I doubt they diverge much from what Murray's reporting. See for example Kevin Gosztola's reporting: https://dissenter.substack.com
https://www.salon.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks_germany_el_masri/
"A top U.S. diplomat strongly warned German counterparts against issuing arrest warrants for CIA agents who were involved in the kidnapping of a German citizen, who was brought to Afghanistan and tortured before officials concluded that they had the wrong man."
From the diplomatic cable, published by Wikileaks, we can see that the US is actually threatening Germany while at the same time writing:
"our intention was not to threaten Germany, but rather to urge that the German Government weigh carefully at every step of the way the implications for relations with the U.S."
To paraphrase James Mickens, it seems if the USA threatens your country, "they’re going to hold a press conference and say “It wasn’t us” as they wear t-shirts that say “IT WAS DEFINITELY US.”"
After seeing the posts each day trying simply to discredit the author of the reports instead of claiming that there's any inaccuracy in what he reports, everybody should consider that maybe there are some people who would rather that nobody reads about all the topics brought up there.
And there are many very interesting topics indeed. I advise anybody taking the time and going through the previous days too. The author of the report claims that it is officially for him not allowed to post the links to the written statements of the witnesses of the defense.
Reading his reports is insightful, and I'm not aware of anybody doing more thorough reporting now.
My opinion is that Murray is disservice for the cause.
(I mean, it's ok to have fringe ideas. But if you are pushing them without having much to back them up with, and at the same time acting as a reporter, lets just say I wish we had more to choose from.)
We cannot know whether the Salisbury Plain weapons exercise is the legitimate source of the Novichok substance - because lies, deceit and 'state secrecy' are used to mask the truth.
So, you'd prefer journalists not do their job and raise questions about these issues, because they cannot possibly know the truth?
Your disinterest in Murray is irrelevant, anyway. He is the tip of the iceberg in terms of who is reporting on the travesty that is the Assange extradition trial. Fortunately, not everyone is as easily swayed by the military-industrial spook state as you are, though ..
It becomes a moral issue when they don't hold themselves above that standard. They're fine for administrative tasks, but not people you want to take risks together with.
As regards Harding/Leigh giving away the password in their book - I find it very hard to believe that this was an honest accident on their part. The defence that they and the Guardian newspaper gave is just not credible ~ 'oh, but we didn't realise'. And beyond that, if you were going to publish the password and somehow thought it was ok, you would at least consult someone who knew more on the topic that they claim that they did.
>James Lewis QC for the prosecution had been permitted gratuitously to read to two previous witnesses with zero connection to this claim, an extract from a book by Luke Harding and David Leigh in which Harding claims that at a dinner at El Moro Restaurant Julian Assange had stated he did not care if US informants were killed, because they were traitors who deserved what was coming to them.
>This morning giving evidence was John Goetz, now Chief Investigations Editor of NDR (German public TV), then of Der Spiegel. Goetz was one of the four people at that dinner. He was ready and willing to testify that Julian said no such thing and Luke Harding is (not unusually) lying. Goetz was not permitted by Judge Baraitser to testify on this point, even though two witnesses who were not present had previously been asked to testify on it.
>Baraitser’s legal rationale was this. It was not in his written evidence statement (submitted before Lewis had raised the question with other witnesses) so Goetz was only permitted to contradict Lewis’s deliberate introduction of a lie if Lewis asked him. Lewis refused to ask the one witness who was actually present what had happened, because Lewis knew the lie he is propagating would be exposed.
[...]
>Summers then asked about events leading to the publishing of the unredacted cables. Goetz said this was a complicated process. It started when Luke Harding and David Leigh published a book in February 2011 containing the password to the online cache of encrypted cables. This was discussed on various mirroring sites, and eventual publication of the full cache by Cryptome after Die Freitag became involved. Cryptome was at that time very well known and an important source for journalists.
>Summers then asked about the breakdown of relationships between Wikileaks and the Guardian. It was at this point that Baraitser ruled that Summers was not allowed to ask about what happened at the dinner he attended at El Moro restaurant. Summers made a formal request, as Lewis had introduced the subject with other witnesses who unlike Goetz had not been there. Lewis objected, and Baraitser said no.
Can someone explain to me how this is possible? I mean if witnesses with material knowledge about one of the key charges are barred from speaking about them during the trial, how are we to believe that this isn't anything other than a kangaroo court?
A) Who died because of what Assange revealed to the world?
B) Who lost profit because of what Assange revealed to the world?
Unless you can answer truthfully to both of these questions, you are acting in bad faith and attempting to frame the conversation away from the real issue.
A) Nobody, B) Countless members of the CFR and Joint Chiefs of Staff, who profit from war by the minute.
2 BILLION DOLLARS A DAY SPENT ON WAR: NOTHING ON PEACE.
The prosecutor is allowed to repeatedly quote Luke Harding's account of what Assange supposedly said, but Goetz isn't allowed to give his opinion - which is apparently very different from that of Harding. Harding's personal hatred of Assange is well known, and he published this false (and as-of-yet un-retracted) story [1] about Assange supposedly meeting with Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy, so it's entirely plausible that Goetz' "memory" of what Assange said is more accurate than Harding's.
It's been pretty clear throughout this story that the judge is very unfavorable towards Assange. They're just going through the formalities, but we can all guess what the outcome will be - unless there's enough political pressure on the UK government to stop the extradition.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...
