NationStates Jolt Archive

So this is one of the most bizarre stories I've seen in a while: it would appear the Russian government are poisoning people...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,1953473,00.html


Anyone think of something wierder than the KGB (allegedly) poisoning ex-spys?

I certainly can't. There's something seriously wierd going on at the Kremlin: first Victor Yushchenko is poisoned, then Anna Politskaya and now this....something is starting to smell....

Oh noes! Teh Reds are on the march again!

i got food poisoning.

i got food poisoning.

Blame Putin

i got food poisoning.

But was it with Thallium?

(thallium+meat=yummehs?)

They're also saying that he'd received death threats prior to the poisoning, which would suggest perhaps a pro-Putin fanatic rather than any officially sponsored spy. Unless the death threat and the poisoning are unconnected, or perhaps the FSB sent him the threats to warn him off before poisoning him. It's hard to say.

How many times do we need a new thread on this?

How many times do we need a new thread on this?

At least half a dozen, come on you've been on NSG long enough to know that :p

Blame Putin

i'm pretty sure it was him. i was sick for six days. no food, sleep or water. nastey. deffinately putin.

They're also saying that he'd received death threats prior to the poisoning, which would suggest perhaps a pro-Putin fanatic rather than any officially sponsored spy. Unless the death threat and the poisoning are unconnected, or perhaps the FSB sent him the threats to warn him off before poisoning him. It's hard to say.

Whatever it is it's like a damn Bond novel rather than real life. Whoever it was it implies something dreadful brewing in Moscow. Especially with the whole Anna Politskaya murder being so recent: something not enough people picked up on at the time....

How many times do we need a new thread on this?

Sorry didn't see other threads on this topic: this story gets more and more intriguing each day though don't you think? Should we just stop talking about it once the first thread dies....

Plus who has talked about Yushchenko or Politskaya recently?

At least half a dozen, come on you've been on NSG long enough to know that :p
I'd be laughing if it weren't so true...:p

one of the teams at the pub quiz i was at tonight was called "something's been Putin my drink". i giggled.

I'd be laughing if it weren't so true...:p

Yes it's true. All topics/ideas/themes/political events/world events that have remotely been covered in any thread ever and at any time should be dismissed outright and considered lingua non grata for all eternity.

Or you could be polite and respect the fact that I'm interested in this and asking other's opinions on it...then again it's NS and there's always going to be one who won't take a serious post seriously.

I apologise if I've frustrated you with this thread.

Sorry didn't see other threads on this topic: this story gets more and more intriguing each day though don't you think? Should we just stop talking about it once the first thread dies....

Plus who has talked about Yushchenko or Politskaya recently?
It hardly gets more intriguing.

Ex-KGB agent who has repeatedly denounced Putin gets poisoned.

Agent, agent's friends, media try to link it to Putin's government. So far, so predictable.

Putin's government denies any knowledge. Again, predictable. They're not going to hold up their hands and say 'Yep, you got us. It's a fair cop, guv', are they?

Doubt is raised over the method of poisoning. Well, duh. First, if the Russian government is responsible for this, don't you think they might have used more than one chemical, just to make sure the job was done. They're not idiots, you know. Second, it can take a long time before the cause of poisoning is established, whatever the circumstances. Third, any chemical will react differently in different people, because...well...people are all different. So if this guy is displaying some symptoms not normally associated with radioactive thallium poisoning, it's really not that much of a surprise.

So, no, it's not particularly intriguing.

The only reason it's the British media has given this story so much exposure is because it happened in Britain. Had it happened in France or Germany, it might have been given a couple of inches on page 16 of some British newspapers. If it had happened in Russia, maybe a few inches on page 5.

Yes it's true. All topics/ideas/themes/political events/world events that have remotely been covered in any thread ever and at any time should be dismissed outright and considered lingua non grata for all eternity.

Or you could be polite and respect the fact that I'm interested in this and asking other's opinions on it...then again it's NS and there's always going to be one who won't take a serious post seriously.

I apologise if I've frustrated you with this thread.
Erm, I was saying it's true that I've been on NS too long. My complaint was not that you're discussing something that has been discussed before, but you are discussing something that has been discussed in, I believe, three other threads created specifically for this subject, in the last 2 days. I accept you are interested in this, but you could have used Jolt's search function to see if there was an existing thread before posting this one.

It hardly gets more intriguing.

Ex-KGB agent who has repeatedly denounced Putin gets poisoned.

Agent, agent's friends, media try to link it to Putin's government. So far, so predictable.

Putin's government denies any knowledge. Again, predictable. They're not going to hold up their hands and say 'Yep, you got us. It's a fair cop, guv', are they?

Doubt is raised over the method of poisoning. Well, duh. First, if the Russian government is responsible for this, don't you think they might have used more than one chemical, just to make sure the job was done. They're not idiots, you know. Second, it can take a long time before the cause of poisoning is established, whatever the circumstances. Third, any chemical will react differently in different people, because...well...people are all different. So if this guy is displaying some symptoms not normally associated with radioactive thallium poisoning, it's really not that much of a surprise.

So, no, it's not particularly intriguing.

The only reason it's the British media has given this story so much exposure is because it happened in Britain. Had it happened in France or Germany, it might have been given a couple of inches on page 16 of some British newspapers. If it had happened in Russia, maybe a few inches on page 5.


Except for the bit about it not being intriguing I'd say every word was true. There is reasonable doubt over the veracity of the accusations, method of poisoning etc.

However, the further reaching implications as to the Russian government's position worldwide if this turns out to be a bungled attempt to asassinate a verbal critic of the Kremlin are huge. This has got to be interesting. The British media have only picked up on this because it happened in Britain - it's always the way with a selfish and money-driven national media. However, it is, as I've been saying a final link in an extremely long chain of events.

I didn't neccessarily support the Orange Revolution in Ukraine but the dirty tactics used by the opposition in conjunction with the Kremlin's desperation to hang on to any potential for oil supply lines was very questionable.

Then we have the governmental position in Chechnya: government troops are consistently involved in brutal intimidations and repressions of the Chechan people and the KGB have been implicated in many assasinations: the exciting thing about this botched attempt happening in BRITAIN is that it may open people's eyes to the continued repression and murder in Chechnya:

If that ain't intriguing my friend I dunno what is...

Erm, I was saying it's true that I've been on NS too long. My complaint was not that you're discussing something that has been discussed before, but you are discussing something that has been discussed in, I believe, three other threads created specifically for this subject, in the last 2 days. I accept you are interested in this, but you could have used Jolt's search function to see if there was an existing thread before posting this one.

Point taken. I did look through last five pages of general forum first...am not in habit of consistently going over old ground and generally try and post in threads I'm interested in - rather than having an opinion on anything and everything - and I kinda wanted to discuss this. That's why I got a little pissed.

Except for the bit about it not being intriguing I'd say every word was true. There is reasonable doubt over the veracity of the accusations, method of poisoning etc.

However, the further reaching implications as to the Russian government's position worldwide if this turns out to be a bungled attempt to asassinate a verbal critic of the Kremlin are huge. This has got to be interesting. The British media have only picked up on this because it happened in Britain - it's always the way with a selfish and money-driven national media. However, it is, as I've been saying a final link in an extremely long chain of events.
It's not intriguing, though, it's predictable. Believe me, in two weeks this guy will be either dead and on the fish and chip papers, or better and on the fish and chip papers. So long as nothing essentially changes we won't hear much more about this - and then when something does change, we'll hear about it for two days and then forget it. Nothing will happen, because Britain does not want an 'incident' with Russia.

Then we have the governmental position in Chechnya: government troops are consistently involved in brutal intimidations and repressions of the Chechan people and the KGB have been implicated in many assasinations: the exciting thing about this botched attempt happening in BRITAIN is that it may open people's eyes to the continued repression and murder in Chechnya:

If that ain't intriguing my friend I dunno what is...
People know about what's happening in Chechnya, Ossetia, etc, at least to some extent - obviously some will know more than others. But the truth is, they don't care. It doesn't directly affect them. Remember the Beslan school siege? The Moscow theatre siege? You remember the outcry in some parts of the British media then over the situation in Chechnya? And what's happened since then - more of the same. Nothing will change - the names and faces of those in power changes, but the actions stay the same.

You would think if this was the work of Putin, that they would just pull a JFK and shoot the guy.

Blame Putin

http://citygirl.typepad.com/foxymoron/images/poutine.gif

:eek:

People know about what's happening in Chechnya, Ossetia, etc, at least to some extent - obviously some will know more than others. But the truth is, they don't care. It doesn't directly affect them. Remember the Beslan school siege? The Moscow theatre siege? You remember the outcry in some parts of the British media then over the situation in Chechnya? And what's happened since then - more of the same. Nothing will change - the names and faces of those in power changes, but the actions stay the same.

We're getting into tricky waters here, going down another route entirely in terms of altruism and caring about things that don't directly effective oneself.

I agree that people have become more and more selfish but would argue that this is partly due to the media deciding what the public are interested in. Case in point, one million refugees and countless deaths in Kashmir following earthquake = no news coverage VERSUS Tsunami in which British and Swedish people perish as well as many locals = Worldwide coverage and more charitable donations then ever before. The case always brought up is the fact that over a thousand people die through various conflicts every day in Sudan and the DRofC but we hear about the conflict in Palestine because the media sees that as 'more news-friendly'.

I don't want to dismiss people's altruistic tendencies outright and therefore (somewhat unrealistically it must be said and you're right to say so) have some hope that this happening in Britain will mean governments, the media and the public in this country and beyond will have to face up to a Big, Developed, Democratised Pseudo-Ally committing human rights atrocities.

I am being naive but you've got to try and have a modicom of hope in the face of journalists being picked up off the street, butchered and never seen again: and - hoping this guy doesn't die - this may force a form of UN/EU action....I could be grasping at straws as you very rightly suggest.

We're getting into tricky waters here, going down another route entirely in terms of altruism and caring about things that don't directly effective oneself.
True - obviously people will care more about their own wellbeing and that of those close to them, than about that of a few thousand people a thousand miles away. I believe the monkeysphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkeysphere) illustrates this point better than I can.

I agree that people have become more and more selfish but would argue that this is partly due to the media deciding what the public are interested in. Case in point, one million refugees and countless deaths in Kashmir following earthquake = no news coverage VERSUS Tsunami in which British and Swedish people perish as well as many locals = Worldwide coverage and more charitable donations then ever before. The case always brought up is the fact that over a thousand people die through various conflicts every day in Sudan and the DRofC but we hear about the conflict in Palestine because the media sees that as 'more news-friendly'.
You still hear about the other events - the Kashmir earthquake was fairly widely covered in the news outlets I tend to use (Guardian, BBC, Channel 4), but the tsunami was an event that affected tens of millions of people - possibly over 2% of the world's population (bear in mind the population of the UK isn't even 1%) - so it's not surprising it was quite so widely covered. Of course, even though people are still living in squalor as a result of the tsunami, the media has moved on.

I think it's more to do with what we expect - violence in the Middle East has been happening for as long as any of us may care to remember, and is always in the news. What's happening in Sudan and the DRC is fleeting by comparison, however many people are dying, and if it suddenly bursts into the front of our consciousness it takes a while to process. Think - if on the news tomorrow morning you heard there'd been a suicide bombing in Baghdad, what would your response be? Probably 'Oh, another one'. If the news were 'Turkey invades Greece', you'd look more closely. It's almost as if the job of the media is to reassure us that the world is acting as it should.

I don't want to dismiss people's altruistic tendencies outright and therefore (somewhat unrealistically it must be said and you're right to say so) have some hope that this happening in Britain will mean governments, the media and the public in this country and beyond will have to face up to a Big, Developed, Democratised Pseudo-Ally committing human rights atrocities.

I am being naive but you've got to try and have a modicom of hope in the face of journalists being picked up off the street, butchered and never seen again: and - hoping this guy doesn't die - this may force a form of UN/EU action....I could be grasping at straws as you very rightly suggest.
It's so beautiful I almost don't want to disappoint you. ;) At least you accept you're being naive. It won't happen. We have too much to lose to piss off the Russians - predominantly in the form of gas, I believe.

Oh noes! Teh Reds are on the march again!

NAh, the reds are being poisoned...its the good old power-hungry void-fillers that are on the march.

You still hear about the other events - the Kashmir earthquake was fairly widely covered in the news outlets I tend to use (Guardian, BBC, Channel 4), but the tsunami was an event that affected tens of millions of people - possibly over 2% of the world's population (bear in mind the population of the UK isn't even 1%) - so it's not surprising it was quite so widely covered. Of course, even though people are still living in squalor as a result of the tsunami, the media has moved on.

Really? I agree that the media has moved on from the Tsunami damn fast as well but the Kashmiri crisis was relegated to middle section of the guardian, only being on the BBC website and disappeared from Channel 4 damn quick. I'd argue that the Tsunami, though extraordinarily tragic was so big as British people perished. Perhaps a better example would be Hurricane Katrina - a disaster on nothing like the scale of either Tsunami or Kashmir, but with twice the coverage of the latter at least. Even more interesting is the earthquake in Bhuj, India that directly affected 15.9 million people in some way but was barely a ripple in the media compared to 9/11 (for some obvious reasons) but also because people are told what to think about others on this planet....

I think it's more to do with what we expect - violence in the Middle East has been happening for as long as any of us may care to remember, and is always in the news. What's happening in Sudan and the DRC is fleeting by comparison, however many people are dying, and if it suddenly bursts into the front of our consciousness it takes a while to process. Think - if on the news tomorrow morning you heard there'd been a suicide bombing in Baghdad, what would your response be? Probably 'Oh, another one'. If the news were 'Turkey invades Greece', you'd look more closely. It's almost as if the job of the media is to reassure us that the world is acting as it should.

Interesting. You're points contradict each other. Surely the normality of a bomb in Baghdad and the conflict in the Middle East puts them together and therefore Sudan, DRC and 'Turkey invades Greece' are fresh, exciting and interesting. Is it your monkeything (above) transposed into institutionalised racism within the Western media (an institution?). Black/Brown/Russian Muslim deaths not important - white Israeli, Western soldiers in Iraq or the Russian guy whose name escapes me that this thread is about V. Important. Purely hypothesis you understand....

It's so beautiful I almost don't want to disappoint you. ;) At least you accept you're being naive. It won't happen. We have too much to lose to piss off the Russians - predominantly in the form of gas, I believe.

I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying I want it to and it requires something like this guy's poisoning to make waves. Stop being such a realist and get an ideological/radical/hopeful perspective on this fucked up, piece of shite, nihilistic, negative-freedoms based world of ours...You read the Guardian man this should be right up your street...

Really? I agree that the media has moved on from the Tsunami damn fast as well but the Kashmiri crisis was relegated to middle section of the guardian, only being on the BBC website and disappeared from Channel 4 damn quick. I'd argue that the Tsunami, though extraordinarily tragic was so big as British people perished. Perhaps a better example would be Hurricane Katrina - a disaster on nothing like the scale of either Tsunami or Kashmir, but with twice the coverage of the latter at least. Even more interesting is the earthquake in Bhuj, India that directly affected 15.9 million people in some way but was barely a ripple in the media compared to 9/11 (for some obvious reasons) but also because people are told what to think about others on this planet....
The coverage of Katrina was because Americans are People Like Us - unlike those living in Kashmir, apparently. Institutionalised racism, as you say below.

I swear the Kashmir earthquake was on C4 for a while, though that could be my mind playing tricks on me.

Interesting. You're points contradict each other. Surely the normality of a bomb in Baghdad and the conflict in the Middle East puts them together and therefore Sudan, DRC and 'Turkey invades Greece' are fresh, exciting and interesting. Is it your monkeything (above) transposed into institutionalised racism within the Western media (an institution?). Black/Brown/Russian Muslim deaths not important - white Israeli, Western soldiers in Iraq or the Russian guy whose name escapes me that this thread is about V. Important. Purely hypothesis you understand....
Hmmm, my point was that there is no fresh news. Even a civil war in Africa isn't fresh. To too many people, Africa may as well just be one country.

It could be racism. Not necessarily in the media - it's just that they may perceive the general public to be more interested in news concerning People Like Us.

'Turkey invades Greece' would be a bombshell - it'd hit, the shockwaves would be felt all over the developed world (as the media gets to work), but then it stops. No one ever cares about the aftermath - look how quickly the news cameras came home from Israel and Lebanon once the fighting had stopped.


I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying I want it to and it requires something like this guy's poisoning to make waves. Stop being such a realist and get an ideological/radical/hopeful perspective on this fucked up, piece of shite, nihilistic, negative-freedoms based world of ours...You read the Guardian man this should be right up your street...
I read the Guardian because I have socialist leanings and I hate the Morning Star and the Socialist Worker. Far too fucking reactionary (the SW at least) - just as bad as the Daily Mail. And the Indy is just shit.

Realism is the only perspective I will deal in. Otherwise you're deluding yourself that something will be done. When I die (assuming I get at least my three score years and ten), I don't expect the fundamental problems in the world today to be any closer to resolution than they are today.

I read the Guardian because I have socialist leanings and I hate the Morning Star and the Socialist Worker. Far too fucking reactionary (the SW at least) - just as bad as the Daily Mail. And the Indy is just shit.

Realism is the only perspective I will deal in. Otherwise you're deluding yourself that something will be done. When I die (assuming I get at least my three score years and ten), I don't expect the fundamental problems in the world today to be any closer to resolution than they are today.

I read the Guardian for the exact same reasons - Socialist Worker and Morning Star are too concerned with International Solidarity and war and not concerned enough with poverty, welfare and International equality...although I take your point about the Daily Mail :D

I'll leave the altruism stuff and bias media stuff as I think we both agree on that but, beyond your point re 'People like us', there's not much more to say apart from shake one's head in abject horror *shakes head in abject horror*

As to realism: how can you live in this country, declare yourself to have socialist leanings and declare yourself an international realist? I don't believe my actions will change things but I believe that altruistic people like I percieve you to be should believe that governmental change (and by extention world change) is possible either through evolutionary or revolutionary means...

What is it Soheran has as a signature:

"The assumption that what currently exists must necessarily exist is the acid that corrodes all visionary thinking." - Murray Bookchin

I'll leave the altruism stuff and bias media stuff as I think we both agree on that but, beyond your point re 'People like us', there's not much more to say apart from shake one's head in abject horror *shakes head in abject horror*
*joins in the head-shaking*

As to realism: how can you live in this country, declare yourself to have socialist leanings and declare yourself an international realist? I don't believe my actions will change things but I believe that altruistic people like I percieve you to be should believe that governmental change (and by extention world change) is possible either through evolutionary or revolutionary means...
I may be altruistic, but at heart (and I know this makes me a hypocrite) I'm apathetic. I just don't care enough.

I do believe that government change is possible - but I only believe this is possible through revolution, and I don't believe revolution is the right way to change things. It makes politics too unstable and volatile. I said it in another thread earlier today - gradual reform is the way government should be changed, but until you or I or someone else finds a way to reform government without being in power (because those in power only wish to retain that power, and thus will not reform the system sufficiently), we are stuck in our current situation.

I hadn't seen Soheran's signature, but that quote is very true. Not only does it corrode visionary thinking, but it also corrodes the thinking of the ordinary man in the street. He does not see that the status quo is only preserved because it benefits those in power, and so is complacent in believing that there is no need for an alternative.

What I had in my head made more sense than what I've written. I'll post here again once I've had a good night's sleep.