[ithinkimissyou]

Any opinions on this?

I'm interested in the spy industry and it's workings. It never ceases to amaze me how the truth is always stranger than fiction in the world of espionage.

For me it's obviously the work FSB, or other Russian secret service agency. A clear example to the rest of the defectors, and would be defectors that this is what we'll do to you.

People will do the most obscene things for the state.

I bring this up here because I remember a topic being brought up on number stations - in themselves fascinating sound pieces, but forged mainly in the era of the cold war. Also because I have no one else who'd have an opinion on this. Bleh.

Maybe this hasnt been well reported elsewhere in the world, if so:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6180682.stm

It obviously harks back to the umbrella killing in the 70's.

I'm pretty angry about the entire thing to be honest. It brings up a whole load of different questions. The first thing into my head when it was confirmed as radiation poisoning, was that some poor fuckers in a siberian concentration camp had the pleasure of going through this agonising death, while some inhumane, ghastly scientists took measurements of the optimum dosage. No one knows their names. The original killers or the original victims.

No one cares because they dont know.
##

Originally Posted by Alexander Litvinenkov

I would like to thank many people. My doctors, nurses and hospital staff who are doing all they can for me; the British Police who are pursuing my case with vigor and professionalism and are watching over me and my family.
I would like to thank the British Government for taking me under their care. I am honored to be a British citizen. I would like to thank the British public for their messages of support and for the interest they have shown in my plight.
I thank my wife, Marina, who has stood by me. My love for her and our son knows no bounds.
But as I lie here I can distinctly hear the beating of wings of the angel of death. I may be able to give him the slip but I have to say my legs do not run as fast as I would like.
I think, therefore, that this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition.
You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.
You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilized value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women.
You may succeed 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.

[pantophobia]

old habits die hard

perhaps it would be best if the Russians vote for someone who wasn't in the KGB as the next president

that is if he even leaves office

[_slavo_]

Russia is becoming scary again

[Hip Priest]

Of course, the Russians (or anyone else) shouldn't be tearing round other countries murdering old friends-turned-enemies. But...

...I don't for one minute buy the idea that this case is as simple as 'good Russian vs bad Russian'. One thing I find fascinating is the fact that Mr Litvinenko has been portrayed at every stage as an entirely innocent, lovable victim of the evil world of Russian security - a world that for many years he was an active and willing participant in.

I'm sure Mr Litvinenko had become a very nice chap since his defection, a fully reformed character, but he had in recent years been a lieutenant-colonel in the Russian secret police, a position difficult to obtain merely by being nice (although it's interesting that his own accounts of his time in the KGB make him the entirely innocent, corruption-busting good guy surrounded by the forces of evil). He's been doing OK since he arrived in the UK, living a round of dinners and conferences largely supported by a man with a vested interest, ie fellow (billionaire) dissident and Putin-hater Boris Berezovsky*. He has also, on numerous occaisions, loudly claimed to "know some of the darkest secrets of his country's recent past"; notably he had claimed that a series of bombs previously blamed on Chechens and used to galvanise support against them were in fact carried out by Russians with the full backing of President Putin.

pantophobia is correct; the Russians may like to think twice in future before allowing ex-KGB people to run the country. The English may want to think twice before allowing ex-KGB people to become automatic symbols of unquestioning public sympathy. The media have in large been so unbalanced as to be almost asinine.

* In the past, Boris Berezovsky was frequently described as Russia's ' most notorious oligarch' , a man who became a billionaire by happily (and skilfully) playing the wheeler-dealing post-Glasnost game, taking full advantage of the, erm, 'unique business environment'. But he fell out with the Russian government and came to the UK where he has held the role of self-proclaimed anti-Putin crusader. After clawing his way up Russia's economy ("most notorious of Russian oligarchs" is quite a title) he came to the UK because he considered it best not to face charges that he had defrauded a regional government of US$13m. You'll be glad to know that this man was made very welcome by our home office.

The upshot of the whole affair? A man is unfortunately dead, anti-Russian xenophobia increases, diplomatic relations become strained, and Boris Berezovsky's personal agenda becomes adopted yet more by our media.

[jon boy]

its justscary as hell and reminds me of the 80's in a bad way.

[king_buzzo]

Originally Posted by _slavo_

Russia is becoming scary again

yeah...

[Massenvernichtungswaffen]

what a mess.

[Hip Priest]

The Daily Telegraph identify four loose theories:

The apparent poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko is already a whodunit to delight conspiracy theorists. There are some of the principal suspects:

1 The Russian State: did Mr Lit-vinenko's accusations threaten Vladimir Putin's international reputation and did he hold more secrets on the death of the campaigning journalist Anna Politskayova that would cause even more embarrassment for the Kremlin.? Or was he just small fry, not worth the risk of a grave breach of diplomatic relations with Britain?

2 Rogue elements within or ex-members of the Russian secret services: Mr Litvinenko's career was built first on rising through the ranks of the KGB and the FSB which inherited its domestic role. Then he turned whistleblower. Both stages of his life made him plenty of enemies in a murderous world. But would anyone feel so strongly as to incur the risks of killing him in London?

3 Chechen separatists: Although he showed no interest in the subject before leaving Russia, in exile Mr Litvinenko became heavily involved in the dangerous world of Chechen politics. Two men believed to be from the Chechnya region of Russia were arrested and later released over the firebombing of the north London homes of Mr Litvinenko and Ahmed Zakayev, a separatist leader.

4 "Friends" in Britain: could Mr Litvinenko's death somehow be a boon to people in this country who, in the past, have fought on the same side as the former agent? It might be in the interests of some people who fear extradition to Russia if Mr Litvinenko appeared to have already fallen victim to a ruthless and oppressive regime.

[Vodka Goblin]

hey ryte LISSEN TO THISS i remember this won time we used a bit ov raydyoactiv rok to put an elf in hospital but it wasnt reely the raydyoactivities that mayd him ills, it was the fukkin rok hittin him on the hed ha ha ha i think it hurted a bit, he mayd a funni noyse enniway so it sownded lyke he was hurted, now REMEMBER it's gettin colder so put sum food owt for the littel animals cos they need it for the winter n all for sum reeson tayk kare eh yeh.

[Daddylikes]

Thank you mr. goblin for your kind words of advice.

You woz right.

Animals do need food for the winter.

I don't know why either.

[jon boy]

Originally Posted by Vodka Goblin

hey ryte LISSEN TO THISS i remember this won time we used a bit ov raydyoactiv rok to put an elf in hospital but it wasnt reely the raydyoactivities that mayd him ills, it was the fukkin rok hittin him on the hed ha ha ha i think it hurted a bit, he mayd a funni noyse enniway so it sownded lyke he was hurted, now REMEMBER it's gettin colder so put sum food owt for the littel animals cos they need it for the winter n all for sum reeson tayk kare eh yeh.

were you in lord of the rings?

[Daddylikes]

what the hell man?

was he in lord of the rings?

are you the lord of the fags?

NEXT!

[jon boy]

no thats someone else.

[Daddylikes]

ok, whatever you say lord gayder

[jon boy]

Originally Posted by Daddylikes

ok, whatever you say lord gayder

me thinks your heading for the banned list.

[Daddylikes]

whatever you say dolemite.

[strictlycommercial]

I find it all kinds of puzzling.

If the Russians, why on earth would they draw attention to it like that? Took him days to die, very unique substance etc. Seems excessively clumsy.

If anyone else, where did they get polonium 220 from? Isn't exactly the most easily obtained poison going.

As far as him being painted as an innocent victim, I take the Priest's point. The line that the papers/TV seem to be taking is guilt for his past actions, hence sticking his neck out on the Politkovskaya thing, but that doesn't exactly fit either.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????

[pantophobia]

from Chicago Sun Times:

"Polonium-210, the substance doctors think killed Litvinenko, is usually made artificially in a nuclear reactor or particle accelerator, and likely would come from a country with a significant nuclear program. Russia fits the bill -- and it has a space program, another sector in which the element has been used."

[strictlycommercial]

Polonium 210, my mistake.

[Hip Priest]

An ecxcellent, in-depth addressing of concerns over the media response to Litvenenko's poisoning, from Scoop:

Bond And The Return Of The Evil Empire
Monday, 27 November 2006, 9:52 pm
Opinion: Scoop Blogwatch
SCOOP BLOGWATCH:
Bond and The Return of the Evil Empire

Felicitas Macgilchrist
26.11.2006
From Telepolis - http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/24/24067/1.html

We are living in a prime-time Bond film: we have dashing spies, poisoning, espionage, allegations of undercover assassinations. Murdered journalists are involved, as are billionaire 'tycoons'. What is going on? A former KGB spy, Alexander Litvinenko, in hospital, apparently poisoned. Whether he was in fact poisoned and by whom is not the key issue here. The key issue – and a serious cause for concern about the fairness and independence of the UK media – is that the UK media unanimously, unquestioningly, report the story as 'spy poisoning' (to quote the BBC World headline). This is the Soviet-style murder of an innocent 'dissident'. And not only do the media report this and fail to ask probing questions about alternative versions of the story, they actively work up the credibility of the mainstream version of events.

What did the media report? The average news consumer will have heard from 19 November 2006 that Mr Litvinenko, who defected to the UK in 2000 and was granted political asylum, has been poisoned. Not 'probably poisoned'; not 'apparently poisoned'; not 'allegedly poisoned'. No, he has been poisoned. Presumably by the Russian president Vladimir Putin (personally, it almost seems while reading the news).

How do we 'know' this? To take only four elements: we have world leading toxicologists, photos of the effects of the poisoning, motivations for the crime, and a notable lack of questions about Mr Litvinenko himself.

First, one widely quoted toxicologist, Professor John Henry. According to The Times on 20 November,

John Henry, a clinical toxicologist who examined Mr Litvinenko on Saturday, said that the former spy was quite seriously sick. "There's no doubt that he's been poisoned by thallium".

Now, were one suspicious, or were one an investigative reporter, one might ask what exactly "examined" means in this context. By 22 November the verb had become "spoken to" in The Daily Telegraph, and "is advising on Mr Litvinenko's treatment" in The Independent. For The Guardian on 22 November, Henry was "treating him".

By 24 November, The Guardian stated that Prof Henry had not in fact treated Mr Litvinenko at any point during his hospitalisation. According to this Guardian report, 'the hospital said he [Henry] had not seen any of the test results when he first raised his theories in media interviews'.

By 24 November it was also clear that the thallium theory had been ruled out. No thallium was present in Litvinenko's body. Strange news for readers of The Independent, who read on 21 November that 'Toxicology tests have shown that Mr Litvinenko ingested an unknown quantity of thallium'. The Independent evidently works hard. They seem to have received the results even before the police, who on 21 November were still 'awaiting results of toxicology tests before confirming reports that he had been poisoned with thallium'. Despite the lack of test results, however, this choice of words in The Guardian ('before confirming reports that' rather than, for example, 'before reporting whether') suggests that they also had prescient knowledge of the outcome of the toxicology tests.

The Times was unwilling to give up the thallium theory. A timeline on 24 November tells readers that on 19 November 'reports emerge that Litvinenko has been poisoned with thallium.' The timeline does not indicate that these reports were bogus. Nor does it suggest where the reports 'emerged' (by themselves?) from.

But to return to our toxicologist. Is it perhaps relevant to know more about Prof Henry than that he works at St Mary's Hospital in London and is 'a world expert on poisons'? This is credibility management per excellence. Reputable hospital, leading specialist, world expert. Perhaps we should be told that Litvinenko's 'friend' who approached Prof Henry to talk to the media was in the employment of Boris Berezovsky. Or that Prof Henry was one of the first to argue that Viktor Yushchenko had been poisoned by dioxins in 2004. Or that on 23 November, the professor said 'that he was withdrawing because he had had his "fingers burnt"'.

Then we have the photo. Guardian readers learn that:

Family and friends of the Russian dissident poisoned in London released a photo of him in his hospital bed last night as a graphic illustration of the effects of the deadly toxin thallium.

Perhaps this photo should have been accompanied by a copyright caption: '© Lord Tim Bell', public relations consultant to Margaret Thatcher, Monsanto and South Africa's National Party among others. It was after all his public relations company, 'retained by Boris Berezovsky', which launched and fed the public relations campaign and 'arranged for a photograph of Mr Litvinenko in his hospital to be distributed to the media via a news agency.' Nice to have influential 'family and friends'.

Every good spy film has clear motivations: Surely the fact that he was investigating the murder of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya is reason enough to have him eliminated. Firstly, there must be huge numbers of journalists now frightened for their lives, if we tally up all the journalists currently investigating that assassination. Secondly, what evidence is there for his investigation? The link is Mario Scaramella, an Italian 'defence consultant' who had survived an attack on his life by the Italian mafia. Numerous reports mention that Scaramella passed on information about Politkovskaya's murderers to Litvinenko. Does this mean he is 'investigating' the murder? For The Guardian on 21 November, it does. The causality is clear: 'Mario Scaramella met Mr Litvinenko at the sushi restaurant to pass on information about the murder'. No matter that Scaramella stated at his press conference he had met Litvinenko to discuss a hit-list with his own and Litvinenko's name on it. He happened to have some news about Politkovskaya's murder, but they did not meet "to pass on" this specific information.

Finally, what details are not included in prominent positions in the media? That Litvenenko was a former bodyguard of Berezovsky, a man thought to be well-connected to the underworld, for more details see Paul Klebnikov's book Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the looting of Russia [1] ; that Whitehall doubted that he was a genuine defector when he appeared at Heathrow in 2000; that the granting of asylum is rumoured to have been part of a trade-off with the secret service; that he first announced his decision to remain in the UK to a tabloid paper at Heathrow before applying for asylum; that even Oleg Gordievsky (the highest ranking KGB officer ever to work for MI6) reported rumours in Moscow that Litvinenko 'was given a huge bribe by Berezovsky [to say he had been ordered to assassinate Berezovsky], who simply wanted a way to discredit the KGB'; that his home in a 'respectable' part of London is financed in part by Berezovsky; that he describes Berezovsky as "intelligent, helpful and honest"; that even Nick Paton Walsh of The Guardian wrote in his inimitable dry manner in 2002 that Litvinenko was 'short of irrefutable proof for his story [on FSB malpractice], and his links to Berezovsky, who has an enormous axe to grind with the Russian administration, cast doubt on his credibility'. At no point do the mainstream media seriously question Berezovsky's role in the affair. They ignore his consistent attempts to discredit Putin, ever since Putin denied him the right to dictate politics with his wallet, as had been his want with Yeltsin.

Yes, the reader of this article will notice that the counter-evidence also originates from the UK media. There is ample alternative coverage from the Russian media, but the critics would shake their heads. "Ah", they would say, "but the Russian media is clearly biased / manipulated / state-controlled". Some details above are from older UK media reports, which have apparently been forgotten by today's journalists. Others are from 24 November 2006 when some articles began to include alternative theories.

The Guardian brings a whole gamut of evidence which should surely shock the reader who has been following the story. But for some strange reason, these are buried in the middle of the twentieth paragraph and onwards. The headline reads Poisoned former KGB man dies in hospital. Subheading: 'Friends insist on Kremlin link to Russian exile's unexplained death'. The first nineteen paragraphs focus on Litvinenko as a 'fierce critic' of Putin, etc, etc. Who reads 20 paragraphs, especially on a story which has been running for five days? Apart from media analysts.

One could ask why the "news" – i.e. that which is "new" – is not the headline. After all the brow-beating following the "weapons of mass destruction" affair (i.e. mea culpa, we the media should have questioned the official line more often), the Litvinenko coverage is one more example of unquestioning journalism. The worrying thing is that no single individual is controlling this media; it is controlling itself, tying itself to the rules of the game, constraining its own investigative nose for news. Only certain stories have news value. Only certain news frames make sense. Our familiar spy James Bond, battling against the Soviet powers, for instance.