Asian Sexy Babe

Only 22% of Russians believe Navalny poisoned by state

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
23,493
2,018
113
Come on. Do you really think Putin would poison somebody, then give him good medical care and send him to Germany for further treatment? Even M16 would not bungle a job that bad.
Exactly, if Putin really wanted him dead he would have died on the table at that Russian hospital, and the cause of death would have been whatever the GRU said it was.
 

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
10,090
9,911
113
Come on. Do you really think Putin would poison somebody, then give him good medical care and send him to Germany for further treatment? Even M16 would not bungle a job that bad.
He was lucky to get atropine in the city where his plane made emergency landing which was not expected by the killers.
Then he was allowed to leave russia but only after a few days when the poison was expected to be gone from his system.
Note that his clothing including underwear was never released to him and still is not released.

Please learn the facts and don’t repeat Russian propaganda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,087
23,633
113
Exactly, if Putin really wanted him dead he would have died on the table at that Russian hospital, and the cause of death would have been whatever the GRU said it was.
Doesn't he just prefer to leave them weakened?
 

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
23,493
2,018
113
He was lucky to get atropine in the city where his plane made emergency landing which was not expected by the killers.
Then he was allowed to leave russia but only after a few days when the poison was expected to be gone from his system.
Note that his clothing including underwear was never released to him and still is not released.

Please learn the facts and don’t repeat Russian propaganda.
I have already debunked this nonsense. The amount of atropine he was given is not enough to counter a nerve agent attack. It was a tiny amount really. Atropine is a standard drug used for many types of toxic reactions. you don't think the GRU would have finished him off in hospital if they really planned to kill him?
 

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
10,090
9,911
113
Doesn't he just prefer to leave them weakened?
he prefers them dead but without trace. They just fucked up a little. It's all been explained by navalny and discussed with one of the killers.

Let's be real. European Union is going to sanction Russia over this very soon.
To think that European governments would do it without good proof is insanity as it would require too many people in the conspiracy. All Western governments would really want is to get Russian gas and oil without issues. They are not looking for problems.
Also, Russia would have by now produced the "murderers" for questioning if they were innocent. They were found by Navalny, names, addresses and phone numbers. The GRU tried producing the suspects in the Salisbury poisoning and it didnt sound good at all, so this time they don't even dare. No one stepped forward and said "I didn't poison anyone". And one guy actually talked over the phone about poison in underwear.
This guy now is said to be involved in yet another poisoning. He is not in a hurry to proclaim his innocence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,087
23,633
113
he prefers them dead but without trace. They just fucked up a little. It's all been explained by navalny and discussed with one of the killers.
I think its quite possible that he prefers not to make a martyr of them but to have them survive but be so permanently weakened as to not be a real opponent anymore.
Like Yushenko, they don't get dumped but the party loses power.
Having them fall out windows is the tradition, but then you get someone else stepping up, but if they are stuck with Navalny in weakened state they won't get far.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,198
6,930
113
1) WTF are you talking about?
You said Netanyahu was responsible for the assassination of Solemeini.
When was the last person (other than in Butler's conspiracy theories about Hillary) that the US or other Western power openly assassinated or tried to assassinate a political opponent? Seems to happen somewhat regularly in Russia.
Soleimani, of course.
Only you would try to compare a terrorist leader to members of the media or opposition parties.
Only you would criticize something done by Putin and then cheer it when its done by Netanyahu.
It is dumb as hell for you to claim that Putin having opposition politicians and critical media members killed is anything like the US killing a terrorist leader.


And it is pathetic that you seek any opportunity to try and make threads about Israel.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,198
6,930
113
Come on. Do you really think Putin would poison somebody, then give him good medical care and send him to Germany for further treatment? Even M16 would not bungle a job that bad.
Having a known opposition that is afraid of you can be more effective than having new unknown opposition.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,087
23,633
113
You said Netanyahu was responsible for the assassination of Solemeini.
No, I never said anything of the sort.
You're losing it.


It is dumb as hell for you to claim that Putin having opposition politicians and critical media members killed is anything like the US killing a terrorist leader.


And it is pathetic that you seek any opportunity to try and make threads about Israel.
Putin and Trump both used assassination, as has Israel, to get rid of political opponents.
You said only Putin does it, obviously you are wrong.
And as usual, you try to use the term 'terrorist' to justify assassination.
Its still assassination and its no more legal because you call anyone a terrorist.
 

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
10,090
9,911
113
Putin and Trump both used assassination, as has Israel, to get rid of political opponents.
You said only Putin does it, obviously you are wrong.
And as usual, you try to use the term 'terrorist' to justify assassination.
Its still assassination and its no more legal because you call anyone a terrorist.
can we agree that killing a civilian is different from killing a member of any armed forces/militia/"freedom fighters" etc ?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,087
23,633
113
can we agree that killing a civilian is different from killing a member of any armed forces/militia/"freedom fighters" etc ?
If you're at war or trying to start a war.
Trump killing Soleimani was an assassination though, since the US wasn't at war and it wasn't a declaration of war.
Same with Israel killing that Iranian scientist.
Freedom fighters, that's a bit trickier, again, you'd think it depends on whether you're at war or not.
Would you label Israel at war with Palestine? Its really an occupation legally, and there are rules about what you're allowed to do according to the Geneva Conventions.
Which is why they should just bring in the ICC and let them sort it out.

Do you think there are clearer ways to describe that?
 

Leimonis

Well-known member
Feb 28, 2020
10,090
9,911
113
If you're at war or trying to start a war.
Trump killing Soleimani was an assassination though, since the US wasn't at war and it wasn't a declaration of war.
Same with Israel killing that Iranian scientist.
Freedom fighters, that's a bit trickier, again, you'd think it depends on whether you're at war or not.
Would you label Israel at war with Palestine? Its really an occupation legally, and there are rules about what you're allowed to do according to the Geneva Conventions.
Which is why they should just bring in the ICC and let them sort it out.

Do you think there are clearer ways to describe that?
I think there is a very clear and simple way to describe it: if you signed up to fight for whatever cause with a weapon in your hands, you are a soldier and very much a fair game compared to a civilian.
Soleimani was a soldier. Iranian scientist was pretty close to a soldier and certainly close to bad weapons which is why he had body guards and which is why he got killed. Navalny was not a soldier in any sense, not were other Russians poisoned by FSB. Salisbury poisoning's intended victim was former KGB so he was kinda not quite a civvy. Although civilians died as a result.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,087
23,633
113
I think there is a very clear and simple way to describe it: if you signed up to fight for whatever cause with a weapon in your hands, you are a soldier and very much a fair game compared to a civilian.
Soleimani was a soldier. Iranian scientist was pretty close to a soldier and certainly close to bad weapons which is why he had body guards and which is why he got killed. Navalny was not a soldier in any sense, not were other Russians poisoned by FSB. Salisbury poisoning's intended victim was former KGB so he was kinda not quite a civvy. Although civilians died as a result.
Sure, but its not like its ok for people to off soldiers unless they are at war.
Its not like Venezuela could go out and assassinate say, a German general without it almost starting a war.
Or as if it made it ok for the proud boys to go and try to kill soldiers at the Capitol.
They might be fair targets, but only during war.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,198
6,930
113
No, I never said anything of the sort.
...
I'm sorry. I must have been quoting the other frankfooter.

And sorry but in no sane world would the leader of a foreign terrorist group be considered a 'political opponent'.


And it is the government of Canada calling Solemeini's group terrorists no matter how much you want to deny it.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,198
6,930
113
If you're at war or trying to start a war.
Trump killing Soleimani was an assassination though, since the US wasn't at war and it wasn't a declaration of war.
Same with Israel killing that Iranian scientist.
Freedom fighters, that's a bit trickier, again, you'd think it depends on whether you're at war or not.
Would you label Israel at war with Palestine? Its really an occupation legally, and there are rules about what you're allowed to do according to the Geneva Conventions.
Which is why they should just bring in the ICC and let them sort it out.

Do you think there are clearer ways to describe that?
So you don't want to answer his question then. What a surprise.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
94,087
23,633
113
I'm sorry. I must have been quoting the other frankfooter.

And sorry but in no sane world would the leader of a foreign terrorist group be considered a 'political opponent'.


And it is the government of Canada calling Solemeini's group terrorists no matter how much you want to deny it.
The government of Canada also lists Kach as a terrorist group, and they are now closely allied to the government there.
That makes Israel about as terrorist a state as Iran according to Canada.
Oh, and don't forget the upcoming ICC trials for Israel's direct targeting of civilians in 2104 and the Great March of Return.
Your reliance on demonizing people by calling them 'terrorist' could bite you in the ass.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
62,198
6,930
113
The government of Canada also lists Kach as a terrorist group, ...
Yes they do and I agree with them. They and several other racist Jewish groups are banned in Israel as well.

But you still want to pretend Hamas aren't terrorists and more on the topic, Solemeini was the head of a terrorist entity and in no way comparable to Putin killing off political and media opponents.,
 

mandrill

Well-known member
Aug 23, 2001
78,338
96,111
113
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts