...or so they say. Just posting the link here, this is
disgusting. Who buys into all that crap anyway ? Or rather,
why do so many people believe in such bullshit.
The site is supposedly targeted at students in the UK.

http://theday.co.uk/international/toxic-putin-on-mission-to-
poison-the-west
Posted on RetroBBS II

" The statement makes particular mention of the deadly
Novichok nerve agent the attackers used, claiming it was the
"first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the
Second World War".

"Despite this incriminating evidence... "

What inciminating evidence. None was presented.

"What do we not know?
There are still uncertainties surrounding the Skripal
case, including who the would-be assassins were and why the
attack was ordered."

Well that just proves that it must be Putin. There can be no
doubt.

This is a site for students? A poorly written article, full
of bias? I couldn't imagine turning something like that in
in first year English.

Posted on RetroBBS II

>Well that just proves that it must be Putin. There can be
no doubt.

The absence of evidence is evidence itself. Only Putin is so
clever and evil to erase all traces. He is in fact the devil
himself.

>This is a site for students? A poorly written article, full
of bias? I couldn't imagine turning something like that in
in first year English.

Exactly: who actually believes such bullshit ? Although
there is psychological research suggesting that even if you
reject messages on an intellectual level, massive repetition
of the messages still influences your believes and
decisions. So maybe the quality of propaganda is a besides
the point.
Posted on: def2.i2p

> >This is a site for students? A poorly written article,
> full
> of bias? I couldn't imagine turning something like that
> in
> in first year English.
>
> Exactly: who actually believes such bullshit ? Although
> there is psychological research suggesting that even if
> you
> reject messages on an intellectual level, massive
> repetition
> of the messages still influences your believes and
> decisions. So maybe the quality of propaganda is a
> besides
> the point.
> Posted on: def2.i2p
----------------------------------------------------
I do believe that repetition is effective. People who are
actually quite intelligent have be led by brainwashing.

I've found myself briefly thinking "maybe there's something
to whatever..." sometimes, then catch myself. It's due to
repetition and the fact that so many other's believe.

You're quite right, it may very well be an effective
technique.

Posted on RetroBBS II

and look what we have here:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/04/johnson-and-may-hide-as-their-lies-dissolve/

Johnson and May Hide as their Lies Dissolve 281
4 Apr, 2018 in Uncategorized by craig

The government has attempted to control the narrative by
finally admitting, as they have known for three weeks and
just ahead of the OPCW experts coming out and saying so,
that there is no evidence the substance used in the
Salisbury attack was made in Russia. You can see the
interview with the Chief Executive Officer of Porton Down
only in this tweet from Sky here.

#Salisbury attack: Scientists have not been able to
prove that Russia made the nerve agent used in the spy
poisoning. Porton Down lab's chief exec reveals the details
in this interview pic.twitter.com/qFNgPlr6vS

-- Sky News (@SkyNews) April 3, 2018

If anyone can make a copy and send me, or make a safe
permanent posting I can link to, I should be grateful
(contact button top right). Only a very short clip is on
Sky's website and I am anxious to preserve it for reasons I
shall explain.

In modern Tory Britain, it should be no surprise to anybody
that, to be the Chief Executive of Britain's chemical
weapons establishment, they recruited a radio salesman:

Aitkenhead's PR skills were clearly thought sufficient to
get across the government's key propaganda points, and his
struggle to do this throughout the Sky interview is telling.
Aitkenhead has been in an extremely difficult position for
the past three weeks, standing between his scientists who
are adamant they will not say the substance was made in
Russia, and the government who have been pushing extremely
hard for them to do so.

At 5 mins 30 sec into this interview Boris Johnson directly
lies about what Porton Down had told him:

It is very plain that what Aitkenhead is saying to Sky is
"the scientists cannot establish it is from Russia. But the
government claims to have intelligence sources that show
that it is." His struggle to fit the formulations he has
been given to parrot this sense as more effective
propaganda, into answers to the pretty good questions he is
being asked, is almost comic: "ummm" and "errr" come into it
a lot. You have to remember that the precise forms of words
to be used in official parlance had been the subject of
tense negotiation between the scientists and the Porton Down
bureaucrats, and then between the Porton Down bureaucrats
and MOD Whitehall officials, and then between MOD officials
and FCO and security service officials in the Joint
Intelligence Committee, before being signed off by
ministers. It is a process I know intimately from the
inside. This reconciliation of conflicting interests is why
at the start Aitkenhead says it is "Novichok" confidently,
but at 1 min 30 sec in he says the more truthful "Novichok
or from that family", which accords with the evidence Porton
Down gave to the High Court.

But the key moment comes at 3 min 27 secs in. Aitkenhead's
government minders were evidently unhappy with the
interview, and the last passage is a statement, not in
answer to any question, of the government's propaganda
position which is a very bad edit and clearly tacked on
after the interview had finished. They get the continuity
wrong it is not only a wider shot, the camera and tripod
have clearly been moved. It is in this final statement that,
in a desperate last minute attempt to implicate Russia,
Aitkenhead states that making this nerve agent required

"extremely sophisticated methods to create , something
probably only within the capabilities of a state actor."

Very strangely, Sky News only give the briefest clip of the
interview on this article on their website reporting it. And
the report is highly tendentious: for example it states

However, he confirmed the substance required "extremely
sophisticated methods to create, something only in the
capabilities of a state actor".

Deleting the "probably" is a piece of utterly tendentious
journalism by Sky's Paul Kelso. Interestingly, I have never
seen such large scale and coordinated social media activity
by the Tories as kicked into action immediately following
Aitkenhead's interview. Hundreds of openly identified Tory
activists sprang into action using the "state actor" line
omitting the probably and "government has other sources"
line. The BBC contribution was completely to ignore the
Porton Down statement and pretend nothing had happened. As
part of what was clearly a coordinated PR strategy to
pre-empt the OPCW and get over the hurdle of government lies
while still blaming Russia, Boris Johnson and Theresa May
simply lay low, unavailable to the media.

I shall post shortly a considered assessment of the wider
analysis of what could have happened in Salibury. Here is my
immediate reaction to Aitkenhead's statement on Russia
Today. Strangely the BBC did not invite me.
Posted on: def3.i2p