Logically speaking, it's either of:
1. These are unrelated
2. The cause is specific to the setup/operation of the US consulates themselves
3. Both Cubans (or Russians) and Chinese are using 3rd party spy tech that causes that
Anything else?
1. These are unrelated
2. The cause is specific to the setup/operation of the US consulates themselves
3. Both Cubans (or Russians) and Chinese are using 3rd party spy tech that causes that
Anything else?
This would be something within their means, and something that I'm sure somebody would benefit from.
Terrorists have been brazen enough to attack US diplomatic missions in the past. That's not to say that I think ISIS is attacking US diplomatic missions with sonic weapons, but if we're going to go with the theory that it is, in fact, a sonic weapon, there's no reason to believe that it could only be Russia.
How do you know I'm wrong? You heard it from one of those same sources? I'm not saying I would outright believe RT or any of Putin's outlets either, but that's exactly the point: a healthy dose of skepticism is called for.
Nonetheless we're getting pretty far afield. Select two incidents where any nation has killed its double-agents or whistleblowers (and I doubt there are any nations that lavish fond treatment on their double-agents in particular), and you now have evidence against that country equivalent to that upon which you declared Russia the only possible country brazen enough to carry out these two embassy attacks (assuming they were attacks).
Skripal, Litvinenko, Gorbuntsov, Perepilichnyy and others. Not two.
You realize Russia has invaded (and annexed territory from) multiple neighboring sovereign nations over the last 10 years? The idea that the west is simply posturing to set up a war with Russia while Russia is starting actual wars is laughable.
Imagine that the US as a nation was dissolved at some point. And some of our territory, perhaps a bit of Texas, ended up the property of Mexico. This new part of Mexico remained almost entirely American in both ethnicity and identity. And then some decades later Mexico began to collapse in internal turmoil with their government being violently overthrown from within. In the mean time the former US had regained a good deal of its lost strength.
In the midst of this, local forces in the annexed regions of Mexico, probably with some support of the US, formed their own interim government. And they then held a vote on whether they should remain part of Mexico, or return to the US. And with 83% voter turnout, 97% voted to return to the US. Those are certainly North Korea like poll numbers, but they have been reflected in later polls by third party organizations including Gallup. If anything it reflects how absurd the initial situation was. The US then declared them as part of its territory and the 'invasion' ended with nary a fatality.
I think there is a strong argument that the people should have been allowed to return as part of Russia if they so overwhelmingly desired it. But even that was something that was not independently acted on. You had a nation collapsing and a group of people in that nation that really did not want to be there. Annexation and war generally implies that the annexed nation did not want to be annexed. In this case, it was their former 'owner' that was holding them against their will.
---
The Project for the New American Century was a think tank made up of basically every big name in Washington. It was from Bush's era, but many are still playing extremely prominent roles in DC politics. This paper from them [1], 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' is one of the most honest and clear views of neoliberal foreign policy to date. To avoid bias, I'm going to avoid commenting directly on the paper. Other than to say that our foreign policy actions make vastly more sense if you peruse that paper, but it will also make you vastly more cynical. Keep in mind there that Russia's rise from the USSR's collapse is something that certainly qualifies as what the paper refers to as 'the emergence of a new international player.'
[1] - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmeri...
The downside to this structure is that you have rogue agents you can’t control. The upside is that clandestine operations are very difficult to uncover if nobody in Russia knows about it.
They either had nothing to do with it, or they did have something to do with it and it was for good reasons (good for them, not us) that we don’t understand. But them doing it because they are stupid is probably not one of the explanations.
This says "you should not do spy exchanges with us". Moreover, let's shoot this poor shmuck with an exotic bullet stamped with "Made in Russia" on its side AND let's also just wound the guy.
The bottom line is that this gives Russia nothing. It proves no point, it doesn't serve as a deterrent to anyone (which is what makes it different from the Litvinenko case), but it's just happens to be overflowing with signs that it was done by Russia. If Russians went to such great lengths to make sure it was obvious it was done by them, then it should be even more obvious why they did that. And it's not. So the simplest explanation is that it's a frame-up.
It serves as a deterrent if it sends the message to your own people that treason will never be forgiven, regardless of a pardon and exchange. And that is a philosophy to which Putin subscribes – he once said, "Enemies are right in front of you, you are at war with them, then you make an armistice with them, and all is clear. A traitor must be destroyed, crushed."
The smoking gun is that the nerve agent came from a USSR factory decades ago. It’s not hard to imagine that ended up in who-knows-whose hands since then.
Plus, it didn’t even do the job. Skirpal was released from the hospital. Seems pretty amateur...
> Russia should be the #1 suspect.
If it was actually true that there was only one country in the world brazen enough to attack a US consulate in China, that country would be China, not Russia.
I'm willing to believe the same operators pulled off these two attacks (well, they look like attacks; let us assume for a moment that they were). In that case it was either China or Russia -- I seriously doubt the Cubans would do this in China, so that leaves either China or Russia. Of course, it could also be North Korea, or who knows who else (Iran?).
I doubt anything will come of the local investigations, so until there is a third attempt, we may not find out what's up.
If it was Russia, I don't understand what's the upside here? Step 1:Hurt US diplomat in China Step 2: Start a wave of condemnations from both countries. Possible retaliations. More sanctions. Step 3: ? Step 4: Profit. They are bullies and have assassinated before but they don't seem to be completely irrational. What would be their Step 3 in the plan?
If that were the case re Russia, however, I'd have expected to see a lot more cases in China, to really push it.
Shoddy spy tech, on one side or the other, is the most likely cause imo.
At least two; the new Cold War was talked about a little bit before, but became undeniable during the Balkan crisis and resulting international peacekeeping missions.
It got less public attention (at least on the US side) when the focus was on US hot wars in the Middle East and Central Asia, but it didn't go away.
Also see: Little Green Men in Ukraine.
4. Chinese (or any major power) has tech near both US consulates and used Cuba as a cover.
There was some stories suggested that this was cause by interference of two survelience bugs.
This article just recently came out on the topic: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/19/michael-m...
An illustration: A parent suspects their child of sneaking out at night while the parent is sleeping. Lacking any evidence, the parent nonetheless declares that they saw the child sneak out! The child admits the wrongdoing, providing the parent with the evidence they lacked.
Another possibility since we're already in some pretty cynical territory: The whole thing is made up. That way, you get all the "blaming" benefits of a false flag attack without the expense and risk of pulling off an actual attack. I haven't scrutinized the evidence at all though, if there is any, so if you jump down my throat, do it gently. The Skripal poisoning may be one of these also.
[1] https://globalnews.ca/news/3693018/russian-diplomats-died-su...
The media reports say the symptoms were "subtle and vague, but abnormal, sensations of sound and pressure" that lasted a year. That sounds entirely consistent with a psychiatric explanation.
People working in embassies aren't somehow immune to psychiatric issues (and may in fact be more likely to experience things like this, due to the pressures of their work).
Here is some evidence linking tinnitus to psychiatric disorders:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16844885
"A close association between tinnitus and psychiatric disorders has been demonstrated".
So is the original allegation in the article. I'm saying that psychiatric explanation fits the facts better. If you have any evidence to the contrary, feel free to post it...
Do you have something against a psychiatric explanation?
I do also like the psyops disinfo theory - as stated elsewhere in this thread, suppose it was some other less respected nation that was making claims that their diplomats were victims of a mysterious sonic weapon. The claim would be poorly received. Personally there's a deeply appealing irony in the mass credulity being something like an even more massive mass hysteria.
Again this is the tin foil hat projects that many conspiracy theorist claim is still happening today.
during WWII Germany Scientist did research on remote viewing.
Here are a few links that points to Intelligence agency spending tax payer money in the fringe science.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080513174112/http://anson.ucda...
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,983829,...
667. They were testing a medtec app that can sense incoming strokes and play a tune along
1333. They detected incoming cartilage blockage and prevented stroke by zapping the clot.
Imagine the reactions if North Korean or Iranian diplomats made these same claims.
I possess the same amount of evidence as those who point to secret Russian spy technology ;)
> and there have been multiple independent medical examinations and diagnoses
That'd be unremarkable under any of the possible options.
Which is...?
Which begs the question: What was there first, the brain injury or the weird sensations? Who's to say his weird sensations are not the result of said brain injury? Which imho is the far more plausible explanation.
Couldn't it be that he felt these sensations because of the brain injury and being impressed by what happened in Cuba lead to him making connections that don't exist? People are impressionable like that, that's why the placebo effect, and mass hysteria, are very real things.