The West, first by just asking/accusing and this time via OPCW "offer that you
can refuse"ing, continues to try to press Russia to give up all her information
and investigation records about the Navalny bullshit.
Why would they continue to do this?
If you want to weave a hoaxasaurus story around the facts, you cannot do that
properly without the facts, because your story WILL come undone, just as
Germany's part in the Navalny hoax has already changed their story from
"novichok after effects in his body fluids" ('body fluids' keeps their door
open should the Russians have failed to collect one or another "bodily fluid"
for testing, e.g.), to their 2nd story about "Novichok on a water bottle" - a
water bottle that materialised into the second story, whilst not existing in
the first story).
And if you really want to slam home your hoax, you want to attack more than one
"failure" by (in this case) the Russians to test every avenue of possible
testing.
You see, if the Russians did in fact fail to test EVERY avenue of possible
"novichok" testing in Navalny - which is almost a certainty since would you
test (e.g. via tissue sample) EVERY organ in Navalny for (specifically)
novichok poisoning if you were a Russian doctor? (Just think how many there are
- from lungs, to kidneys, liver, heart, eyes, muscles, joints, hair, tongue etc
etc etc)?
And so of course if Russia acts like idiots and gives up the information they
DO have (e.g. may be their tested urine and liver functioning somehow), THEN
the west will weave their bullshit around those possible tests that Russia
FAILED to do but (constructed in hindsight) the West magically "oh yes, we did
THOSE tests come to think of it, it's a wonder we did not release that info
publicly before now".
Some would say that the above should not be said - giving ideas to possible
future nefarious people.
But we're dealing with highly compromised Western officials all over the place,
as we see with the MH-17 completely unjust and flawed and anything but fair
"hearing", the Skripal hoax, endless Russia demonization, and now this Novichok
2 point 0, and it is important that anyone who DOUBTS the nasty nefarious
arsehole-ness of Western "leaders" and "officials", can see a clear and
straightforward path to how the West is trying desperately to create Novichok
hoax 2.0.
It is presumably a fair assumption the Russians won't fall for such bullshit,
and already they have called for Germany to release the paperwork on why they
are making their bullshit Novichok hoax 2.0 claim in the first place, which of
course Germany is refusing to do since compromised.
If Russia DID fall into trusting the West on this event, they would absolutely
pay the price with the West in short order releasing the tests the West "did
do" <ahem, cough cough/> and which the Russians "ought" to have done, and would
thereby sow the seeds of plausible doubt into the minds of millions of gullible
MSM followers.
Plausibe doubt, plausible deniability, negative averments by any other name,
also 'evil' by another name.
Stay calm, stay alert, never shift ground. The west in its INjustice and EVIL,
shall eventually pay the price, and deservedly so.
OPCW Offers to Send Experts to Russia to Support Investigation Into
Navalny's Poisoning
https://sputniknews.com/world/202010051080673336-opcw-offers-to-send-experts-to-russia-to-support-investigation-into-navalnys-poisoning/
Again: warning (hopefully obvious) to Russia: do NOT allow OPCW "experts" into
Russia to "support" or in any other way "investigate" the Navalny "poisoning" -
the West's foregone conclusion has been laid out very clearly, and the West is
simply seeking to find post facto "holes" in the Russian medico's processes to
ram in some plausible doubt. Just do not go there!
And also again, the West in projecting guilt and nefariousness, has
demonstrated evil, unjust principles, a will to destroy righteousness, and to
build massive hoaxes against Russia to indict Russia in "the public mind".
Let the West fall on its own sword and DO NOT trust the West for the
foreseeable future!
If Russia falls into this trap, the consequences are on Russia's heads!
If Russia allows the OPCW into Russia to investigate Navalny, well they better
have a bloody well thought ought plan to handle the negative averments that
WILL come Russia's way as a result!
You have been warned!
On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:16:26AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> For reference, this is a good take, and prompted the below (apologies for the
> separate email, forgot to add it in):
>
> Germany, Not Russia, Should Answer Questions Over Navalny Case
>
> https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/germany-not-russia-should-answer-questions-over-navalny-case
>
>
>
>
> May righteousness one day prevail in the Western nations.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2020 at 12:13:03AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > Speaking of "due process" and the presumption of innocence turned upside
> > down - to the literal presumption of guilt put upon individuals and entire
> > nations - the degradation of the West, the Western judicial system, the
> > turning upside down of fundamental principles of justice, truth and
> > righteousness, is all on full display by German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
> > the USA, Britain, and also ("of course") NATO, in this Novichok redux with
> > Navalny.
> >
> > (If Navalny got -actually- poisoned with Novichok, that tells us Navalny
> > was an expendable puppet literally sacrificed for the interests of the West
> > by his Western handlers; it is more likely it is simply another full hoax,
> > and that he was not poisoned and has in some way hoaxed this "poisoning".)
> >
> >
> > The "most generous" view of German Chancellor Angela Merkel in this
> > instance, is that she is either blackmailed, or in some other way
> > compromised - pointing the "presumption of guilt" blame finger on Russia to
> > create this media spectacle, is in no way in Germany's interests, and the
> > (alleged or actual) poisoning of Navalny is in no way in Russia's or
> > Putin's interests.
> >
> >
> > Similarly for the other foreign ministers who "weighed in" to accuse Russia
> > and "demand answers" blah blah blah. Compromise of some sort is within
> > those who conduct themselves in such evil ways (public accusations,
> > presumtpion of guilt, demands for "immediate action" blah blah blah).
> >
> >
> > And similarly for the head of NATO, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg,
> > must, logically, likewise be either blackmailed or otherwise compromised.
> > You don't sell your Soul for no reason...
> >
> >
> > How is it that one can make such assertions (that Merkel, Stoltenberg, etc
> > have sold their Souls) in such confidence?
> >
> > The evidence is before us: when a Western diplomat denies to a foreign
> > government or denies to foreign officials, their right to be presumed
> > innocent, and denies them their right to due process (to be presented the
> > "evidence" against them, to assess and refute that evidence), then it is
> > clear that we are witnessing evil, despotism, an inversion of justice and
> > the opposite of righteousness.
> >
> >
> > "The West" is supposedly built on principles of justice and fairness: due
> > process, the right to a fair hearing, the right to be presumed innocent
> > until otherwise proven guilty, the right to be not slandered publicly, and
> > more.
> >
> > The reality, for whatever reasons, is that Western diplomats (who these
> > days are mostly anything BUT diplomatic, let alone righteous), sacrifice
> > righteousness, sacrifice justice, and presume guilt without presentment of
> > evidence, and they do all this on the alter (from the most generous
> > possible interpretation) of political expediency.
> >
> > This sacrifice of righteousness and sacrifice of justice (supposed
> > "Western" principles), is evil. We are witnessing evil in action.
> >
> > So, we witness evil actions, we witness evil words, and we suffer evil
> > consequences.
> >
> >
> > We are witnessing these precise actual evils, in the current hoax of
> > Navalny's hoaxed (or possible actual but no less indicting of the West)
> > poisoning with "Novichok".
> >
> > And because we witness each of these inversions of truth, righteousness and
> > justice, and we witness these evils, and these evils are done by Western
> > diplomats, we can see that "our" Western diplomats have become evil in
> > their conduct. And so "our" diplomats, our "leaders", are in fact a blight
> > upon the West, a blight upon us, a curse which we must remove.
> >
> >
> > It is sad for the West that "our" "leaders" conduct themselves in such evil
> > ways, speak such evil words, and treat our Russian brothers with such evil.
> >
> > The inversion of justice, the inversion of righteousness, the inversion of
> > truth - all these things are evil, they are abhorrent to the plain thinking
> > man who seeks righteousness, truth and justice.
> >
> >
> > The most generous possible justification of this Western evil, is "mere
> > political expediency".
> >
> > Political expediency is the most generous interpretation we can make of
> > these evils.
> >
> > In every case, this evil conduct by our Western "leaders", is abhorrent.
> >
> > This evil behaviour, implies hidden forces and implies compromises unseen -
> > possibly blackmails, possibly enticements (money, power), possibly merely
> > base greed and opportunism, possibly combinations of these evils.
> >
> >
> > By God Russia has the right to protect her interests in the face of Western
> > evil!
> >
> > In the face of the many evils of the West, we pray and pray again that
> > Russia does indeed protect her interests!
> >
> > May the Russian people be released from their Western constitutional chains.
> >
> > May the Russian people be spared further Western evil.
> >
> >
> > The interests of the West, of us all, includes most fundamentally, the
> > upholding of righteousness, the upholding of truth, and the upholding of
> > justice.
> >
> > We must rid our nations and ourselves of the evils within.
> >
> >
> > We must drain the swamp.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I am presently writing submissions in reply for a case in which the right
> > > to
> > > be heard (in a court case) is being demanded (by the team I am on, against
> > > the state), and it looks particularly challenging (read, low probability
> > > of
> > > success) due to the entrenched statute law which is quite explicit in this
> > > case. Nonetheless, in this case, the question must be asked (something
> > > like
> > > "when there is both a law and a regulation, each allowing the self
> > > represented person to appeal on an issue of "was due process afforded",
> > > and
> > > he chooses the law but did not know the regulation, but the law denies an
> > > appeal whereas the regulation allows it, should that self represented
> > > person
> > > be denied his right to rehearing just because he did not know the
> > > regulation,
> > > but the law section he chose by default says 'if you use this section, you
> > > don't get a rehearing'?").
