Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.

Soldato
Joined
22 Feb 2010
Posts
5,102
Location
Southampton
in which case what is he complaining about ? if he backs the only action that the government have taken then why :
"insisting the government must avoid "hasty judgements".
he warns not to "rush ahead of the evidence" in a "fevered parliamentary atmosphere"

I just think he is scoring own goals here
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jul 2013
Posts
28,822
I dunno, read his article:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/15/salisbury-attack-conflict-britain-cold-war

There can be no one in Britain who is not outraged by the appalling attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury last week. The use of military nerve agents on the streets of Britain is barbaric and beyond reckless. This horrific event demands first of all the most thorough and painstaking criminal investigation, conducted by our police and security services. They have a right to expect full support in their work, just as the public should also be able to expect calm heads and a measured response from their political leaders. To rush way ahead of the evidence being gathered by the police, in a fevered parliamentary atmosphere, serves neither justice nor our national security.

Theresa May was right on Monday to identify two possibilities for the source of the attack in Salisbury, given that the nerve agent used has been identified as of original Russian manufacture. Either this was a crime authored by the Russian state; or that state has allowed these deadly toxins to slip out of the control it has an obligation to exercise. If the latter, a connection to Russian mafia-like groups that have been allowed to gain a toehold in Britain cannot be excluded.

On Wednesday the prime minister ruled out neither option. Which of these ultimately prove to be the case is a matter for police and security professionals to determine. Hopefully the next step will be the arrest of those responsible. As I said in parliament, the Russian authorities must be held to account on the basis of the evidence, and our response must be both decisive and proportionate. But let us not manufacture a division over Russia where none exists.

Labour is of course no supporter of the Putin regime, its conservative authoritarianism, abuse of human rights or political and economic corruption. And we pay tribute to Russia’s many campaigners for social justice and human rights, including for LGBT rights.

However, that does not mean we should resign ourselves to a “new cold war” of escalating arms spending, proxy conflicts across the globe and a McCarthyite intolerance of dissent. Instead, Britain needs to uphold its laws and its values without reservation. And those should be allied to a foreign policy that uses every opportunity to reduce tensions and conflict wherever possible.

This government’s diplomacy is failing the country. Unqualified support for Donald Trump and rolling out the red carpet for a Saudi despot not only betrays our values, it makes us less safe.

And our capacity to deal with outrages from Russia is compromised by the tidal wave of ill-gotten cash that Russian oligarchs – both allied with and opposed to the Russian government – have laundered through London over the past two decades. We must stop servicing Russian crony capitalism in Britain, and the corrupt billionaires who use London to protect their wealth.

So I will not step back from demanding that Russian money be excluded from our political system. We will be holding the government’s feet to the fire to fully back Labour’s proposed Magnitsky-style sanctions against human rights abusers, along with a wider crackdown on money laundering and tax avoidance.

We agree with the government’s action in relation to Russian diplomats, but measures to tackle the oligarchs and their loot would have a far greater impact on Russia’s elite than limited tit-for-tat expulsions. We are willing to back further sanctions as and when the investigation into the Salisbury attack produces results.

But if we are to unite our allies behind action that needs taking, we must make full use of existing international treaties and procedures for dealing with chemical weapons. That means working through the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to reduce the threat from these horrific weapons, including if necessary an investigation by chemical weapons inspectors into the distribution of Soviet-era weapons.

There can and should be the basis for a common political response to this crime. But in my years in parliament I have seen clear thinking in an international crisis overwhelmed by emotion and hasty judgments too many times. Flawed intelligence and dodgy dossiers led to the calamity of the Iraq invasion. There was overwhelming bipartisan support for attacking Libya, but it proved to be wrong. A universal repugnance at the 9/11 attacks led to a war on Afghanistan that continues to this day, while terrorism has spread across the globe.

The continuing fallout from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the virtual collapse of the Russian state in the 1990s must be addressed through international law and diplomacy if we are to reverse the drift to conflict.

Right now, the perpetrators of the Salisbury attack must be identified and held to account. Only through firm multilateral action can we ensure such a shocking crime never happens again.
 
Caporegime
Joined
11 Mar 2005
Posts
32,197
Location
Leafy Cheshire
in which case what is he complaining about ? if he backs the only action that the government have taken then why :
"insisting the government must avoid "hasty judgements".
he warns not to "rush ahead of the evidence" in a "fevered parliamentary atmosphere"

I just think he is scoring own goals here

He used it as an opportunity to get on his soapbox and try to win political points rather than showing the support that many of his backbenchers did and subsequently has backpedaled ever since.

Whilst it is correct to ask questions the way he went about it was misguided, we all know corbyn is spineless when it comes to defending this country, he is as useful as a pacifist in a warzone.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
11 Mar 2005
Posts
32,197
Location
Leafy Cheshire
Ehm an ex British ambassador made this post on his blog.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/the-novichok-story-is-indeed-another-iraqi-wmd-scam/

an interesting read, and everyone can make their mind on their own.

As for the documents he is talking about one can be found here
https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/RC-3/en/rc3wp01_e_.pdf


In Greece the journalists say some times "The truth is an obstacle to a good money making story".

Several of his conclusions are false, lets start with number 3:

3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.

A sample is being sent to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons - the independent international body set up to stop chemical warfare - for analysis, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has since said.

But not just that, the OPCW is actually coming to the UK to investigate themselves!
 
Associate
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Posts
1,478
Location
London
Ehm an ex British ambassador made this post on his blog.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/the-novichok-story-is-indeed-another-iraqi-wmd-scam/

an interesting read, and everyone can make their mind on their own.

As for the documents he is talking about one can be found here
https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/RC-3/en/rc3wp01_e_.pdf


In Greece the journalists say some times "The truth is an obstacle to a good money making story".

Discussed earlier in thread and flawed
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Apr 2004
Posts
4,365
Location
Oxford
Ehm an ex British ambassador made this post on his blog.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/03/the-novichok-story-is-indeed-another-iraqi-wmd-scam/

an interesting read, and everyone can make their mind on their own.

As for the documents he is talking about one can be found here
https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/CSP/RC-3/en/rc3wp01_e_.pdf


In Greece the journalists say some times "The truth is an obstacle to a good money making story".

Goes in the face of what Vil Mirzayanov was saying though.

If this is a WMD level "Scam" I would ask:

Why do it ?

Why would France, Germany (who hardly like the UK at the best of times) as well as the US made joint statements as well?

Why do something that Russian has done in the past and have recently said they do again (get the traitors) Instead of wasting our own resources?
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
Goes in the face of what Vil Mirzayanov was saying though.

If this is a WMD level "Scam" I would ask:

Why do it ?

Why would France, Germany (who hardly like the UK at the best of times) as well as the US made joint statements as well?

Why do something that Russian has done in the past and have recently said they do again (get the traitors) Instead of wasting our own resources?

The issue is likely mostly whether it's an old compound or an actual new one (ie Novichok), then Porton Down would obviously know the old ones (it developed a lot of them after all), but would surely find it difficult to so quickly identify a new one.

Unless of course we simply assume an informant released information and we ignore the discussion for some silly reason, as frankly new compounds aren't included in the OPCW list anyway, so it wouldn't matter if they investigated as they wouldn't do anything.

Saying that, with the bluster about the new nuclear upgrades, it wouldn't be too strange that Russia would also have new chemical ones as well, ones they can "sort of" test.
 
Soldato
Joined
10 May 2012
Posts
10,054
Location
Leeds
When Theresa May is saying it's Russia, you also need to understand that she has access to intelligence assets like GCHQ, MI5/6, as well as American one's like the NSA and CIA. GCHQ's capabilities are next level. I doubt there's any speculation at this point.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
When Theresa May is saying it's Russia, you also need to understand that she has access to intelligence assets like GCHQ, MI5/6, as well as American one's like the NSA and CIA. GCHQ's capabilities are next level. I doubt there's any speculation at this point.

Like the ones that said Iraq was going to destroy the earth?

It's irrational to believe as you do, it's not a question of access, of course she does. It's a question of realpolitik.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
31,991
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Like the ones that said Iraq was going to destroy the earth?

Nobody said that. Also, the case for WMD in Iraq was manufactured primarily by the Bush administration, not the US intelligence community.

It's irrational to believe as you do, it's not a question of access, of course she does. It's a question of realpolitik.

* the nerve agent was invented in Russia
* it was mass produced in Russia
* no other country makes it
* it was used to attack a former Russian spy who betrayed his country.

I don't think it's irrational to conclude that Russia was to blame.
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Mar 2007
Posts
9,736
Location
Surrey
I genuinely don't understand how people can even question the fact that Russia was behind this, like it's something out of the norm and they haven't acted in this way before.

The company I work for is constantly under cyber attack from Russia as well, we get alerts almost daily about attacks on our website being blocked.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
Nobody said that. Also, the case for WMD in Iraq was manufactured primarily by the Bush administration, not the US intelligence community.



* the nerve agent was invented in Russia
* it was mass produced in Russia
* no other country makes it
* it was used to attack a former Russian spy who betrayed his country.

I don't think it's irrational to conclude that Russia was to blame.

That's not what i'm saying, it's irrational to think so bluntly when it involves Russia (or indeed any country/institution), it's such a mess of competing intelligence agencies and oligarchs. About the only consistency is the man himself.

I feel it's just not sensible to think in crude terms that mean very little to people in the know, but make it really easy to dangle all sorts of distasteful/unneeded measures in front of citizens, saying that it's now the new normal.

Are we just going to gloss over May's track record as an archetypal authoritarian, she's good at this for a reason.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,741
I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make.

Like why should we ignore who gains what from this on either side? Some people in this thread would make you believe that our government is saintly and has no motivations beyond the basic descriptions of their jobs. (IE protecting civilians)
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2006
Posts
5,724
Location
--->
* the nerve agent was invented in Russia
* it was mass produced in Russia
* no other country makes it
* it was used to attack a former Russian spy who betrayed his country.

I don't think it's irrational to conclude that Russia was to blame.

Tin foil or not, but it's all a bit too obvious for my liking.

At this stage, I don't think anything major will come of this, it's probably more manoeuvring to justify some ******** that's just round the corner, whether that's new security measures or more sanctions or us all having to tighten our belts (again).
 
Soldato
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Posts
8,393
It seems the nerve agent was inside the daughters suitcase. The levels of tinfoil in this thread are amazing, this is exactly the type of confusion and obscuring that the Russian state thrives on.

Just like Litvinenko I am certain we will show beyond reasonable doubt Russia is behind this. Or do those who think this is a false flag also think the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko wasn't Russia either?

You're free to believe the conspiracy theory you prefer. But don't act like you know the truth and you work for The Inquisition.
 
Back
Top Bottom