Welcome to the logic of a CT nut!
Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Welcome to the logic of a CT nut!
Not really. Putin is both very popular in Russia and also secure as President for years to come having just been voted in for another six years. How this assassination attempt plays at home for him, is a trivial matter. What does matter are the economic and military fallout. Sanctions have been introduced as a result of this and have large and practical effects. It may be used to justify further military posturing against Russia by the West. The fallout for Russia of the Skirpal poisoning is - on an economic and political level - wholly negative.
Thanks. For the third, this poisoning HAS been done in a deliberately showy manner, imo. There are much quieter ways to kill someone. Every doctor I know could kill someone more discretely than this. Whilst it could be a botched attempt, even done successfully it would still be very showy. There's a very clear "message" element to this assassination attempt.
But we know that other countries have made similar weapons. Iran made five different ones in association with the OPCW. (Dowie inserted "allegedly" in there earlier. I don't know why - it's widely known and on record). The point is that if it's possible to make some, then it establishes you don't need to be Russian to make any of them. The UK has had forty years to research and test these things. It's inarguable that Britain could have made this.
Going to dispute that one. Where is the risk? People can accuse and doubt all day long, but there have been outright lies told by UK governments (Libya, Iraq to pick recent examples). Everybody knows they are lies. No heads have rolled. The risk to saying "Porton Down - please supply us with a small vial of X. Agent Y, please go smear some on Skirpal's door handle" is neither elaborate nor something that any senior politician is likely to receive blowback for.
That's not the alleged motive. The motive is economic sanctions and - potentially - military justifications.
I sense more argument by hysterical mockery incoming from Dowie, btw, having mentioned oil. I don't know why given oil is at the root of so much of our international relations or why "conspiracy theory" is an instant counter argument to everything. It's all conspiracy theory. We're talking about an assassination attempt by (almost certainly) a state actor. Pointing that out doesn't win the points they seem to think it does. But anyway, both petroyuan and sanctions are real things.
Here is a US senator calling for blocking of the German-Russia pipeline two weeks ago.
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/news...ion-of-russian-natural-gas-pipeline-to-europe
He goes on about Russia being a "malign influence" etc. Making out Russia to be assassinating foreign citizens in their own country aids greatly in making out Russia to be the malign influence it needs to be in order to introduce sanctions. It's a way to try and block European funding for the pipeline and European purchase of Russian oil. This is worth many billions and is also of real strategic significance. Most Germans want closer trade with Russia. It's beneficial. The USA and the UK do not want that. They are very against it. Here's a quote from oilprice.com on the Skirpal poisoning:
"With the spy poisoning scandal in the UK and the West-Russia tension high, Nord Stream 2 has taken center stage in energy policies again in recent weeks."
I read this stuff. I know what I'm talking about. And despite Dowie going "Conspiracy Theory! Conspiracy Theory!" every other post as if that's an argument, it remains a genuine motivation that exists. Of course it's a conspiracy theory. We're talking about a possible (and plausible) conspiracy. UK and US governments are more than capable of killing when billions of dollars are at stake and strategic influence is in jeopardy. Petroyuan is also a very real threat and you can find it discussed in any reputable economic publication. Saying it in a mocking tone of voice and rolling your eyes again, isn't an argument. It more just shows a lack of awareness and a tendency to dismiss any information that is new to you.
Here is a US senator calling for blocking of the German-Russia pipeline two weeks ago.
https://www.cassidy.senate.gov/news...ion-of-russian-natural-gas-pipeline-to-europe
He goes on about Russia being a "malign influence" etc. Making out Russia to be assassinating foreign citizens in their own country aids greatly in making out Russia to be the malign influence it needs to be in order to introduce sanctions. It's a way to try and block European funding for the pipeline and European purchase of Russian oil. This is worth many billions and is also of real strategic significance. Most Germans want closer trade with Russia. It's beneficial. The USA and the UK do not want that. They are very against it. Here's a quote from oilprice.com on the Skirpal poisoning:
"With the spy poisoning scandal in the UK and the West-Russia tension high, Nord Stream 2 has taken center stage in energy policies again in recent weeks."
I read this stuff. I know what I'm talking about. And despite Dowie going "Conspiracy Theory! Conspiracy Theory!" every other post as if that's an argument, it remains a genuine motivation that exists. Of course it's a conspiracy theory. We're talking about a possible (and plausible) conspiracy. UK and US governments are more than capable of killing when billions of dollars are at stake and strategic influence is in jeopardy. Petroyuan is also a very real threat and you can find it discussed in any reputable economic publication. Saying it in a mocking tone of voice and rolling your eyes again, isn't an argument. It more just shows a lack of awareness and a tendency to dismiss any information that is new to you.
Ah, even before I had finished my post, there is the mockery and argument by assertion from Dowie. Yes. Iran made five different Novichok agents, in partnership with the OPCW and this is a matter of record. The argument is not that they did or didn't make this exact nerve agent. The argument is, to continue the car analogy, that when a country has proven the ability to make Skodas, Toyotas, Mercedes, Nissans and Rovers, it is not a convincing argument to say "only Russia could have made a Volkswagen". The novichok nerve agents all work on the same principle, all are broadly similar to each other and all take similar amounts of research and effort to make. That Iran churned several of them out and that the UK and USA have produced them in the past, is an illustration that the UK is entirely capable of having made the one that was used in this instance. And that's a valid point. It's well within our capabilities and that is proven by their production by countries other than Russia. These are not smoking guns.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,667
It's amazing how many fruit loop conspiracy nuts there are these days
There's still people who think the Earth is flat so I think people not having trust in their own governments after a track record of being lied to is rather tame and perfectly logical as far as conspiracy theories go
oh jeeze this nonsense again... what does it have to do with the thread... just mentioning "petroyuan" and it being bad for the dollar doesn't then allow you to leap from that to "oh that's why the Russian spy was poisoned, false flag isn't unlikely etc.."
and yes you're pulling out the flawed Iran argument again, just because they've made some other nerve agents of a particular type doesn't allow you to conclude that the UK government has lied - you don't know the specific nerve agent used here, you don't know that it is of a type that has been created by Iran nor the reasons for the UK claiming it was of Russian origin
but you're indulging in conspiracy nonsense, and I will carry on calling it out as nonsense as this stuff does have negative implications when spread, based on having to make rather dubious leaps/believe in rather improbably scenarios. I can understand that from your perspective where the improbable is, in your head, somehow a valid alternative then someone engaging in a bit of mockery while responding to it comes across as bad form but really it is entirely deserving of mockery, this isn't SC, it is GD and the tin foil hatters are very much out in force in this thread. You can post all you like about how you read this stuff and know what you're talking about, lots of conspiracy theorists are very passionately engaged (some almost obsessive) - it doesn't make them right, there is still that disconnect from reality and the desire to cling onto alternative views regardless of their implausibility.
China and Russia are seeking to unseat the US dollar as the global currency for oil. Saddam Hussein threatened to sell oil in Euros. Gaddafi attempted to start an African Euro backed by Libyan oil and gold reserves. Each of these three things is a fact that you are welcome to check. I thought I had explained this (in fact I have). Sanctions are a tool of economic warfare. As are attempts to shut down the new Nordstream 2 pipeline. You seem unable or unwilling to make the connection. China and Russia trying to unseat the US dollar's preeminence is a shot in an economic battle. Sanctions and attempts to block the pipeline are another shot. It's two groups shooting at each other. The difference is that petroyuan doesn't require a causus belli, but sanctions do. Do you understand now?
Then yet again, you have not understood the argument or are being wilfully ignorant because that's not what I wrote. That Iran made five example novichok family nerve agents doesn't prove that the UK poisoned Skirpal and - in contradiction to your strawman - nobody has said that it does. For the final time, it shows that other countries can manufacture these agents. And you should stop pretending that there's some wide gap between them. If you can research and manufacture A,B,C,D and E, there's nothing particular stopping you producing nerve agent F. You're pretending that there's some great difference because it is necessary to the argument that only Russia could have made this particular nerve agent. That is false and shown to be false. Which means we're back to taking our government's word on this. My point. Please do not over and over again keep mischaracterising it.
Blah, blah, blah.
I've not said that it does either (please use the quote facility) - you seem to have a short memory, no straw man here, the UK government lying is the argument you put forward in a previous post and what I mentioned in that quote above, I've quoted the post I'm referring to here for you:
you can't possibly know that, just because Iran has apparently made some nerve agents of a the same type (but not necessarily the specific one used here) doesn't mean the UK government has lied... it is an obviously flawed argument.
h4rm0ny said:
Yes. I can as explained over and over. Because we have it on record that other countries have produced multiple novichok agents and there's no critical difference between researching and producing one and researching and producing another. Therefore it is a lie to say that only Russia could have produced this. This has been explained over and over. You however, are stuck on your own (uninformed) assertion that this is not so. Let me prove to you that it is uninformed with a question. What is it that makes the research and production of five novichok agents possible but the sixth one not? Please be very specific as to the technical or scientific barrier. If you are unable to tell me what that barrier is, then you have no reason to suppose that a country could make five variants but not six. Please answer with awareness that these formula have been around for forty years and all are minor variations on the same principle. Again, the statement that only Russia could make this, is a lie.
Again you're missing the point, you don't know the reasons why the UK have stated that the nerve agent was of Russian origin thus the flawed argument. You've now focused on technical capabilities but, again because you don't know, you could well be way off base. It might have nothing to do with technical capabilities - in fact if we are to assume that whatever was found could be very easily developed by any number of countries then it probably isn't the reason for stating that it was of Russian origin.
Now you're assuming your conclusion. Please answer the question seeing as your counter-argument earlier depends on it. What scientific or technical barrier is there that supposes a country can produce five members of the novichok family of nerve agents, but not a sixth. You can say I'm missing the point all you like - feel free. But kindly answer the question or concede there's no hard barrier. If you're going to dispute my case that non-Russian countries could have made it, then that is necessary.
nope.. I'm stating that you don't know
no it doesn't as already explained
No it isn't, again you don't know that the UK have made their assertion based on there being a technical barrier other countries couldn't overcome - they might have but given we don't know. You're making an assumption there.
Me: UK politicians stating that only Russia could have made this are lying because we have seen that other countries have made novichok agents.
You: But we don't know that they could make this particular one.
Me: What scientific or technical barriers are there that prevent the manufacturer of this particular one unlike all the others?
You: You're missing the point. They could know for some other reason.
I'm not missing the point. I'm showing that other countries could make this nerve agent. You try to avoid giving any technical or scientific reasons why they couldn't because you don't have any. There are none. So instead you try to dodge the question repeatedly and insist maybe there's some other proof that no other country could have made this. You don't suggest any. Because again, there are no technical or scientific reasons why another country couldn't. So we go round in this loop with you avoiding giving any reason why another country couldn't make this but insisting maybe there is one. And occasionally sticking the word "assumption" and "maybe" in from time to time. I'll ask again: What scientific or technical barriers would make this one particular agent alone impossible for another country to manufacture - do you have any, yes or no? If no, then another country could manufacture this. And don't keep invoking this idea that we must take our governments word for things by default because if that's your argument be honest about it.
well try using the quote facility and reading a bit more carefully... you're again just trying to set up your false premises with the "technical barrier" question
it completely misses the point as you don't know the reasons why the UK govt have stated that this was of Russian origin, you've had to make an assumption than the centre an argument around that assumption i.e. the obviously flawed one that because Iran has made some of this type (but not necessarily this particular one) then the UK govt is lying. It is by simple logic that you can't decide that as you don't know the reasons for the UK govt making the claim in the first place, you've assumed them.
sure I'm the one talking nonsense not the conspiraloons deciding the UK government has lied (despite only minimal details of the reasons why they believe it was Russia who made this nerve agent) and putting forth the idea that it was more probably the UK did it... ok then..