Pretty sure the UK claimed first... nor have we substantiated anything either, it just seems like two children fighting honestly, which doesn't seem too surreal with Boris at the helm of it.
Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Pretty sure the UK claimed first... nor have we substantiated anything either, it just seems like two children fighting honestly, which doesn't seem too surreal with Boris at the helm of it.
Most if not all in this thread who doubt the Boris Johnson narrative haven't been arguing that there is no novichok use involved. We've been arguing we cannot conclude Russia is behind it. The OPCW findings are not anything most did not suspect and do NOT validate statements by May and Johnson.
Uhhhh, the UK claimed Russia did it. You're now saying the burden of proof is on the UK? Good - that's what we've all been saying to you.
Honestly, you're really bad at this and your ability to post Futurama clips is a very poor level of argument, but sadly seems to be your default.
They didn't even lie, they were duped.
I haven't personally seen the UK's evidence (obviously) but as everyone who has has considered it conclusive/beyond doubt I am inclined to believe it.
It doesn't bother me too much that I can't see it for reasons of national security, if it's good enough to make all the top NATO/EU countries agree (for the first time this century) and good enough for Jeremy Corbyn (who's job is pretty much to complain about everything the government does) then it's good enough for me.
It doesn't bother me too much that I can't see it for reasons of national security, if it's good enough to make all the top NATO/EU countries agree (for the first time this century) and good enough for Jeremy Corbyn (who's job is pretty much to complain about everything the government does) then it's good enough for me.
They were actively looking for a way to justify the Iraq war. Their own experts were (until suicided) telling them there was no evidence. They actively worked to dismiss experts who contradicted the idea that Iraq had WMD (Bustani of the OPCW was ousted from a campaign by the USA) and they deliberately "sexed up" (their words) a dossier drawn largely from a Californian History grad student's thesis to create their key pieces of evidence. But sure, they were "duped". Who were they duped by, out of interest?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,210
- Location
- Southampton
Yes the OPCW agrees with Porton Downs assesment of WHAT caused the poisoning
Yes Boris is a total shower of **** but ive been saying that since he stopped being a floppy haired fun mayor idiot and started being a floppy haired serious business idiot
HOWEVER I think its pretty clear from:
Prior history of assassinations of defectors
Trolly smug attitude of Russian Governement and news outlets about the risk of being a former russian spy in the UK
Motive / grievance against him
Russias recent actions in Ukraine, Syria etc
thats plenty of reasons to conclude it was Russia, let alone any other intelligence or secret information that has not been made public, which seems to be enough to convince anyone who looks at it
Yes Boris is a total shower of **** but ive been saying that since he stopped being a floppy haired fun mayor idiot and started being a floppy haired serious business idiot
HOWEVER I think its pretty clear from:
Prior history of assassinations of defectors
Trolly smug attitude of Russian Governement and news outlets about the risk of being a former russian spy in the UK
Motive / grievance against him
Russias recent actions in Ukraine, Syria etc
thats plenty of reasons to conclude it was Russia, let alone any other intelligence or secret information that has not been made public, which seems to be enough to convince anyone who looks at it
That's utterly useless information to me and everyone else not seemingly "in the know", considering they didn't call it Novichok directly, it can be concluded that they aren't making a statement about it.
Can you explain those? Because regards motive, the USA and UK have more than Russia which is actually worse off because of this. Russian business leaders have seen $12bn losses due to this, it's being used as a reason to again try and shut down the Nordstream 2 project and as general anti-Russian propaganda regards Syria. It also damages the prospect of any future spy swap. So I'm solidly on the side of saying where Cui Bono is concerned, that's us not Russia. I also find "Russia's recent actions in Ukraine, Syria, etc" to be a very vague argument as to why Russia did this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,210
- Location
- Southampton
1. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...l-latest-video-30-pieces-silver-a8243206.html
"Traitors will kick the bucket" V. Putin 2010
2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko
3.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...how-russian-embassy-trolls-british-government
also other lulzy comments about midsummer murders and james bond
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...-agent-attack-on-sergei-skripal-a3788681.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/video...enov-rare-traitors-live-old-age-a8246666.html
“rare that traitors live to old age”
4.The fact that he was a Russian Military officer who betrayed them and helped us
5.Annexation of Crimea by force, Shooting down MH17, war in Donblass, backing Assad when he stated killing unarmed protestors, backing Assad when he uses chemical weapons on his own people.
Is this a country adhearing to a rules based international system?
This narrative of "the west trying to hurt Russia" is so backwards, before all this the west embraced Russia, look at all of the sporting events, Winter Olympics, Russian F1GP, World Cups etc that were organised, British Army bases in Europe closing, France was building the Mistral Carriers for them, its the actions of Putin that has lead us down this path, not the other way around
Even Trump, who ran on a campaign of "lets work with Russia" is having to change his attitude about them
"Traitors will kick the bucket" V. Putin 2010
2.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko
3.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...how-russian-embassy-trolls-british-government
also other lulzy comments about midsummer murders and james bond
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/wor...-agent-attack-on-sergei-skripal-a3788681.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/video...enov-rare-traitors-live-old-age-a8246666.html
“rare that traitors live to old age”
4.The fact that he was a Russian Military officer who betrayed them and helped us
5.Annexation of Crimea by force, Shooting down MH17, war in Donblass, backing Assad when he stated killing unarmed protestors, backing Assad when he uses chemical weapons on his own people.
Is this a country adhearing to a rules based international system?
This narrative of "the west trying to hurt Russia" is so backwards, before all this the west embraced Russia, look at all of the sporting events, Winter Olympics, Russian F1GP, World Cups etc that were organised, British Army bases in Europe closing, France was building the Mistral Carriers for them, its the actions of Putin that has lead us down this path, not the other way around
Even Trump, who ran on a campaign of "lets work with Russia" is having to change his attitude about them
Have you not read the summary put out by the OPCW?
For the benefit i quote (point 10 specifically)
The full report is available to all member states of the OPCW (Including Russia)
Full summary here:
https://www.opcw.org/news/article/o...l-assistance-requested-by-the-united-kingdom/
I didn't state it did, you quoted the whole post if you were commenting on one peice of it then there was no way to know that
The government is actively moving the goalposts, requesting blind faith, and spuriously dismissing requests for evidence or explanations (see Boris Johnson incident) as only being Kremlin bots stirring **** up.
In a way, it doesn't matter what one personally chooses to believe about this case. What matters more is the precedent the government is setting with this approach, and just how far the public are willing to accept this slide into government not having to present proof and demand blind faith.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
Sounds like the leave campaign for Brexit...
All governments do this, especially if the source of the inteligence needs protecting. In the past parliament would hold a closed session so the evidence could be shared and discussed, not sure if that is possible now.
I don't expect the UK government to publicly reveal all their intelligence sources for what would seem obvious reasons. I don't see why they would want to lie about Russia doing it though given it causes tension with a nuclear armed state
Uhh, what...
You don't see why the UK would lie about Russia because it's got nuclear weapons? Then why would you see the Russians lying about the UK because it's got nuclear weapons...
This is not a useful statement to make unfortunately, it's immaterial, there's more to it than basic deterrence, which neither camps care about.
You don't see why the UK would lie about Russia because it's got nuclear weapons? Then why would you see the Russians lying about the UK because it's got nuclear weapons...
This is not a useful statement to make unfortunately, it's immaterial, there's more to it than basic deterrence, which neither camps care about.
And what do you think the government should do? They're withholding information from people who don't need it for the purpose of national security. They're sharing that information with a circle of those who do need it. That circle includes independent and even opposing bodies who all conclude the same thing; Russia needs to be the one providing an explanation.
Also to say the government is moving the goalposts by withholding information from its public is just laughable. They've always done that, it's not new.