Caporegime
Impressively proving freakbros point there...
Former Russian double agent seriously ill in Salisbury.
- Thread starter Malevolence
- Start date
Partially yes, but hey ho.
I'm not defending anyone, it's entirely about knowing what is and is not likely to be correct and not being utterly dogmatically enslaved to the state.
Soldato
And I quote today's BRITISH position....
While on the UK last report to OPCW states that all what is been said is based on open source reporting.....
Astonishing.
1. Lavrov was right about the Swiss finding BZ as well as 'novichok/A-234'.
2. The OPCW head has now explained its presence as being a control marker and part of quality control procedures.
3. Why would the Swiss lab insider not be aware of control markers as part of quality control procedures, and feel the need to contact the Russians about it. Maybe they knew, but were still a bit "hmm". Or maybe something else.
2. The OPCW head has now explained its presence as being a control marker and part of quality control procedures.
3. Why would the Swiss lab insider not be aware of control markers as part of quality control procedures, and feel the need to contact the Russians about it. Maybe they knew, but were still a bit "hmm". Or maybe something else.
Maybe this insider has there own agenda (thats why they use more than one lab)
Could be.
Maybe the insider was the cleaner and didn't understand what they were overhearing
lol who knows. Or one of the lab technician's wives or something.
Let's see if they leave it at that and are happy with the explanation, or if this (asking the OPCW the question) was just the first step.
I don't believe BZ was mentioned in the report, and it wouldn't make sense given the Russians also received the report. Bear with me:
That last sentence seems to imply that it was included, until you consider the use of the term "the findings" (instead of "and it/this is duly reflected...") and also the claim that BZ has nothing to do with the samples collected in Salisbury. The very next paragraph supports this reading of it, since it is basically the justification for BZ not appearing in the final report:
I think you're digging a bit now... you lapped up the Russian propaganda when it was released, their standard play to try and spread some doubt when there wasn't any and now you're still trying to come up with some argument for this BZ nonsense - it was just a Russian attempt to confuse things and for you, it seems to have worked
Perhaps you didn't dig enough, because you quoted accurate information, that you haven't cared to acknowledge is such, and a little speculation about it but no claims (other than those that turned out to be true).
It's someone else's standard ploy to falsely claim "there is no doubt", when doubt most definitely exists, as well as many unanswered questions.
How would you know it was just that? You don't even bother to use "probably" or "highly likely". As for confusion, some were confused about BZ being mentioned in the report, when it wasn't. Some also expressed doubts, to put it mildly, about Lavrov's word. But it was proven true by the OPCW's response to his question, confirming the presence of BZ and explaining it.
Would you prefer that nothing coming from the Russian side, which is part of the whole saga, was mentioned in this thread, Dowie?
The confusion from Russia was deliberate and you're seemingly utterly blind to it even when you've taken it at face value and then later realised it was nonsense... Instead of questioning it you then assume there was some explanation for the confusion other than the rather obvious one of it being deliberate, it is all rather silly... but this is the sort of mindset required to detach yourself from reality and believe in conspiracies I guess.
No answer to my questions, no acknowledgement, and doubling-down with more assumptions and misconstruing of my position.
I won't lie to myself that I have no doubts. And I'm not going to assume this, or that, as the truth, like you are doing. I'm also not going to assume the OPCW's explanation is the end of it. It might be, or it might not. What you claim can only be deliberate confusion can also be explained as a likely result of excluding Russia from participation and seeing all the details of the investigation and testing, and them then finding out about the presence of another chemical, the symptoms of which match the witness statements of the Skripals' condition and behaviour on the park bench, and feeling they should inquire about it.
Russia is the defence in this case, they have the right to put forward any evidence and ask questions of the investigation, and the trial is ongoing. That the prosecutor has wanted to also act as judge and jury along with some friends, doesn't mean it's over. It just means the prosecution is out of order and jumping the gun.
The UK ambassador to the OPCW, Peter Wilson, has now said they will be complying with the rules to answer Russia's questions (around 45 I believe) within 10 days.
The investigation was carried out by the OPCW, they're supposed to be impartial - there is no requirement to include Russia in the investigation itself, that would be rather dubious in itself. If you're instead referring to the separate investigations carried out by the UK then Russia were asked for some level of cooperation and refused it... then demanded involvement. You fell for the deliberate disinformation hook, line and sinker yet are still trying to pretend it has some entirely reasonable explanation.
And what did the OPCW confirm? Only the UK findings relating to the identity of the nerve agent. Not the UK's other accusations as to origin or "who dun it". It's rather apparent now that other countries, including the US, possess types of Novichok. Vast stockpiles of it were not required for use in Salisbury, either. Perhaps one of the few completely apparent things so far is that a party has let other parties know that they have untraceable Novichok.
As for the OPCW's impartiality, they're not all Swiss and neutral. They're a collection of chemical experts and diplomats from a wide array of countries. Is there form in politics and separate ambitions getting entangled with the OPCW? Look no further than John Bolton's track record of threats to an ex-OPCW head, and allegedly even to his children. Even now, the US/UK and others, are working hard to politicize the OPCW and give it the power to assign blame. I don't think anybody in their right mind believes this is because they'd always be impartial but rather because they are confident they have enough influence to steer it to desired outcomes.
By accusing the Russians and "convicting" them by punishing them, it was ensured that Russia, which would otherwise have been involved in the OPCW investigation (which took place after the punishment), was left out. It's all rather convenient and they are absolutely right to have questions, including about how the OPCW carried out the investigation and why it left certain details out of the report. As for me, I don't need the Russians to make me extremely suspicious of how this has all been handled by the government. Listening to the Russians' side, and accurately judging that Lavrov wouldn't lie about something like that, doesn't mean I believe everything they say.
Just because you believe and have become invested in the government's conspiracy theory of who was responsible, doesn't mean others are wrong to withhold judgment, and consider other conspiracy theories, without believing or becoming invested in them, till the facts become clearer (if ever).
As for the OPCW's impartiality, they're not all Swiss and neutral. They're a collection of chemical experts and diplomats from a wide array of countries. Is there form in politics and separate ambitions getting entangled with the OPCW? Look no further than John Bolton's track record of threats to an ex-OPCW head, and allegedly even to his children. Even now, the US/UK and others, are working hard to politicize the OPCW and give it the power to assign blame. I don't think anybody in their right mind believes this is because they'd always be impartial but rather because they are confident they have enough influence to steer it to desired outcomes.
By accusing the Russians and "convicting" them by punishing them, it was ensured that Russia, which would otherwise have been involved in the OPCW investigation (which took place after the punishment), was left out. It's all rather convenient and they are absolutely right to have questions, including about how the OPCW carried out the investigation and why it left certain details out of the report. As for me, I don't need the Russians to make me extremely suspicious of how this has all been handled by the government. Listening to the Russians' side, and accurately judging that Lavrov wouldn't lie about something like that, doesn't mean I believe everything they say.
Just because you believe and have become invested in the government's conspiracy theory of who was responsible, doesn't mean others are wrong to withhold judgment, and consider other conspiracy theories, without believing or becoming invested in them, till the facts become clearer (if ever).
do you think they have been punished ? - May has been politically impotent to apply any finanical sanctions like the USA, or even acknowledge it is in the works.
The slow drip feed of information on the circumstances of the poisoning is keeping it in the news, the extensive cleanup operations now decided, must be worrying if you live in Salisbury.
not sure how they could ever have that remit, they would need massive resources to contemplate such a role ... becoming a worldwide security/intelligencee agency.
yes - with spectometry they can establish whether ingrediants came from particular geographical regions, but that would not be conclusive ... they cannot go much further.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,053
I invite you to read back and see how I addressed that interpretation of yours. Then you moved on to other things, which I've also addressed. I also invite you to take some responsibility, perhaps vainly.
This is a great question because it highlights how the punishment (which there was - a swathe of diplomat expulsions in conjunction with other countries, and leading to more US sanctions on Russia) hardly fits the alleged crime. Almost as if they knew they were pushing it, but didn't want to push it too far. Craig Murray has recently shared that sources at the FCO remain unconvinced that Russia did this. He was previously right about Porton Down's true position, which he says was shared by FCO sources.
Nevertheless, that is what they are pushing for. Note how Boris Johnson embellished what Porton Down actually said. Note how it is the diplomats at the OPCW who prepare the actual statements and reports, and try to get away with as much as possible before the chemical experts yell "foul".