Of course, the last time we played CSKA Moscow, Russian assassins watched and left a

[Burney]

Some facts about 'Novichoks' btw.

1) Porton Down has acknowledged in publications it has never seen any Russian “novichoks”. The UK government has absolutely no “fingerprint” information such as impurities that can safely attribute this substance to Russia.
2) Until now, neither Porton Down nor the world’s experts at the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) were convinced “Novichoks” even exist.
3) The UK is refusing to provide a sample to the OPCW.
4) “Novichoks” were specifically designed to be able to be manufactured from common ingredients on any scientific bench. The Americans dismantled and studied the facility that allegedly developed them. It is completely untrue only the Russians could make them, if anybody can.
5) The “Novichok” programme was in Uzbekistan not in Russia. Its legacy was inherited by the Americans during their alliance with Karimov, not by the Russians.

Source: Craig Murray.

You know I linked to a Twitter thread where a molecular chemist ripped Murray apart on these very points barely a couple of hours ago, right?

[Luis Anaconda]

You know I linked to a Twitter thread where a molecular chemist ripped Murray apart on these very points barely a couple of hours ago, right?

That was probably the one I saw - couldn't find it again

[Burney]

That was probably the one I saw - couldn't find it again

https://twitter.com/corbyn50plus/sta...11990254538754

[71 Guns - channeling the spirit of Mr Hat]

That was probably the one I saw - couldn't find it again

NNTTM
https://twitter.com/deadlyvices/stat...71484787822592

[World's End Stella]

I know Ash. Nice bloke. Intelligent. Lovely missus who is far too good for him. Proper Gooner. Gets his round in. Couldn't say a bad thing about him.

So can someone let me know what the subtext is that explains his refusal to believe that Russia could do something like this?

[Pokster]

I know Ash. Nice bloke. Intelligent. Lovely missus who is far too good for him. Proper Gooner. Gets his round in. Couldn't say a bad thing about him.

So can someone let me know what the subtext is that explains his refusal to believe that Russia could do something like this?

From what i can gather, he hasn't said that they couldn't have something to do with this, just wants more proof than currently is being provided.

[Burney]

From what i can gather, he hasn't said that they couldn't have something to do with this, just wants more proof than currently is being provided.

I have engaged with many of these types in recent days. When you ask them exactly what proof would satisfy them short of Putin say 'We dunnit', they are very short on answers. The reason being that there is no proof that would satisfy them. They are not arguing rationally, they are attempting to peddle what they know is a lie.

[Peter]

I have engaged with many of these types in recent days. When you ask them exactly what proof would satisfy them short of Putin say 'We dunnit', they are very short on answers. The reason being that there is no proof that would satisfy them. They are not arguing rationally, they are attempting to peddle what they know is a lie.

A scientist would not believe that russia were responsible for this without compelling evidence.

Anyway, i dont think the issue is about whether they did it but how they did it. Nobody really minds russians bumping off spies. Its all rather exciting. But we have a right to insist it is done properly and without risk to the general public. And it would be courteous for them to let us know they will be doing it, through the proper channels.

[World's End Stella]

I have engaged with many of these types in recent days. When you ask them exactly what proof would satisfy them short of Putin say 'We dunnit', they are very short on answers. The reason being that there is no proof that would satisfy them. They are not arguing rationally, they are attempting to peddle what they know is a lie.

Yes, but doesn't Ash seem to have a history on here of refusing to accept criticism of Russia? I seem to recall him refusing to accept that Russia and Assad had really done anything wrong in Syria, as an example.

I find this baffling.