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.Originally Posted by Pokster
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.
Aaaaaaghhhh! Not this bullsh1t argument again!
Of necessity, foreign policy is not conducted on the basis of incontrovertible scientific or legal certainty. It is conducted based on rational assessment of risks and the proper analysis of the available evidence in order to arrive at a balanced conclusion. The only rational conclusion in this instance - which you clearly share, btw - is that the Russian state is culpable for the attack in Salisbury.
like WMD
Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar
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.
Not really, no. Rather a lot of people - most people in fact - were well aware how dubious those claims were at the time. The international community was split on the subject and the flimsiness of the evidence was widely known and discussed.
By contrast in this case, absolutely no serious commentator believes anyone but Russia is behind this attack. The international community has made it clear that no other perpetrator is likely. Citing Iraq is just another ploy by Russia and its allies to ensure inaction.
He does. He's a Russophile and general slavophile of long standing.
In his defence, did have a wonderful new year out with him and Mrs A in a sadly long-gone Russian restaurant in Primrose Hill.
Don't get me wrong. I very much like a and on the occasion I met her his glw seemed charming.
However, he has a blind spot when it comes to Putin that comes close to a mania.
None of that is strictly accurate. THe overriding truth in all matters of security and diplomacy is that the wider public is not given any meaningful information on the basis for decisions, assessment of risk etc. In other words, the Biritish government may well know for a FACT that the Russian state was behind this. The Russian state may even have told our intelligence service it was happening (I believe this is standard practice). Either way, the likes of us will never actually know what is going on. THere are soundreasons for this, of course.
However....when you openly keep secrets and deny interested parties the truth it is rather silly to expect there will not be suspicions, questions, theories. Its all part of the game.
I was simply making a point that when it comes to identifying the chemical as Russian we believe scientists. When it comes to making firm statements about the precise involvement of the russian state we happilyembrace conclusions made on what appears to be remarkably flimsy evidence.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote