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

[Burney]

trail of polonium at the Emirates.

So that bodes well. :-(

[Ash]

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.

[Luis Anaconda]

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.

Complete bull**** from Murray which has been debunked by scientists - bit more research and you will find that

[PSRB]

Complete bull**** from Murray which has been debunked by scientists - bit more research and you will find that

:nod: The man is a complete fraud/clown

[Luis Anaconda]

:nod: The man is a complete fraud/clown

Harsh on Ash but if he does believe these lunatics...

[Peter]

Harsh on Ash but if he does believe these lunatics...

Debunked by 'scientists'....

I work with an awful lot of 'scientists'..... most of them couldnt find their back pockets with both hands.

You can prove anything with 'science' :p

[Luis Anaconda]

Debunked by 'scientists'....

I work with an awful lot of 'scientists'..... most of them couldnt find their back pockets with both hands.

You can prove anything with 'science' :p
I think when it was shown Murray didn't have a ****ing clue what "novichoks" were it kind of undermined his whole argument

[Monty92]

Debunked by 'scientists'....

I work with an awful lot of 'scientists'..... most of them couldnt find their back pockets with both hands.

You can prove anything with 'science' :p

Who'd have thought you'd believe in the merits of homeopathy?

[eastgermanautos]

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 fvcking bot, get off our board.

[Alberto Balsam Rodriguez]

trail of polonium at the Emirates.

So that bodes well. :-(


So we claim on the insurance and buy a new squard and new fans.

[Sir C]

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.

Do you reckon Theresa May did it to start a war with Russia so that the Tories don’t lose heavily in the council elections, a?

My money is on it being a new-Nazi Ukrainian false flag. Either way, that nice Mr Putin is clearly innocent. Just consider his record of only occasionally slaughtering anyone who opposes him.

[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?

[Burney]

Do you reckon Theresa May did it to start a war with Russia so that the Tories don’t lose heavily in the council elections, a?

My money is on it being a new-Nazi Ukrainian false flag. Either way, that nice Mr Putin is clearly innocent. Just consider his record of only occasionally slaughtering anyone who opposes him.

a right now.

896

[Sir C]

a right now.

896

I’m not discounting the possibility of it being a Jewish-American banking conspiracy, naturally.

[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]

I’m not discounting the possibility of it being a Jewish-American banking conspiracy, naturally.

Oh, Murray has already pointed out that many of the same Labour MPs who criticised Corbyn are the same ones who are Labour Friends of Israel.

I've no idea what the anti-semitic prick might be attempting to imply there.

[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/status/974171484787822592

[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? :sherlock:

[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? :sherlock:

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.

[Burney]

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.

[Pokster]

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.

:nod: like WMD :hide: ;)

[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.

[Burney]

:nod: like WMD :hide: ;)

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.

[Burney]

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.

He does. He's a Russophile and general slavophile of long standing.

[Luis Anaconda]

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.

[Burney]

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.

[Peter]

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.

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.