trail of polonium at the Emirates.
So that bodes well. :-(
trail of polonium at the Emirates.
So that bodes well. :-(
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.
a right now.
Attachment 896
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.