Critically ill man 'former Russian spy'

Status
Not open for further replies.
How about you stop the actions which lead to the sanctions?
1. What Moscow has done (really done) in the context of the Skripals poisoning?
2. What exactly has been proved?
3. Is the principle 'innocent until proven guilty' completely forgotten in the West?
1. Nothing.
2. Nothing.
3. Toward Russia - yes.
 
1. What Moscow has done (really done) in the context of the Skripals poisoning?
2. What exactly has been proved?
3. Is the principle 'innocent until proven guilty' completely forgotten in the West?
1. Nothing.
2. Nothing.
3. Toward Russia - yes.
Bolshy liar on duty today.

1)Moscow tried to poison the Skripals, ballsed it up, and murdered a British citizen.

That's it.

That is what you are guilty of.
 
1. What Moscow has done (really done) in the context of the Skripals poisoning?
You mean other than fail to reply to the original two questions? To seed a flow of Jackanory's to the public and ridicule any investigative efforts? To set forth its troll army on another onslaught of deny, obfuscate and outright lie? Fail to open itself up for international inspection? To vote against OPCW powers being increased? To leak false information on OPCW lab findings?

All of this off the top of my head, but I could go on.
2. What exactly has been proved?
'Highly likely' Russian govt
3. Is the principle 'innocent until proven guilty' completely forgotten in the West?
Is there a criminal trial yet? Or are you talking about diplomatic activities?
1. Nothing.
2. Nothing.

3. Toward Russia - yes.
Sob, sob. Poor old Russia again. Do you need a tissue Princess?
 
1. What Moscow has done (really done) in the context of the Skripals poisoning?
2. What exactly has been proved?
3. Is the principle 'innocent until proven guilty' completely forgotten in the West?
1. Nothing.
2. Nothing.
3. Toward Russia - yes.
1. First I went with the drug supposition, but it sounded a bit odd (who would have imagined the truth?)
Then circumstances became more clear as to who Sergei was - (a traitor to Russia), the symptoms didn’t match and the nerve agent was identified
Since then I have believed that either the Russian state did it, or a supporter/supporters have done so independantly thinking Putin would like it
(But I have not believed everything that has been published)
Some **** has attempted to a murder a traitor, but along the way has also hospitalised Julia, DS Nick, Dawn and Charlie
Of those 5, 4 made it out of hospital - Dawn didn’t
With the accidental inclusion of Dawn things became personal - as I knew her, some of her family and am close to one of them. I was also concerned about Charlie as I was at school with Rowleys and his age is about right for the younger brother that I helped look after sometimes
(“Luckily” not the Rowleys I knew)
2) it has not been proved with any published facts, but I am still satisfied with the circumstances. Many countries are either also satisfied, or it suits their agenda to throw out your spies as well
3) innocent until proven guilty remains valid. Send the team over for trial
 
From the Syria thread:
What if they found nothing?
As I said, released
What if they don't want even to search?
U.K. not Russia
"To prove guilty" and "to prove innocence" are different things. In the civilisated countries, it is guilty, what should be proven.
If there’s a trial, it will be ‘beyond reasobale doubt’ as a test.
Baseless blames are just slander/libel/defamation.
You’ve been told the difference and it’s ‘diplomatic actions’
 
U.S. strongly condemns Russia's poisoning of former spy: White House
White House National Security Spokesman statement condemning the use of nerve agent:
“The attack against Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, United Kingdom, on March 4, 2018, was a reckless display of contempt for the universally held norm against chemical weapons,” said a spokesman for the White House National Security Council in an email.

The spokesman said sanctions that the State Department said it would impose by the end of August fulfilled its legal obligations “after determining a foreign government has used chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals or in violation of international law.”
 
Last edited:
This is fact:

The attack against Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury, United Kingdom, on March 4, 2018, was a reckless display of contempt for the universally held norm against chemical weapons,"
But responsibility of Moscow is just an allegation.
 
It is an example of black agitprop - allegations are being presented as fact, as something proved, established.
Nope, 'highly likely' but you know that and your squealing speaks volumes. I assume (naturally) that the US and the UK have a fair bit of information to make the assessment on at a GSC way above Arrse, but then I'm a realist.
Reuters is a part of the agitprop machine as it presents one sided information. Position of Moscow was not mentioned at all.
What is the Russian response? If they haven't issued a response to the email, there isn't a viewpoint to publish.

1/10. Must think before posting.
 
But responsibility of Moscow is just an allegation.
Correct - but many of us believe that to be true:

The spokesman said sanctions that the State Department said it would impose by the end of August fulfilled its legal obligations "after determining a foreign government has used chemical or biological weapons against its own nationals or in violation of international law.
 
What is the Russian response? If they haven't issued a response to the email, there isn't a viewpoint to publish.

1/10. Must think before posting.
Let's compare Reuters and BBC
Reuters report is one-sided while
USA and Russia: What are sanctions?
The UK blames Russia, but the Russian government strongly denies any involvement.
As your may see BBC anyway tells about Moscow'spoint of view - it denies any involvement.
Btw, while Washington plans new sanctions where Skripals poisoning is used as a cause, London keeps silence.
Whether the UK will introduce new sanctions on Russia because of the Skripal case remains to be seen.
It is interesting, will HMG join to US sanctions?
 
Let's compare Reuters and BBC
Reuters report is one-sided while
USA and Russia: What are sanctions?

As your may see BBC anyway tells about Moscow'spoint of view - it denies any involvement.
Btw, while Washington plans new sanctions where Skripals poisoning is used as a cause, London keeps silence.
You're being deliberately thick over the past few days. The Reuters article is about an email from the White House. Where is there mention of an email from the 'White House National Security Spokesman' in the BBC article?
It is interesting, will HMG join to US sanctions?
Not really. The US has a specific law about this. It laid on the back burner for a while but has now been activated. I hope we do and the Oligarch's in Putin's favour leave in droves. We just need our own Magnitsky Act.
 
So why do you think the investigation is so fruitless?
That you're aware of. Luckily, most of us realise Police investigations take a long time, particularly ones where all of the i's will be dotted and all of the t's crossed. It isn't Russia where you just round up a couple of Chechens as has been explained on numerous occasions.
 
It is an example of black agitprop - allegations are being presented as fact, as something proved, established.
Reuters is a part of the agitprop machine as it presents one sided information. Position of Moscow was not mentioned at all.
A moment's web search shows that the Reuters news agency have frequently reported Russia's point of view on this saga, without necessarily including a specific UK or US response:
So who in this is producing the "black agitprop"?
 
You're being deliberately thick over the past few days. The Reuters article is about an email from the White House. Where is there mention of an email from the 'White House National Security Spokesman' in the BBC article?

Not really. The US has a specific law about this. It laid on the back burner for a while but has now been activated. I hope we do and the Oligarch's in Putin's favour leave in droves. We just need our own Magnitsky Act.
The UK has a Magnitzky style section from May 2018 in our sanctions legislation, but it does not seem to have been used.
Yet.
 
A moment's web search shows that the Reuters news agency have frequently reported Russia's point of view on this saga, without necessarily including a specific UK or US response:
So who in this is producing the "black agitprop"?
Ooh, I know the answer to that.
Would it be a consortium of incompetent liars sometimes posing as a Russian air defence officer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads

Top