News story: Novichok nerve agent use in Salisbury: UK government response

More pigeon shouting.
It will be almost impossible to find conclusive evidence in this case. It's going to be a 'who dunnit' for history to speculate...
Of course not. Russia's never going to admit it and unless they have the type of collapse they had in '89 and open up their records, nobody will ever be able to confirm it 'beyond reasonable doubt.'
I personally doubt that Putin is daft enough to 'feck-up' such a crime...
I doubt he personally did it and there's no accounting for human error.
It was probably a double-treble bluff by the CIA or MI5... a conspiracy theorists dream.
Hence you believing it and pushing that agenda.
The only thing that is concrete for sure is that old farts from the 'Cold War' are 'poisoned' by the same nonsense as a buffoon called Boris who should have been sacked ages ago.
You said the facts 'do not follow' yet if you look at the facts, they clearly do. You need to take your blinkers off and stop watching RT and other agitprop.
 
Genuine question HB. Who do you think did it and what was their motivation? (Apologies if you have answered already and I missed it.)
 
It will be almost impossible to find conclusive evidence in this case. It's going to be a 'who dunnit' for history to speculate...
I personally doubt that Putin is daft enough to 'feck-up' such a crime... It was probably a double-treble bluff by the CIA or MI5... a conspiracy theorists dream. The only thing that is concrete for sure is that old farts from the 'Cold War' are 'poisoned' by the same nonsense as a buffoon called Boris who should have been sacked ages ago.
Yes, there is a version that Western secret services stay behind the poisoning.
What are possible counter-arguments against this version? What known facts do contradict it?
 
Last edited:
Genuine question HB. Who do you think did it and what was their motivation? (Apologies if you have answered already and I missed it.)
Maybe you are aware that now we are watching years long geopolitical conflict between Moscow and Washington. As for this case then...
Instigator - Washington in coordination with London.
Motive - To prevent lifting of anti-Russian sanctions by European allies, to organise pressure on Moscow, to blacken image of Russia.
 
Maybe you are aware that now we are watching years long geopolitical conflict between Moscow and Washington. As for this case then...
Instigator - Washington in coordination with London.
Motive - To prevent lifting of anti-Russian sanctions by European allies, to organise pressure on Moscow, to blacken image of Russia.
Sorry to "lower" the tone of the debate but that post really needs this:

 
Sorry to "lower" the tone of the debate but that post really needs this:

Sorry to "lower" the tone of the debates but if we would exchange by cartoons, videos and images like this one

then the thread should be moved to NAAFI BAR.
 
Yes, there is a version that Western secret services stay behind the poisoning.
What are possible counter-arguments against this version? What known facts do contradic it?
Yes. There is that version. Russia started it and some useful idiots and conspiraloons ran with it.

Just because a 'version' exists, it doesn't make it true, does it, liar?
Why should it need a counter argument? Why dignify a tissue of lies with a rebuttal?

Remember the versions with the supersonic Frogfoot, Ukrainian BUK, and the rest of the shite you were eagerly shovelling out?
Lies. All lies.
Russia is a lost cause.
Nothing is true, everything is 'versions', nothing is ever Russia's fault, Russia is being persecuted, yadda, yadda.
 
Yes, there is a version that Western secret services stay behind the poisoning.
What are possible counter-arguments against this version? What known facts do contradict it?
It’s a stupid thought process brought on by those who think wearing bacofoil hats will help them.

More disinformation from a Kremlin mouthpiece
 
Sorry to "lower" the tone of the debates but if we would exchange by cartoons, videos and images like this one

then the thread should be moved to NAAFI BAR.
Last time at soccer it was a draw. Last time at war Russia lost.

Anybody stupid enough to go to Russia for the football World Cup needs to seriously think about what could happen to them.
 
Maybe you are aware that now we are watching years long geopolitical conflict between Moscow and Washington. As for this case then...
Instigator - Washington in coordination with London.
Motive - To prevent lifting of anti-Russian sanctions by European allies, to organise pressure on Moscow,
Always the Washington angle. Still, it’s a mindset. Incorrect, but a mindset
...to blacken image of Russia.
You’re doing a good enough job by yourselves without dragging the West into it.
 
It’s a stupid thought process brought on by those who think wearing bacofoil hats will help them.

More disinformation from a Kremlin mouthpiece
So there are no serious counter-arguments.
Maybe it is impossible because British PMs never lie?
Maybe because high moral principles that Washington and London allegedly follow?
Maybe Washington and London haven't motives?
Or maybe because it is technically impossible?
But there are some known facts that support the 'Western' version.
- London was able to recognise the poison as 'Novichok' within days while international experts need 3-4 weeks to do the same job. But why? Allegedly because London was well aware about type of the poison before the poisoning itself or the poisoning was just an imitation.
- The Skripals are not available to be seen by Russian consular officers, by journalists, by independent medics (from the Red Cross for example). But why? It looks that London has something to hide. They could be not be in 'coma', in 'critical condition' but could say something that contradicts to 'Russian' version.
- Still no one alleged performer of the poisoning has been detained and there is no any version about his(her) identity. Maybe British police is unprofessional and unable to find who namely poisoned the Skripals? The explanation in the context of 'Western' version is very natural. CIA/MI5 agent will be never detained.
 
So there are no serious counter-arguments.
Maybe it is impossible because British PMs never lie?
Maybe because high moral principles that Washington and London allegedly follow?
Maybe Washington and London haven't motives?
Or maybe because it is technically impossible?
But there are some known facts that support the 'Western' version.
- London was able to recognise the poison as 'Novichok' within days while international experts need 3-4 weeks to do the same job. But why? Allegedly because London was well aware about type of the poison before the poisoning itself or the poisoning was just an imitation.
- The Skripals are not available to be seen by Russian consular officers, by journalists, by independent medics (from the Red Cross for example). But why? It looks that London has something to hide. They could be not be in 'coma', in 'critical condition' but could say something that contradicts to 'Russian' version.
- Still no one alleged performer of the poisoning has been detained and there is no any version about his(her) identity. Maybe British police is unprofessional and unable to find who namely poisoned the Skripals? The explanation in the context of 'Western' version is very natural. CIA/MI5 agent will be never detained.
Why do you never mention the possibility of Aliens?
You know it could be Aliens, right?




Obviously if it was Aliens, they would be Russian sponsored Aliens, of course.
 
So there are no serious counter-arguments.
Not in the real world. In the conspiraloon and agitprop one of course.
Maybe it is impossible because British PMs never lie?
Of course they lie. When they're as proficient as 'the crooks and thieves' you vote for, let me know.
Maybe because high moral principles that Washington and London allegedly follow?
Maybe Washington and London haven't motives?
Or maybe because it is technically impossible?
Since Putin came to power, we've seen a massive shift and he's feeding your nationalists, creating division and to be fair become quite proficient at hybrid warfare. That's the problem
But there are some known facts that support the 'Western' version.
- London was able to recognise the poison as 'Novichok' within days while international experts need 3-4 weeks to do the same job. But why? Allegedly because London was well aware about type of the poison before the poisoning itself or the poisoning was just an imitation.
Timescales are different. We needed to know what it was to treat the persons contaminated by the nerve agent including your collateral damage. OPCW have their own time limits.
- The Skripals are not available to be seen by Russian consular officers, by journalists, by independent medics (from the Red Cross for example). But why? It looks that London has something to hide. They could be not be in 'coma', in 'critical condition' but could say something that contradicts to 'Russian' version.
You've seen the Judges report I posted? What's ICRC got to do with the price of fish, they're not PoWs.
- Still no one alleged performer of the poisoning has been detained and there is no any version about his(her) identity. Maybe British police is unprofessional and unable to find who namely poisoned the Skripals? The explanation in the context of 'Western' version is very natural. CIA/MI5 agent will be never detained.
As mentioned previously, criminal investigations take time. We don't just round up a couple of Chechens and put them on a show trial as in Putin's Russia. There's a process.
 
As mentioned previously, criminal investigations take time.
So why conclusions has been made by HMG before (not after) the end of the investigation?
Does it mean that the investigation will focus only on one pre-defined version?
 
So why conclusions has been made by HMG before (not after) the end of the investigation?
Does it mean that the investigation will focus only one one pre-defined version?
Try not to confuse the British legal system and Police enquiries with your own.

As I've previously mentioned, if we have reason to suspect an individual they will be arrested and questioned. They may be held for some time pending the resolution of those enquiries and even held on remand pending Court appearance(s). It's then down to the CPS (in England) to make a decision whether to prosecute and they have their own test which is 'reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. Obviously, criminal law is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

In the diplomatic world we have a prime suspect, but it's a state. So you can't nick and question them. You also have different tests such as 'balance of probabilities'. Accordingly, you expel a bunch of agents and wait for the 'tit for tat'.

If OPCW find something different, it may move onto something else. It may even mean eating humble pie. However, the Ambo's speech from yesterday pretty much sets out the case.

So far, you still haven't denied the facts and barely touched the assumptions I made earlier
 
Try not to confuse the British legal system and Police enquiries with your own.

As I've previously mentioned, if we have reason to suspect an individual they will be arrested and questioned. They may be held for some time pending the resolution of those enquiries and even held on remand pending Court appearance(s). It's then down to the CPS (in England) to make a decision whether to prosecute and they have their own test which is 'reasonable chance of a successful prosecution. Obviously, criminal law is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

In the diplomatic world we have a prime suspect, but it's a state. So you can't nick and question them. You also have different tests such as 'balance of probabilities'. Accordingly, you expel a bunch of agents and wait for the 'tit for tat'.

If OPCW find something different, it may move onto something else. It may even mean eating humble pie. However, the Ambo's speech from yesterday pretty much sets out the case.

So far, you still haven't denied the facts and barely touched the assumptions I made earlier
What facts do I deny? (and how do you define the term 'fact'?)
Would you be so kind to answer directly my questions. I repeat them.

1. So why conclusions has been made by HMG before (not after) the end of the investigation?
Form the first glance it would be logical to expect that on the initial stage HMG would express just concern. And only after the end of the investigation with facts on hands it would be possible to make accusations.

2. Does HMG hysterical reaction mean that the investigation will scrutinize only one (Russian) version? Does it mean that all alternative version will be rejected?

My answers
1. For political reasons. The case was used to unleash loud political campaign to reach political onjectives.
2. Of course, only 'Russian' version will be regarded and anything that contradict it will be hidden.
 
What facts do I deny? (and how do you define the term 'fact'?)
Would you be so kind to answer directly my questions. I repeat them.

1. So why conclusions has been made by HMG before (not after) the end of the investigation?
Form the first glance it would be logical to expect that on the initial stage HMG would express just concern. And only after the end of the investigation with facts on hands it would be possible to make accusations.

2. Does HMG hysterical reaction mean that the investigation will scrutinize only one (Russian) version? Does it mean that all alternative version will be rejected?

My answers
1. For political reasons. The case was used to unleash loud political campaign to reach political onjectives.
2. Of course, only 'Russian' version will be regarded and anything that contradict it will be hidden.
You haven't mentioned Mossad yet...
 
What facts do I deny? (and how do you define the term 'fact'?)
Mentioned previously, you didn't deny any facts, just the assumptions.
Would you be so kind to answer directly my questions. I repeat them.

1. So why conclusions has been made by HMG before (not after) the end of the investigation?
Form the first glance it would be logical to expect that on the initial stage HMG would express just concern. And only after the end of the investigation with facts on hands it would be possible to make accusations.
I know English isn't your first language but one of you has been on here for nearly as long as I have. If the UK govt have information held at a level above 'open source' they can of course come to a conclusion based on that evidence.

2. Does HMG hysterical reaction mean that the investigation will scrutinize only one (Russian) version? Does it mean that all alternative version will be rejected?
The hysteria, denial and obfuscation is entirely from Russia.

My answers
1. For political reasons. The case was used to unleash loud political campaign to reach political onjectives.
2. Of course, only 'Russian' version will be regarded and anything that contradict it will be hidden.
Of course you believe the Russian version. It's what is in your terms of reference.
 
WIBBLE!!
 

Top