Russian 'intelligence' comedy of errors

In your worked-up state you appear to have forgotten the evidence, proof and absolute facts that I asked you to post yesterday.

Try again when you calm down a bit.



Well that's a stroke of luck for the believers-with-no-proof-club, eh?

Not getting to see any of ukgov's 'evidence' before it's shown in a UK court of law.

What what happen to this 'evidence' if there was never a court-case?
I wonder.........



Wow, you're so sharp I bet you cut yourself once in a while.

That's maybe because the article is something called satire.
Maybe you've heard of the word?
ukgov and plod are certainly aware of the existence of this word.


Didn't you ever wonder why the uk's state broadcaster decided not to run a skripal-piece on crimewatch over the last 7mths.
After all plod admitted to knowing nothing about anything a few times, didn't they?

This satirical piece demonstrates why there has been a minimum of asking-for-witnesses on tv with this case.
If the civpop in the UK were ever actually aware of the anomalies with this case a lot more answers would be demanded to a lot more questions.

As it is this whole mess has morphed a number of times already, off in different directions... It's very hard to keep track of what is supposed to now be gen and what is now deemed to be duff.

That's the point though.




Quite a few of us care, surprising you don't think it means much.
This whole thing has always has been up there with a string-vest and Swiss cheese since day1/wk1 but you're still cheering for the team that has provided minimum evidence

The perfume bottle that broke or didn't break is another interesting sub-topic that has rx'd no real investigating.


I wonder where the nozzle was fitted into the internal packaging when the whole thing was packaged up?

View attachment 357969

One would have thought plod (or whoever's is currently running plod) would have taken time to show both sides of the Ricci box so everyone could be confident that everything being pushed was halal.

We only ever get this side of the box though.

View attachment 357970 View attachment 357971

Back to the CCTV, where 99.999% is being kept from us.

Why the need for the heavy crop?





As it has now been confirmed that all the cameras were all working there should be no shortage of evidence of what went on that Sunday.

Curious that the civpop being able to actually see the evidence all depends on there being a court-case sometime in the future.



So, one more time...for the benefit of those at the back..

Where is the evidence?

This needed two quotes, as your silly attempt to pretend you understood the crimewatch article just hasn't worked.

You asked:
Didn't you ever wonder why the uk's state broadcaster decided not to run a skripal-piece on crimewatch over the last 7mths.

No, obviously not, as Crimewatch had been cancelled in 2017, so there was no crimewatch programme in 2018, so it couldn't have done a special on the Skripal case.

But if course, the fact the show had been cancelled in 2017 had already been pointed out to you before you decided to ask the question a second time after having the answer.

Perhaps it's a shame for you that you aren't in the UK, ITV west, and BBC Bristol have run loads of articles on the attack.
 
Sometimes you don’t even bother to hide your stupidity

Pretty much everyone inc. Russia used gas during WW1. After Russia surrendered we did support the White Russians and used CW. As Russia did against her own people in 1921 during the Tambov Rebellion.

Still, as we’re in the second half of the second decade of the 21st Century and Russia is a signatory to the CWC, it’s use is prohibited.
The point made by @blurp was about poisons - that it is very unBritish to poison.
As for use of poison on Russian soil by the British then it is an established fact while use of poison on British soil by Russia is no more than allegation.
 
For your benefit, I'll keep this simple & I'll just cover the main points in order not to confuse you.
Your argument for months has been Russia innocent.
I'll start from the beginning. A former GRU agent, Sergei Skripal was living in Salisbury.
He along with his daughter, Yulia, were taken to hospital & both were found to have been poisoned by a Russian developed NA, Novichok. This has been proven beyond any doubt by the OPCW, an independent organisation. A rather exotic method of assassination, but so was the poisoning of Litvinenko.
At various times over the next few months, several other people in Salisbury were also affected by a Russian developed NA, Novichok, with one person dying.
A few months down the line, it turns out that on the same day that the initial poisonings occured, two GRU agents were in Salisbury.
Cctv evidence & their interview with the Russian state broadcaster RT, proves this beyond any doubt.
Despite their claim to be innocent tourists, it has been proven without any doubt that they are (or were) GRU operatives & that they had with them the aforementioned Russian developed NA, Novichok.
I've seen some coincidences in my life, but I'm having a problem believing that this is one.
Now, is there any of that you've got a problem with?
No doubt there will be.

You can argue with as much cut & paste as you want. You can also post in as much bold & different sized fonts as you want, but those are the facts.
Please don't rely on media "evidence", particularly pro Russian sources.
Be they western or pro Russian, they're selling that media. Or in the case of RT & others they are towing the Kremlin line.

Despite your demands to see all the evidence (cctv or otherwise), it has been pointed out to you & the other trolls numerous times that all the evidence will only be produced in court. In fact, you even quoted it in your latest rant.
You & I both know that a court case is unlikely for one of two reasons.
Either the two GRU agents are now dead. Or if not, they will certainly never be allowed out of Russia ever again.
However, should they appear in court, you can absolutely guarantee that the CPS (independent of government) case will be absolutely watertight.
Would it not be a good idea for the two GRU chaps, if they are innocent, to come to the UK & prove their innocence in a court in a democratic country that has an excellent human rights record? Putin should be keen on that too.

Also, remember Russian lies from the past?
KAL 007, MH 17, Crimea, The Kursk etc?

So you've got what you've got. The problem with conspiraloons like you, is that no amount of evidence will ever be good enough.
You've even claimed, bizarrely, at one stage that the whole thing has been a conspiracy between the UK & Russia.

Any more accusations of me deflecting?
FYI, I'm always calm. My friends say I'm the most laid back person they know.

You have tried to cover your arrse on the Crimewatch satire piece.
It's a shame you didn't realise it was satire when you couldn't help yourself jumping on it to post it in yet another attempt to claim "Russia innocent". I think this is too big for Crimewatch anyway.

The vast majority of "civpop" don't care about this. They're more concerned about what they're having for dinner or what they're doing at the weekend or their next holiday.
Not everyone is a conspiraloon.

No, I don't give a toss when a troll posts whataboutery & deflection (because that's what it is) about bottle tops.

I'll await your response in the normal cut & paste etc style.

Probably along the lines of "But where's the evidence", or perhaps "You call that evidence?" As I said, no amount of evidence will ever be good enough for a pro Russian conspiraloon troll like you.
Don't forget that satire aside, crimewatch had been cancelled the previous year, so there was no crimewatch to be able to do an article on any crime, let alone decide not to run any article.
His satire argument was a weak reply in an attempt to cover the fact the show didn't exist, and to try to get round the gag in the article aimed at first langauge English speakers.
 
The point made by @blurp was about poisons - that it is very unBritish to poison.
As for use of poison on Russian soil by the British then it is an established fact while use of poison on British soil by Russia is no more than allegation.
Why have you deflected to blurp?

The simple question to you from me was whether you think the use of a chemical weapon was an act of war.

There is no need to point out who obviously used chemical weapons legally in defined war s before their use became illegal, and various countries signed up to treaties banning their use.

If you aren't clear on the above, let's look at a similar idea.

When I was a child many people in the UK drove without wearing a seat belt, in fact many car seats didn't even have them fitted.

It's now the law that all cars made after a set date have to have seat belts, and regular drivers must wear them if the car has them fitted.

So, before it became law that they had to be worn it wasn't against the law not to wear them. After the law changed it now now illegal not to wear them.

Returning to chemical weapons, while they were able to be used legally as weapons many countries used them. Russia had massive stocks ready for use.
The weapons are now banned from use and has signed up to never use them and to get rid of their war stocks of chemical weapons, as have other countries.

The original question was a simple one, is using a military weapon in the form of a chemical weapon an act of war?
As an example, if the UK state/military killed people in Moscow with VX would that be an act of war?
 
The point made by @blurp was about poisons - that it is very unBritish to poison.
As for use of poison on Russian soil by the British then it is an established fact while use of poison on British soil by Russia is no more than allegation.
It’s not just an allegation. It’s ‘highly likely’ and the CPS have enough evidence for a ‘reasonable chance of a successful prosecution’.

Nice ignoring of CW by Russia on its own citizens. No wonder you support Assad.
 
'Highly likely' is like 'almost pregnat'. 'Almost pregnant' doesn't mean pregnat. 'Highly likely' doesn't mean proved.
Because in civilised countries, someone is not "proved" guilty until the court has convicted them. I don't know how it works in Russia, but going by your post, it would appear to be different.
 
'Highly likely' is like 'almost pregnat'. 'Almost pregnant' doesn't mean pregnat. 'Highly likely' doesn't mean proved.
‘Highly likely’ means there’s a ‘eff off’ bump on a female, like a volleyball. She sits down holding that volleyball and people can feel the bump kicking.
 
Unless you're a doctor and have the consent, training and equipment then you won't be able to say for certain whether a woman is pregnant or not. You could only talk in terms of liklihood. A female doesn't have a bump and has never had sex: Probably not pregnant. A female being rushed down the corridor of the maternity unit, breathing loudly, screaming "I'm having a bay-bee, I had unprotected sex 9 months ago and this is the result" is considered highly likely to be pregnant. See the difference?

To transpose that analogy here, 2 GRU agents going to visit the environs of someone they consider a traitor (who their leader has already said his blood is halal) and who susbequently is attacked with a weapon designed and created by Russia makes it 'highly likely' rather than 'probably not' involved.

Time to refill the samovar, there's a good chap.
 
I'm also interested to know what would be the outcome of a foreign intelligence agency using nerve agent resulting in the death of a Russian citizen?
 
For clarity, when you mention the legal use of chemical weapons during the Russian civil war, now that the use of chemical weapons is now illegal under treaties that Russia is a signatory to, are you saying the use of chemical weapons is an act of war?
Technically, usage of poisoned weapon and poisonouse gases was restricted since 1899 by Haagues conventions and declarations, so it was a violation of the laws and traditions of war.
Second, "Novichok" (whatever you mean with this term) never was nor Chemical Weapon (as kind of WMD), neither Battle or Special Poison.
Third - any usage of the military force (and GU GSh soldiers are obviously "military force") on the foreign soil without its government permission, is the act of agression, whatever they use (knifes, knobs, guns, tanks, planes, neutron emmiters, poisons and so on). Will be just an "incident" or it will become something more seriouse (for example - full scale war) depends mostly from your reaction.
 
I'm also interested to know what would be the outcome of a foreign intelligence agency using nerve agent resulting in the death of a Russian citizen?
Right now Russian government dont have (or dont want to publish) proves that Russian citizens (Sergey and Yulia Skripals), were poisoned by the British special services. If there will be such proves, Russia will surely take necessary measures to protect her citizens, living in UK, or visiting it. From restriction of touristic visits to burning out Porton Down labs and other facilities.
 
118118 could always provide evidence that Russia had no involvement whatsoever of course......
Unfortunately, he cant, because despite being asked several times to do so, there isn't any.

And that Gents, is where his, all of the KGB's & the filthy little rapists arguments fall flat on their collective faces.
 
Right now Russian government dont have (or dont want to publish) proves that Russian citizens (Sergey and Yulia Skripals), were poisoned by the British special services. If there will be such proves, Russia will surely take necessary measures to protect her citizens, living in UK, or visiting it. From restriction of touristic visits to burning out Porton Down labs and other facilities.
Has anyone credible ever suggested that "British special service" used Russian nerve agent to attack the Skripals?
 
Right now Russian government dont have (or dont want to publish) proves that Russian citizens (Sergey and Yulia Skripals), were poisoned by the British special services. If there will be such proves, Russia will surely take necessary measures to protect her citizens, living in UK, or visiting it. From restriction of touristic visits to burning out Porton Down labs and other facilities.
More threats from the filthy little rapist from the country with the unprofessional, poorly equipped, incompetent armed forces.
Anywhere I've been on holiday, as soon as the Russian tourists turn up, it turns into a sh1thole anyway. Or people get poisoned.
Russian tourists? No thanks.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top