Nerve Agent May Not Have Been Manufactured In Russia.

a reply to: Fermy


Now that I have stopped laughing my head off, all the pro Putin apologists on here are screaming that no evidence has been released against Russia but the reason is exactly because that would prejudice a fair trial, the very thing that you are claiming is going on here.

Which it plainly is not, is it?

Taking diplomatic action is an entirely different thing.

Richard "You couldn't make it up" Littlejohn - oh, he did - indeed.

Interesting - Porton Down cannot confirm where agent was manufactured but confirms it was from the Novichok family:

Porton Down Announcement

Does not fit the "We are framing Russia" agenda of some on here.

Sounds open and honest to me.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Porton Down experts unable to verify 'precise source of novichok' used in Salisbury nerve agent attack

Well i have been saying that all along. You have not.

What else does it say:

PORTON Down scientists have not been able to establish where the novichok nerve agent used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal was made, it has emerged.

But still the bristish government accuse Russia..... But they can not prove their accusations..... They should at least have been able to trace it to Uzbekistan where the Russian did their Production and testing.

THis is probably they moste hones statment the UK have brought to the table so far.

WHat else does it mention:

Gary Aitkenhead, the chief executive of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) at Porton Down, Wiltshire, said it had not proved it was created in Russia.

How sad this is for the British government...... And for you lot that was so sure it was Russia...... But without evidence you are nothing but fools and government sheep.


WHat else does it say:

Mr Aitkenhead has also dismissed Russian claims that the nerve agent used in Salisbury might have come from the defence laboratory, and said that its deployment was "probably only within the capability of a state actor".

That sounds about Write. Russia had no knowledge about the event and had to Guess.


The rest of the article is what the British have to figure out. IF they cant prove that Russia did it. I Guess they have to find out who actually did.

originally posted by: spy66
But still the bristish government accuse Russia.....

It has always been the case that accusation against Russia being fully, or partially responsible, was because it was the most plausible conclusion. They have the means, method and motive. Plus, we don't know the other intel the British government has on this crime which has persuaded the rest of the developed world of Russian complicity.

Of course there may be other explanations, such as Zionists or the Illuminati if the Russian conspiracy-mill keep up with the narrative from MH17, but perhaps most compelling is how this fits in with the Russian domestic narrative. Russia the victim. All very convenient.

a reply to: paraphi


Why dont you just admit it was Your own government and maybe With a slite of hand from the US. THis is getting pathetic.


But all in all. It really dosent matter any more. The damage is done. The diplomats are gone..... Now we are on to the NeXT issue. UK and NATO retaliations.....

a reply to: spy66

How sad this is for the British government...... And for you lot that was so sure it was Russia...... But without evidence you are nothing but fools and government sheep.

And other than Russia stating and pushing conspiracy theories, using and making ridiculous claims about Brexit, how is Russian innocent in all this, after all Novichok is a Russian chemical weapon developed to circumvent the Chemical Weapons Treaty and was previously used in the Poisoning of Ivan Kivelidi and Zara Ismailova in 1995.
And to talk about fools and sheep following non-factual claims are sad, ever hear of a mirror!!

a reply to: Kurokage


Jesses christ Your government started this. What do you want from the Russians?

A statment that will save Your British governments face?

a reply to: spy66


You seem to defend a previously confirmed poisoner with ease? Your so quick to blame Great Britain for doing this, what evidence do you have to prove this?

Also, On 20 March 2018, Ahmet Üzümcü, Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), said that it will take "another two to three weeks to finalize the analysis" of samples taken from the poisoning of Skripal.

originally posted by: spy66
Why dont you just admit it was Your own government and maybe With a slite of hand from the US. THis is getting pathetic.

What plausible reason would the UK want to carry out a nerve agent attack in a sleepy English cathedral city? Oh, I know this is just one of the theories being touted by the Russian Foreign Minister. He says it's to deflect from Brexit. What do you think? The only beneficiary so far is Putin who managed to get an increased turnout at his election.

a reply to: Kurokage

You seem to defend a previously confirmed poisoner with ease? Your so quick to blame Great Britain for doing this, what evidence do you have to prove this?

Sure i will defend Russia. I will do so until there are evidence that prove that they did it. I am not like you or Your government who accuse Russia for something there are no evidence of. I am not a hypocrite like you.

The Uk could have done this. There are no evidence to prove it. But does that really matter if i use the same approuch as you do?
I have no more evidence to prove that the UK did this then the UK have to prove that Russia did this. I dont know if you understand the irony?



You are defending something that cant be defended without evidence.

a reply to: spy66


The Russian government has previous for doing exactly this type of thing as I posted before, you seem to ignore facts. Putin even referenced traitors dying in the street in a previous speech. Shooting down a commercial jet in Ukraine, poisoning its former leader, the list goes on.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: spy66


The Russian government has previous for doing exactly this type of thing as I posted before, you seem to ignore facts. Putin even referenced traitors dying in the street in a previous speech. Shooting down a commercial jet in Ukraine, poisoning its former leader, the list goes on.

I am not ignoring it. I am just not using that as evidence that Russia did this. Because that is not evidence.... not even Close.

The UK could use Russias past history to frame russia. THat is a plausible cause for the Uk to do this false flag to frame russia. You cant ignore that reasoning in Your assumption.

a reply to: Kandinsky

While I agree with much of what you said, I'm not sure being capable of doing something is synonymous with actually doing said act.

I struggle to imagine that Russia would commit an attempt like this in such an amateurish, blatant way. Say what you will, but they are quite skilled in their heinous acts. If this was an op perpetrated by them, the best case scenario is that all the evidence points to them. That is suspiciously out of character, unless they intended to send a somewhat impotent, vague message to the western world.

Coupled with the constant demonization of Russia in western media (at least where I am at), I feel it really does present the possibility that something else is going on here.

I think the public, us, really need to be on our toes with this sort of thing. We've been had by similar tactics in the past that led to everything from horrible legislation to outright wars.

Even if Russia did do this (of which I have serious doubts), our main concern and focus should be on how it will be used to advance agendas that may be detrimental to the general population.

a reply to: spy66


It is evidence to show Russia has a Modus operandi for doing this sort of thing, Putin was KGB which was famous for poisoning it's targets, he's also the previous head of the FSB.

It's also been revelled that Sergei Skripal's daughter was poisoned 'just days after gaining access to a £150,000 secret bank account' held in a Russian bank account. Her boyfriend works for a company with close links to the Russian secret services.
You may not like Britain but what recent history does it have of poisoning it's people abroad? There's plenty that points to Russia though.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Except we already have a case where Russia poisoned a former "spy" in the UK using a method that could easily be traced by to Russia. Investigators could literally trace the isotope used from the UK back to Russia.

So why do people think they wouldn't do something similar again?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

While only tangential, my point is that these things can be fabricated. I don't trust Russia, but I don't trust western governments either. Hell, it could even be argued that if they made such a mistake in the past, they'd be less likely to make it again. But, overall, instead of focusing on arguing over something none of us will ever be able to determine, we could focus on what agendas might be pursued that are detrimental to the public.

Put simply, I don't see it as an either/or scenario. Where one side are paragons of truth and the other Snidley Whiplash-esque villains twirling their mustache.

The way I see it, while folks are arguing about whodunit, its the actions these events precipitate that should be our concern, regardless of who actually did it. As far as that is concerned, such events are only relevant in that they occurred. Even if all of it is a fabrication, that stands true.

Though, I am definitely well aware that approach and mindset is not popular, nor is it exclusive to the topic. I blame it on perpetual, pointless internet debates

a reply to: Kurokage

It is evidence to show Russia has a Modus operandi for doing this sort of thing, Putin was KGB which was famous for poisoning it's targets, he's also the previous head of the FSB.

So what... ?
Do you Call this evidence?

What kind of evidence is this when it comes to this case..... Where is the actuall connection?
Where are the actuall evidence to Connect the accusation you claim?

How can you use Russia's past history to this case as evidence? I just dont get Your self claimed objective stance to support Your argument..... How do you Connect Russias past history to this case With facts?

If Your experts dont have the facts. Where do you get Your facts from?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Serdgiam

Except we already have a case where Russia poisoned a former "spy" in the UK using a method that could easily be traced by to Russia. Investigators could literally trace the isotope used from the UK back to Russia.

So why do people think they wouldn't do something similar again?

And knowing that Russia did this thing in the past, wouldn't that be an easy way to deflect suspicion to use this type of agent to poison someone already linked to Russia for your own purposes?

It's not like others can't make this stuff for themselves. Even the Wiki points out that Iranian scientists made this stuff and created the first known spectral analysis of it. That means plenty of others in the world know how to make this stuff, so it's not exclusive.

a reply to: Serdgiam


Very smart man

a reply to: Serdgiam

I can dig what you're saying.

At the same time, would you agree that some of the West's actions have deserved some demonisation? WMDs weren't a great moment for the reputation of Western leaders. Neither was the controversial suicide of the UK weapons inspector who said there was no evidence. Abu Graib, extraordinary renditions, grey areas about who can be droned etc. The Gulf War was arguably a score-settling endeavour on behalf of GWB's father.

I'm asking because I think Russia are equally capable of political expediency and settling scores. It bemuses me how social media has given Russia underdog status. Despite the apparent clumsiness of the attempted assassination/murder, Russia remains the most likely of suspects.