Nerve Agent May Not Have Been Manufactured In Russia.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Fermy


Thank you for your shouty rant. Me, blinkered? "Gummints lie" - except Russia who cannot tell a lie. Got it.

LoL.....

No one is saying that Russia dont lie..... It is not the issue. The issue is that the British government have accused Russia without having proper evidence to pin this criminal act on them.

Just because Russia lies, don't make Our lies more truthfull.

How do you know they don't have the evidence.

Evidence is not going to be released publicly any time soon, the UK traditionally keeps very quiet about matters of intelligence and national security so how do you know that the government does not have some kind of other evidence that it was Russia.

Heh. The British government appears to be trying to walk back its accusations against Russia.

Story on Zero Hedge.

Following headlines (below) that British government scientists admitted they couldn’t tell where the poison - identified by the UK as A-234, also known as Novichok, used in the Salisbury poisoning of the Skripals - came from, undermining a number of claims to come out of Westminster, The UK Foreign Office denies claiming the nerve agent used in the Salisbury poisoning of the Skripals came directly from Russia, despite admitting it sent a tweet saying exactly that, and Boris Johnson making the same claim.

Expect those Russian diplomats to return soon.

originally posted by: spy66
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?

The British Government have remained tight lipped about the evidence they have showing that Russia must of committed this, which is why European countries and America expelled diplomats after security briefings. This is a criminal investigation after all.
The evidence that is out in the open, is the fact that Russia and Vlad have committed these types of crimes before, poisoning and killing ex Russian agents who now live or lived in the west like Litvanyenko, the ex-Ukrainian President who survived poisoning. The fact that Novachok was meant to be undetected by Russian thinking (luckily it wasn't) which is why it was used.
All the Russian government is doing is spewing conspiracy theory after theory, to muddy the waters.

Total can of worms and unless we see some decent evidence the dismissals seem pointless.
Russia is also a master at deflecting any finger pointing.
Look at MH17 and recently the pilot falsely blamed by Russia committed hari kari.
www.bbc.co.uk...

Dirty dealing all around maybe ?
Let us hope the Police investigation is not 2 Bungled..
Take care all..

originally posted by: Kurokage
All the Russian government is doing is spewing conspiracy theory after theory, to muddy the waters.

Now you mention it...

He said that Russia had offered more than 24 "contradictory and changing counter-narratives" about the attack, including "preposterous" suggestions that Sweden, the US or Britain itself could have been responsible.

Bit like MH17, eh?

Source

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: spy66
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?

All the Russian government is doing is spewing conspiracy theory after theory, to muddy the waters.

Sure thing, it all just Russian conspiracy theories... That must be why the British Foreign Office has now deleted a certain tweet.


Oops

a reply to: MostlyReading


Oh dear. That is indeed a bit embarrassing!

a reply to: Kurokage


The truth is that UKs accusations against Russia are falling apart.


But it will be Nice to see what the investigation will show Next.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

How do you know they do, because they said so?

Three letters : WMD

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Fermy


Yes, but we are not just talking about the method we are talking about the person who we know to have ordered assassinations previously by similar methods.

That word previously doesn't mean all future crimes of the same nature are the work of the same entity.

a reply to: Fermy

And right back at you. Why do you trust the Russians on this over the British?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Probably because the Russians arent English.

a reply to: Fermy


Nobody is saying that. Least of all me.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Russia had ample opportunity to kill him if they wanted to, while he was still in Russia. I see this as either an amateurish bungled attempt on his life by persons unknown or a false flag. It's not much of a lethal agent when nobody (yet) has died, the policeman has been released and the daughter is conscious and recovering. IF this was Russia then they need to up their game, standards have definitely slipped.
I do know that the UK government lied over WMD so, using your logic, they have a history of this sort of thing.

It's laughable that some have such blind faith in their governments even at the most unlikely moments, either that or they just want to make Russia the baddie like the good ol' days of the 60's.
By my reasoning why should Russia jeopardise the World Cup tournament ( for example) just to get rid of a pest, does Putin really need to reinforce his hard man image this way?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Fermy


Nobody is saying that. Least of all me.

Well it sure looks like you inferred it.

a reply to: Fermy


Maybe it looks that way to you but that is probably because of your blind allegiance to Putin distorting your reality.

originally posted by: Fermy
By my reasoning why should Russia jeopardise the World Cup tournament ( for example) just to get rid of a pest,

The World Cup was never going to be jeopardised, so that's a red herring. The only winner so far has been Putin who has used the state controlled press in Russia to entrench nationalism and (ahem) his successful presidential campaign. By acting the victim Putin wins. The conspiracy here is that the UK has been played by Russia and fallen into a well conceived trap that plays well to a Russian domestic audience.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Fermy


Maybe it looks that way to you but that is probably because of your blind allegiance to Putin distorting your reality.

You wrote :

"Yes, but we are not just talking about the method we are talking about the person who we know to have ordered assassinations previously by similar methods."

In other words, inferring Russia dunnit.Yep, sure does look that way. Is your statement of "blind alliegence" in response to me calling out blinkered? Tit for tat isn't going anywhere. I'll wait until the smoking gun is put on the table, until then you can blame the tooth fairy for all I care now, you just want to play internet ping pong and claim a victory. Here. have a paper hat

a reply to: Fermy


Well, yes. Because Russia has "dunnit" before. They have form for this sort of thing.

I am not talking about "all future crimes of the same nature".

I am talking about specific crimes that bear all the same hallmarks and which have a clear motive.

As I have always said, we need to wait for the result of the police investigation and also for the OPCW, but at the moment, it does seem reasonable at this stage to infer (not proven) that Russia "dunnit".

Thanks for the paper hat.

a reply to: paraphi


Quite the opposite--MH17 was a major propaganda effort by the west against Russia.