It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Salisbury toxin results in - NOT Novichok, NOT Russian

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2018 @ 07:32 PM
a reply to: Sillyolme

You'd never understand, eat some cookies or something.

posted on Apr, 15 2018 @ 08:31 PM

edit on 15-4-2018 by johnnysixguns because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2018 @ 08:34 PM

originally posted by: Fermy

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Fermy
a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope. Lethal is lethal, you don't die any less from a fatal occurrence no matter how it happens.

Lethal and fatal are two different words, with two different definitions.

Lethal is defined as "sufficient to cause death".

Less lethal implies a thing is comparatively less efficient to cause death than another thing. Thus, less lethal.

So no, it's not an either/or situation.

Don't let your personal understanding of a word mess you up.

Don't let your lack of understanding of language mess you up.

And your hypothesis about the door? It closed on your ass.

Now take the 2nd definition of lethal, and apply it in context.

Also, since you used the linked definitions that are shown secondary on the Google search, I invite you two search "define", and those two words.

You will find two different words, two different definitions. They can be synonymous, but they're not intended to be in this context.

Just because you're wanting to play a semantic game because your comprehension skills are sub par, doesn't mean xcath analogy was inaccurate, nor the phrase "less lethal" is wrong in any context.

You can go Google that term itself and find tons of results and instances of it use.

So again.. don't let your particular understanding of language (nor your ego) mess you up.

I never mentioned a door.

ETA - Excuse me. I used Merriam Webster. Not

Use the 2nd definition under Merriam Webster. Then if you don't like it, you can take it up with the people who wrote the dictionary.

And as far as googling "less lethal" as a term? Businesses, weapons tactics, police... they all seem to enjoy that term.

What were you saying about a door again?
edit on 15-4-2018 by johnnysixguns because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 15 2018 @ 11:09 PM
I remember hearing about BZ gas. Apparently you become delirious and can potentially die. It's a particularly sinister chemical because the person affected doesn't realize they are under the influence. Obviously that wasn't the case here.

posted on Apr, 15 2018 @ 11:15 PM
RT as a news source cannot be trusted whatsoever. Let's not forget that they've had news anchors leave mid-broadcast because they couldn't tolerate "Russian whitewashing for Putin" anymore.

Russia wants the UN Security Council to assign blame for chemical weapon attacks, which means that no permanent member of the council will ever be held responsible. The US put forward a different motion that would leave the assessment of blame up to OPCW. Russia can claim that it is the US/UK blocking up the works all they want, but the voting from the UNSC shows otherwise with 8 rejections of proposals to investigate through OPCW coming from the Russians so far.

It is also worth noting that RT makes no mention of any chemical weapons present during the assassination attempt besides BZ. Does no one find that dishonest? From the article in the OP:

"The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said."

We have RT as a biased source, Russia blocking all attempts in the UN at allowing the OPCW to assess the Syrian attacks and assign blame based on what they find, despite claiming that it is the UK/US/France that are blocking the investigation, and the RT article making no mention that Novichok was present (only claiming that it was BZ instead).

I don't consider the US/UK above using chemical weapons on innocents, but Russia's actions reek of conniving and guilt.

posted on Apr, 15 2018 @ 11:23 PM
a reply to: PeppermintButler

In the interest of fair and balanced I best present this then.

posted on Apr, 15 2018 @ 11:37 PM
a reply to: trollz

Russia is just one of many "boogymen" people like to use to further their agendas. While I'll be the first to point out that Russia isn't exactly dirt free, they're sure as heck not guilty of all ills in the world.

I'm not sure how easy it would be for someone to get their hands on the BZ agent so forgive my ignorance in the following statement. If I were Russia wanting to poison someone, using an agent produced by another country would give me deniability. I don't think that's what happened, I also don't think the U.S. or other allied governments were involved. This whole thing reeks of something, perhaps a third party interested in seeing relations between the U.S. and Russia break down?

No clue. Just tossing out my brain words.

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 01:09 AM
no one will answer for a lie. your and our and international laws are the taImud, it is a one-way road
edit on 16/4/18 by mangust69 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 03:29 AM
a reply to: PeppermintButler

It is deeply worrying that Russia continuously block any progress to investigate chemical weapons use in Syria. Either they are complicit, or just naturally obstructive. This type of failure from the UN just shows how broken the mechanics are at the level of the Security Council.

The OPCW is the logical place for investigation and assignment of blame, but doing this would ensure Russia loses direct control of the outcome of any investigation, or any veto on the results. In other words, it'll never happen.

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 06:35 AM

originally posted by: Fermy
a reply to: Xcathdra

Nope. Lethal is lethal, you don't die any less from a fatal occurrence no matter how it happens.

My explanation stands. It is a legal standard.

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:14 AM
It seems like my comparison to MH17 has become even more apt. The story originally goes that Lavrov stated Spiez Labs identified the agent as BZ and that was it. Spiez Labs then comes out and says that there is no reason to doubt the Porton Down analysis, which only identified Novichok. Now all of a sudden, thanks to the muddying of waters by Lavrov, the counter-narrative has now become that Spiez Labs identified both Novichok and BZ despite them never saying such a thing.

I wonder how many more times the Russian narrative will change while Britain's remains the same. My guess is we get a new narrative on the 18th after the meeting of the OPCW Executive Council.

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:30 AM

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
assuming that this tail is verified .

then using the " logic " of various posters in various threads previous

the perpetrators of the attack on mr and miss Skripal

CANNOT be the US or UK govt - nor any agency associated with either

go figure
Cambridge Analytica anyone..... just saying. That's right I pointed it out at the very beginning didn't I
go figure.

posted on Apr, 16 2018 @ 07:59 AM
What is Lavrov even basing this on? Has he seen a secret report or something?

a reply to: Fermy

If you want to get pedantic then we have to remember that practically any chemical can be lethal at high enough doses. If you eat enough salt it will be fatal, but salt is still less lethal than arsenic for example.

posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 08:48 AM
The whole OP is wrong.

Hot off the press. This from OPCW as part of their current meeting of the Executive Council (18 April). The Russians are guilty of attempting to mislead. What an embarrassment from the Russian foreign minister. What a joke. I bet Russia Today don't report this!

The precursor of BZ that is referred to in the public statements, commonly known as 3Q, was contained in the control sample prepared by the OPCW Lab in accordance with the existing quality control procedures. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the samples collected by the OPCW Team in Salisbury. This chemical was reported back to the OPCW by the two designated labs and the findings are duly reflected in the report.

Source opens in PDF
edit on 18/4/2018 by paraphi because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:00 AM
a reply to: paraphi

I actually just posted a thread about this using RT as the source.

posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:04 AM
a reply to: paraphi

Yes - I just posted this briefing document in another thread. It should put to bed all this bunk about BZ, but then again, it probably won't!

Really shows up the Russians as terrible liars.

posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:07 AM
a reply to: oldcarpy

Its not BZ, ok.

Where does that report actually say its Novishok?

You do realize that they know how to test for that right? So if they didnt say its Novishok outright then its probably NOT Novishok.

How is it then linked to Russia?, you cold war fan boy.

The scientists actually doing the work are arguing that its an fingerprinted agent not in international registries.

The official argument by ours and European government after reviewing those findings IS: That it is in the same production family as Novishok. Excuse me if I am not shocked when no analysis said as much before it was decided who was guilty.

edit on 4 18 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:10 AM
a reply to: tadaman

They stated that their results confirm Porton Down's results. Porton Down identified the agent as Novichok.

posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:17 AM
a reply to: Xcalibur254

No they said it was in the same production family. That's why they couldn't immediately identify it. They never found out WHO made it. Novishok is a registered nerve agent that people with the right training can reproduce. Russia, Iran, China, the Russian mob or any group privately, Anyone.

So how did we extrapulate its in the same production family from the limited question of "how does this link to Novishok?" Hearing in response from the scientists, "Its not Novishok, per se, but its similar" though they actually heard, "Its not Novishok, we dont know yet what it is".

Porton Down didnt reply with the scientific findings word for word. They held their own analysis of the study and went with that.
edit on 4 18 2018 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 18 2018 @ 09:19 AM
And here:

OPCW Briefing

Pretty devastating reading for the pro Russians.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in