Russia and Syria block chemical weapons inspectors access to the site in Douma

a reply to: oldcarpy

I'm still having some fun with the highly likely part and I'm not going to let it go. Russian Aggressions 2.0 anyone?
They're all in The Hague, right? Probably White Widow or something equally inspiring.

the UK has acted transparently

That must be the case when the diplomat in him said so. Let's just forget the "new family of toxins". Must be Russians, there aint no labs elsewhere. New family of Bolsheviks with a new family of toxins, clear as day!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I'm really struggling to figure out why Kostov said it's a new family of agents. The OPCW said their analysis confirms Porton Down's analysis. Porton Down stated their analysis identified the agent of Novichok. Russia's ambassador to the UK stated that what PD found specifically was A-234, which is a Novichok variant.

So if PD identified the agent as A-234 and the OPCW analysis confirms this, why is Kostov claiming this is something new?

a reply to: Jay-morris


The OPCW basically agrees Porton Down and the UK's analysis of all this.

I don't think that Boris is a moron, he is actually quite obviously highly intelligent. I can't stand him, though.

Yes, I know that the West has done terrible things in the ME. I have often said that Tony Blair is a war criminal who ought to be behind bars.

But, it is bleeding obvious that Russia was behind the Skripal's poisoning. Yes, Boris was foolish, but how about the sheer volume of lies coming from Russia, the BZ and Swiss lab BS for instance? How many times has Russia's story changed?

Yes, I'm based in Salisbury. I can't help that, you know.

Iraq + Libya does not = Russia can do no wrong.

Update 4/18/18:

So all the pro-Assad journalists can visit Douma and report peace under Russian police, but when OPCW inspectors arrive all hell breaks loose and they can not conduct their investigations.

THERE STILL HAS BEEN NO INVESTIGATION

Here is the quote from the OPCW

"On 16 April, we received confirmation from the National Authority of the Syrian Arab
Republic that, under agreements reached to allow the evacuation of the population in Ghouta,
the Syrian military were unable to enter Douma. The security for the sites where the FFM
plans to deploy was under the control of the Russian Military Police. The United Nations
Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) has made the necessary arrangements with the
Syrian authorities to escort the team to a certain point and then for the escort to be taken over
by the Russian Military Police. However, the UNDSS preferred to first conduct a
reconnaissance visit to the sites, which took place yesterday. FFM team members did not
participate in this visit.
On arrival at Site 1, a large crowd gathered and the advice provided by the UNDSS was that
the reconnaissance team should withdraw. At Site 2, the team came under small arms fire and
an explosive was detonated. The reconnaissance team returned to Damascus. "

www.opcw.org...

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm really struggling to figure out why Kostov said it's a new family of agents

Well. He didn't. (Except that he did). The way I see it, this must be a very potent and pure variant of the old stuff. Which suggests nothing but said horrific conclusion, a new "family member" from the breed of allegedly dead Novichoks. Technically, it might be a new family on it's own. No idea, just working out the semantics here.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Jay-morris


The OPCW basically agrees Porton Down and the UK's analysis of all this.

I don't think that Boris is a moron, he is actually quite obviously highly intelligent. I can't stand him, though.

Yes, I know that the West has done terrible things in the ME. I have often said that Tony Blair is a war criminal who ought to be behind bars.

But, it is bleeding obvious that Russia was behind the Skripal's poisoning. Yes, Boris was foolish, but how about the sheer volume of lies coming from Russia, the BZ and Swiss lab BS for instance? How many times has Russia's story changed?

Yes, I'm based in Salisbury. I can't help that, you know.

Iraq + Libya does not = Russia can do no wrong

Sorry, but that is not evidence to justify a nation saying it was them!

You remember Iraq! Supposedly we had evidence about saddam, but it was wrong, and thousands died because of that, and it was not just Britain involved in that ilegal invasion.

As for Libya, another ilegal invasion that caused the deaths of thousands of men, women and children.

How many more have to die? And let's not forget that the West armed, and still are arming terrorists to overthrow governments. And let's not forget that the West wanted a pipeline from Qatar through Syria into the West, and Assad said no. Convieniantly right before all this kicked off in Syria.

And you seem to be forgetting that the West lied and manipalated it's invasions with Iraq and Libya.

You think they do not do thst anymore?

a reply to: xstealth

Thanks for the update. Here is a star.

So I guess there are still some security concerns. Good thing their authorization to be there wasnt taken away by Russia or Syria, and instead the bullets being shot at them in the middle of a civil war decided for everyone.

Who cares anyways. The air strikes happened already. We can only prove we were wrong or just lucky in our gamble.

But yeah. They should try again and let us know what they already typed up on the way over to Syria. Unless they will simply be honest and do their job with no spin, like for example: Saying Russia blocked them.

a reply to: Jay-morris


I think that I have already answered all this, you are just repeating yourself.

I entirely agree with you on Iraq and Libya but you cannot just use that to blame everything bad that happens on the west, which is what you keep parroting.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Sorry, but that is not evidence to justify a nation saying it was them!

It has been spelt out on numerous occasions, perhaps even in this long thread.

The UK and others think that Russia is either directly, or indirectly involved because:

1. They had the means and motive to attempt to kill murder an ex Spy.
2. They have done this type of thing before.
3. The physical evidence of the nerve agent.
4. Other, undisclosed intelligence that seems to have compelled everyone else to act.

I can add that Russia are not acting like a helpful innocent party, who want to clear this all up and demonstrate that they are innocent. From the outset Russia have been obstructive, belligerent and have attempted to disrupt the investigation etc...

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Jay-morris


I think that I have already answered all this, you are just repeating yourself.

I entirely agree with you on Iraq and Libya but you cannot just use that to blame everything bad that happens on the west, which is what you keep parroting.

And I am not saying the West is to blame for everything. But everything ehen it comes to the middle east, and Syria, then the West is the blame.

And as stupid and dumb these false flags are, I have already stated what this is all about in my opinion.

Remember, the Iraq and libya invasions were full of lies to the public and false flags, and arming of terrorists.

This alone should tell you that you should not trust what the west says. Surely?

a reply to: Jay-morris


If your position is simply that anything bad that happens in the Middle East is always, but always, the West's fault then there is not much point trying to engage you in any meaningful debate.

a reply to: oldcarpy

I entirely agree with you on Iraq and Libya but you cannot just use that to blame everything bad that happens on the west, which is what you keep parroting.

Who's parroting what? It's about integrity, not about blame.

Maybe you'll stop parroting the PR soundbytes when you realize, that there was no evidence to support another tomahawkish attack on the constitution.

The security concerns, on the other hand, seem to be legit. Which is why you can't really say that the Russians blocked a thing. At least not at this moment.

a reply to: PublicOpinion


That poster keeps parroting that everything in the ME is automatically the West's fault because: Iraq and Libya. That's what.

What "PR soundbites"?

What "attack on the constitution"? What does this mean?

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Jay-morris
Sorry, but that is not evidence to justify a nation saying it was them!

It has been spelt out on numerous occasions, perhaps even in this long thread.

The UK and others think that Russia is either directly, or indirectly involved because:

1. They had the means and motive to attempt to kill murder an ex Spy.
2. They have done this type of thing before.
3. The physical evidence of the nerve agent.
4. Other, undisclosed intelligence that seems to have compelled everyone else to act.

I can add that Russia are not acting like a helpful innocent party, who want to clear this all up and demonstrate that they are innocent. From the outset Russia have been obstructive, belligerent and have attempted to disrupt the investigation etc...

Saying "think" is not evidence. We thought Saddam had weapons, he did not!but but the public still followed them into two ilegal invasions causing the deaths of thousands!

1- what motive did they have? Thst he was an x spy? Enough to kill him in another country, just before they hist a world cup that will make the country millions? Also, use a poison that points to them! How dumb do you think Putin is? And as for evidence, it could have been made anywhere, they cannot point down where it was made.

2 - And the west has done this type of thing before. Vietam, Iraq And Libya. All three times used the media to lie, manipalate and use false flags. Sound familiar?

3- See, this is the thing, and I have mentioned this above. They do not know where it was made. Could have been made anywhere. But if want to use a false flag against Russia, you eill use a poison thst originated from Russia, no matter how dumb Russia would be to do that, but mist people would buy it.

4- Other undisclosed evidence! Have you learned nothing about the past? That is not evidence to put us all on the brink of WW3!

That is rubbish! Russia wanted to help, but they were blocked at every opportunity, with the West saying they were guilty straight away.

It stinks of a false flag! Just like what is happening in Syria.

Use dome logic

The west wanted to overthrow Assad. The west arm the terrorists for an uprising ( same thing was done in Iraq and Libya) the rebels take control of most of the areas. Russia steps in and helps push back the rebels (terrorists) This messes up the wests plans. Next think to do is drag Russia through theory with false flags, b.s. mainstream, and manipulation.

Syria and Russia were on the brink of defeating the rebels (terrorists) and the west were on the brink of pulling out of Syria, which Assad wanted.

Then, Assad decided to drop a chemical weapon on his people, knowing there would be consequences. Not just dumb, but completely retarded. The only people a chemical attack would help, would be the rebels (terrorists)

Straight away, again without evidence, The west blame Assad straight away, again, without evidence.

If no one finds this dubious, then they never will, and were most prob the same people who were behind the West when it can to the Iraq and libya invasions.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Jay-morris


If your position is simply that anything bad that happens in the Middle East is always, but always, the West's fault then there is not much point trying to engage you in any meaningful debate.

Oh come on! The last major invasions were Iraq and Libya. Causing the deaths of thousands of people, and giving rise to the terrorists we see today. And let me add, both countries are in a complete mess today, all because of the West.

And yes, the west lied, used false flags, and manipalated the public. So, thst is why I do not trust what they say!

a reply to: PublicOpinion

If no one finds this dubious, then they never will, and were most prob the same people who were behind the West when it can to the Iraq and libya invasions.

See what I mean? Iraq, Libya. Rinse and repeat.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: PublicOpinion


That poster keeps parroting that everything in the ME is automatically the West's fault because: Iraq and Libya. That's what.

What "PR soundbites"?

What "attack on the constitution"? What does this mean?

Considering you ignore, or sweep under the carpet the things I point out, it is more like debating with a brick wall!

a reply to: oldcarpy

Well. It's pretty impossible to debunk that take, innit? Who waged war on Iraq during the last 50 years?

What "attack on the constitution"? What does this mean?

Merkel didn't support your tomahawk attack, or did she? Care to find out why it was unconstitutional and illegal? No? Thought so, that's what PR soundbytes can do to you.
You start to forget yourself, the west, and the reason why we fight in the first place. Remember those pesky western values? Accountability maybe?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: PublicOpinion

If no one finds this dubious, then they never will, and were most prob the same people who were behind the West when it can to the Iraq and libya invasions.

See what I mean? Iraq, Libya. Rinse and repeat.

If you cannot see why i bring these up, then you are completely blind!

a reply to: Jay-morris


Yes, yes, I know: Iraq and Libya. How many times are you going to repeat it?

I have already said I agree that Iraq + Libya = Bad Things.