The diplomats are out!!

[poontang]

16 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I admire your faith in our governments integrity 

Yes I know its RT but just try and see it from the other side.Please. 

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/423134-skripal-novichok-uk-russia/

My faith in our security services is no doubt on a par with your faith in their Russian counterparts? As I have already said, we have a choice on who to believe. I've made mine... and it seems you have too? 

RT? Neil Clark? Dear Lord 

[oowee]

24 minutes ago, poontang said:

My faith in our security services is no doubt on a par with your faith in their Russian counterparts? As I have already said, we have a choice on who to believe. I've made mine... and it seems you have too? 

RT? Neil Clark? Dear Lord 

[Rewulf]

 

29 minutes ago, poontang said:

My faith in our security services is no doubt on a par with your faith in their Russian counterparts? As I have already said, we have a choice on who to believe. I've made mine... and it seems you have too? 

RT? Neil Clark? Dear Lord 

Dont be ridiculous 

I dont believe any of them, I certainly dont believe the Russians are innocent of wrongdoing , I just dont see it this time.

Our own government can hardly be held up to scrutiny on skullduggery can it ?

Whats actually wrong with Neil Clark, besides being a lefty? 

[JohnfromUK]

If Neil Clark wrote it - it is almost certainly complete rubbish. 

1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Whats actually wrong with Neil Clark, besides being a lefty?

Everything of his I have read has been rabidly left wing and pro nationalisation/public ownership, free everything - and tax 'the rich'.

The ideas are proved wrong and it is pure fantasy land.  What id 'wrong' with him is he lives in a fantasy world.

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

If Neil Clark wrote it - it is almost certainly complete rubbish. 

Everything of his I have read has been rabidly left wing and pro nationalisation/public ownership, free everything - and tax 'the rich'.

The ideas are proved wrong and it is pure fantasy land.  What id 'wrong' with him is he lives in a fantasy world.

Are not most lefty/socialists like that ?
The fact that they believe socialism can work at all in modern times is fantasy.

That apart ,I didnt think the article was overly silly, just a different point of view .

[JohnfromUK]

10 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Are not most lefty/socialists like that ?

Yes, I think so.

 

11 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The fact that they believe socialism can work at all in modern times is fantasy.

There are lots of good compassionate ideas underpinning socialism, but like many 'good ideas', practical things like human nature take over.  My 'go to' for the best explanation of what I mean is George Orwell's wonderful "Animal Farm".

 

13 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

That apart ,I didnt think the article was overly silly, just a different point of view

It is certainly a different 'point of view' and to be fair, not overly silly as you say - in parts - but in other parts it is barking mad.  All things have different 'points of view'.  But to suggest that Jeremy Corby calls for the resignation of Boris Johnson and Teresa May is just a suggestion to waste time.  They will not resign over this - nor should they.  In this one, I happen to think that our Government happens to be 'about right' - and I'm very glad that  most of the major world Governments (excluding Russia of course) seem to broadly agree.  I have (never?) read anything by Neil Clark I though to be right, fair , sensible or balanced.

If Jeremy Corbyn has any sense (and actually, though I don't agree with him on pretty much anything, he is by no means stupid) he will play this one 'muted' and wait until investigations have gone further.  The facts are there for all to see.  There can be no doubt that a chemical warfare agent was used in Salisbury, and that Russia had the means, the motive - and had made credible threats - and has a track record of such attacks. 

In my view this builds a very strong case, and these are only the 'public domain' pieces of evidence.  Unlike Blair's 'dodgy dossier', these is substantial evidence in the public domain.

To suggest that its all 'suspect' because it happened 'near Porton' (as some have) with implications that UK may have been 'involved' is barking.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

 

There are lots of good compassionate ideas underpinning socialism, but like many 'good ideas', practical things like human nature take over.  My 'go to' for the best explanation of what I mean is George Orwell's wonderful "Animal Farm".  

 

It is certainly a different 'point of view' and to be fair, not overly silly as you say - in parts - but in other parts it is barking mad.  All things have different 'points of view'.  But to suggest that Jeremy Corby calls for the resignation of Boris Johnson and Teresa May is just a suggestion to waste time.  They will not resign over this - nor should they.  In this one, I happen to think that our Government happens to be 'about right' - and I'm very glad that  most of the major world Governments (excluding Russia of course) seem to broadly agree.  I have (never?) read anything by Neil Clark I though to be right, fair , sensible or balanced.
Fair enough, I had never actually heard of him before !

If Jeremy Corbyn has any sense (and actually, though I don't agree with him on pretty much anything, he is by no means stupid) he will play this one 'muted' and wait until investigations have gone further.  The facts are there for all to see.  There can be no doubt that a chemical warfare agent was used in Salisbury, and that Russia had the means, the motive - and had made credible threats - and has a track record of such attacks. 

In my view this builds a very strong case, and these are only the 'public domain' pieces of evidence.  Unlike Blair's 'dodgy dossier', these is substantial evidence in the public domain.

To suggest that its all 'suspect' because it happened 'near Porton' (as some have) with implications that UK may have been 'involved' is barking.

NO doubt, given the information we were given, that original information has undergone a few changes in recent days though.
No one doubts Russia had the means, it would be pretty poor if it DIDNT have the means to take out an unprotected target, anywhere in the world, using any method it chose.
Motive ? This is the sticky one, to gain what from it ? Im not going to go through the whole thing again, but this bit doesnt really add up.
The credible threats I assume you mean when Putin spouted about traitors ?

As I said in the original thread, the speed with which accusations were levelled at Russia, before they knew it was a nerve agent, were very suspicious.
Boris was talking about repercussions within 12 hours, and as soon as nerve toxin exposure was confirmed, DEFINITELY Russia ,it was confirmed as novichok a day later, how come it takes 2 weeks for the OPCW to confirm it ?
Over eager, and far too 'certain' about Russian involvement, you would think diplomats would be more cautious, is that not their job , to be diplomatic ?

[mick miller]

I just don't understand why MI5, MI6, the guys at Porton Down and Teresa May (not the government as we only deal with Teresa these days) come down to my village hall and every other village hall up and down the land and explain their findings, the information they have gleaned and any other sensitive information they have in simple terms that I and my knuckle dragging conspiracy theory friends can understand so the whole thing can be put to bed.

Whilst they are there perhaps we can get 'them' to 'fess up on chemtrails too?

Edited April 4, 2018 by mick miller

[poontang]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

 

Dont be ridiculous 

I dont believe any of them, I certainly dont believe the Russians are innocent of wrongdoing , I just dont see it this time.

Our own government can hardly be held up to scrutiny on skullduggery can it ?

Whats actually wrong with Neil Clark, besides being a lefty? 

So who do you see as the wrongdoer this time?

The problem with Neil Clark is that everything he says or writes has to be balanced with his views. He is anti the US, anti NATO, anti the UK, anti Israel, indeed anti Western values in general. He backs the likes of Russia, Iran, Palestine and any other person or nation that speaks or acts against the West. He takes the Russian Rouble to spout his nonsense yet lives comfortably in Oxford whilst doing so. He is the archetypal fifth columnist, and like most on the left, more than a little hypocritical. 

Edited April 4, 2018 by poontang

[Dave-G]

24 minutes ago, mick miller said:

....

Whilst they are there perhaps we can get 'them' to 'fess up on chemtrails too?

Now there's some claims and denials going on. I'm a chemtrail believer and remember seeing how contrails were gone within a couple of minutes when I was a lot younger. 

[JohnfromUK]

28 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Fair enough, I had never actually heard of him before !

He writes 'freelance', often very 'anti Rupert Murdoch stuff and is a BIG enthusiast for state control, nationalisation, 'free' handouts.  Hopelessly unrealistic.

 

30 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Motive ? This is the sticky one, to gain what from it ?

Revenge for being a double agent and betraying Russia.

 

31 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The credible threats I assume you mean when Putin spouted about traitors ?

He is widely (and as far as I know correctly) reported as threatening 'traitors'.  The track record on previous defectors and 'anti Putin' Russians suggests that any such threats are to be taken very seriously indeed.

 

32 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

As I said in the original thread, the speed with which accusations were levelled at Russia, before they knew it was a nerve agent, were very suspicious.

Not so IF the stories about there having been direct threats made against the victim in the period leading up to the attack.  It is reported that these were made, though of course, that may not be right.

 

33 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Over eager, and far too 'certain' about Russian involvement, you would think diplomats would be more cautious, is that not their job , to be diplomatic ?

Hear what you say on this, but IF you had been 'tipped off' that something unpleasant was going to happen to/had been threatened against the victim, you might be very quick off the mark.

[Hamster]

What we do know for a fact now is that BJ lied (or at best was lied to) on purpose, we also know that the UK has so far refused to allow the Russians to conduct mutual tests as per international rules on these matters. 

As for probable cause  deary me people will make up anything to feed their own misconceptions, Russia released this nobody, they could have killed him easily anytime anywhere, why use "military grade" rubbish that fails to kill and why do so so near the world cup and on the back of bad vibes from their drugged up athletes ?

Logic is a wonderful thing and it seems many lack the ability to view things on an even basis. Incidentally the fact that so many mainly European countries allowed themselves to be bullied into joining the demonisation, sorry blame bandwagon means nothing, remember 95% of the world decided against rushing to do so. 

 

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Hamster said:

What we do know for a fact now is that BJ lied (or at best was lied to) on purpose

BJ made a statement that now is doubtful.  That is NOT lying on purpose.  In all probability he said what was known at the time.  To suggest that he 'lied on purpose' is a gross distortion of the facts.  We certainly don't know he 'lied on purpose'.

I'm not a BJ supporter and he's inclined to say things too hastily without checking.  That is NOT lying on purpose.

[Hamster]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

BJ made a statement that now is doubtful.  That is NOT lying on purpose.  In all probability he said what was known at the time.  To suggest that he 'lied on purpose' is a gross distortion of the facts.  We certainly don't know he 'lied on purpose'.

I'm not a BJ supporter and he's inclined to say things too hastily without checking.  That is NOT lying on purpose.

Not at all gross anyfing, he lied (or was at best lied to) on purpose, that is FACT as of yesterday. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Hamster said:

Not at all gross anyfing, he lied (or was at best lied to) on purpose, that is FACT as of yesterday. 

There is absolutely no evidence that he lied on purpose.

[Rewulf]

21 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

He writes 'freelance', often very 'anti Rupert Murdoch stuff and is a BIG enthusiast for state control, nationalisation, 'free' handouts.  Hopelessly unrealistic.

 

Revenge for being a double agent and betraying Russia.
Its a bit late in the day for that isnt it? 
They had so many options and chances to punish him, why now ?

 

He is widely (and as far as I know correctly) reported as threatening 'traitors'.  The track record on previous defectors and 'anti Putin' Russians suggests that any such threats are to be taken very seriously indeed.
I hear you, and not disputing his previous, but this time ?

 

Not so IF the stories about there having been direct threats made against the victim in the period leading up to the attack.  It is reported that these were made, though of course, that may not be right.
Got to be honest, thats the first Ive heard of this, do you have a link ?
Why was he not under protection ? Going out and having drinks and a meal with his daughter, strolling round Salisbury is surely not a man who has credible threats against him ?

 

Hear what you say on this, but IF you had been 'tipped off' that something unpleasant was going to happen to/had been threatened against the victim, you might be very quick off the mark.

Then again, why was he not under protection, surveillance ?

[Hamster]

Just now, JohnfromUK said:

There is absolutely no evidence that he lied on purpose.

Hence why I said in brackets : or was lied to. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, Hamster said:

Hence why I said in brackets : or was lied to. 

He probably repeated what he was told.  And he was probably told that in good faith.  The accusation that someone (BJ or anyone who informed him) was lying is completely unfounded.  When someone gets something wrong it is (in most cases) NOT lying.  Lying is deliberate act of "to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive."

There is NO evidence at all that it was said knowingly with the intent to deceive.

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Its a bit late in the day for that isnt it? 
They had so many options and chances to punish him, why now ?

Don't know, but other cases, Lipvinenko etc were all quite 'late' in the day.

 

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Got to be honest, thats the first Ive heard of this, do you have a link ?
Why was he not under protection ? Going out and having drinks and a meal with his daughter, strolling round Salisbury is surely not a man who has credible threats against him ?

It's in here https://www.vox.com/world/2018/3/12/17109266/russia-spy-skripal-nerve-agent-salisbury-theresa-may-novichok

As to why he had no protection, I can't answer that.  Maybe he declined it, maybe it wasn't offered, maybe he did, and it wasn't up to the job?

[Hamster]

5 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

He probably repeated what he was told.  And he was probably told that in good faith.  The accusation that someone (BJ or anyone who informed him) was lying is completely unfounded.  When someone gets something wrong it is (in most cases) NOT lying.  Lying is deliberate act of "to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive."

There is NO evidence at all that it was said knowingly with the intent to deceive.

Hmmmmmm oookkkkay.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Hamster said:

Hmmmmmm oookkkkay.

As said, I'm no BJ fan, but I do think you were a bit hard on him/his sources there, so felt I had to defend him/them there

[Rewulf]

Foreign office have since deleted the tweet, is that an admission the information put out was not true ?
What next ?

[Hamster]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

As said, I'm no BJ fan, but I do think you were a bit hard on him/his sources there, so felt I had to defend him/them there

I like the guy, just not anywhere near a position of importance or in power, he should be a quiz show host. This thing can still (and almost certainly will) get us all into a very very dangerous place, there are too many permutations that can prove to be life changing. 

[JohnfromUK]

3 minutes ago, Hamster said:

I like the guy, just not anywhere near a position of importance or in power, he should be a quiz show host.

I can understand that - and he has very likeable qualities, but he is too much of a 'buffoon'.  I think that may be what you mean.  He'd be good on 'The News Quiz' (he may already have done it, I don't know.)

[JohnfromUK]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Foreign office have since deleted the tweet, is that an admission the information put out was not true ?
What next ?

I suspect that it is more an admission that the statement was rash, to 'definate' and possibly premature.  My understanding is that I believe " ... of a type of or similar to a type known to be produced in Russia" ...... or something along those lines.  I think current line is it is still very much thought that it WAS made in Russia, but they cannot PROVE it was.