Novochick strikes again!

[ordnance]

39 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I'm not sure you're really bothering reading what I'm saying.

Have it your way ,the Russians are chucking nerve toxins all over our streets, not in the least bothered who is killed by it ( if Indeed anyone ever dies from it ) 

If that's the case why aren't we declaring war on them ,we've got the 100 percent concrete evidence haven't we ?

Why aren't we doing something really radical to show our displeasure? Send a few diplomat's home ,that really sends a message doesn't it lol! They just used a weapon of mass murder on our streets man, a weapon of war .

We take stronger action when a chlorine bomb gets dropped in Damascus (allegedly) Pathetic.

There is only so much they can do if , lets say it was the Russians. Declaring war on Russia is not a option, what else can they do apart from send home a few diplomats. 

[Rewulf]

12 minutes ago, ordnance said:

There is only so much they can do if , lets say it was the Russians. Declaring war on Russia is not a option, what else can they do apart from send home a few diplomats. 

Of course not ,Russia would kick our *** anyway without full NATO support.

But look at what we did when Syria got accused of using chemical weapons, not hanging about for an OPCW inspection, straight in with millions of quids worth of cruise missiles.

That's the difference.

[Scully]

10 hours ago, Hamster said:

I have, one of them is called PigeonWatch, I have no idea what you're going on about regarding my so called superior intelligence etc, I have never alluded to such but merely presented counter arguments. 

Yet again you use that tired old line of what do YOU intend to do about it..........................what does that even mean ? Do you throw that line at everything/everyone you find annoying ? 

People will believe what they're told on the news and even if they don't they'll still go along with it, that's all that matters. 

From comments previously and consistently made by you it is obvious you regard  those who disagree with your views as unintelligent, and ridicule them accordingly. So if your attempts to persuade others that they know nothing, but you have all the information they lack isn’t an attempt to educate, then what is it? Simply an exercise in derision? 

I can’t understand why anyone who feels so passionate about the facts ( according to you )  that we are all being gullibly misled, doesn’t have any intention, or lacks the will, to do anything with that information. 

[ordnance]

Quote

 

But look at what we did when Syria got accused of using chemical weapons, not hanging about for an OPCW inspection, straight in with millions of quids worth of cruise missiles.

That's the difference.

 

That's a proxy war, the west and the Russians have being having proxy wars with each other since WW2.  A direct war with Russia would be disastrous for all concerned that's why it has being avoided, so far. 

Edited July 7, 2018 by ordnance

[Hamster]

47 minutes ago, Scully said:

From comments previously and consistently made by you it is obvious you regard  those who disagree with your views as unintelligent, and ridicule them accordingly. So if your attempts to persuade others that they know nothing, but you have all the information they lack isn’t an attempt to educate, then what is it? Simply an exercise in derision? 

I can’t understand why anyone who feels so passionate about the facts ( according to you )  that we are all being gullibly misled, doesn’t have any intention, or lacks the will, to do anything with that information. 

Yeah alright. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

That's a proxy war, the west and the Russians have being having proxy wars with each other since WW2.  A direct war with Russia would be disastrous for all concerned that's why it has being avoided, so far. 

Yes I understand that, but when another country uses an indiscriminate weapon like that on your streets, with a possible outcome that could number in 100s, even 1000s of collateral innocent deaths, they are very quick to point the finger, but reluctant to retaliate properly.

The only way that makes sense, is if it didn't really happen like that.

Like all the UK government wanted was to level the accusation and leave it at that, yes they sent some people home , but they just replace them after a while, on both sides. So it's all a bit of nothing really.

It's not really a proportional response to such a (alleged) grave attack with a WMD on Brit soil, do you not agree?

[Hamster]

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Yes I understand that, but when another country uses an indiscriminate weapon like that on your streets, with a possible outcome that could number in 100s, even 1000s of collateral innocent deaths, they are very quick to point the finger, but reluctant to retaliate properly.

The only way that makes sense, is if it didn't really happen like that.

Like all the UK government wanted was to level the accusation and leave it at that, yes they sent some people home , but they just replace them after a while, on both sides. So it's all a bit of nothing really.

It's not really a proportional response to such a (alleged) grave attack with a WMD on Brit soil, do you not agree?

Correct. 

[ordnance]

Quote

It's not really a proportional response to such a (alleged) grave attack with a WMD on Brit soil, do you not agree?

I agree but i am not sure what else they can do, and assuming it was the Russians they know that. If it was some small country with no credible military the UK,s response would have being a lot stronger i would suggest. 

Edited July 7, 2018 by ordnance

[Rewulf]

14 minutes ago, ordnance said:

I agree but i am not sure what else they can do, and assuming it was the Russians they know that. If it was some small country with no credible military the UK,s response would have being a lot stronger i would suggest. 

Agreed, a weak country would have been hammered. But flip it round ,is that how Russia views us/NATO ?

Would they dare use such a dangerous tool in such an elaborate fashion to execute a simple hit on an old has been ex spy ,who they let go years back?

Can you see my point, I've given this considerable time and research to come to these conclusions, not just gone to 'conspiracies ⁴U'  for the latest goss.

 

[grrclark]

13 hours ago, Hamster said:

Judging by the number of views V replies this thread appears to be of some interest to many forum members, perhaps those who find it annoying ought to consider ignoring it, just a thought. 

I have dropped in and out of PW a lot recently and scan through threads to see what they are all about, increasingly so many threads on this forum have a remarkably similar theme to this one, which is generally anti establishment.  No matter the subject matter the overwhelming feeling is simply anti establishment and bitter cynicism.

It follows that general populist trend that is prevalent across so much of social media, you know that type of trend when the hard of thinking follow the herd, but they don't actually appreciate that is what they are doing because they are hard of thinking.  They shout out the same cries of protest, no matter the subject matter; there is a few of hours of internet research that is mainly reading articles and watching videos that give a message that the hard of thinking herd want to hear and that affirms their collective group think and because the herd are all shouting the same message, we are woke, we don't rely on mainstream media they actually think they are.

The herd rely on Internet research, you know the websites, the articles, the blogs, the vlogs that seem to escape any real scrutiny as when the views are challenged the challengers are accused of being sheeple, brainwashed, asleep.  Critical argument is rebuffed as simply being a parroting of the message that those in charge want us to think, you know those shadowy institutions of Machiavellian power brokers that are behind big pharma, big oil, big finance, big media, big military, etc.

After the few hours, or let's be generous and say maybe even tens of hours of Internet research,  the herd are now expert economists, political strategists, chemical weapon experts, virologists, structural engineers, climatologists, criminologists, etc.  Normally the route to that sort of expert knowledge is years of education that is objective, peer reviewed, critically challenged, etc, but google, youtube and blogs prove that education is also a fallacy and another of those constructs of the shadowy power brokers to suppress and control us, you don't need uni to be an expert, you just need a browser.

For whatever reason PW seems to have become a little bit of a haven for that sort of herd outlook just now, where the default position is confrontation, where decent debate, you know the type that actually demonstrates critical thinking and can put put forward structured and reasoned argument, is in desperately short supply and instead the usual cabal all agree with each other enthusiastically, use memes as evidence and content themselves that they are all visionaries and the rest are unthinking thickos.

Perhaps because of that you get a lot of people looking in on threads like this and then thinking, what is the point?  What is the point of contributing when the outcome will be the same, you get drowned out by meretricious noise, sometimes it isn't even meretricious, it's just utter twaddle.

However as I am an open minded soul and welcome learning new things can any of the chemical weapons experts on this thread, and in a stroke of good fortune there seem to be a few, give the chemical formula for Novichok and can they then describe how the bodies nervous system reacts to that particular external chemical or biological stimulus, but in a factual way that they can then demonstrate why they can so confidently dismiss the symptoms of those unfortunately affected as it cannot possibly be from a weapons grade chemical agent?

Or maybe it's just easier to dismiss the people that can give that sort of information, you know like the people who have spent years in education and research, the people who are part of the officially recognised world bodies of expert knowledge on such things, as just being part of the shadowy institution and that is reason enough to dismiss what they say, that familiar anti establishment cry.

[Rewulf]

Well that told me ? 

Don't have an strong opinion on anything on pigeon watch ,without first getting a PhD and lengthy career in the subject. Only then are you qualified to post.

[ordnance]

Quote

Or maybe it's just easier to dismiss the people that can give that sort of information, you know like the people who have spent years in education and research, the people who are part of the officially recognised world bodies of expert knowledge on such things, as just being part of the shadowy institution and that is reason enough to dismiss what they say, that familiar anti establishment cry.

+ 1

[Retsdon]

5 hours ago, grrclark said:

No matter the subject matter the overwhelming feeling is simply anti establishment and bitter cynicism.

'Your 'bitter cynicism' is my healthy skepticism.

 

5 hours ago, grrclark said:

when the hard of thinking follow the herd, but they don't actually appreciate that is what they are doing because they are hard of thinking.  

This is playing the man and not the ball. I'm skeptical about the veracity of official statements because - particularly when it comes to matters of what are perceived to be strategic foreign interest - they are as often as not outright lies. Is this my conspiracy theory? Not at all. It's my knowledge based on reading historical original government and cabinet documents and minutes for my dissertation whilst at university. And this applies not just to the period or theatre that I studied  - the buildup to war in the Pacific in the late '30 and early 40s. If you pay attention, you'll notice that whenever, under the 30 year rule, the contents of papers are revealed to the public, there are as often as not massive  discrepancies between what were the actual facts and the story presented to the public at the time. And as the government can hold  back 'sensitive' papers indefinitely under the 1958 Public Records Act, you'd have to suspect that the most egregious falsehoods will remain buried.This, by the way, is not necessarily a criticism of government. There are very good reasons why governments should be economical with the truth. But the government having a good reason to lie is not at all the same thing as me having a good reason to believe it. I trust that you should be able to appreciate that distinction.

With all due respect, the rest of your post is simply more  of the same off the ball tackling. What I would say though is that  you should perhaps try and distinguish a difference between people's skepticism of expert opinion and their skepticism of how that expert opinion is reported, or the official or media conclusions drawn from it. Because they're not the same. For example, I have absolutely no issue at all with the recent OPCW report from Douma. ttps://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/S_series/2018/en/s-1645-2018_e_.pdf . However, the conclusions drawn from this very neutral report by institutions like the BBC are a different matter altogether.

Anyway, it'll be the same for all of us in 100 years, so none of this is worth falling out with people over. Cheers.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Retsdon
typo

[Hamster]

2 hours ago, Retsdon said:

'Your 'bitter cynicism' is my healthy skepticism.

 

This is playing the man and not the ball. I'm skeptical about the veracity of official statements because - particularly when it comes to matters of what are perceived to be strategic foreign interest - they are as often as not outright lies. Is this my conspiracy theory? Not at all. It's my knowledge based on reading historical original government and cabinet documents and minutes for my dissertation whilst at university. And this applies not just to the period or theatre that I studied  - the buildup to war in the Pacific in the late '30 and early 40s. If you pay attention, you'll notice that whenever, under the 30 year rule, the contents of papers are revealed to the public, there are as often as not massive  discrepancies between what were the actual facts and the story presented to the public at the time. And as the government can hold  back 'sensitive' papers indefinitely under the 1958 Public Records Act, you'd have to suspect that the most egregious falsehoods will remain buried.This, by the way, is not necessarily a criticism of government. There are very good reasons why governments should be economical with the truth. But the government having a good reason to lie is not at all the same thing as me having a good reason to believe it. I trust that you should be able to appreciate that distinction.

With all due respect, the rest of your post is simply more  of the same off the ball tackling. What I would say though is that  you should perhaps try and distinguish a difference between people's skepticism of expert opinion and their skepticism of how that expert opinion is reported, or the official or media conclusions drawn from it. Because they're not the same. For example, I have absolutely no issue at all with the recent OPCW report from Douma. ttps://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/S_series/2018/en/s-1645-2018_e_.pdf . However, the conclusions drawn from this very neutral report by institutions like the BBC are a different matter altogether.

Anyway, it'll be the same for all of us in 100 years, so none of this is worth falling out with people over. Cheers.

?

[Hamster]

7 hours ago, grrclark said:

 

However as I am an open minded soul and welcome learning new things can any of the chemical weapons experts on this thread, and in a stroke of good fortune there seem to be a few, give the chemical formula for Novichok and can they then describe how the bodies nervous system reacts to that particular external chemical or biological stimulus, but in a factual way that they can then demonstrate why they can so confidently dismiss the symptoms of those unfortunately affected as it cannot possibly be from a weapons grade chemical agent?

 

There are no chemical weapons experts on this thread but when I get told something is military grade I expect it to work. This substance was clearly not Novichok because it has so far only maimed, it's creators reckon it will kill and that it's irreversible. Yulia Skirpal looked positively radiant a few weeks after its application hence the many memes depicting it as a rejuvenating cream. I like memes. I much prefer to sort a conflict or argument out with funny memes than sticks or worse. People who don't like memes get offended by either the other sides argument or potentially the truth. Most memes try to use humour to cast doubt on dubious and distorted versions of either history or current affairs, they often get the attention of those who would otherwise be disinterested or indifferent to a subject.

As Putin has said if he wanted to kill those people he would have done, if he wanted to injure them he'd have used a banana skin through the letter box. Most of the time it's impossible to KNOW the actual truth so we're left with having to draw conclusions based on the presented evidence, its plausibility and such factors as motive. Softly accusing people who question the many obvious lies (on a whole spectrum of subjects) as conspiracy theorists is itself a theory. 

I never enter a debate on subjects where I have no useful contribution but will often stay in the background and learn, examples include stuff like martial arts or long range big bore and thoroughly enjoy the experience. My point to those who aren't interested is no probs, stay out. 

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, Hamster said:

There are no chemical weapons experts on this thread but when I get told something is military grade I expect it to work. This substance was clearly not Novichok because it has so far only maimed, it's creators reckon it will kill and that it's irreversible.  

Perfect example Hamid.  Up until the Skirpals incident none of us non experts had heard of Novichok, it wasn’t even listed on the chemical weapon register as it was secret.

How can we possibly be so bold as to make claims it can’t be Novichok?  We don’t know if it achieves 100% mortality, the creators may claim that it does but how or why should we believe them?

It seems that we are content to believe something that we cannot substantiate or verify as it fits with the narrative we want to believe, and of course completely happy to dismiss something that doesn’t fit that narrative because we cannot substantiate or verify it.

[Retsdon]

8 minutes ago, grrclark said:

We don’t know if it achieves 100% mortality, the creators may claim that it does but how or why should we believe them?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/novichok-agent

This is from 2010.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Retsdon

[grrclark]

Retsdon,

You’re absolutely right, my post was playing the man and not the ball, it was intended too.  Not any man in particular however.

My post wasn’t about a single issue, it was about the same general them amongst so many PW threads just now, quite simply anti establishment and populist bandwagon dross.

I don’t disagree with your last post, there is more often than not a variance between factual minutes of discussion and the statements that are issued afterwards and very often there is very good reason for it as well.

Like you the media manipulation or spin on stories winds me up, but as with the bloggers or youtubers or meme creators who frame their comments such to spin things their way, that is simply about trying to attract people to read the content.  It’s dumbing down at its worst.

If people can exhibit critical thinking and see past the spin then great, sadly there is not much evidence of that on PW.

2 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/novichok-agent

This is from 2010.

 I think there is no doubt that those experts involved in that sector were aware of it, but the key wording in that document is “It is reported to be...”

There are no empirical findings or test outcomes, just a statement of it is reported to be.

[Retsdon]

16 minutes ago, grrclark said:

If people can exhibit critical thinking and see past the spin then great, sadly there is not much evidence of that on PW.

Thanks for the reply btw. To be honest we're all - to a greater of lesser extent - guilty of reading to confirm our prejudices,  regardless of whether we get our fix from the Daily Mail or the Daily Beast. And most people don't have either the time or the inclination to dig much further. But for what it's worth I think the best thing is always to try and get a sight of the original documents. And in the case of the Skripal poisoning the original documentation is only available to state parties so all we're left with is the spin.

[ordnance]

Quote

There are no chemical weapons experts on this thread but when I get told something is military grade I expect it to work. This substance was clearly not Novichok because it has so far only maimed, it's creators reckon it will kill and that it's irreversible.

 

So you do not beleave the experts that have confirmed it was Novichok and other experts that explained how they could of survived. But you do beleave others like the creators who reckon it will kill and that it's irreversible. Why do you beleave one statement by the so called creators.  And  dismiss / disbelieve numerous other experts on chemical weapons and its effects and treatment for people exposed.  I don't understand your logic, are you saying the people that are experts in chemical weapons that have confirmed it was Novichok are lying. ?

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by ordnance

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, ordnance said:

 

So you do not beleave the experts that have confirmed it was Novichok and other experts that explained how they could of survived. But you do beleave others like the creators who reckon it will kill and that it's irreversible. Why do you beleave one statement by the so called creators.  And  dismiss / disbelieve numerous other experts on chemical weapons and its effects and treatment for people exposed.  I don't understand your logic, are you saying the people that are experts in chemical weapons that have confirmed it was Novichok are lying. ?

 

If I may comment on this subject that I obviously have no real knowledge of besides what I have ' heard'.

The government itself told us in  no uncertain terms it was 6 or 7 times more lethal than VX , which I assume is err , pretty deadly.

It also told us it was designed to defeat NATO NBC protection, and also standard nerve agent antidotes and preventative drugs.

The OPCW said 'the agent' ( which it never names in its report btw) was extremely pure, and would survive climactic conditions , thus negating the recent excuse of  rainfall diluting it. The published OPCW literature makes very interesting reading if you can be bothered to hack through it.

So after telling us how bad it is, it seems a little bit suspicious when it doesn't actually seem that dangerous at all.

Just an observation, an opinion. Based not on conspiracy websites ect, but on official government press releases, that are very obvious in their contradictions.

If I had another possible scenario, or reason why what's happened,happened, it would be a total shot in the dark,with no means to support it whatsoever. So I'm not going down that road.

Just to say ,in my opinion, the official government line does not make sense.

[Hamster]

6 hours ago, ordnance said:

 

So you do not beleave the experts that have confirmed it was Novichok and other experts that explained how they could of survived. But you do beleave others like the creators who reckon it will kill and that it's irreversible. Why do you beleave one statement by the so called creators.  And  dismiss / disbelieve numerous other experts on chemical weapons and its effects and treatment for people exposed.  I don't understand your logic, are you saying the people that are experts in chemical weapons that have confirmed it was Novichok are lying. ?

 

I don't have to believe the actual inventors or makers of Novichok to know it's pretty lethal stuff, why else would they bother making a nerve agent ? It's a biological satanic potion designed to kill. Our government used the term "military" to make sure we knew it wasn't the regglerr over the counter stuff ☠️ but a propper dangerous version  , they then go on to tell us that 4 people who have come into contact with this not only didn't vaporise on contact but literally took hours before they even showed signs that something wasn't right, the policeman who treated them also made a full recovery almost within hours, nobody nowhere inside the restaurant or the very many people who have been to places these victims have visited have shown signs of having died either ! Oh but some cat and a couple of hamsters died but they incinerated them before the accused nation or independent organisations could check them, oh and wet wipes are sufficient after care...............you see none of it sounds plausible. If it walks like a duck......................

[ordnance]

24 minutes ago, Hamster said:

I don't have to believe the actual inventors or makers of Novichok to know it's pretty lethal stuff, why else would they bother making a nerve agent ? It's a biological satanic potion designed to kill. Our government used the term "military" to make sure we knew it wasn't the regglerr over the counter stuff ☠️ but a propper dangerous version  , they then go on to tell us that 4 people who have come into contact with this not only didn't vaporise on contact but literally took hours before they even showed signs that something wasn't right, the policeman who treated them also made a full recovery almost within hours, nobody nowhere inside the restaurant or the very many people who have been to places these victims have visited have shown signs of having died either ! Oh but some cat and a couple of hamsters died but they incinerated them before the accused nation or independent organisations could check them, oh and wet wipes are sufficient after care...............you see none of it sounds plausible. If it walks like a duck......................

 

That doesn't answer the question.

Quote

Are you saying the people that are experts in chemical weapons that have confirmed it was Novichok are lying, or what are you saying.?

 

 

[poontang]

53 minutes ago, Hamster said:

I don't have to believe the actual inventors or makers of Novichok to know it's pretty lethal stuff, why else would they bother making a nerve agent ? It's a biological satanic potion designed to kill. Our government used the term "military" to make sure we knew it wasn't the regglerr over the counter stuff ☠️ but a propper dangerous version  

Bullets, bombs and explosives are all designed to kill... Especially the 'military grade' stuff.

Millions of people over the years have survived being hit or blown up by these weapons.

[Hamster]

22 minutes ago, poontang said:

Bullets, bombs and explosives are all designed to kill... Especially the 'military grade' stuff.

Millions of people over the years have survived being hit or blown up by these weapons.

I do wish there was a "military" grade roll eye ?  smilie ! 

32 minutes ago, ordnance said:

 

That doesn't answer the question.

 

 

So you're not familiar with the duck expression ?