• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Re the recent announcements by Mrs May and Boris Johnson that they are accusing Russia of the crime, I do think it is odd that they've blurted this out to the world. The usual style of British governments has been to conduct a detailed consultation before they start making accusations.
I don't like Corbyn's style and I mistrust his motivation, but maybe he has a point.

What we've seen worldwide is a sudden drop in standards of diplomacy. Maybe there's been a drop in IQs of the political classes as well?

Interestingly a leader writer with the Evening Standard agrees with you.

It’s not every day you find yourself thinking that, well, Jeremy Corbyn has a point, but that’s just how I felt when he wrote in yesterday’s Guardian and reiterated later that the Government was ‘rushing way ahead of the evidence’ in condemning Russia for the attack on Sergei Skripal. Yesterday he observed that ‘this horrific event demands..painstaking criminal investigation…to rush way ahead of the evidence being gathered by the police in a fevered parliamentary atmosphere, serves neither justice nor our national security.’ I don’t think he was being treasonous in suggesting that Russia should have been given more time to respond, and possibly a sample of the toxin to analyse. He didn’t say the Government was wrong; he simply said it was precipitate. ...

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/jeremy-corbyn-is-right-about-russia/
 
So, I really don't trust politicians at all anymore, I'm just trying to think back a few years to the person who started all the mistrust, sure it was about weapons of mass destructions or some such, names on the tip of my tounge.....dragged the UK into a completely unjustified war,still going on if I recall....could do with an inquiry into it.......sure his name had f*****g great liar in it, maybe just liar. And there we have why nobody has any faith in politicos anymore.
Fairly sure this has happened too quickly to have been a false flag incedent. Couple of days ago many other forums were "UK totally cucked by Russia, you're doing nothing", then -23, "Wtf UK your dragging us all into war".
I personally like Putin, but he's taking the piss now, has our country got the balls to stand up to him?.
 
He was cleared of all charges of misconduct apart from speaking out about the UK being complicit in Human Rights violations. When the FCO removed him from office they gave him a severance package.

What I would say is that I have experience of a number of “whistleblowers” and very frequently, whilst the initial cause for complaint may have been quite valid, they then move into professional crusading mode. Constantly tilting at windmills and berating everyone and anyone who does not give them 100% suppprt on everything. This will then move into full on conspiracy theory and, as is typical with conspiracy theorists, expressing even the mildest scepticsm about any aspect of what they say marks you as part of the conspiracy.

From what I have seen of Craig Murray he follows that pattern.
 
Some forumists over at The Guardian (yes I know) are claiming that the Novichok nerve agent used in Salisbury was a "false flag" operation to discredit Putin and detract from the UK government's economic and other Brexit-related problems.

I'm sure we're a more sensible and level-headed bunch over here at Fortean Towers and wouldn't believe such conspiratorial nonsense .....
And why shouldn't we ? Little, if anything, makes any sense in British accusations. A only partial review of what does not hold water in them :
As usually, we are presented with surreal tales of stupid and irresponsible Russians acting against every of their interests (I just don't buy the nonsense that Putin is interested only in what is 'good for the elections at home', or poppycock that he is a hollywoodian evil guy intent on destroying 'democracies' right out from a bad Michael Bay movie)
Yes, Craig Murray has a point relating to the ease with which Porton Down alledegly identified the nerve agent. Which puts them in a conundrum : either they already had very good knowledge of the substance, and then it makes them potential suspects, either they didn't , and then it would make their statements of identifying the agent as fraudulent. Put into the equation that the formula seems to have been quite easily available for people with the means to do it ; so that relying on the nature of the nerve agent, far to make the accusations bulletproof, makes them in fact appear to be built on a very shaky ground. In fact, British and US services are good potential suspects, with much better motives than the Russians.
The unprecedented move to try to kill an exchanged agent, which goes against every rule of the secret services ; this is not something to be taken lightly, these rules are considered as of the utmost importane in this field. A violation of them would have as a result that it would be open season on Russian exchanged agents (and later, probably, on any Russian agent). Even if Russians would probably like to retaliate, as the US and British have indeed seriously broken the rules recently, killing Russians in Syria, it is highly unlikely that they would act in such an irresponsible way, and on such targets. Add the complete lack of professionialism of the attacks, harming unnecessarily many people.
The British unwillingness to cooperate with Russia, rejecting their proposals to set up a joined investigation and to make their evidence available (which makes appear likely that they don't have any).

And the whole case should be put in the present context of treacherous accusations against Russia in Syria, the anger from the deep state that they have persistently countered criminal attempts by the British, the French and the US to remodelate the country, and notably that they have launched a campaign to remove what remains of terrorist groups in the region of Damascus, and that they very recently warned that any strike on Damas would result on retaliations, notably on the missile launchers. Which for the thugs was probably the pinch that broke the camel's back.
Also, the chemical nature of the accusations seems in accordance with the endless (and fraudulent) accusations against the Syrians, and by extension, the Russians ; it seems that a new chemical false flag attempt was prevented by the Russian-supported Syrian offensive. Which only fuelled more anger among the rogues. Definitely, a number of articles put the emphasis on the continuity of « Russian use of chemical weapons in Syria and now in Britain », with the same as usual complaints that « we are seeing the result of having done nothing the previous times ».
All of this in a context of new sanctions against Russia, targetting various individuals and organizations, already edicted before the attack in Salisbury, resulting now in even more sanctions. With the predicatble issue, as Russians will exert reprisals, that both blocks will be more isolated than before, in fact the most they have been since the Cold War.
 
Last edited:
And why shouldn't we ? Little, if anything, makes any sense in British accusations. A only partial review of what does not hold water in them :
As usually, we are presented with surreal tales of stupid and irresponsible Russians acting against every of their interests (I just don't buy the nonsense that Putin is interested only in what is 'good for the elections at home', or poppycock that he is a hollywoodian evil guy intent on destroying 'democracies' right out from a bad Michael Bay movie)
Yes, Craig Murray has a point relating to the ease with which Porton Down alledegly identified the nerve agent. Which puts them in a conundrum : either they already had very good knowledge of the substance, and then it makes them potential suspects, either they didn't , and then it would make their statements of identifying the agent as fraudulent. Put into the equation that the formula seems to have been quite easily available for people with the means to do it ; so that relying on the nature of the nerve agent, far to make the accusations bulletproof, makes them in fact appear to be built on a very shaky ground. In fact, British and US services are good potential suspects, with much better motives than the Russians.
The unprecedented move to try to kill an exchanged agent, which goes against every rule of the secret services ; this is not something to be taken lightly, these rules are considered as of the utmost importane in this field. A violation of them would have as a result that it would be open season on Russian exchanged agents (and later, probably, on any Russian agent). Even if Russians would probably like to retaliate, as the US and British have indeed seriously broken the rules recently, killing Russians in Syria, it is highly unlikely that they would act in such an irresponsible way, and on such targets. Add the complete lack of professionialism of the attacks, harming unnecessarily many people.
The British unwillingness to cooperate with Russia, rejecting their proposals to set up a joined investigation and to make their evidence available (which makes appear likely that they don't have any).

And the whole case should be put in the present context of treacherous accusations against Russia in Syria, the anger from the deep state that they have persistently countered criminal attempts by the British, the French and the US to remodelate the country, and notably that they have launched a campaign to remove what remains of terrorist groups in the region of Damascus, and that they very recently warned that any strike on Damas would result on retaliations, notably on the missile launchers. Which for the thugs was probably the pinch that broke the camel's back.
Also, the chemical nature of the accusations seems in accordance with the endless (and fraudulent) accusations against the Syrians, and by extension, the Russians ; it seems that a new chemical false flag attempt was prevented by the Russian-supported Syrian offensive. Which only fuelled more anger at the rogues. Definitely, a number of articles put the emphasis on the continuity of « Russian use of chemical weapons in Syria and now in Britain », with the same as usual complaints that « we are seeing the result of having done nothing the previous times ».
All of this in a context of new sanctions against Russia, targetting various individuals and organizations, already edicted before the attack in Salisbury, resulting now in even more sanctions. With the predicatble issue, as Russians will exert reprisals, that both blocks will be more isolated than before, in fact the most they have been since the Cold War.


Vowing in a public speech that your enemies are going to choke and kick the bucket isn't a bad attempt at playing the bad guy.
As for Murray, I think Quake42 has summarised his like very succinctly and I wouldn't grant him any more credence than other anti-Western, anti-Semitic nut-jobs such as Ken Livingstone, George Galloway or David Icke. Porton Down is acknowledged as an expert-level research facility, so why be surprised that they identified the particular neurotoxin after a few days? If bumbling baffled boffins there were still scratching their heads, then they might as well shut the place down. Your claim that accusations against the Syrian regime are fraudulant is downright bizarre.
 
As for Murray, I think Quake42 has summarised his like very succinctly and I wouldn't grant him any more credence than other anti-Western, anti-Semitic nut-jobs such as Ken Livingstone, George Galloway or David Icke. Porton Down is acknowledged as an expert-level research facility, so why be surprised that they identified the particular neurotoxin after a few days? If bumbling baffled boffins there were still scratching their heads, then they might as well shut the place down.

Has Porton Down disassociated itself from Murray's comments yet? As acknowledged experts in the field I would have thought that it would be in their specific interest to do so. But then again, money talks so maybe the increase in funding that has just been announced is causing them to be a little more circumspect.
 
Well no. And they haven't commented on David Icke's claims about the Salisbury attack either.
Unless serious questions are asked in the HoC, such outlandish conspiracy claims are best ignored. To do otherwise is to grant them a veneer of credibility they do not merit.
 
Last edited:
Vowing in a public speech that your enemies are going to choke and kick the bucket isn't a bad attempt at playing the bad guy.
A silly speech indeed, but it remains only a speech. And when you hear the delirious rants by many Western rulers (say, in the last days, Nikki Halley or H. R. McMaster), they are of an other order of magnitude, and them clearly intended to be enforced.

As for Murray, I think Quake42 has summarised his like very succinctly and I wouldn't grant him any more credence than other anti-Western, anti-Semitic nut-jobs such as Ken Livingstone, George Galloway or David Icke.
Well, your use of the word 'other' is here mistaken, as none of those you cite is anti-Semitic (the assimilation of anti-Zionism with anti-semitism being one of the most perverse kinds of true anti-semitism of today), nor anti-Western (which, taken literally, could be understood as meaning that the West is equated with colonialism and imperialism...). Name-calling does not add any credence to your arguments.
Moreover, I'd add that no, Israel is not the only halfway decent country in the middle-East, on the contrary it is a disruptive power hellbent on destabilizing its neighbours, spreading war and terrorism. They may have nothing to do with the Salisbury attack, but they've been involved recently in attacks on Russians.

Porton Down is acknowledged as an expert-level research facility, so why be surprised that they identified the particular neurotoxin after a few days? If bumbling baffled boffins there were still scratching their heads, then they might as well shut the place down. Your claim that accusations against the Syrian regime are fraudulant is downright bizarre.
I could too resort to name-calling, and state that Porton Down is only a criminal organization. After all, it was involved in (in)human Mengelé-like experimentation, on a massive scale, remember ? * And so remove any credibility to them.
The problem is the conundrum. If they had such deep knowledge of the substance, then they could have some. The dilemma cannot be changed. Moreover, in a case of a chemical attack, testing takes some time. There, the annoucement was immediate. The same kind of situation we faced in the case of bogus accusations against Syrians of chemical attacks.

Your claim that accusations against the Syrian regime are fraudulant is downright bizarre.
Do not worry, I find your assertion bizarre.

*https://www.globalresearch.ca/porto...st-britains-chemical-weapons-facility/5632400
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, research and development at Porton Down was aimed at providing Britain with the means to arm itself with a modern nerve agent-based capability and to develop specific means of defence against these agents.Tests were carried out on servicemen to determine the effects of nerve agents on human subjects, with persistent allegations of unethical human experimentation at Porton Down.

In 1942, Gruinard Island, Scotland, was dangerously contaminated with anthrax after a cloud of anthrax spores was deliberately released over the island during a trial.

“From 1945 to 1989, Porton exposed thousands of human “guinea pigs” to nerve gas. It seems probable that Porton has tested more human subjects with nerve gas, for the longest period of time, than any other scientific establishment in the world” – reported The Guardian in 2004.

Two other nations have admitted testing nerve gas on humans, but nowhere on the scale the Britain has: the American military exposed about 1,100 soldiers between 1945 and 1975, and Canada tested a small number before 1968.

Between 1963 and 1975 the MRE carried out trials in Lyme Bay, Dorset, in which live bacteria were sprayed from a ship to be carried ashore by the wind to simulate an anthrax attack. The bacteria sprayed were the less dangerous Bacillus globigiiand Escherichia coli, but it was later admitted that the bacteria adversely affected some vulnerable people. The town of Weymouth lay downwind of the spraying. When the trials became public knowledge in the late 1990s, Dorset County Council, Weymouth and Portland Borough Council and Purbeck District Council demanded a Public Inquiry to investigate the experiments. The Government refused.

During the same time period Porton Down were investigated for another 25 deaths that surrounded the use of injecting anthrax, smallpox, polio and bubonic plague into unsuspecting volunteers. For 30 years the government refused any inquiries.

Porton Down has been involved in human testing at various points throughout the Ministry of Defence’s use of the site. Up to 20,000 people took part in various trials from 1949 up to 1989.

From 1999 until 2006, it was investigated under Operation Antler. In 2002 a first inquest and (source) in May 2004, a second inquest into the death of Ronald Maddison during testing of the nerve agent sarin commenced after his relatives and their supporters had lobbied for many years, which found his death to have been unlawful.

Ronald Maddison was 20 when he took part in what he allegedly thought was an experiment to find a cure for the common cold in May 1953. The leading aircraftsman died minutes later and the original inquest – held in private for “reasons of national security” – ruled he died of asphyxia but his fellow servicemen claim he had been exposed to the deadly nerve agent Sarin at the government’s chemical and biological warfare centre in Wiltshire

Most of the work carried out at Porton Down has to date remained secret. Bruce George, Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, told BBC News on 20 August 1999 that:

“I would not say that the Defence Committee is micro-managing either DERA or Porton Down. We visit it, but, with eleven members of Parliament and five staff covering a labyrinthine department like the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces, it would be quite erroneous of me and misleading for me to say that we know everything that’s going on in Porton Down. It’s too big for us to know, and secondly, there are many things happening there that I’m not even certain Ministers are fully aware of, let alone Parliamentarians.”
......
In a separate case in 2000, it was reported that Police were investigating chemical warfare tests at Porton Down and were examining at least 45 deaths. There is no further information as to the outcome of these investigations.

Hundreds of veterans who were subjected to tests at the Porton Down chemical warfare installation were awarded compensation totalling £3m, the defence minister, Derek Twigg, announced back in January 2008.

In a written statement to MPs, Twigg offered the government’s first full apology to the servicemen, saying:

“The government sincerely apologises to those who may have been affected.”

The award was welcomed by representatives of the veterans, who say they were tricked into taking part in tests at the Wiltshire facility during the cold war. Many believed they were helping to find a cure for the common cold.

A group of 369 servicemen affected launched legal action against the MoD last March, arguing that tests – including being sent to gas chambers and being exposed to nerve gas, mustard gas and teargas – had left them with health problems ranging from respiratory and skin diseases to cancer and psychological problems.

Eric Gow, chairman of the Porton Down Veterans’ Group, said: “I am just so very sorry and angry that many of our comrades had to die before we reached this point – but I am sure they will be looking down on us today with some degree of satisfaction.”

A bunch of very moral people, indeed...
 
Last edited:
Well no. And they haven't commented on David Icke's claims about the Salisbury attack either.
Unless serious questions are asked in the HoC, such outlandish conspiracy claims are best ignored. To do otherwise is to grant them a veneer of credibility they do not merit.

I wouldn't expect them to comment on David Icke, but ten out of ten for managing to avoid the question by conflating the views of a flaky ex-footballer and well known conspiracy advocate with those of an ex-diplomat.
 
Coming back to the topic, many problems lie with the assertion that the supposed (but until now unproven) use of Novichok would necessarily puts the blame on Russians. There are many unanswered questions relating to the substance, and indeed even its existence is not assured ; but if w accept it, then its availability is not much of a trouble for Western secret services :

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/03/theresa-mays-novichok-claims-fall-apart.html
…...
There is no independent evaluation of the alleged poison. The British government claims that its own chemical weapon laboratory at Porton Down, only a few miles from where the incident happened, has identified the poison as one of the 'Novichok' chemicals.

But in 2016 a leading chemist at Porton Down had doubts that such chemicals exist. (Paul McKeigue, Professor of Statistical Genetics and Genetic Epidemiology at Edinburgh University, Piers Robinson, Professor of Politics, Society and Political Journalism at Sheffield University and the former British Ambassador Craig Murray point this out):

As recently as 2016 Dr Robin Black, Head of the Detection Laboratory at the
UK’s only chemical weapons facility at Porton Down, a former colleague of Dr
David Kelly, published in an extremely prestigious scientific journal that the
evidence for the existence of Novichoks was scant and their composition
unknown.
In recent years, there has been much speculation that a fourth generation
of nerve agents, ‘Novichoks’ (newcomer), was developed in Russia, beginning
in the 1970s as part of the ‘Foliant’ programme, with the aim of finding
agents that would compromise defensive countermeasures. Information on
these compounds has been sparse in the public domain, mostly
originating from a dissident Russian military chemist, Vil Mirzayanov. No
independent confirmation of the structures or the properties of such
compounds has been published.
(Black, 2016)


Robin Black. (2016) Development, Historical Use and Properties of Chemical Warfare Agents.
Royal Society of Chemistry

The Scientific Advisory Board of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has not recognized Novichoks as chemical weapons because it found scant evidence that they exist at all. The U.S. and the UK are both part of the organization and both agreed with this evaluation:

[The SAB] emphasised that the definition of toxic chemicals in the Convention
would cover all potential candidate chemicals that might be utilised as chemical
weapons. Regarding new toxic chemicals not listed in the Annex on Chemicals
but which may nevertheless pose a risk to the Convention, the SAB makes
reference to “Novichoks”. The name “Novichok” is used in a publication of a
former Soviet scientist who reported investigating a new class of nerve agents
suitable for use as binary chemical weapons. The SAB states that it has
insufficient information to comment on the existence or properties of
“Novichoks”.
(OPCW, 2013)


The former Soviet scientist, Vil Mirzanyanov, who 'blew the whistle' and wrote about the 'Novichoks', now lives in a $1 million home in the United States. The AFP news agency just interviewed him about the recent incident:

Mirzayanov, speaking at his home in Princeton, New Jersey, said he is convinced
Russia carried it out
as a way of intimidating opponents of President Vladimir
Putin.
"Only the Russians" developed this class of nerve agents, said the chemist. "They
kept it and are still keeping it in secrecy."

The only other possibility, he said, would be that someone used the formulas
in his book to make such a weapon.



"Russia did it", says Mirzanyanov, "OR SOMEONE WHO READ MY BOOK".

The book was published in 2008 and is available as hardcover, paperback or for $8.16 as an electronic file. It includes a number of formulas which, Mirzanyanov says, could be used to produce those chemical agents. But neither Porton Down nor the OPCW seem convinced that this is possible. They may believe that Mirzanyanov is just full of it.

One customer reviewing Mirzanyanov's book remarked:

[Needs] an editor to throttle back his epic "i'm an epic awesome martyr" stuff and
stick to the science.


Another reviewer wrote:

State secrets is by far the most long winded and painfully slow novel on chemical
weapons written by a disgruntled defected scientist from Russia I have ever read!
If you want to hear an employ with delusions of grandeur moan about every
person he ever worked with then this is the book for you, otherwise don't waste
your sweet time. Seriously! Nothing happens except Vil somethingkov helps make
things that kill people for 30 years, gets a (sort of) conscience, defects, and
constantly whinges about.....everything.

Vil Mirzanyanov promoted his book in a 2009 video. Shortly after he published his book he blogged an explanation why he included formulas in it:

While I was writing my book “State Secrets: An Insider’s Chronicle of the Russian
Chemical Weapons Program”, some people from Washington persistently advised me
not to include the formulas of the chemical agents of the Novichok series in my
book.
...
I asked why it would be a bad idea to publish this information, since it would be for
the safety of all people. Then the governments would work to have those chemical
agents and their precursors included into the Control List. They responded,
“Terrorists could use them for their criminal actions.” This kind of reasoning is used
all the time now to scare people and prevent any discussion. We are already used
to ignoring a lot of real problems thanks to that.

Mirzanyanov further points out that experienced personal in well equipped laboratories would be able to use his formulas. State actors have such laboratories, like the British Porton Down, but terrorists do not have such capabilities.

Mirzanyanov urged to included the substances he described into the OPCW list of controlled material. But the OPCW, as seen above, rejected that. Neither its scientific board nor the head of the Porton Down detection laboratory were convinced that these substances or the Soviet program Mirzanyanov described existed at all.

The Soviet chemical weapon laboratory in which Mirzanyanov had worked was in Uzbekistan, not in Russia as Theresa May falsely claims. The laboratory was dismantled with the active help of the United States.

Theresa's May claims that the Skripals were poisoned with 'Novichok' agents is highly questionable. Her claim that only Russia could be responsible for the Skripal incident is obviously bollocks.

The existence of the substances as described by Vil Mirzanyanov is in serious doubt. But if he is right then any state or company with a decent laboratory and competent personal can produce these substances from the formulas and descriptions he provides in his book. That is at least what Mirzanyanov himself says.

But most disturbing about the case are not the false claims Theresa May makes. She is in deep political trouble over the Brexit negotiations and other issues and needs any political diversion that she can get. Blaming Russia for 'something' is en vogue and might help her for a while.

No, the most troubling issue is the behavior of the media who fail to point out that May's claims are bluster and that there is no evidence at all that supports her claims. The only paper that is somewhat skeptical is the Irish Times which finds it highly unlikely that the Russian government is behind the poisoning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I note, with disappointment, that the Russian ambassador to the EU has now started repeating the conspiracy theories about Porton Down being to blame:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43446312

The damage the conspiracy nutters like Murray and Icke have done in giving Putin a potential get out clause, is enormous.

Just as the "usual suspects" still believe a load of BS about 9/11 to suit their own agendas, I fear the Salisbury attack may head the same way, particularly with the well-oiled Russian propaganda machine behind it and useful idiots like Murray.
 
Certainly sounds fishy that the Kremlin has stated it will not accept any findings from the independent team of experts investigating the Salisbury attack.
Almost as if Putin knows what the outcome is going to be.
 
So, I really don't trust politicians at all anymore, I'm just trying to think back a few years to the person who started all the mistrust, sure it was about weapons of mass destructions or some such, names on the tip of my tounge.....dragged the UK into a completely unjustified war,still going on if I recall....could do with an inquiry into it.......sure his name had f*****g great liar in it, maybe just liar. And there we have why nobody has any faith in politicos anymore.
Fairly sure this has happened too quickly to have been a false flag incedent. Couple of days ago many other forums were "UK totally cucked by Russia, you're doing nothing", then -23, "Wtf UK your dragging us all into war".
I personally like Putin, but he's taking the piss now, has our country got the balls to stand up to him?.

Gosh why do you like Putin?

I certainly don't but then I live in Ukraine so that's what you would expect me to say
 
Having looked at the evidence and considering all of the possible scenarios presented on here I am forced to conclude that Putin need not worry about trampling over the laws and standards of the U.K. As, evidently, there are a lot of gullible morons here who would prefer to believe anything other than the official line from HMG.

He can continue to try to humiliate us all he wants and plenty of our own will turn a blind eye and prefer to believe his garbage.
 
Just watched an interview on the 07:00 news with Russian (now retired) scientist Vladimir Uglev, who worked on the Novichok programme and dismissed Putin's claims of innocence and that if it really was Russian nerve gas, the victims die instantly, as nonsense.
He did claim though that the prognosis for the Skripals is very bleak, with a 99% certainty of mortality when their life support is withdrawn.
 
Having looked at the evidence and considering all of the possible scenarios presented on here I am forced to conclude that Putin need not worry about trampling over the laws and standards of the U.K. As, evidently, there are a lot of gullible morons here who would prefer to believe anything other than the official line from HMG.

Obviously you have privileges that some of us 'gullible morons' can only dream of. Perhaps you'd like to share your evidence with the rest of us?
 
Obviously you have privileges that some of us 'gullible morons' can only dream of. Perhaps you'd like to share your evidence with the rest of us?

A Russian dubbed a Russian traitor by Russia is attacked by Russian nerve gas and Russian state television issues a dire warning to other Russian "traitors" that Russia will kill them, and a few days later another Russian dissident is found murdered. Sounds a tad Russian to me.
 
A Russian dubbed a Russian traitor by Russia is attacked by Russian nerve gas and Russian state television issues a dire warning to other Russian "traitors" that Russia will kill them, and a few days later another Russian dissident is found murdered. Sounds a tad Russian to me.
There's a lot of Russian about! Russian here, Russian there...
 
The simple fact of the matter is that ALL chemical agents have unique chemical batch signatures that can be identified. If the novichok sample that has been used to incriminate Russia was manufactured in a UK chemical lab using UK chemicals it would be entirely detectable by an independent laboratory testing. Similarly known Russian chemicals could also be identified with the co-operation of that state. This is done in criminal cases involving poisons and explosives frequently as a means of tracking their source and homing in on the supplier as a means of identifying the perpetrator.

The correct answer is to submit a sample of the chemical to interpol as evidence of the crime with the intended consequence of pursuing the culprits. If Interpol verifies the findings of the Porton Downs lab, that should be enough to satisfy everyone.

On the other hand, I fail to see how the UK benefits by killing an ex-Russian spy and his daughter, while Putin's response that "We didn't do it, but death to those who betray Russia" should fool only the most actively and determinedly gullible.
 
A Russian dubbed a Russian traitor by Russia is attacked by Russian nerve gas and Russian state television issues a dire warning to other Russian "traitors" that Russia will kill them, and a few days later another Russian dissident is found murdered. Sounds a tad Russian to me.

"Sounds" like is fine. But it's not really evidence is it? It's your opinion which you have presumably based on what we have been told so far. Might be good enough for you, but it's not enough for me.

Not that it really matters I suppose...any consequences flowing from it will probably affect you just as much as me.
 
Theresa's May claims that the Skripals were poisoned with 'Novichok' agents is highly questionable. Her claim that only Russia could be responsible for the Skripal incident is obviously bollocks.

Obviously?

Not at all.

Putin is a man prepared to project patriotic power by means of violence.
Long track record of it....Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria and the Litvinenko poisoning to name a few examples.


Where and when did Israel attack Russia/Russians as you claim?

Do you mean Russian pilots of Syrian air force planes in the 1973 war?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Sounds" like is fine. But it's not really evidence is it? It's your opinion which you have presumably based on what we have been told so far. Might be good enough for you, but it's not enough for me.

Not that it really matters I suppose...any consequences flowing from it will probably affect you just as much as me.

If you're going to be murdered, you're more likely to be murdered by someone you know. With the best implements they have to hand.
 
If you're going to be murdered, you're more likely to be murdered by someone you know. With the best implements they have to hand.

Especially if that person you know has already announced their intention to do you harm to the world.
 
I can (just) remember the first "Cold War".
Didn't expect to live through another!
Putin's Russia seems every bit as extreme as the Soviet Union.
 
Oh look, a squirrel :)

Having been taken in by Mr B. Liar I'm afraid I'm going to need some actual proof before I believe a word of this - it looks much more like an attempt to scare us to stay in the EU and distract us from the relentless drip of reports of 'Asian' grooming gangs.

blessmycottonsocks, its the same Russia. But poorer and far less of a threat. The Russians have never had democracy, and most Russians - including no doubt Putin himself - have had to learn to survive in a sort of crazy combination of totalitarianism and anarchy that indeed goes back to Soviet times.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, Cochise.

I reckon that if it poisons and executes its enemies like a Soviet thug, it probably is the New Russia.
A bit hard to accept that some 30 countries have decided to expel Russian "diplomats" merely as a diversion technique.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, Cochise.

I reckon that if it poisons and executes its enemies like a Soviet thug, it probably is the New Russia.
A bit hard to accept that some 30 countries have decided to expel Russian "diplomats" as a diversion technique.

Well, its turncoat spies, anyway. If it was murdering random members of the population like a certain religion then I could see why we'd be upset. If there is all this convincing evidence, why not at least attempt to tell us about it? Even the liar-in-chief had a dossier.

To be honest, it all seems a bit clumsy for the Russians. And I find the response, even if the allegations are true, highly hypocritical.
 
Back
Top