Salisbury, Skripal, Poison and Russia.

[Rogstanley]

There seems to be such a desperation to criticise Corbyn that people are overlooking the fact that Theresa May is acting as judge, jury and executioner against a very powerful and dangerous country. Questioning whether she has the evidence to back up her position is blatantly sensible. British intelligence has been wrong before. If May is wrong then where does that leave us?

 

If the situation isn't shitty enough we then have people calling it things like a "chemical weapon of mass destruction", a down right psychopathic attempt to escalate the situation even further for no reason at all. 

 

Have to admit, it's a bit of a worrying situation and given May's record of making an absolute shambles of anything she touches, like brexit - a mere paperwork exercise in comparison - I don't have much confidence in her being able to diffuse it very cleanly at all. 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

There seems to be such a desperation to criticise Corbyn that people are overlooking the fact that Theresa May is acting as judge, jury and executioner against a very powerful and dangerous country. Questioning whether she has the evidence to back up her position is blatantly sensible. British intelligence has been wrong before. If May is wrong then where does that leave us?

 

If the situation isn't shitty enough we then have people calling it things like a "chemical weapon of mass destruction", a down right psychotic bid to escalate the situation even further for no reason at all. 

 

Have to admit, it's a bit of a worrying situation and given May's record of making an absolute shambles of anything she touches, like brexit - a mere paperwork exercise in comparison - I don't have much confidence in her being able to diffuse it very cleanly at all. 

Who else has a motive that can lay their hands on nerve gas? 

[Beechey]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

There seems to be such a desperation to criticise Corbyn that people are overlooking the fact that Theresa May is acting as judge, jury and executioner against a very powerful and dangerous country. Questioning whether she has the evidence to back up her position is blatantly sensible. If May is wrong then where does that leave us? If the situation isn't shitty enough we then have people calling it things like a "chemical weapon of mass destruction", a down right psychotic bid to escalate the situation even further for no reason at all. 

 

Have to admit, it's a bit of a worrying situation and given May's record of making an absolute shambles of anything she touches, like brexit - a mere paperwork exercise in comparison - I don't have much confidence in her being able to diffuse it very cleanly at all. 

Likewise, you could very well be letting your dislike of Theresa May allow Russia the time and space to distance itself from this situation. The UK is to discuss this in a meeting of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and will be discussing it with the UN Security Council, what more do you want here? You need to look up the definition of "weapon of mass destruction", a nerve agent as potent as Novichok absolutely falls into that category of "... or chemical weapon able to cause widespread devastation and loss of life".

[Rogstanley]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Who else has a motive that can lay their hands on nerve gas? 

It's not impossible that somebody other than the Russian government had a motive and nor is it impossible that somebody else could have produced the chemical.

 

You can say "it was probably Russia" and I doubt you'd get any arguments. Immediately deciding they're guilty and going storming in with a retaliation just seems very reckless. 

[maynefox]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Now who's being a keyboard warrior?

 

Of course there is legitimacy in doing so - a sample is just that - a sample. What would it matter if it wasn't seen again?

 

Edit. And while we're on the subject of definitions - a keyboard warrior hides behind his keyboard. I'm more than happy to meet you if you'd like to insult me to my face, you tosser.

 

You clearly don't understand what happens in Kremlin press conferences. MH17 and Syria is a good start for you to educate yourself.

 

Let's say we gave them a sample. They hold a press conference and state a different agent was used. Who would you believe? They want a sample so they can discredit the truth. Spread vilifying and mendacious propaganda. The goal is to distort the truth so much so that it doesn't actually become the truth anymore - as we are seeing with Trump's presidency.

 

N.B if you are going to act childish, cry like a baby, post rubbish, and not even contribute anything constructive to this thread, then don't bother posting at all.

 

Fin.

[Buce]

7 minutes ago, maynefox said:

 

You clearly don't understand what happens in Kremlin press conferences. MH17 and Syria is a good start for you to educate yourself.

 

Let's say we gave them a sample. They hold a press conference and state a different agent was used. Who would you believe? They want a sample so they can discredit the truth. Spread vilifying and mendacious propaganda. The goal is to distort the truth so much so that it doesn't actually become the truth anymore - as we are seeing with Trump's presidency.

 

N.B if you are going to act childish, cry like a baby, post rubbish, and not even contribute anything constructive to this thread, then don't bother posting at all.

 

Fin.

 

Running off at the mouth again from behind your monitor? At least we've established who the keyboard warrior is.

 

Get back to me when you grow a spine.

[Rob1742]

I trust what the Russians say on the same level as I trust what the British say.

 

We know that one of the two parties is lying, and this just shows how you can’t trust governments. They all spin, they all lye, there are cover ups galore.

 

So for me, this is just another example of why it’s pointless getting involved with politics. And taking sides with our parties is just helping them play their game.

 

I changed when we went to war with Iraq for weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. We were lied too, we were made to believe things that were not true. And one of the key players in it all ended up a millionaire, whilst the bloke who didn’t have weapons of mass destruction ended up getting hanged.

 

So if you take our side in all the political matters, you are being mislead some of the time by people you should trust.

 

I think there is just as much chance we poisoned the bloke for some political point we want to score somewhere down the line. 

 

Its not worth getting involved in, and it’s certainly not wise to either take the blue or the red side of the argument as we may well have done this ourselves.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Where are the other 2?

Also in Russia, by all accounts only Russia has the knowledge to make this substance. I understand from reading Western sites hold samples also.

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

There seems to be such a desperation to criticise Corbyn that people are overlooking the fact that Theresa May is acting as judge, jury and executioner against a very powerful and dangerous country. Questioning whether she has the evidence to back up her position is blatantly sensible. British intelligence has been wrong before. If May is wrong then where does that leave us?

 

If the situation isn't shitty enough we then have people calling it things like a "chemical weapon of mass destruction", a down right psychopathic attempt to escalate the situation even further for no reason at all. 

 

Have to admit, it's a bit of a worrying situation and given May's record of making an absolute shambles of anything she touches, like brexit - a mere paperwork exercise in comparison - I don't have much confidence in her being able to diffuse it very cleanly at all. 

Gotta give May something, though, she comes across as having bigger balls than Corbyn.

 

That said, Corbyn has had all of the juice sucked out of em by Abbott years ago.

[Sharpe's Fox]

2 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

 

That said, Corbyn has had all of the juice sucked out of em by Abbott years ago.

[breadandcheese]

21 minutes ago, Rob1742 said:

I trust what the Russians say on the same level as I trust what the British say.

 

We know that one of the two parties is lying, and this just shows how you can’t trust governments. They all spin, they all lye, there are cover ups galore.

 

So for me, this is just another example of why it’s pointless getting involved with politics. And taking sides with our parties is just helping them play their game.

 

I changed when we went to war with Iraq for weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist. We were lied too, we were made to believe things that were not true. And one of the key players in it all ended up a millionaire, whilst the bloke who didn’t have weapons of mass destruction ended up getting hanged.

 

So if you take our side in all the political matters, you are being mislead some of the time by people you should trust.

 

I think there is just as much chance we poisoned the bloke for some political point we want to score somewhere down the line. 

 

Its not worth getting involved in, and it’s certainly not wise to either take the blue or the red side of the argument as we may well have done this ourselves.

You trust both sides equally?  Really??

 

The difference is that we have democracy, a free press and independent judiciary. You may say what good as it didn't stop being led into a war on a lie. However, through a free press and journalistic scrutiny, we know the truth. 

 

Contrast this with Russia with such highlights as Putin announcing that there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. That organised troops who took over Crimea without insignias on their uniforms were not Russian soldiers. That Russia didn't bomb any hospitals when launching airstrikes in Syria. That Russia didn't embark on state sanctioned doping for international athletes. Oh yeah, not forgetting that journalists in Russia get killed for investigating the truth. It is the third deadliest country in the world to be a journalist.

 

Whilst I don't pretend that our government is 100% truthful, it is fanciful to give equal weighting to our government and Putin when the truth is concerned.

 

 

 

 

[Dr The Singh]

I was reading something on business weekly but the Asia edition, it's fair to say the world does not think much of us as a power, Infact they laughed at thought of us even challenging Russia.

[Fox 4 Life]

12 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I was reading something on business weekly but the Asia edition, it's fair to say the world does not think much of us as a power, Infact they laughed at thought of us even challenging Russia.

We may not be on our own but as a leading part of NATO we sure are. 

[Vardinio'sCat]

On 3/12/2018 at 21:15, Beechey said:

I'm not sure how much money from Russian Oligarchs there is in London, but I bet it's a drop in the ocean to a city that has an economic output almost 40% that of all of the Russian Federation. On the carrier point, I know, it was just a suggestion on what a budget could be spent on. We can feasably build another carrier starting now and finish the construction by 2023-24 or so (construction cycle is sat at six years, not "a decade", and for the record, we have 15 F-35Bs already). I think your football knowledge is a bit better than your military knowledge...

 

When we expelled the Iranian ambassador in 2011 (I think?) their embassy was closed as well, it's an option that a lot of MPs were suggesting today. I suggest you watch it.

 

I suggested we can pressure them through international sanctions, our visa policy and expelling their diplomatic staff, and you agreed with this presumably, and that is exactly what influencing a country is. We are capable enough to apply pressure on the regime. It is unlikely we would change their heading, but it draws a clear line. I'm rather unsure where our opinions here differ. You ask me what we can do, I state what we can do, and what our elected representatives stated in our national Parliament, and you state some weird, faint insult, it's a bit bizarre.

 

At no point have I suggested we could change the direction of Russia or damage them to such an extent that Putin is toppled or whatever, what I have stated are irrefutable options that the UK has to pressure Russia diplomatically and economically:

1. Close their embassy
2. Order their staff back to Russia
3. Close our embassies in Russia
4. Target sanctions on all individuals close to Putin in the UK and freeze their assets
5. Confiscate the property of Russian Oligarchs in the UK with ties to the Russian regime (something else suggested in Parliament)
   1. Supposedly according to you guys they must have lots of money here
6. Halt any and all military, economic and diplomatic coordination with Russia
7. Send arms to Ukraine rather than just non-lethal equipment
8. Lobby to cut Russian banks off from SWIFT

And then others have suggested in Parliament to increase spending on defence and security, both of which frankly are needed given the state of our military and police forces.

 

Unless you disagree with the UK's ability to do something there I fail to see what your point is. If you could write your arguments in a format a bit less condescending, that'd be great.

 

Apologies are due, whenever I stop playing the ball and play the man, I regard myself as having lost the argument.

 

I'm not sure that you would do the same in my position, as you did exactly the same thing further up the thread to another poster, but hey, none of us is perfect. 

 

Feel free to keep battering away on behalf of your position, I don't agree with it but I don't see the point in going round in circles. Also events have moved on since I last posted. Perhaps TM is holding something back for when the retaliation comes, but I was underwhelmed with today's offering, because of a lack of targeted economic sanctions.

 

Here is an offering towards some common ground.

 

My feeling is Putin is an absolute master at this sort of stuff by now (asymmetric warfare?), and I sense that we in the west are to disorganised to really push back effectively (although we do potentially have some tools). Each country has different vulnerabilities, as the Russians know all to well, and they are playing us all for fools. Divide and rule.

[Beechey]

Just now, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Apologies are due, whenever I stop playing the ball and play the man, I regard myself as having lost the argument.

 

I'm not sure that you would do the same in my position, as you did exactly the same thing further up the thread to another poster, but hey, none of us is perfect. 

 

Feel free to keep battering away on behalf of your position, I don't agree with it but I don't see the point in going round in circles. Also events have moved on since I last posted. Perhaps TM is holding something back for when the retaliation comes, but I was underwhelmed with today's offering, because of a lack of targeted economic sanctions.

 

Here is an offering towards some common ground.

 

My feeling is Putin is an absolute master at this sort of stuff by now (asymmetric warfare?), and I sense that we in the west are to disorganised to really push back effectively (although we do potentially have some tools). Each country has different vulnerabilities, as the Russians know all to well, and they are playing us all for fools. Divide and rule.

I get a bit tetchy when arguing about politics (I was trying to be a bit ironic or whatever with that statement near the top ), I never mean to insult people, apologies mate! I was a bit underwhelmed as well, obviously from my posts previously you can see I expected at the least removing their ambassador, I'm quite surprised we opted not to do that, I have to assume May is holding that card close to her chest, depending on the Russian response.

 

Russia's tactics are clear as day now, but it's nice to see the backing from the US and France at the UN Security Council in favour of us, at least.

[Vardinio'sCat]

3 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

It's not impossible that somebody other than the Russian government had a motive and nor is it impossible that somebody else could have produced the chemical.

 

You can say "it was probably Russia" and I doubt you'd get any arguments. Immediately deciding they're guilty and going storming in with a retaliation just seems very reckless. 

 

I don't think there is very much doubt, but I too would prefer us to do this strictly by the book. We do have form for rushing to judgement, and it looks better if we follow established protocol. Another thought I had was if we gave it a couple more days before responding, any domestic advantage Putin may have gained at the election would have been nullified.

 

Having said that, I think this is as much an attempt to pressurise us, and show how little unity there is (on Russia) in the west, rather than an attempt for domestic favour.

 

I notice France wants to see more evidence too, so we are going to have to wait, if we want them to respond with us.

[Beechey]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/emmanuel-macron-france-russia-nerve-agent-attack-spy-uk-salisbury-a8256951.html

 

France to unveil measures against Russia in wake of Salisbury nerve agent attack.

[surrifox]

I'd be quite surprised if the British  experts in chemical warfare and nerve agents would recommend we  share their technical knowledge on analysis and identification of samples with the Russians but their findings appear to have been accepted by the French and Americans 

[Fox 4 Life]

1 hour ago, surrifox said:

I'd be quite surprised if the British  experts in chemical warfare and nerve agents would recommend we  share their technical knowledge on analysis and identification of samples with the Russians but their findings appear to have been accepted by the French and Americans 

and the Germans!

[Fox 4 Life]

Interesting timing - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43419809

 

The US has imposed sanctions on 19 Russians, accusing them of interference in the 2016 US election and alleged cyber-attacks.

They include 13 individuals charged last month by Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin accused the Russians of "destructive cyber-attacks, and intrusions targeting critical infrastructure".

He said the sanctions would target "ongoing nefarious attacks" by Russia.

Five groups including Moscow's intelligence services are included in Thursday's measures.

The sanctions are being described in Washington as the strongest action taken by the Trump administration thus far against Moscow.

[Guest]

The last sentence, and second half of the headline, is pure semantics. I hate politics reduced to this. 

 

Corbyn says evidence 'points to Russia' but won't say it directly ordered nerve agent attack

Jeremy Corbyn has sought to dismiss claims that he did not condemn the Salisbury nerve agent attack properly in the Commons yesterday. In a broadcast clip shown on Sky News, he said that he was “extremely definite” in what he said. He seemed to be trying to quash claims that he is at odds with his party on this issue, although in fact his interview confirmed that this is the case.

Commenting on what he said yesterday, Corbyn told the interviewer.

I was extremely definite yesterday that I totally condemned this attack, the perpetrators must be brought to justice, the international chemical weapons convention must be invoked and the source of this weapon, which appears to be Russia - either from the state or rogue elements of the state - must be brought to justice as a result.

But it was then put to him that his view was not the same as his shadow defence secretary, Nia Griffith’s. Griffith said this morning: “Russia is responsible for this attack.” (See 10.35am.) Asked if that was what he was saying, Corbyn replied slightly tetchily:

The evidence points towards Russia. Therefore responsibility must be borne by those that made the weapon, those that brought the weapon into the country and those that used the weapon. What I was asking was questions, questions about the identity of the weapon, questions about the reference to the weapons convention and also the support of other allies in this. Those were the questions I was asking. That’s what oppositions are there for.

On Monday Theresa May floated the idea that the Russian nerve agent used could have come from a supply stolen from the government - and, hence, some rogue element might have been responsible - but yesterday May said that that theory had been discounted because of Russia’s response. So Russia must have ordered the attack, she told MPs. Griffith and some other members of the shadow cabinet also accept this conclusion. (See 10.35am.)

When Corbyn says the “evidence points towards Russia”, he is making a general point about culpability - because even if it did not order the attack, it was at fault for letting someone get hold of the nerve agent. But Corbyn is not saying he accepts that Russia directed the attack.

[leicsmac]

Question: is all this posturing in the name of nation (that seems to be just the latest chapter in over two centuries of it) in any way productive?

 

If so, how?

If not, why do people engage in it?

[Webbo]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Question: is all this posturing in the name of nation (that seems to be just the latest chapter in over two centuries of it) in any way productive?

 

If so, why do people engage in it?

Mac, Russia used nerve agent in our country in an attempt to murder people. People are entitled to be offended.

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Mac, Russia used nerve agent in our country in an attempt to murder people. People are entitled to be offended.

Absolutely they are, as you said it's employment of a WMD which crosses a line in pretty much every ethical sense. It's idiotic and should be challenged

 

My point is that it is merely the latest in a sequence of events that have taken place that are equally idiotic and done seemingly with little more point than to massage the ego or a person or group of people.

[Guest Kopfkino]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Absolutely they are, as you said it's employment of a WMD which crosses a line in pretty much every ethical sense. It's idiotic and should be challenged

 

My point is that it is merely the latest in a sequence of events that have taken place that are equally idiotic and done seemingly with little more point than to massage the ego or a person or group of people.

 

Are you suggesting the diplomatic retaliation is disproportionate? 

 

I admit I do struggle to agree with your world view most of the time but I normally understand it, this one I don't so please may you explain.