# UN Hearings - Salisbury nerve agent attack



## TheBigShort (5 Apr 2018)

Incredible stuff occurring at the UN hearings regarding the Salisbury nerve agent attack. 
Russia accusing British of using Nazi propaganda techniques. Britain and US trying to tie alleged Syrian chemical attack as 'evidence' of Russian involvement in Salisbury.

Its great political theatre if it werent for the fact that the underlying agendas are to undermine the integrity of nation states.


----------



## Ceist Beag (6 Apr 2018)

Agreed TBS, it would be funny if it weren't for the fact the stakes weren't so high. Some of the statements being made on either side are incredible. BJ comparing Putin to Hitler, the Russian ambassador to the UK saying they are concerned at the high number of Russian natives who have died in the UK under suspicious circumstances, it really is a case of diplomacy being thrown out the window and a free for all in the language being used. I really do wonder how some of these people managed to make it to where they are in politics but it's scary just how little diplomatic skills some of the players are portraying. It's like they all want to outdo the Donald or something!


----------



## TheBigShort (6 Apr 2018)

I agree Ceist Beag, this is the UN 'Security' Council!

I think it is pretty alarming rethoric - the last time I heard anything of this, with accusations of WMD being thrown about, was the lead up to the Iraq invasion.
I don't think we need worry too much about anything like that, yet, but its clear to me that underlying agendas are at play to antagonise sovereign nations through nefarious means.
The purpose of which is for what exactly? Why is this road being taken?


----------



## elacsaplau (7 Apr 2018)

Hold on a second TBS and CB!

We can trust the Brits - we can't trust the Ruskies - like, there's no way the Brits would ever prepare and present a dodgy dossier, is there?


----------



## TheBigShort (8 Apr 2018)

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxn...enies-reports-syrian-chemical-attack.amp.html

https://www.rt.com/news/423499-us-blames-russia-douma-chemical/

The chemical weapons propaganda war is heating up. Either Russia is behind, or collaborating in chemical attacks in England and more tragically, Syria, or there is an attempt now to tarnish Russia in the same manner as Iraq under Sadam. 

Either way, its now looking increasingly more likely that further conflict is on the way.


----------



## TheBigShort (8 Apr 2018)

This is moving fast. Direct US intervention to topple Assad looks likely to me.

https://edition-m.cnn.com/2018/04/08/middleeast/syria-chemical-attack-douma-intl/index.html


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Either way, its now looking increasingly more likely that further conflict is on the way.


Yep, unfortunately.
It's like the modern version of The Great Game.


----------



## cremeegg (9 Apr 2018)

Purple said:


> Yep, unfortunately.
> It's like the modern version of The Great Game.



With added aerial bombing, chemical weapons and nuclear threat.

In fact the great game the had clear strategic vision on both sides. I think only the Russians have a strategic vision in the ME today.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Apr 2018)

Im not sure what the truth is in all of this, and the alleged chemical attack in Syria, but im pretty certain whatever the truth, we are not being told.
Im in no doubt at this point that underhanded ulterior motives are at play for other purposes other than concern for the Syrian citizenry.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Apr 2018)

Just as a side, before tomorrows papers are out, im guessing some major headlnes with 'exclusive' content into the syrian regime chemical weapons program. 
And perhaps also further 'revelations' into the Skirpal case.


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Apr 2018)

My underlying sense is that the alleged chemical attack in Syria never actually happened. 
The media have gone very quiet over this. And for the US/UK/Fra to attack an apparent chemical weapons laboratory was simply wreckless. 
Fortunately they have appeared to have notified everyone in advance so there was no casualties and also no chemical weapons. 

What is their game and is there any accountability for bombing sovereign nations on false pretentions?


----------



## odyssey06 (29 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> My underlying sense is that the alleged chemical attack in Syria never actually happened.
> The media have gone very quiet over this. And for the US/UK/Fra to attack an apparent chemical weapons laboratory was simply wreckless.
> Fortunately they have appeared to have notified everyone in advance so there was no casualties and also no chemical weapons.
> What is their game and is there any accountability for bombing sovereign nations on false pretentions?



Perhaps North Korea has taken centre stage?

For now, an attack still seems the most plausible explanation:
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/syria-chemical-attack-the-evidence

A regime which uses chemical weapons on its own citizens has lost its sovereignty, and there is no doubt that this regime in the past has done so.
What accountability was there for those actions?


----------



## TheBigShort (29 Apr 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Perhaps North Korea has taken centre stage?
> 
> For now, an attack still seems the most plausible explanation:
> https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/syria-chemical-attack-the-evidence
> ...



Thanks for that. But that is just a summary of of the 'evidence' for and against the allegation of the recent attack, being an attack using chemical weapons. Even if evidence is found that CW were used, there is no conclusive proof who carried it out.

_"In the past, investigators from the OPCW have been successful in confirming the use of toxic substances, but have not always drawn conclusions about who was to blame. But, time and again, there is at least some evidence that points towards the Assad regime – even if it’s not always definitive."_

I'm not condoning the Assad regime, and for previous attacks and accepting the OPCW has found 'sufficient' evidence to blame Assad, then he should be held to account to international law.
But the US/UK/Fra attacks, appear to me, based on very flimsy evidence, were rushed, and in turn, targeting a suspected CW laboratory was simply reckless.
Not only that, the rethoric used at the UN seemed more for the cause of threatening the integrity of Russia as much as Syria.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Thanks for that. But that is just a summary of of the 'evidence' for and against the allegation of the recent attack, being an attack using chemical weapons. Even if evidence is found that CW were used, there is no conclusive proof who carried it out.
> _"In the past, investigators from the OPCW have been successful in confirming the use of toxic substances, but have not always drawn conclusions about who was to blame. But, time and again, there is at least some evidence that points towards the Assad regime – even if it’s not always definitive."_
> I'm not condoning the Assad regime, and for previous attacks and accepting the OPCW has found 'sufficient' evidence to blame Assad, then he should be held to account to international law.
> But the US/UK/Fra attacks, appear to me, based on very flimsy evidence, were rushed, and in turn, targeting a suspected CW laboratory was simply reckless.
> Not only that, the rethoric used at the UN seemed more for the cause of threatening the integrity of Russia as much as Syria.



The Syrians denied the OPCW access to the site. This isn't the FBI trying to serve a domestic warrant with exclusive unfettered access to conduct an investigation.
You seem to be holding out for a standard of proof which is very easy for regimes who don't wish to play by the rules to evade. Maybe in the past Assad was less concerned about retaliatory strikes, but it is very easy to the regime to muddy the waters here - similar to Russia's use of "Little Green Men" elsewhere.

Why did Russia veto an independent UN investigation into the attack? As things stand, Russia's level of credibility and integrity on this issue is in negative territory.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ussia-un-deadlock-investigation-a8298671.html

What does "held to account by international law" mean when the world knows that the Russians, as security council members, will not hold their ally to account in the UN.
How held to account was Assad for the previous attacks?


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Apr 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> The Syrians denied the OPCW access to the site.



https://www.opcw.org/news/article/s...ble-chemical-weapons-production-facilities-a/

The alleged chemical attack took place on April 7. The US led attack took place six days later on 13 April. There was no denial of OPCW inspectors of the alleged CW laboratory. If it did hold CW, it was a reckless attack, no? Luckily it appeared not to have.



odyssey06 said:


> Why did Russia veto an independent UN investigation into the attack? As things stand, Russia's level of credibility and integrity on this issue is in negative territory.



It would appear that they were not satisfied with the 'attribution' clause;

_Nebenzia said the US resolution, despite Washington claiming to take Moscow’s concerns into consideration, was effectively an attempt to resurrect the deprecated Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM). Even if the US project was adopted, it would take months to implement, the diplomat said, adding that the draft was a “provocative step” that had “nothing to do with the desire to investigate the Douma incident.” He said it was obviously designed to fail in order to serve as a justification for unauthorized military action against Syria.

“*Why do you need the attribution mechanism, if you’ve already named the perpetrators before any investigation*?” Nebenzia said, referring to blatant accusations against Damascus coming from the US and its allies.
_
https://www.rt.com/news/423751-un-syria-resolutions-vote/



odyssey06 said:


> How held to account was Assad for the previous attacks?


 Obviously he hasn't been held to account. If of course his regime was responsible?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

There is strong indicators and pointers blaming his regime, but it appears nothing definitive.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> It would appear that they were not satisfied with the 'attribution' clause... There is strong indicators and pointers blaming his regime, but it appears nothing definitive.



Of course the Russians were not satisfied with the attribution clause, because they well know that it will lead directly to their ally or its agents!

How can there be anything definitive, if the Russians veto a UN investigation into establishing the perpetrators? You have circular logic here. No action should take place until it has been established both that chemical weapons were used and by whom - but the Russians veto the investigation into establishing who to attribute the action to... so that knowledge can never be established to your satisfaction... International law may as well not exist, if it held to this standard and so easily frustrated.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Apr 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Of course the Russians were not satisfied with the attribution clause, because they well know that it will lead directly to their ally or its agents!
> 
> How can there be anything definitive, if the Russians veto a UN investigation into establishing the perpetrators? You have circular logic here. No action should take place until it has been established both that chemical weapons were used and by whom - but the Russians veto the investigation into establishing who to attribute the action to... so that knowledge can never be established to your satisfaction... International law may as well not exist, if it held to this standard and so easily frustrated.




Im not disputing that there are under-handed tactics at play, but it is far from clear who is responsible. The Russians proposed an alternative motion for investigation that would allow the UN Sec Gen determine who the investigators would be – the US, UK and Fra voted against, why?

The UN are certain that CW were used in attacks in 2013/2014 and have proof. They are confident the Syrian military is responsible, but do not have definitive proof. Syria denies the allegations (that they carried out the attacks, not that the attacks occurred).

They embarked on a program of disarmanent of CW stock piles. The OPCW confirmed that they had done this.

To understand why there is an objection to the attribution clause, you have to understand that in the event that an independent investigation is inconclusive as to who the perpetrators were, then US coalition has already decided who ‘probably’ was responsible, or ‘most likely’ responsible - just as you appear to have decided yourself.
In other words, the US/UK/Fr can blame Assad and then justify regime change (to themselves) without conclusive evidence.

It is Iraq and WMD all over again (with the exception that CW do appear to have been used in some instances – but is it not established who used them).


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Im not disputing that there are under-handed tactics at play, but it is far from clear who is responsible. The Russians proposed an alternative motion for investigation that would allow the UN Sec Gen determine who the investigators would be – the US, UK and Fra voted against, why?
> The UN are certain that CW were used in attacks in 2013/2014 and have proof. They are confident the Syrian military is responsible, but do not have definitive proof. Syria denies the allegations (that they carried out the attacks, not that the attacks occurred).



The Russian alternative is a joke and it is a fallacy to present the investigations as in any way equivalent:
_"Russia, meanwhile, proposed that the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres choose the investigators but that the results be reviewed by Russia for “acceptance” prior to making them public, according to Ms Haley. *It also did not contain any clause to assign attribution of the suspected attack*."_

So you want the UN to establish conclusive evidence as to who carried out the attacks, but you criticize the countries who pushed for an investigation to establish attribution; and you defend the country who removes that clause? 
The Syrians seem spectacularly unconcerned at allowing independent proof to be established that they are NOT responsible. You would think if they were innocent, they would be opening all doors to the UN to show this to the world? Every action they and the Russians have taken are the actions of a guilty morally bankrupt party. 

The Syrians and Russians are muddying the waters such that the UN cannot conduct a proper investigation. You demand a proper investigation before action can be taken and the muddied waters mean that no such proper investigation will ever be allowed by Russia. It's clear for the world to see what is going on and the UN is being thwarted and taken for a fool by Russia.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Apr 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> The Russian alternative is a joke and it is a fallacy to present the investigations as in any way equivalent:
> _"Russia, meanwhile, proposed that the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres choose the investigators but that the results be reviewed by Russia for “acceptance” prior to making them public, according to Ms Haley. *It also did not contain any clause to assign attribution of the suspected attack*."_




Yes, meaning that if the investigation was inconclusive, then the result is inconclusive. Under the attribution clause, and in the event that the investigation was inconclusive, the investigators would have to declare who they believed ‘most likely’, or ‘probably’ – both of which, under international law, are inefficient to determine guilt.
Under US/UK/ Fra regime change standards however – it is sufficient.
How easily we forget, WMD and Saddams 45-min chemical attack capability to attack UK?
Over 1m Iraqi’s would be alive today if it were not for such a cock-up of gigantic proportions. Do you seriously think they should be trusted again?



odyssey06 said:


> So you want the UN to establish conclusive evidence as to who carried out the attacks, but you criticize the countries who pushed for an investigation to establish attribution;



Attribution is not establishing conclusive evidence of guilt, it is the act of alleging, attributing guilt in the absence of conclusive evidence.



odyssey06 said:


> The Syrians seem spectacularly unconcerned at allowing independent proof to be established that they are NOT responsible.



This is just speculation.



odyssey06 said:


> You would think if they were innocent, they would be opening all doors to the UN to show this to the world?



But they have already opened the doors to the UN OPCW who have confirmed the inoperability of it CW stockpile.
You seem to think that just because US/UK governments say that Syria was responsible that Syria, or any other sovereign state for that matter, should jump to the tune of the US/UK?
How about the US/UK actually provide some evidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/13/uk-denounces-claims-it-was-behind-staged-syrian-gas-attack

on the other hand

http://www.thejournal.ie/russia-proof-britain-chemical-attack-syria-3957015-Apr2018/

Who to believe? Why set up an investigation with an attribution clause? Why not wait until the investigation is concluded? If it can determine that Syria was responsible, or some other party, then let the investigation conclude that. If it cannot determine who was responsible then that is the conclusion.


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Apr 2018)

> They have already opened the doors to the UN OPCW who have confirmed the inoperability of it CW stockpile.



How could the OPCW ever know the full extent of Syria's stockpile? Did they cover ever acre of Syrian territory? Every bunker?
OPCW know about the stockpile that was declared to them by Syria. That is all.



TheBigShort said:


> Who to believe? Why set up an investigation with an attribution clause? Why not wait until the investigation is concluded? If it can determine that Syria was responsible, or some other party, then let the investigation conclude that. If it cannot determine who was responsible then that is the conclusion.



You are holding the UN to a standard of the proof that Russia will never allow it to establish if it is likely that evidence leads to its ally Syria.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Apr 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> How could the OPCW ever know the full extent of Syria's stockpile? Did they cover ever acre of Syrian territory? Every bunker?
> OPCW know about the stockpile that was declared to them by Syria. That is all.



By that reckoning, other evidence would need to be provided that shows Syria still holds, and more imporatnatly, has used CW's in attacks against its people.
The UN is convinced that CW have been used, but no definitive evidence has been used as to who the perpetrators were.



odyssey06 said:


> You are holding the UN to a standard of the proof that Russia will never allow it to establish if it is likely that evidence leads to its ally Syria



Russia submitted a draft resolution to allow for an independent investigation. Just because it didn't include an attribution clause, the US/UK and Fra voted against it.

Are you suggesting that all independent investigations are pre-conditioned with attribution clauses? You do understand that in the absence of conclusive evidence, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that an attribution clause is simply an allegation?


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Russia submitted a draft resolution to allow for an independent investigation. Just because it didn't include an attribution clause, the US/UK and Fra voted against it.
> Are you suggesting that all independent investigations are pre-conditioned with attribution clauses? You do understand that in the absence of conclusive evidence, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that an attribution clause is simply an allegation?



Please find me the part of the attribution clause that states allegations without evidence are acceptable?

There is no point in having an investigation for which its results have to be approved by Russia before release. It clearly invalidates it as an independent investigation.  Maybe that counts as an independent investigation in a country as corrupt as Russia.

The standard that you are setting for the investigation is one that is valid for a domestic criminal trial. It is a completely unrealistic standard for a UN investigation in the middle of a war zone, conducted without the full support of the domestic regime and based on past experience, carried out under risk of sniper and mortar fire, and without full and unfettered access to locations.
No UN investigation could ever hope to achieve the standard you are demanding in those circumstances. The net result will be that regimes will know they can use chemical weapons with impunity if they muddy the waters with little green men and make it difficult for the UN to investigate. 
There is 'reasonable doubt' in criminal trials, and there is 'reasonable doubt' in military investigations.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Apr 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> There is no point in having an investigation for which its results have to be approved by Russia before release. I



Here is the official log of responses to UN draft resolutions, I cant find anywhere Russia needed to approve of investigation findings before their release.

https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13288.doc.htm



odyssey06 said:


> The standard that you are setting for the investigation is one that is valid for a domestic criminal trial. It is a completely unrealistic standard for a UN investigation



Granted. 
Nevertheless a high degree of probability would at least be a minimum? You can only achieve that with evidence. 
The attack in Douma took place on 07 April. Without evidence, US coalition proceeded to attack six days later. Dont you think attacking a facility for CW is reckless? Or perhaps they knew there were no CWs?


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Here is the official log of responses to UN draft resolutions, I cant find anywhere Russia needed to approve of investigation findings before their release.
> 
> https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sc13288.doc.htm
> 
> ...



It would be reasonable to expect  a UN report such as this to also provide the level of evidence used to support the assignment of culpability for the attack. The report wouldn't be just one line naming a particular group but would include the findings used to justify it. The UN would then be in a position to assess both the group accredited with blame and the strength of evidence behind that. 

My understanding is that the Russian proposal would have left the Security Council responsible for selecting the investigators, publishing the report and for accrediting blame - all of which Russia would have a veto over i.e. if it, or any security council member, did not approve of the findings, it could veto its release.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018...a-chemical-weapons-probe-180410193956669.html

I assume the targets where chosen for a reason and that the western powers have access to intelligence as to likeliest sources of these weapons - bearing in mind the fog of war. None of the targets seem to have been in built up locations.
Even if a UN report was furnished with compelling evidence as to the likely source of the attack, there would still be the challenge of how to respond. Obviously it would be better for the chemical weapons to be disposed of without missiles, but if the regime does not comply, then the chemical weapons cannot be left for use by the regime, then I don't see an alternative to the military option.

I'm not sure of the consequences of a cruise missile strike on a chemical weapons depot as that is not my area of expertise! But from what I can gather, the effects, horrific as they are, seem to be pretty localised. I'm afraid if there were agents of the Syrian regime exposed to their own chemical weapons released during the attacks, I cannot gather any sympathy for them.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Apr 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> My understanding is that the Russian proposal would have left the Security Council responsible for selecting the investigators, publishing the report and for accrediting blame - all of which Russia would have a veto over i.e. if it, or any security council member, did not approve of the findings, it could veto its release.
> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018...a-chemical-weapons-probe-180410193956669.html



There in lies the crux of the problem. Should the UN be used, or some 'other' agency?



odyssey06 said:


> that the western powers have access to intelligence as to likeliest sources of these weapons



That the Western powers have access to intelligience is no vote of confidence - lest we forget Iraq and WMD.



odyssey06 said:


> 'm not sure of the consequences of a cruise missile strike on a chemical weapons depot as that is not my area of expertise



Nor mine, but one of the (many) reasons for banning CW is their indiscriminate nature when released into the environment.



odyssey06 said:


> I'm afraid if there were agents of the Syrian regime exposed to their own chemical weapons released during the attacks, I cannot gather any sympathy for them.



Accept there doesnt appear to have been any CW released during the attacks. 
Perhaps the intelligience was wrong (again)?


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> There in lies the crux of the problem. Should the UN be used, or some 'other' agency?



I'm not sure what other agency would have credibility? We can't call in the Vulcans... who would you suggest?



> Nor mine, but one of the (many) reasons for banning CW is their indiscriminate nature when released into the environment.



A ban is all very well in theory, but it is hard to see how it can be enforced without military action and all its unintended consequences - and I hold the stockpilers of the chemical weapons culpable for that consequences.

On a smaller scale, the UK police stopped chasing people who stole mopeds for fear of causing crashes during the chase. Consequently thefts of mopeds and moped use in other crimes has shot up.



> Accept there doesnt appear to have been any CW released during the attacks.
> Perhaps the intelligience was wrong (again)?



This might explain why...

https://www.ft.com/content/1d0a62fa-40ab-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b
"Chemical weapons experts also point out it is unlikely bombing a chemical weapons storehouse would set off a nerve agent. The components of a nerve agent are usually stored separately, to avoid accidental release...  Barzeh is viewed as critical to the Assad regime’s ability to develop and mix the chemicals required to make the deadly weapons that have been such a persistent feature of the seven-year civil war. The other two sites, west of the city of Homs, were storage facilities where the precursor chemicals for the weapons were stored, US officials said."

The article continues that the destruction of the Barzeh facility means the Assad regime would be unable to produce sarin, but as it is not illegal to possess chlorine (it is to weaponize it), military strikes cannot remove that capability.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Apr 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> I'm not sure what other agency would have credibility?



Exactly, so for what purpose did the US/UK/Fra reject the Russian draft resolution? Because they could veto the findings at the UN?



odyssey06 said:


> The article continues that the destruction of the Barzeh facility means the Assad regime would be unable to produce sarin, but as it is not illegal to possess chlorine (it is to weaponize it), military strikes cannot remove that capability.



So they have chemicals...not chemical weapons?


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Apr 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Exactly, so for what purpose did the US/UK/Fra reject the Russian draft resolution? Because they could veto the findings at the UN?



Because the report would only be published if the Security Council agreed to publish it, and the chances of Russia not vetoing a report that pinned the blame on the Assad regime is zero.



> So they have chemicals...not chemical weapons?



For nerve gas like sarin, the chemicals are typically only mixed to form the weapon right before use.
It is like saying a bullet isn't a weapon because it needs a gun to fire it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_chemical_weapon
_Binary chemical weapons are chemical weapons within the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention and therefore their production, use and stockpiling is forbidden in most countries, as at least one of the individual chemicals is likely to be a Schedule 1 chemical for which large scale production is forbidden._

The US strike claimed to target the Syrian facility that refined \ produced the precursor chemicals for nerve agents, and facilities which stored the produced precursor chemicals. If that is true, very little chance of nerve agent being released. Nasty chemicals yes - but no more nasty than say blowing up a factory that produces paint and paint stripper.

The complexity of nerve gas chemical weapon production, handling and delivery is one of the reasons why any claim that a rebel group is behind a large scale nerve gas attack is not credible (according to the articles I've read over the course of the evening...)


----------



## odyssey06 (30 Apr 2018)

The Assad regime is supposed to have destroyed its nerve gas stockpiles and production facilities, yet the UN OPCW attributed responsibility to the regime for the Khan Shaykun attack on 2017... The OPCW estimated that the regime did not fully dismantle its chemical weapons stockpiles, despite commitments made in 2013.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPCW-UN_Joint_Investigative_Mechanism
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ars-responsibility-for-syria-chemical-attacks


----------



## TheBigShort (1 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> Because the report would only be published if the Security Council agreed to publish it, and the chances of Russia not vetoing a report that pinned the blame on the Assad regime is zero.



So what authority, agency to use then? You mentioned Vulcans earlier?



odyssey06 said:


> For nerve gas like sarin, the chemicals are typically only mixed to form the weapon right before use.



So no actual weapons so?



odyssey06 said:


> The complexity of nerve gas chemical weapon production, handling and delivery is one of the reasons why any claim that a rebel group is behind a large scale nerve gas attack is not credible (according to the articles I've read over the course of the evening...)



Perhaps...or perhaps the 'rebels' came upon stockpiles as they advanced through Syria. 
Certainly they dont appear short of conventional weaponery. The source of which will require other investigations.



odyssey06 said:


> yet the UN OPCW attributed responsibility to the regime for the Khan Shaykun attack on 2017... The OPCW estimated that the regime did not fully dismantle its chemical weapons stockpiles, despite commitments made in 2013.



Yes, but attributing blame does not verify, particularly in the face of denial. Im not saying they did or didnt. If they did, then it would be legitimate to target the Assad regime.
I do find it peculiar that the targetting of Assad on foot of alleged CW has been very limited relative to the stance. Perhaps because of Russia? Iran? Fear of escalation? Or lack of evidence?


----------



## odyssey06 (1 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> So what authority, agency to use then? You mentioned Vulcans earlier?



There is no authority agency, which is why the other security council members have taken action outside of the UN in response to war crimes.



> So no actual weapons so?



This is like saying a missile isn't a weapon because it hasn't been loaded onto a helicopter yet. Of course they are actual weapons.



> Perhaps...or perhaps the 'rebels' came upon stockpiles as they advanced through Syria.
> Certainly they dont appear short of conventional weaponery. The source of which will require other investigations.



Highly unlikely. Where are the dead Assad soldiers from such weapons if the rebels have stockpiles of it? Why wouldn't they have used them already?
Why is it only civilians in rebel held areas who are being wiped out by hundreds of documented chlorine gas attacks and some nerve gas attacks?



> I do find it peculiar that the targetting of Assad on foot of alleged CW has been very limited relative to the stance. Perhaps because of Russia? Iran? Fear of escalation? Or lack of evidence?



There is zero doubt that the Assad regime is responsible for chemical weapons attacks on its own citizens, as I said, there are hundreds of documented chlorine gas attacks by the regime, and the UN has attributed blame to the Assad regime for a nerve gas attack. 

I think (a) Russia (b) fear of escalation. As noted, the UN has already attributed blame to Assad for nerve gas attack in 2017, event though Syria was supposed to have declared and destroyed all its stockpiles of nerve gas under UN supervision.


----------



## Purple (1 May 2018)

The questions to ask are;
1) Why would Assad use chemical weapons in a war he is winning and risk escalation with the USA/UK/France?
2) What motivation do the USA/UK/France have here? Nobody who matters cares about the people being killed, or cares enough for that to be the reason they intervene, so what are the looking to get out of this?
3) What will Syria look like after the war? We know that the only Arab country which was a first world country is now destroyed. We know that they had, by local standards, excellent health and education services and women were treated relatively well and we also know that all of that is gone now. What we don't know is what price the victorious side has agreed to pay to their backer.


----------



## TheBigShort (1 May 2018)

odyssey06 said:


> There is no authority agency, which is why the other security council members have taken action outside of the UN in response to war crimes.



This is where the problems lie-in. What is the point of the UN, if the UN rules are not adhered too?
For instance, Russia claims to have evidence that the UK staged the Douma attack

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middl...alleged-chemical-attack-in-syria-staged-by-uk

This, of course is an outlandish claim - but nevertheless, it raises the burden of proof. Is Russia authorized to attack the UK?



odyssey06 said:


> This is like saying a missile isn't a weapon because it hasn't been loaded onto a helicopter yet. Of course they are actual weapons.



No its not.



odyssey06 said:


> Highly unlikely. Where are the dead Assad soldiers from such weapons if the rebels have stockpiles of it? Why wouldn't they have used them already?



Obtaining stores of CW is one thing and having the capability to use them is another.



odyssey06 said:


> Why is it only civilians in rebel held areas who are being wiped out by hundreds of documented chlorine gas attacks and some nerve gas attacks?



Yes, good question. How come 'rebel' fighters are not amongst the casualties? Do they flee their positions before the chemical attacks? What point the chemical attack at all then?

_On 7 April 2018, at least 48 people were reportedly killed in __a chemical attack__ in Douma, which resulted in an __armed response__ from the __United States__, __France__, and the __United Kingdom__.__[11]__On 14 April 2018, the Syrian Army officially declared Eastern Ghouta to be free of militants, securing it under government control_

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_al-Assal_chemical_attack

_In May 2013 __Carla Del Ponte__ UN Chief Prosecutor accused the Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons 

_


odyssey06 said:


> There is zero doubt that the Assad regime is responsible for chemical weapons attacks on its own citizens



There is no doubt that chemical weapons have been used, there is some doubt to the perpetrators.


----------



## Purple (1 May 2018)

When neither side can be trusted to be telling the truth then one must ask "Cui bono"?


----------



## Leo (2 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Obtaining stores of CW is one thing and having the capability to use them is another.



If you're talking about the technical capability to deploy a chemical weapon, the technology to do so has been around for about 3000 years, the Chinese being early proponents. The use of artillery shells to deploy nerve agents goes back to WW2, and is really basic technology.


----------



## Purple (2 May 2018)

Leo said:


> If you're talking about the technical capability to deploy a chemical weapon, the technology to do so has been around for about 3000 years, the Chinese being early proponents. The use of artillery shells to deploy nerve agents goes back to WW2, and is really basic technology.


The British used biological weapons on the Native Americans. The Americans used chemical weapons in Vietnam. 
The chemical in question in Syria is ammonia but ammonia is used as a disinfectant and for cleaning in many places in the Middle East so the theory outlined by Robert Fisk may to correct. Note that Fisk didn't say that's what happened, he just outlined what the senior doctor in the local hospital said.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 May 2018)

Leo said:


> If you're talking about the technical capability to deploy a chemical weapon, the technology to do so has been around for about 3000 years, the Chinese being early proponents. The use of artillery shells to deploy nerve agents goes back to WW2, and is really basic technology



Thanks for that, I kind of assumed it was basic enough. Perhaps to elaborate - having the capability to use them, _effectively, _is another thing. As in, the question was put, "where are the dead Assad soldiers from such weapons if the rebels have stockpiles of them"?

Perhaps to launch CW against Syrian Army (with the effect of killing soldiers) is tricky?

But more so, the use of CW is to lose the high moral ground in the eyes of the international community. Perhaps this is why all the CW attacks so far, it is disputed who the perpetrators are. That is why resolutions that propose investigations that return inconclusive evidence but still attribute blame are being blocked at the UN?


----------



## Purple (2 May 2018)

For me the question is why use Chemical Weapons and risk a reaction from those backing the other side when you are winning without using them?


----------



## TheBigShort (2 May 2018)

Purple said:


> For me the question is why use Chemical Weapons and risk a reaction from those backing the other side when you are winning without using them?



I agree, it makes no sense. Which brings us back to Salisbury. None of it makes sense that Russia would go to such lengths to kill a former spy that they could have killed in a Russian prison, or killed in the UK with a bullet. The details of that whole affair are extremely watery and contradictory.
Underlying all of it, is perhaps, the intent to fixate the publics attention on the dangers and use of CW in order to push through an ulterior policy - namely regime change in Syria.

We have been here before;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier


----------



## Leo (2 May 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Thanks for that, I kind of assumed it was basic enough. Perhaps to elaborate - having the capability to use them, _effectively, _is another thing.



Yep, just a simple pressurised vial in a conventional artillery shell is all it takes, accuracy isn't an issue.

True though, effectiveness is another matter entirely. The use of chemical weapons now is more for their psychological impact on the broader population rather then eliminating a small pocket of people. Their effectiveness in that scenario is difficult to measure and subjective. Where both sides are blaming each other it becomes even less clear.

An alternative use for a chemical strike would be to quickly clear an area or facility without causing much in the way of physical building/ infrastructure damage. I doubt that could be a viable explanation here though.


----------



## TheBigShort (21 May 2018)

It was announced on the 18th May that Sergei Skirpal was discharged from hospital - location unknown.
It didn't get much media coverage given all that was occurring for the royal wedding on the 19th May.
This would be typical standard practice where its a 'good day to bury bad news', or in this case a good day to divert attention. But that's just me with my conspiratorial hat on. Not that any such behavior could occur in the world of spies and double spies!


----------



## Ceist Beag (21 May 2018)

With all due respect TBS, I very much doubt those with an interest in this case would be relying on the tabloids to keep abreast of what is happening here...


----------



## TheBigShort (21 May 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> With all due respect TBS, I very much doubt those with an interest in this case would be relying on the tabloids to keep abreast of what is happening here...



Thanks, but that actually makes little sense to me.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 May 2018)

Yulia Skirpal makes video statement;

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-44232096/yulia-skripal-we-are-so-lucky-to-survive

She hopes to return to Russia in the long-term and thanks the Russian embassy for offers of consular assistance although declines the offer.


----------



## TheBigShort (30 May 2018)

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...n-a8367471.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

Some questions being asked in the British media.


----------



## TheBigShort (6 Jul 2018)

So Novichok is back in the news!
Apparently, two more people are in life-threatening conditions after being contaminated by the same military grade nerve agent that failed to kill the Skirpals.

On this occasion however, one week after the incident, British security intelligence are _not _pointing the finger at Russia for a direct attack. But that somehow, a 'contaminated item' is responsible, but yet to be found.
And if a contaminated item remains at large, so to speak, then doesn't that put the whole Skirpal/Russia affair into question?

 That the unfortunate couple affected, accidentally came into contact with it (not far from Britain's experimental science laboratory, Porton Down) is wholly bizarre I have to say.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Jul 2018)

A British citizen dies after coming into a Russian nerve agent, Novichok. 
British authorities say an investigation needs to be carried out before attributing blame. 

When two Russian citizens allegedly were attacked some 60+ Russian diplomats were expelled from US and Europe, without investigation. 

Surely this blows a hole in the entire Skirpal affair? 
If this latest tragic incident is a consequence of the previous attack then surely futher US,EU sanctions, Parliamentary attacks on Russia etc should be on the cards without hesitation?

On the other hand, if this is not related to the Skirpal affair, and that it is a separate event altogether, then that opens the real possibility that Russia was never responsible for Skirpal in the first place. And the EU and US have expelled diplomats without any justification or due process carried out. 
These are not the actions of a democracy, built on principles of law and order, innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (9 Jul 2018)

This is weirder than a Agatha Christie plot.  So this death is not accidental, not manslaughter but murder.  What can possibly be the connection between the two incidents?

I agree that the anti Russian hissy fit now looks very dubious.  UK not looking good on many fronts except of course the football field.


----------



## Purple (9 Jul 2018)

It was Colonel Mustard with the Novichok in the Crack Den.


----------



## cremeegg (16 Jul 2018)

I agree with your general approach to this .

However



TheBigShort said:


> And the EU and US have expelled diplomats without any justification or due process carried out.
> These are not the actions of a democracy, built on principles of law and order, innocent until proven guilty.



this is not correct. Expelling diplomats without any form of due process is the only way diplomats can be expelled. Diplomatic immunity means that they cannot be subjected to any form of legal process.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Jul 2018)

cremeegg said:


> I agree with your general approach to this .
> 
> this is not correct. Expelling diplomats without any form of due process is the only way diplomats can be expelled. Diplomatic immunity means that they cannot be subjected to any form of legal process.



Very true, indeed. 

Instead, no due process was taken to come to the decision to attribute blame to Russia and in turn expel its diplomats, is probably a better way of putting things.
This compares with statements on the latest incident that suggest an investigation is to be carried out first before attributing blame.

In the meantime, the OPCW investigating the alleged chemical weapons attacks in Douma,  Syria, resulting in NATO air strikes on a sovereign nation, has said 

"_OPCW designated labs conducted analysis of prioritised samples. The results show that no organophosphorous nerve agents or their degradation products were detected in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties." 
_
 "_Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is on-going. The FFM team will continue its work to draw final conclusions."
_
I take this to mean that while chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples, it is far from certain the origin of these chemicals are and as much as they may have originated from a weapons attack, it is also possible that they originate from some other obvious source. 

Despite this, TM today in HoC was still peddling the "it was the Russians line" with regard to Salisbury, whilst the President of US,  the UK's supposed closest ally, was standing shoulder to shoulder with Putin. 

The US media is going to town on Trump after his summit with Putin. I cant help think that the war-mongers in the Pentagon and NATO feel their objectives of bringing Ukraine under their wing has taken a huge step backwards. 
Afterall, Ukraine is a country that routinely blames Moscow for a number of atrocities including the assassination of journalists, only to subsequently admit that it was a fake plot planned months in advance. 
If you are inclined to make up stories about who was responsible for 9/11, WMD stockpiles, ability to strike UK in 45 mins,  invade foreign nations without UN sanction, allege chemical weapons attacks in Syria without proof, bomb first ask later, expel first investigate later - then fake stories about assassination is everything you could possibly want in a prospective ally.


----------



## TheBigShort (24 Jul 2018)

Notwithstanding the tradgedy that has befallen Dawn Sturgess, we are a far cry now from the UN Security Council hearings that had respective ambassadors from UK, Russia and US throwing verbals at each other. 
Instead we are with the homeless guy, searching in the garbage bin, finding the bottle of 'perfume'. 
Did Russian agents plan a revenge attack on on a former spy only to chuck the incriminating evidence in the bin afterwards?


----------



## TheBigShort (30 Aug 2018)

Plot thickens

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...hide-the-truth/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## Purple (30 Aug 2018)

I like Craig Murray. He's a very interesting guy.


----------



## TheBigShort (31 Aug 2018)

I saw this yesterday. Pretty ominous stuff to the intentions of US, UK & Fra with regard to more military strikes in Syria.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/us-uk-france-statement-on-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria

I dont think it takes a military strategist to figure that any CW attacks by Assad would be wholly counter productive especially seeing as it is being widely reported that Idlib is the last significant stronghold of the anti-Assad regime.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Sep 2018)

"All eyes on the actions of Assad, Russia and Iran in Idlib" - Nikki Hayley

https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/1036758129462128640?s=19

I like the first response "_Meanwhile in Yemen..." _

Idlib has been reported as being in the control jihadi Islamists, by US White House officials

_*"Idlib provice is the largest al-Qaeda safe-have since 9/11, tied to directly to Ayman al Zawahiri, this is a huge problem.” - *_Special US envoy Brett McGurk.

Anyone believe that this is a fight for good over evil?
Or is it all about the money? Ask about the money.


----------



## Purple (4 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Anyone believe that this is a fight for good over evil?
> Or is it all about the money? Ask about the money.


When is it ever about anything else? All wars are fought over the control of resources.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Sep 2018)

Purple said:


> When is it ever about anything else? All wars are fought over the control of resources.



Very true. Our media might report about it one day.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Sep 2018)

The Salisbury investigation is heating up   again. British police revealing details of suspects, their movements, photo id and images of the perfume bottle used in the attack. 
The police say the two suspects "Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov" were likely travelling under aliases and that these are not their real names. 
Police wont be applying for extradition from Russia as Russian law does not permit extradition of its own citizens. 

Some key points on Sky news.

- Two Russian men named as suspects in the Salisbury novichok poisoning.
- The men are Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov
- They are charged with attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skirpal and police officer Nick Bailey
- They are also charged with conspiracy to murder Mr Skirpal and the use of novichok.

Just a couple of points/questions to note that automatically jump out from the press releases.

- If the suspects are 'likely' to have been travelling under aliases and not their real names, how have they been identified as Russians?

- The timeline of their arrival from Russia (Mar 02 ), executing the attack (Mar 04) and departure through Heathrow (Mar 04) is very narrow. 
This would suggest to me that they must have had prior knowledge of Skirpals whereabouts, their movements and _intended_ movements. 
They must, most likely, have had prior knowledge of the locality to execute the attack without any apparent distractions (confirmation of Skirpals residence and its precise location). 
Probably meaning that they have been to UK before, either under real names or possibly same or different aliases. 
I suspect the details being released today have been in the posession of police for sometime so some of the questions above should be easily answered. 

Coincidentally, Russian support for Syrian regime (also accused of chemical weapons attacks) that is moving to recapture Idlib, is also heating up.


----------



## Firefly (5 Sep 2018)

from The Guardian (T May)

_We were right to say in March that the Russian State was responsible.

And now we have identified the individuals involved, we can go even further.

Mr Speaker, just as the police investigation has enabled the CPS to bring charges against the two suspects, so the Security and Intelligence Agencies have carried out their own investigations into the organisation behind this attack.

Based on this work, I can today tell the House that, based on a body of intelligence, the Government has concluded that the two individuals named by the police and CPS are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU.

The GRU is a highly disciplined organisation with a well-established chain of command.So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at a senior level of the Russian state._


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-mps-after-first-pmqs-of-autumn-politics-live


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Sep 2018)

https://www.rt.com/news/437671-russia-uk-skripals-suspects/

Moscow - names published in UK mean nothing to us as of now.

Requests London to abondon "public accusations and media manipulations" and "engage in practical cooperation between law enforcement agencies".

Are they saying that the UK has not made any contact with Russia through diplomatic channels first, but instead is trying to investigate this issue through public airwaves?


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> We were right to say in March that the Russian State was responsible.



They were wrong to say Russia was responsible if they did not have the identity of who carried out the attack. Totally and utterly wrong.



Firefly said:


> And now we have identified the individuals involved, we can go even further.



See, if the identity of the individuals turned out to be, say anti-Russian Ukranians, the Brits would look like total idiots today.



Firefly said:


> Based on this work, I can today tell the House that, based on a body of intelligence, the Government has concluded that the two individuals named by the police and CPS are officers from the Russian military intelligence service, also known as the GRU.



The Government concluding that the two individuals named by the police (as possible aliases!) are officers of GRU and then announcing it to the world is a farcical way to carry out its own intelligence activities.



Firefly said:


> The GRU is a highly disciplined organisation with a well-established chain of command.So this was not a rogue operation. It was almost certainly also approved outside the GRU at a senior level



Is the GRU the same organization that once had a Sergei Skirpal on its books, who subsequently acted as a double agent for UK intelligence?
If so, is it possible these guys were double agents acting for UK intelligence?


----------



## Firefly (5 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> https://www.rt.com/news/437671-russia-uk-skripals-suspects/



The Russian Times?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues

It's like something from 1984


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> The Russian Times?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)#Propaganda_claims_and_related_issues
> 
> It's like something from 1984



Yeah, everyone knows what RT is, but so far they are the only ones carrying a Russian response from Moscow.
When Sky or BBC post the Russia response I can link that too.

But in the meantime, the whole UK position is becoming increasingly embarrassing in the manner they are going about this.
To 'conclude' anything on the basis of a notion that it was 'almost certainly' Russia is amateurish at best.
That they would continue this investigation in such public form, without it appears, any diplomatic channels open with the Russians is bizarre.
To admit that the named persons are most likely aliases and then confirm that the 'named individuals' are agents of GRU is sheer incompetence.
And the irony that UK intelligence services once had a GRU agent on their books (Skirpal) is beyond fiction.

Nevermind the BBC, Sky, Sun etc will toe in line and bleat out the message for the measses as has been delivered.

Big Brother indeed.


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Sep 2018)

[broken link removed]

Sky news is reporting (I hope this a satisfactory news agency to link to?) that a Russian diplomat has been summoned in London by UK. 

- but I thought British intelligence knew last May it was the Russians? Didn't they expel a number of diplomats at the time?
What has come out of today that this guy is to be 'hauled in' today?


----------



## TheBigShort (6 Sep 2018)

UN Security Council hearings taking place on the Salisbury poisoning affair. 
Nothing unusual, US, UK, Fra and other European allies lining up one side to accuse Russia. China, Kazakhstan remaining neutral, appealing all sides to assist investigation through diplomatic channels. 
Russia, unsurprisingly denying any involvement and basically ridiculing the 'evidence' as presented by UK. 

On the face of it, I have to say I think the Russians have a real case to be peeved. 
The evidence as presented by UK is extremely shallow and open to all sorts of questions. 
The Russians for instance, have publicly requested the UK embassy to provide the finger prints of the two suspects. These would have been obtained when a visa to travel to UK was applied for. Apparently the UK ambassador to Russia has refused to provide the finger prints.


----------



## TheBigShort (9 Sep 2018)

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1LM365?__twitter_impression=true

According to this report the US has 'seen evidence' that Syria is preparing a chemical attack. 
Apparently the US is 'very sure' and that they have very, very good grounds to believe this to be true - so nothing conclusive then.

My theory that the Syrians, who are winning the war and just one major front left to take in Idlib, would not use CW is such circumstances appears not to hold. 
I cant get my head around it, why on earth would they even consider it?
Unless of course it is nothing more than propaganda by US, paving the way for more direct military intervention?


----------



## Firefly (10 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> My theory that the Syrians, who are winning the war and just one major front left to take in Idlib, would not use CW is such circumstances appears not to hold.
> I cant get my head around it, why on earth would they even consider it?



Maybe because they used CW in Idlib only last year? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack


----------



## TheBigShort (10 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> Maybe because they used CW in Idlib only last year? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Shaykhun_chemical_attack



Is this the same CW attack in Khan that the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission did not identify the perpetrators?

https://www.opcw.org/news/article/o...cal-weapons-in-khan-shaykhun-on-4-april-2017/


----------



## Firefly (10 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Is this the same CW attack in Khan that the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission did not identify the perpetrators?
> 
> https://www.opcw.org/news/article/o...cal-weapons-in-khan-shaykhun-on-4-april-2017/



Maybe because 
_
"The FFM’s mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria; it does not include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks."_

(first sentence, second paragraph):


----------



## TheBigShort (10 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> Maybe because
> _
> "The FFM’s mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria; it does not include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks."_
> 
> (first sentence, second paragraph):



Fair point. 
It was the JIM (Joint Investigative Mechanism) which attributed blame to Syria. 
Both Syria and Russia dispute those findings, labelling the JIM as biased. Notably, JIM never went to the area of the CW attack. 

Im not saying that Syria was not responsible, simply noting that it is disputed as to who is responsible.


----------



## Delboy (13 Sep 2018)

So the 2 Russians identified by the Brits as the culprits and members of the Russian intelligence service have been acknowledged by Putin as Russian citizens who they say are ordinary civilians. But don't worry, they have a cover story for their movements

*Russians accused by UK in spy case say 'they were in Salisbury for tourism'*

'We're victims of a fantastical coincidence' - say duo
https://www.independent.ie/world-ne...y-were-in-salisbury-for-tourism-37312439.html

What say you now BigShort?


----------



## TheBigShort (13 Sep 2018)

Delboy said:


> So the 2 Russians identified by the Brits as the culprits and members of the Russian intelligence service have been acknowledged by Putin as Russian citizens who they say are ordinary civilians. But don't worry, they have a cover story for their movements
> 
> *Russians accused by UK in spy case say 'they were in Salisbury for tourism'*
> 
> ...




Yes, intriguing stuff altogether. The notion that these guys were simply tourists and that all of this is coincidental certainly stretches the realms of credibility. 
So I think it is reasonably safe to say that these two guys are Russians, that they were not actually travelling under aliases as reported, and that they have confirmed that is was indeed them in Salisbury at the same time as the Skripal attack. 

However, the Irish Independent is reporting from transcripts of an interview published by Russia Today (so lest there be any doubt, we either accept the Russia Today transcripts as factual and truthful, or its all Russian propaganda - im tending to go with former, although I am aware some here dismiss RT as nothing more than propaganda). 

I would therefore recommend reading the full published RT transcript.

https://www.rt.com/news/438356-rt-petrov-boshirov-full-interview/


----------



## Delboy (13 Sep 2018)

I'm sure if there's any mis-reporting in the West about tourists, admissions to it being them that was there etc that the Kremlin would be out shouting by now.

Looks like a few Kremlin apologists may have egg on their faces over this one, wha?


----------



## Sunny (13 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, intriguing stuff altogether. The notion that these guys were simply tourists and that all of this is coincidental certainly stretches the realms of credibility.
> So I think it is reasonably safe to say that these two guys are Russians, that they were not actually travelling under aliases as reported, and that they have confirmed that is was indeed them in Salisbury at the same time as the Skripal attack.
> 
> However, the Irish Independent is reporting from transcripts of an interview published by Russia Today (so lest there be any doubt, we either accept the Russia Today transcripts as factual and truthful, or its all Russian propaganda - im tending to go with former, although I am aware some here dismiss RT as nothing more than propaganda).
> ...



That transcript made me laugh. If someone hadn't died and people severely hurt, I would find the whole thing hilarious. Two guys decide on a whim to fly to London because they really wanted to see Salisbury (Really popular in Russia even though I reckon majority of Irish people have never heard of it). They arrive and go to train station to see where they can go. They go to Salisbury and walk around for 40 minutes but go back to train station because of snow, have a coffee and return to London. You can imagine the heartache. So on day two of their three day trip, they decide to repeat the exercise again. It really is an amazing Cathedral (Russia doesn't have any old buildings you know). Unfortunately, the same thing happened again. So they left at lunchtime, back to London and the first flight back to Moscow. But the good news is that they took lots of pictures so they can prove they were tourists.

It is just like the shooting down of MH17 again......Not us. We are nice nation. We hosted World Cup and everyone had big laugh.


----------



## TheBigShort (13 Sep 2018)

Not exactly sure what you are implying @Delboy. A few things stand out, either we believe the transcript in the interview from RT, in which case these men are pleading their innocence (albeit with a lot of questions surrounding their activities to be answered) or it all just part of the Russian propaganda machine that sent two agents, together, to poison a former spy using their actual real names, and travel with the poison in person.
Not only that, apparently traces of Novichok were found in the hotel where they stayed - the stuff was leaking!
They then re-packaged the Novichok (according to Rowley who said he found it in a sealed box) only to discard it recklessly.

So once identified as two suspects, the Russians have wheeled them out to concoct this story? The story is not very convincing, why would the Russians wheel them out to parrot this stuff? The Brits are still keeping the Skripals under lock and key, bar a brief video from Yulia.

We are a long way from the truth here.


----------



## TheBigShort (13 Sep 2018)

Sunny said:


> That transcript made me laugh. If someone hadn't died and people severely hurt, I would find the whole thing hilarious. Two guys decide on a whim to fly to London because they really wanted to see Salisbury (Really popular in Russia even though I reckon majority of Irish people have never heard of it). They arrive and go to train station to see where they can go. They go to Salisbury and walk around for 40 minutes but go back to train station because of snow, have a coffee and return to London. You can imagine the heartache. So on day two of their three day trip, they decide to repeat the exercise again. It really is an amazing Cathedral (Russia doesn't have any old buildings you know). Unfortunately, the same thing happened again. So they left at lunchtime, back to London and the first flight back to Moscow. But the good news is that they took lots of pictures so they can prove they were tourists.
> 
> It is just like the shooting down of MH17 again......Not us. We are nice nation. We hosted World Cup and everyone had big laugh.



On the face of it I would agree.
But we are dealing with intelligence agencies here, apparently. And as farcical as their story sounds, equally to my mind, its farcical that...what did Teresa May say?.....oh yeah, the highly trained and disciplined GRU (or something to that effect) would send its assassins to the UK for a weekend extermination using a highly dangerous substance, that they brought with them, re-sealed, and then discarded recklessly.

I'm willing to be proven wrong on all of this, but my skepticism was heightened further after I watched 'The Ballymurphy Massacare' last week. It reminded me of how UK intelligence agencies have operated to subvert the course of justice for citizens in this country. Hanging a couple of Russians out to dry would be childs play.


----------



## Firefly (13 Sep 2018)

They look like such a devout pair!

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-putin-salisbury-poisoning-suspects-interview


----------



## Delboy (13 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Not exactly sure what you are implying @Delboy


I think anyone who has read your musings (which are still continuing along the same path) on this topic over the last few pages will get exactly what I'm implying


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Thanks for the sentiment Delboy, but I can assure you I am no apologist for Putin or the Kremlin.
I am a however a skeptic when it comes to political and financial affairs. I dont afford much value to the mouthpieces that propagate their agendas without considering the ulterior motives. 

Teresa May, in HoC decscribed this attempted assassination as being only capable by Russia, only they had the technical means, the operational experience. That the GRU are highly disciplined and this operation could only have been approved by a high authority in the Kremlin.
She is trying to make it out to be an operation of high sophistication and precision. 
Knowing what we now know, does TM words relate to these two guys on a weekend return flight from Moscow travelling by public transport and window shopping?

This popped up on my Twitter feed, an article about Salisbury tourism from 2014.

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/11432400.International_visitors_flock_to_Salisbury/


"_We’re delighted our efforts at targeting key international markets, for example hosting 100 key international press and travel trade representatives from markets including France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Australia, China, *Russia*, Canada and USA, are already paying off."_


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> On the face of it I would agree.
> But we are dealing with intelligence agencies here, apparently. And as farcical as their story sounds, equally to my mind, its farcical that...what did Teresa May say?.....oh yeah, the highly trained and disciplined GRU (or something to that effect) would send its assassins to the UK for a weekend extermination using a highly dangerous substance, that they brought with them, re-sealed, and then discarded recklessly.
> 
> I'm willing to be proven wrong on all of this, but my skepticism was heightened further after I watched 'The Ballymurphy Massacare' last week. It reminded me of how UK intelligence agencies have operated to subvert the course of justice for citizens in this country. Hanging a couple of Russians out to dry would be childs play.



The UK aren't saying that these guys brought the substance with them. At least I have never seen that accusation. As far as I know whatever was used was delivered separately. As for the discarding recklessly, what did you expect them to do if they were indeed sent there to kill people. I doubt their first thought was finding somewhere to handle hazardous waste.

No offense but your stance on this is just plain odd. A woman died. People including a police officer were seriously ill. This wasn’t made up. It’s also not likely to be a local gang who suddenly gained access to a substance that could infect people like this. Anyone who believes the story of those two muppets on tv yesterday is deluded. They left without any luggage for gods sake. They had two sets of flights booked on separate days. There was no snow when they visited. They stayed in london even though they wanted to visit Salisbury. They just happened to be there the day of the attack. They are not gay tourists. They are not sports nutritionists. They were involved in whatever happened that day. And no links to the Salisbury journal is going to make your argument make sense. Russia carried out this attack. Russia was responsible for the shooting down of a passenger jet despite their denials then. Russia has been involved in at the least condoning and covering up chemical attacks in Syria. Everytime people like you come online with your ridiculous conspiracy theories, you are insulting those who died.

I have this before but you do behave like a typical troll on every single thread.


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2018)

Of course you could also be based in a warehouse in Moscow sent to infiltrate Ireland’s online community with your pro kremlin mutterings. Indeed you could be here to destabilise Irish society through askaboutmoney. I can see why you like conspiracy theories so much. This is fun.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Quite the rant.



Sunny said:


> The UK aren't saying that these guys brought the substance with them. At least I have never seen that accusation. As far as I know whatever was used was delivered separately



Which implies that other people were involved at some point in this attack. Im not aware of UK authorities looking for information on additional suspects are you?
Traces of Novichok were apparently found at the hotel they stayed in. Given the short timeframe of their stay, given the apparently large amount of information on their movements, caught on CCTV, if they didn't travel with the perfume bottle, then a third person must be involved.



Sunny said:


> As for the discarding recklessly, what did you expect them to do if they were indeed sent there to kill people. I doubt their first thought was finding somewhere to handle hazardous waste.



According to Rowley who found the bottle, it was sealed.

https://news.sky.com/story/novichok...ison-was-in-sealed-bottle-of-perfume-11447714

Again the timeframe is odd. They re-sealed the bottle, disposed of it at an unknown location where it remained apparently undisturbed for several months.



Sunny said:


> No offense but your stance on this is just plain odd.



I dont think you know what my stance is.




Sunny said:


> A woman died. People including a police officer were seriously ill. This wasn’t made up



I never said it was. The perpetrators of this should be locked up for life.



Sunny said:


> Anyone who believes the story of those two muppets on tv yesterday is deluded. They left without any luggage for gods sake. They had two sets of flights booked on separate days.



So you missed the bit where I said that their story stretches the realms of credibility?



Sunny said:


> There was no snow when they visited



There was.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...isruption-storm-emma-beast-from-the-east-live

People died in those hazardous snow conditions. Its not made up.



Sunny said:


> They stayed in london even though they wanted to visit Salisbury.



According to the transcript of their interview, they wanted to have"some fun in London" and visit Salisbury.



Sunny said:


> They are not gay tourists. They are not sports nutritionists.



How do you know that?



Sunny said:


> They were involved in whatever happened that day.



Perhaps, I dont know, certainly nothing has been produced that would stand up in a court.



Sunny said:


> And no links to the Salisbury journal is going to make your argument make sense.



What is my argument? That these two are innocent? That Russia wasn't involved?
I have never said any such thing.
My argument is that everything that the UK authorities have produced is questionable, there are a lot of inconsistencies coupled with a lot of hyperbole.
For instance, while everyone is jumping up and down pointing the finger at Russia, the Head of Scotland Yard counter-terrorism unit that is investigating the crime has said he has no evidence  that the Russian state was involved.
A pretty significant factor I would have thought or do you think his opinion doesn't count for much?



Sunny said:


> Russia carried out this attack.



Apparently you do not think much of his opinion. You obviously know more than the Head of Scotland Yards counter-terrorism unit. Be sure to pass on what information you have wont you?



Sunny said:


> Russia was responsible for the shooting down of a passenger jet despite their denials then.



Yes, and they were also responsible for the assassination of a Russian journalist, until he turned up next day and admitted that he and Ukrainian authorities had planned his fake assassination for a month.



Sunny said:


> Russia has been involved in at the least condoning and covering up chemical attacks in Syria.



It hasnt condoned any chemical attacks. Don't come on here calling me a troll when you are spouting rubbish like this.
If Russia is engaged in covering up chemical attacks it should be rightly condemned and sanctioned.
As for the Salisbury Journal, it doesn't prove or disprove anything either way. What it does do is add credence to the story that they may have just been tourists. I dont know if they were or not.
You on the other hand have applied guilt to these two and the Russian state based on what exactly?
A totally inconsistent, dubious, government and media witch hunt.
I remember the last time this occured - WMD. I went on the views of Hans Blix, weapons inspector, who said they couldn't find any weapons. I would have been labelled a troll then too.
 But the media and government witch hunt and the baying sheep all stood in line and tolerated an illegal invasion that killed and    destroyed the lives of innocent millions.

Dont moralise me about people dying when this whole episode, propagated by faceless 'intelligence' is pushing for nothing more than more conflict.


----------



## Purple (14 Sep 2018)

I don't believe the UK government's version of events either.
I think that Russia is a hostile State which will and has murdered and assassinated people all over the world, including in their own country. I think that Russia is a force for evil in the world, is anti-democratic and a corrupt State run by a cabal of former KGB hardmen whose primary interest is self enrichment.
That doesn't mean that the UK or the USA or any of our neighbours or allies is above dirty tricks which involve killing innocent people within their own borders.
Most conflicts involve picking which set of bad guys to back. Syria is a prime example.
I don't know who carried out the attack in Salisbury but neither side has any credibility.


----------



## Ceist Beag (14 Sep 2018)

Good man Purple, I think you have succinctly summarised in a few lines what TBS was trying to say over 5 pages!  BTW I agree. The only thing you can believe with any of these types of story is that you cannot believe anyone!


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

The Salisbury Journal Twitter feed is providing a great source of information.

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/n...ather_and_travel_updates__pictures_and_video/

Lots of tweets advising public of weather conditions, traffic updates, road closures etc from 02 Mar to 04 March.
To my mind, the part of their story which says they couldn't travel to Stonehenge because of snow is now plausible.

So despite the media hyperbole of the incredulity of their story, which I admit seemed ridiculous to me, a little bit of scrutiny that perception can change pretty quickly. 
However, it doesn't suit some that what they are being told by government and media could be questionable.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (14 Sep 2018)

Seems to me Petrov and Bosh are guilty as sin.  There is a Worldly Wise constituency in these parts which shrugs this off with a “so what, one country is as bad as the other in these matters”.
Despite my six county upbringing I seem to have had a W/W bypass.  I naively believed that ex judicial killings are non existent in Western democracies, but it seems we are just as bad as Russia.


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The Salisbury Journal Twitter feed is providing a great source of information.
> 
> http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/n...ather_and_travel_updates__pictures_and_video/
> 
> ...



Indeed it is as per the below from Stonehenge that they couldn't apparently visit because of the snow: Also confirmation that the buses were running to Stonehenge from outside the station.

10:06am

We're looking forward to giving all our visitors a warm welcome to Stonehenge today. We're open until 5pm with last tickets at 3pm.

— Stonehenge (@EH_Stonehenge) March 4, 2018


----------



## Delboy (14 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> To my mind, the part of their story which says they couldn't travel to Stonehenge because of snow is now plausible.


I'm starting to worry about you now


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Sunny said:


> Indeed it is as per the below from Stonehenge that they couldn't apparently visit because of the snow: Also confirmation that the buses were running to Stonehenge from outside the station.
> 
> 10:06am
> 
> ...



Well done, you have figured out there was snow.
The 04 March was the day of the attack and the day they flew out of London -
03 March was the day they apparently tried to visit Stonehenge, traveling to Salisbury but unable to go to Stonehenge. You should read the tweets that day.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Delboy said:


> I'm starting to worry about you now



Why so? Im not saying that they are innocent or not involved. Im merely pointing out that their version of events, of not being able to travel on 03March stands up.

Of course, the GRU being the GRU, would send it agents to carry out an assassination in Salisbury, using public transport, during one of the worst weather periods of the year.

As much as the suspects story is odd, the actual events and the manner in which they apparently occurred is even more far-fetched in my opinion.


----------



## Firefly (14 Sep 2018)

It looks like the Dutch and the Swiss are in on the conspiracy with the Brits

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...over-alleged-novichok-laboratory-hacking-plot

_"
The Dutch government expelled two alleged Russian spies this year after they were accused of planning to hack into a Swiss chemicals laboratory where novichok nerve agent samples from the Salisbury attack were analysed, it has emerged.
"
"
The Spiez laboratory, near Berne, subsequently confirmed a British claim that the Skripals had been victims of the military-grade nerve agent novichok. The laboratory has also been investigating poison gas attacks by the Syrian regime backed by the Kremlin.
"

"
In an interview with the Russian TV channel RT, two men identified as Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, who have been accused by the UK government of poisoning the Skripals, admitted they had visited Switzerland on a number of occasions.
Petrov, who claims to be in the fitness and nutrition business, but is accused with Boshirov of being a member of the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency, said: “If memory serves me well, we had just a couple of trips to Switzerland. We spent some time during the new year holidays there. Our trips are not always business-related. We went to Switzerland on holiday. We did have some business trips there as well, but I can’t really remember when it was.”
"_
So, these two religious tourists just happened to be holidaying in Switzerland too. They have some luck!!!

If it walks like a duck....


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

That would be 4 Russian diplomats expelled then, by the Netherlands?

Your two, and these two who were expelled in 'solidarity with UK'

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2018/...sian-diplomats-over-british-nerve-gas-attack/

Although if it were 4, I'm sure somewhere in the reporting it would say something like "that 4 Russian diplomats have now been expelled by the Dutch since the Salisbury attack". But it doesn't. Its just two. Is it the same two?
Ireland expelled one Russian for eh...for basically....eh, for what exactly? I cant remember.

Can you let me know if the report you linked refers to the same two Russian diplomats expelled from Netherlands on March 26/27 or does it relate to additional diplomats?


----------



## Firefly (14 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Can you let me know if the report you linked refers to the same two Russian diplomats expelled from Netherlands on March 26/27 or does it relate to additional diplomats?



It doesn't matter if they were the same two or not. The Dutch expelled two alleged Russian spies this year after they were accused of planning to hack into a Swiss chemicals laboratory where novichok nerve agent samples from the Salisbury attack were analysed. Do you honestly believe your beloved Russia didn't do this?


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> So, these two religious tourists just happened to be holidaying in Switzerland too. They have some luck!!!




That's a bummer alright. Two suspects announce in interview that they have travelled to Switzerland and lo and behold, "it emerges" that 2 Russian diplomats were expelled from the Netherlands!!
But it was a Swiss *factory *in the Netherlands!!! 

Seriously, this type of reporting is embarrassing.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> It doesn't matter if they were the same two or not. The Dutch expelled two alleged Russian spies this year after they were accused of planning to hack into a Swiss chemicals laboratory where novichok nerve agent samples from the Salisbury attack were analysed. Do you honestly believe your beloved Russia didn't do this?



Didn't do what?


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> It doesn't matter if they were the same two or not.



Your whole theory is based on what these two suspects said about travelling to Switzerland!!!


----------



## Firefly (14 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Didn't do what?



Do you honestly believe your beloved Russia wasn't behind the Salisbury attacks?


----------



## Firefly (14 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Your whole theory is based on what these two suspects said about travelling to Switzerland!!!


I didn't put forward any theory. 

As well as being devout tourists, one of them, Petrov also runs what must be a very lucrative fitness and nutrition business because he went to Switzerland for both holidays and business. Indeed he must be some globe trotter as he claims to have travelled to Switzerland for "some business trips there as well, but I can’t really remember when it was.”


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> I didn't put forward any theory.



The one about "walking like a duck"? Have you not set that as your bar for presuming guilt?



Firefly said:


> As well as being devout tourists, one of them, Petrov also runs what must be a very lucrative fitness and nutrition business because he went to Switzerland for both holidays and business. Indeed he must be some globe trotter as he claims to have travelled to Switzerland for "some business trips there as well, but I can’t really remember when it was.”



Wow! That is totally damning.

A few points.

First, it is not my beloved Russia, I have no affiliation with that country. 
Second, I do not know who was behind the attacks in Salisbury.
Third, I am sceptical of the claims being made by the UK simply because of the manner this saga is being played out in the media and UK government.


So, I am asking you, how many Russian diplomats have the Netherlands expelled since the Salisbury attack?

I have it at two. They were expelled by the Netherlands ‘in solidarity with UK’ back in Mar 26/27 2018.


Your report, that walks like a duck apparently states, “_The Dutch government expelled two alleged Russian spies this year…. it has emerged_”. No date provided as to when they were expelled but if the newspapers you read is in the business of providing current news, then when they say “it has emerged” then they must mean an additional two diplomats were expelled as was reported publicly in Mar 26/27?


Here is what Dutch news is saying today, it is broadly similar but with some notable exceptions

“_European intelligence services, including the Dutch military intelligence and security service MIVD, detained two Russian spies_”

“_The incident in The Hague was not made public at the time. However, prime minister Mark Rutte said on March 26 in a reaction to the Salisbury attack, that the government had decided to expell ‘__two Russian intelligence agents__ working at the Russian embassy’._

This is interesting, because again the time of this ‘incident’ is again, not revealed.


----------



## Firefly (14 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The one about "walking like a duck"? Have you not set that as your bar for presuming guilt?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I give up. I do. Goodnight.


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> I give up. I do. Goodnight.



Ha ha. Tends to happen on a lot of threads.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Firefly said:


> I give up. I do. Goodnight.



 I know im like a dog with a bone.

But the reason I posted this thread back in April is because it appeared obvious, to me anyway, that the Salisbury incident was being used to push political agendas elsewhere, namely Syria and Ukraine.

I wouldn't put it past Russia to do something like this, but it is the manner in which the UK shot first, asked questions later which stands out.
The media reporting on this is all over the place, including your link to the guardian article which, quite frankly, is embarrassing.

Nevertheless, for the passive follower a juicy headline, lots of official sounding rhetoric, linking a visit to Switzerland to an incident at a Swiss laboratory in the Netherlands (by different people) helps to paint a picture of guilt in the court of public opinion.

But for anyone really interested in this incident and the wider geo-political sphere, then its obvious that we are far from the truth in this whole saga.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Sunny said:


> Ha ha. Tends to happen on a lot of threads.



Yes, especially when its hard for some folk to pick up on simple things like snow or no snow.


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Craig Murray again. Has this guy taken the words out of my mouth?
If wonder if any of it will resonate with any around here?

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/lynch-mob-mentality/amp/?__twitter_impression=true


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Yes, especially when its hard for some folk to pick up on simple things like snow or no snow.



Sigh. It really is tiresome. Two random Russian tourists decide they want to visit the tourist Mecca of Salisbury to see the cathedral and Stonehenge. Basically because the Salisbury journal has reported the success of the Salisbury tourist body to attract Russian tourists. It’s a great coup. Anyway, these two guys decide to visit for a few days. Now they work in health and fitness but can’t really discuss it much further. Can’t even give the name of one European company that they have dealt with despite numerous European business trips. That’s ok though. You are entitled to your privacy.

Anyway these two guys are so organized that they go hey we might want to stay another night so let’s book flights on desperate days to cover us. Just normal tourist behavior I suppose.

So these two guys get to london and decide to visit Salisbury on the 3rd March. But guess what. It’s snowing and Stonehenge is closed. But they can still walk around and see the cathedral. So these poor Russians who are used to more tropical climate decide to walk around for a hour but their feet are getting wet and it’s cold so they decide to go for a cup of coffee before returning to london and their hotel over 100 miles away. Again normal tourist behavior. So no problem.

So the next day, the two poor cold Russians decide to try it again. It’s salisbury for gods sake. Can’t go back to Moscow and say they spent all their time in london and didn’t see the world famous Salisbury cathedal. They would be laughed out Russia. So they hop on the train again because its sunny in london. Great news is that we know Stonehenge was open because the Salisbury journal has told us. We know they could walk around easily because of cctv of them walking around with clear footpaths and roads. So all good then!

So you brave Russian tourists arrive in Salisbury where they come out of the train station and move in the opposite direction of the cathedal which can be seen from the train station. This is where the poor guys luck begins to run out. The direction they head in and where they are spotted just happens to be near where a Russian traitor and his daughter just happen to live. Of all the gin joints in all the world, what are the chances. Anyway no problem. These things happen.

But you are not going to believe this but on this particular day when these brave travelling Russians decide to visit a provincial city in the UK, there is sort of attack on the Russian traitor. Now you just know it’s not your day don’t you....

So anyway our two Russians who are more used to tropical climates can’t believe it but there is sleet on the ground and so instead of visiting Stonehenge like they planned and was open, they decide to back to london.

At this stage, they are just getting grumpy. They arrived to see all these beautiful things and all they are getting is wet toes. They are missing the warmt of Moscow and the sunshine. So our two Russian decide to go straight to the airport to board a flight to Moscow without any luggage.

And now they are being accused of all these dastardly things. All because they wanted to see a beautiful cathedral....I don’t know about anyone else but I think these two deserve an apology from the UK government and a free holiday to Salisbury.

And the good news is thanks to the big short and his analysis of the twitter feed from the Salisbury journal about snow, he has been able to poke holes in the UK’s cunning plan and lies. I can imagine Therese May sitting there saying ‘I would have got away with it if it wasn’t for you pesky kids’..........


----------



## Sunny (14 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Craig Murray again. Has this guy taken the words out of my mouth?
> If wonder if any of it will resonate with any around here?
> 
> https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/lynch-mob-mentality/amp/?__twitter_impression=true



I feel bad for writing that now. I didn’t know I would be disagreeing with Craig Murray. Like the actual Craig Murray!!!! Well I feel pretty stupid now.


----------



## Delboy (14 Sep 2018)

Ch4 news reporting they had sequential passport numbers and shared a room while in the UK.
Russian un-intelligence!


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Sunny said:


> I feel bad for writing that now. I didn’t know I would be disagreeing with Craig Murray. Like the actual Craig Murray!!!! Well I feel pretty stupid now.



Whats to disagree with? He is merely asking some obvious questions and then pointing to the mob mentality of trying to dismiss those questions before they are answered.

Your post above is excellent, very convincing, if it weren't for the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, presumptions and assumptions. 

I suppose that is point im making. I don't know who carried out this attack. I dont know if it was these two individuals, whether Russian state was involved or not, whether Putin sanctioned it or not. 

You seem to think its pretty clear cut despite your own understanding of events shown to be wrong, twice already. 

Im simply skeptical believing any agenda that is propagated by faceless intelligence agents through any government and media. 

Not least the British government considering their history in affairs related to this country alone, nevermind internationally. That anyone could simply take the word of British intelligence, parroting through a mouthpiece like Boris Johnson, and not be somewhat sceptical is odd.

But hey, this isnt a court of law...its the court of public opinion. The bar is set low, very low, I think its set at "if it walks like a duck...".


----------



## TheBigShort (14 Sep 2018)

Delboy said:


> Ch4 news reporting they had sequential passport numbers and shared a room while in the UK.
> Russian un-intelligence!



Its getting more Keystone Cops than the highly disciplined and technically capable GRU that Teresa May told everyone in UK parliament.


----------



## johnwilliams (14 Sep 2018)

wonder if these two did a bit of touring around  ukraine ?


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Sep 2018)

BREAKING NEWS! 

Former UK Labour Party leader Michael Foot was a paid Soviet informer.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...hael-foot-was-paid-soviet-informant-vpdtg3lgx

MI6 were prepared to tell the Queen of his KGB ties upon him coming Prime Minister. (Warning for Jeremy Corbyn no doubt).

Its all being revealed in new book. The sensational headline is somewhat diluted when it emerges the information comes, somewhat ironically, from a Russian spy working for MI6!

You have to admire the publishers timing. How long were they sitting on this 'scoop'?


----------



## TheBigShort (15 Sep 2018)

Peter Hitchens

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co...other-experts-the-rush-to-war-in-syriua-.html

Discussing the alleged chemical attacks in Syria. 
He takes time to actually read beyond government sponsored media headlines. In doing so he is able to cast doubt on the veracity of claims made by some (governments of US, UK) simply by understanding the meaning of words relative to the conclusions made by others (in this instance OPCW).

It may be of assistance to some here to learn that before posting UK government sponsored propaganda pieces.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Sep 2018)

Bellingcat, investigative journalism site, is claiming it has evidence that links Petrovs passport to Russian security services.
If this is true, then this would act at least as some significant evidence to support the accusations against the two suspects.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-...s-passport-data-shows-link-security-services/

And then the Telegraph go and publish this speculative nonsense.

"_British officials told The Telegraph they believe the two suspects accused by Scotland Yard of the attack were wheeled out on Russian state-sponsored television as punishment for leaving a trail of evidence during the operation to target Col Skripal."_

Its this type of nonsense that leads to my skepticism. This is either made up or its true. If its made up, then a separate agenda is being peddled for ulterior motives.

If its true, then its wholly bizarre that the Russians would "wheel them out" for ridicule while simultaneously holding to the claim that they had nothing to do with the attack.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ices-crisis-fallout-botched-salisbury-attack/

The Daily Mail

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ru...t-London-hotel.html?__twitter_impression=true

"Highly disciplined" "Technical capability" "Operational experience" - I cant help think of Teresa Mays words in HoC last week when all of this broke.
I would have assumed that she was briefed on the investigation?
Knowing what we know about this whole affair and what is now being reported, is it odd that the PM would attribute such descriptions to an ill-disciplined, technically dysfunctional and reckless operation?

These two guys have been compromised and are being hung out to dry by some other party.
We are far from the truth in this whole affair. If not, Putins credibility as a leader is in tatters.


----------



## cremeegg (16 Sep 2018)

Read some comment that the two boys going on TV with talk of a visit to Salisbury Cathedral was intended as mocking the British.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Sep 2018)

Yes, ive been reading that spin too, that the Russians are trying to turn this into a pantomime. A sort of "_nah, nah, na, nah na...you cant catch me!" 
_
On the other hand, more seriously, the Russians have apparently offered to consider any request from UK authorities to come to Moscow to interview suspects. 

[broken link removed]

This is not showing up in UK based media as far as I can see?

It would see reasonable to expect the UK to request permission to interview these suspects.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Sep 2018)

Meanwhile, travelling under the radar of Russian espionage (rather conveniently) is

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...uman-rights-echr-edward-snowden-a8535571.html

UK found guilty of human rights violations by European Court through its mass public surveillance program.


----------



## TheBigShort (16 Sep 2018)

What the bejayus is going on? 

https://news.sky.com/story/salisbury-restaurant-cordoned-off-by-police-after-pair-taken-ill-11500197


----------



## TheBigShort (17 Sep 2018)

Excellent blog which summarizes the sentiments of those who are skeptical of the official UK line taken in the Salisbury poisoning case.

https://www.theblogmire.com/petrov-boshirov-and-the-burden-of-proof/


----------



## Purple (18 Sep 2018)

I know the ploughing championship is on at the moment but you're ploughing a lonely furrow here BS.


----------

