Poisoned Russian spy.

[Sraman]

1 minute ago, Notts1874 said:

No It doesn't and no it isn't. They didn't even know the nerve agent used when this was written.

 

It's nothing more than supposition and speculation.

 

Do we know the nerve agent used now? 

 

Or is this nothing more than supposition and speculation?

 

 

[jake]

15 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

No It doesn't and no it isn't. They didn't even know the nerve agent used when this was written.

 

It's nothing more than supposition and speculation.

No.

It's viewpoints given based on precedent .

The supposition and speculation is the views on here which blame the Kremlin.

 

[jake]

There has never been any case in the past when agents [who've been traded in this way] have been killed or harmed,” says Alexei Kondaurov, a former KGB general who later worked for the Yukos oil empire of exiled tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and then served several years as a deputy of the State Duma. He says he doubts that Russian security services would tear up that old rule book, which benefits them as much as the other side. [Editor's note: The original version misspelled Mr. Kondaurov's name.] 

 

 

 

[jake]

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/0312/Russia-eyed-in-UK-spy-poisoning-case.-But-why-would-the-Kremlin-do-it

 

 

Now because I quite rightly do not believe the first thing I'm told that it was Russia to blame.

Does not mean I hold Russia up as some kind of beacon.

You would think after recent history people would be slightly more critical of narrative.

Than to simply say it's a simple case of UK and it's allies v Russia and it's.

 

Who benefits from these troubles is the question ?

[Notts1874]

6 minutes ago, jake said:

There has never been any case in the past when agents [who've been traded in this way] have been killed or harmed,” says Alexei Kondaurov, a former KGB general who later worked for the Yukos oil empire of exiled tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and then served several years as a deputy of the State Duma. He says he doubts that Russian security services would tear up that old rule book, which benefits them as much as the other side. [Editor's note: The original version misspelled Mr. Kondaurov's name.] 

 

 

 

Former KGB agent says the KGB(FSB) didn't do it........are you buttoned up the back?

[jake]

14 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Former KGB agent says the KGB(FSB) didn't do it........are you buttoned up the back?

He gave a view as to why it's unlikely.

A qualified one.

 

But you bash on I'm sure insults will convince me.

 

You choose to believe those that in recent times have used spin .

All I am questioning is motive.

 

It's a forum for different views.

I'm posting them.

[Sraman]

13 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Former KGB agent says the KGB(FSB) didn't do it........are you buttoned up the back?

 

Do you have any facts about this case that point conclusively to the Russians doing it? If so, could you share them with the rest of us please? 

 

Blind faith isn't enough for some.

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, Sraman said:

 

Do you have any facts about this case that point conclusively to the Russians doing it? If so, could you share them with the rest of us please? 

 

Blind faith isn't enough for some.

Can't do that I'm afraid but I can certainly point out the fault in other posters sources.

[Notts1874]

5 minutes ago, jake said:

He gave a view as to why it's unlikely.

A qualified one.

 

But you bash on I'm sure insults will convince me.

 

You choose to believe those that in recent times have used spin .

All I am questioning is motive.

 

It's a forum for different views.

I'm posting them.

He was giving a very biased point of view.

 

You have no idea what I choose to believe. All I have pointed out was that your first example was out of date and your second was from an ex Kremlin official.

 

 

[southcap]

34 minutes ago, jake said:

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/0312/Russia-eyed-in-UK-spy-poisoning-case.-But-why-would-the-Kremlin-do-it

 

 

Now because I quite rightly do not believe the first thing I'm told that it was Russia to blame.

Does not mean I hold Russia up as some kind of beacon.

You would think after recent history people would be slightly more critical of narrative.

Than to simply say it's a simple case of UK and it's allies v Russia and it's.

 

Who benefits from these troubles is the question ?

Absolutely.

 

But so far, only Russia has benefited from the attack.

 

Not a single person has proposed an alternative theory.

 

[jake]

3 minutes ago, southcap said:

Absolutely.

 

But so far, only Russia has benefited from the attack.

 

Not a single person has proposed an alternative theory.

 

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/russian-spy-poisoning-skripal-salisbury_uk_5a9fbe18e4b0d4f5b66bcd91

[Ibrahim Tall]

1 hour ago, southcap said:

The series of apartment bombings. Would that happen to be when FSB agents were caught and arrested for planting explosives in Ryazan?

City	Date	Deaths
Buynaksk	4 September	64
Moscow	9 September	94
Moscow	13 September	118
Volgodonsk	16 September	17
Ryazan	22 September	prevented

 

Funny how the bombings stopped after that.

 

Yep, the same. 

Ryazon was only a 'training exercise' though, honest. Atleast according to Nikolai Patrushev who's now head of the Security Council of Russia...

Edited March 19, 2018 by Ibrahim Tall

[Victorian]

Folk seem to be desperate for it not to be Russia to reinforce their ingrained belief that our own government always deceive us.    You can derive a sensible conclusion to the contrary if you're not severely limited by too much imagination.

[Sraman]

14 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Can't do that I'm afraid but I can certainly point out the fault in other posters sources.

 

That's the trouble we are all in. At this point in time there are no sources without fault. 

 

 

[southcap]

10 minutes ago, jake said:

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/russian-spy-poisoning-skripal-salisbury_uk_5a9fbe18e4b0d4f5b66bcd91

The only alternative theory there is to make Russia look bad.

 

No doubting there is potential there.  But by who? Who would risk the wrath of the international community to do it? I very much doubt any other state would, outside of maybe Israel or North Korea. Not sure what either would stand to gain from it.

[Notts1874]

5 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

That's the trouble we are all in. At this point in time there are no sources without fault. 

 

 

I would say an ex KGB agent is a fairly sketchy source.

[Sraman]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Folk seem to be desperate for it not to be Russia to reinforce their ingrained belief that our own government always deceive us.    You can derive a sensible conclusion to the contrary if you're not severely limited by too much imagination.

 

 

Not me. I just want some facts. I also think that we have had that substance for far too long for "facts" to be trusted.

 

As usual, it's all a bit of a mess with our politicians doing nothing but further muddying the waters.

[jake]

59 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

He was giving a very biased point of view.

 

You have no idea what I choose to believe. All I have pointed out was that your first example was out of date and your second was from an ex Kremlin official.

 

 

3 news agencies chose to go to him for an insight.

There are more than that but 3 which I have posted.

As for your out of date comment .

You are just being silly.

8 day old article posting the views of an ex Russian insider who no longer works with them giving an alternate and expert view.

 

You may like echo chamber forums better .

I suggest you try them.

Edited March 19, 2018 by jake

[jake]

34 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Folk seem to be desperate for it not to be Russia to reinforce their ingrained belief that our own government always deceive us.    You can derive a sensible conclusion to the contrary if you're not severely limited by too much imagination.

Hardly desperate.

I have merely asked some questions and posted alternate theories.

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

22 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

 

Not me. I just want some facts. I also think that we have had that substance for far too long for "facts" to be trusted.

 

As usual, it's all a bit of a mess with our politicians doing nothing but further muddying the waters.

 

Your asking for more facts but then say that the "facts" can't be trusted, sounds to me like you've made your mind up already and even if the OPCW came out and said it was Russia 100% behind this attack you've already said that because the UK has 'had that substance for too long' you can't trust it, but you fail to explain why the length of time that the UK has had the nerve agent is relevant. 

 

[Bindy Badgy]

Just asking questions

 

Quote

 

Just asking questions (also known as JAQing off) is a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements. It shifts the burden of proof to one's opponent; rather than laboriously having to prove that all politicians are reptoid scum, one can pull out one single odd piece of evidence and force the opponent to explain why the evidence is wrong.

 

The tactic is closely related to loaded questions or leading questions (which are usually employed when using it), Gish Gallops (when asking a huge number of rapid-fire questions without regard for the answers) and Argumentum ad nauseam (when asking the same question over and over in an attempt to overwhelm refutations). It should be noted that accusing one's opponent of "just asking questions" is a common derailment tactic and a way of poisoning the well. Asking questions in and of itself is not invalid.

 

The purpose of this argument method is to keep asking leading questions to attempt to influence spectators' views, regardless of whatever answers are given. The term is derived from the frequent claim by the questioner that they are "just asking questions," albeit in a manner much the same as political push polls. Additionally, this tactic is a way for a crank to escape the burden of proof behind extraordinary claims.

 

In some cases, it also helps hide the nebulousness or absurdity of the questioner's own views. For example, a 9/11 truther may ask questions about perceived irregularities in the collapse, Larry Silverstein saying "pull it," and the plane that hit the Pentagon. If turned back around on the truther, the implication is that they think that the plot involved numerous bizarre complications (rigging three buildings with explosives, making an on-the-spot decision to instruct the FDNY to detonate one of them, replacing a plane with a missile and later littering the Pentagon with plane wreckage). By not having to propose their own hypothesis, they can come across as smoothly winning a debate, since the other person is unable to answer a "just being asked" question. In fact, it can be very useful to "just ask questions" of woos, inasmuch as getting woos to put a hypothesis forward (or even just admitting to believing something crazy) can be a worthy accomplishment.

 

The questioner may claim they are playing devil's advocate. This is frequently to advance an odious position with no shortage of existing advocates.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Stokesy

[Sraman]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Your asking for more facts but then say that the "facts" can't be trusted, sounds to me like you've made your mind up already and even if the OPCW came out and said it was Russia 100% behind this attack you've already said that because the UK has 'had that substance for too long' you can't trust it, but you fail to explain why the length of time that the UK has had the nerve agent is relevant. 

 

 

You are correct, I did fail to explain why our Govt. having this substance for so long, instead of calling in the specialists straight away to, at least, ensure there is no funny business going on, is relevant.

[jake]

Deary me .

So we have a new phrase to go with conspiracy theorists tin foil hat wearers.

Asking questions or question things we are told is now a tactic.

 

Posting links which query the motives and which are what I thought to most on here (saying as most only find certain sources which suit their view acceptable) to be trusted.

Which sought the views of those with inside knowledge of Russia.

 

Apparently I was just using a tactic on behalf of my Russian masters.

 

?

[jake]

41 minutes ago, Stokesy said:

Just asking questions

 

 

Can I ask where you sourced this from.

[Ulysses]

15 hours ago, jake said:

It's now beginning to look like accusing the Kremlin was rash.

Even mainstream media is beginning to realise this.

 

14 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Links?

 

 

Still no links?

[SE16 3LN]

18 hours ago, Pans Jambo said:

Pish. 

Folk like you voted No at the Indy ref because you believed their pish. Probably voted to leave the EU because of the extra 300million quid for the NHS on the side of a battle bus. They canny even afford kids lunches!

 

you havent challenged me, just tried the usual “So, you must think that...” crap that folk on here sprout when they disagree with them. 

 

Conspiricies like WMD’s, no Peado rings in Westminster and the Government didnt know anything about Bloody Sunday (I’m sure the apologised for that one)?

 

If you want to bend over and receive what Westminster gives you then crack on mate but real grown ups are not gullible and rightly challenge the garbage that they spew out. 

 

HA HA if you're as accurate in your conspiracies as you are in your bigoted prejudice about me then you living in la la land. I didn't have a vote in in the independence referendum because I live in London. I voted remain along with 75% of other Londoners. Just a tip, sometimes you need to change your opinions to face the facts, not just blubber away in your straight jacket until nurse comes along with the depot injection. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by SE16 3LN

[jake]

5 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

Still no links?

Posted a few .

They questioned motive.

They put forward alternate theories.

All these links were from mainstream.

 

[Notts1874]

4 minutes ago, jake said:

Posted a few .

They questioned motive.

They put forward alternate theories.

All these links were from mainstream.

 

And were all biased.

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

Posted a few .

They questioned motive.

They put forward alternate theories.

All these links were from mainstream.

 

 

No you didn't.  If there are links to show that mainstream media sources are now questioning the position of the UK Government, post them.

 

The Prime Minister made her statement on March 12th.  You posted speculative links from before that.

 

What have you got?  Don't just make stuff up, or tell us you're "just asking questions".  And don't slope off and wait for a while in the hope that a story will appear somewhere later.  It's now 15 hours since you were asked for links to sources.  If you have any, post them.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

38 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

You are correct, I did fail to explain why our Govt. having this substance for so long, instead of calling in the specialists straight away to, at least, ensure there is no funny business going on, is relevant.

 

What is being overlooked here, is that this case is first and foremost a criminal investigation, one which like any other criminal investigation the Police/Authorities will want to gather any and all forensic evidence that they can, for any future trial that might come around.  The UK Police/Authorities like near enough every other Police force around the World don't want folks tramping around their crime scene and for obvious reasons, and certainly not until such time as they are confident that they have gathered all the evidence that they need.

 

You say that the UK should have called in the OPCW immediately, do/have other countries called in the OPCW immediately following an attack? 

The UK is under no obligations to have called the OPCW in and allow it to carry out it's own investigations, that is also something else which is getting overlooked and the very fact that the UK is willing to let an Independent organisation access to and scrutinise the evidence and to carry out whatever tests the OPCW deem fit, speaks volumes, remember the UK does not need to do any of this.

 

[jake]

Just now, Ulysses said:

 

No you didn't.  If there are links to show that mainstream media sources are now questioning the position of the UK Government, post them.

 

The Prime Minister made her statement on March 12th.  You posted speculative links from before that.

 

What have you got?  Don't just make stuff up, or tell us you're "just asking questions".  And don't slope off and wait for a while in the hope that a story will appear somewhere later.  It's now 15 hours since you were asked for links to sources.  If you have any, post them.

Who is sloping off ?

I'm at work.

In between watching a digger breaking out rocks and laying pipes I'm on here.

Other times may have been taken up with sleep.

I have posted links by mainstream media which question motives.

 

And yes I am asking questions.

I'm questioning you and others about your views.

As you are mine.

 

[jake]

10 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

And were all biased.

You said that already .

I answered.

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, jake said:

You said that already .

I answered.

Your answer didn't say anything apart from waffle.

 

 

[Notts1874]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

Who is sloping off ?

I'm at work.

In between watching a digger breaking out rocks and laying pipes I'm on here.

Other times may have been taken up with sleep.

I have posted links by mainstream media which question motives.

 

And yes I am asking questions.

I'm questioning you and others about your views.

As you are mine.

 

Your links to mainstream media were opinion pieces from biased sources. You aren't building much of a case.

 

Have you noticed all 28 EU countries now accept the UK's account of who is behind this.

 

I might be being naive but I reckon the relevant security forces from those countries may have been shown something not in the public domain.

[jake]

8 minutes ago, Notts1874 said:

Your links to mainstream media were opinion pieces from biased sources. You aren't building much of a case.

 

Have you noticed all 28 EU countries now accept the UK's account of who is behind this.

 

I might be being naive but I reckon the relevant security forces from those countries may have been shown something not in the public domain.

Opinions sought by mainstream media.

And I reckon with a greater wealth of knowledge than you or I.

I also doubt whether these particular media outlets would have sought the views of someone with no credibility.

 

On a side note Notts gonnae cut out the sniping.

We can surely disagree with out being arsey.

Same goes for you uly.

 

[Notts1874]

1 minute ago, jake said:

Opinions sought by mainstream media.

And I reckon with a greater wealth of knowledge than you or I.

I also doubt whether these particular media outlets would have sought the views of someone with no credibility.

 

On a side note Notts gonnae cut out the sniping.

We can surely disagree with out being arsey.

Same goes for you uly.

 

Nobody is being arsey Jake.

 

They are nothing more than opinion pieces. The same as you get in a newspaper. You need to take them with a pinch of salt.

 

[Bindy Badgy]

1 hour ago, jake said:

Can I ask where you sourced this from.

 

I included the link in my post. The answer to your question is literally in the bit of text that you quoted.

[jake]

I will answer but I am supposed to be working.

☺

[Sraman]

10 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

What is being overlooked here, is that this case is first and foremost a criminal investigation, one which like any other criminal investigation the Police/Authorities will want to gather any and all forensic evidence that they can, for any future trial that might come around.  The UK Police/Authorities like near enough every other Police force around the World don't want folks tramping around their crime scene and for obvious reasons, and certainly not until such time as they are confident that they have gathered all the evidence that they need.

 

You say that the UK should have called in the OPCW immediately, do/have other countries called in the OPCW immediately following an attack? 

The UK is under no obligations to have called the OPCW in and allow it to carry out it's own investigations, that is also something else which is getting overlooked and the very fact that the UK is willing to let an Independent organisation access to and scrutinise the evidence and to carry out whatever tests the OPCW deem fit, speaks volumes, remember the UK does not need to do any of this.

 

 

Have there been any other attacks using a "Newcomer"? This is the first I am aware of. The OPCW don't need to be there for an old one already on their list, I would agree with that, but a "Newcomer" should have their red light and siren going without the override switch working, don't you think? I also think that the actions of a responsible Govt., that haven't been caught on the hop as they stumble and bumble along, would be to put pressure on OPCW to get on board as soon as they can, not the "we have been in touch and they are sending a guy next Thursday" approach.

 

But hey, maybe that's just me thinking it's as serious as all that. After all it's just a brand new, never before documented by OPCW, weapon, in a technology the civilised World has already agreed to condemn to history and woe betide anyone who uses even the existing ones. Chemical weapons currently being the yardstick used to measure how bad a leader is (quick, chuck in chemical weapons, that really shows them how bad they are).

 

The two narratives don't stack up for me, at the moment. The political narrative is a couple of weeks ahead of the real narrative. Who knows if it will ever catch up, National Security and all that old chap.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

Have there been any other attacks using a "Newcomer"? This is the first I am aware of. The OPCW don't need to be there for an old one already on their list, I would agree with that, but a "Newcomer" should have their red light and siren going without the override switch working, don't you think? I also think that the actions of a responsible Govt., that haven't been caught on the hop as they stumble and bumble along, would be to put pressure on OPCW to get on board as soon as they can, not the "we have been in touch and they are sending a guy next Thursday" approach.

 

But hey, maybe that's just me thinking it's as serious as all that. After all it's just a brand new, never before documented by OPCW, weapon, in a technology the civilised World has already agreed to condemn to history and woe betide anyone who uses even the existing ones. Chemical weapons currently being the yardstick used to measure how bad a leader is (quick, chuck in chemical weapons, that really shows them how bad they are).

 

The two narratives don't stack up for me, at the moment. The political narrative is a couple of weeks ahead of the real narrative. Who knows if it will ever catch up, National Security and all that old chap.

 

 

Like I've said you've made your mind up, and no matter what 'facts' or 'evidence' is presented you'll just say that you don't trust the 'facts' indeed you all ready have.

 

I see little point in continuing this conversation as you'll believe what you want to believe and it'll make no difference what I or anybody else says, as your mind is already made up.

 

[DarthVodka]

1 hour ago, Notts1874 said:

 

I might be being naive but I reckon the relevant security forces from those countries may have been shown something not in the public domain.

 

This is where it is at  - there is no way security forces are going to share details with the Media and Public if they don't have to at this stage, I'm not even sure the normal police force are being told much.  It is the norm to keep details of serious crime out of the public eye unless they really need help

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Notts1874 said:

Your links to mainstream media were opinion pieces from biased sources. You aren't building much of a case.

 

Have you noticed all 28 EU countries now accept the UK's account of who is behind this.

 

I might be being naive but I reckon the relevant security forces from those countries may have been shown something not in the public domain.

 

Mark Stone Sky's Europe Correspondent reported that several of the EU countries had expressed concerns, albeit privately, that the UK had not provided enough evidence to back up the UK's claim of Russia's involvement. 

That information/evidence has obviously now been provided by the UK and now all EU countries back the UK's assertions as to who is to blame.

 

But because that information/evidence/intelligence hasn't been made public there are still many people who don't believe it was the Russians, in part no doubts because they haven't read all about it on facebook and the internet in general.

 

[Sraman]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Like I've said you've made your mind up, and no matter what 'facts' or 'evidence' is presented you'll just say that you don't trust the 'facts' indeed you all ready have.

 

I see little point in continuing this conversation as you'll believe what you want to believe and it'll make no difference what I or anybody else says, as your mind is already made up.

 

 

 

I haven't made my mind up. 

 

I have stated that I am undecided, as I have no reliable, verifiable facts to confirm the political and media narrative. 

 

It probably was Russians/Soviets that carried this out but without evidence I am in no position to state that, let alone point the finger directly at Putin, as the political/media classes already have. 

 

Bear in mind, this thread was started on the 7th March, a day later the police reported they had identified the nerve agent, on the 12th Teresa May was first reported to have used the word Novichok. I don't know when the OPCW was mentioned but it's now 11 days after they found out, a week after we found out and the OPCW are still thinking about which suitcase they are going to use when they finally get around to paying us a visit.

 

If the evidence, when finally revealed, proves to be reliable I shall believe it. I'm just struggling a bit with this narrative is all. I sort of see it as everyone losing their shit except the Governing Body who have filed it in their in tray and plan to get round to it at some point in the future.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

52 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

 

I haven't made my mind up. 

 

I have stated that I am undecided, as I have no reliable, verifiable facts to confirm the political and media narrative. 

 

It probably was Russians/Soviets that carried this out but without evidence I am in no position to state that, let alone point the finger directly at Putin, as the political/media classes already have. 

 

Bear in mind, this thread was started on the 7th March, a day later the police reported they had identified the nerve agent, on the 12th Teresa May was first reported to have used the word Novichok. I don't know when the OPCW was mentioned but it's now 11 days after they found out, a week after we found out and the OPCW are still thinking about which suitcase they are going to use when they finally get around to paying us a visit.

 

If the evidence, when finally revealed, proves to be reliable I shall believe it. I'm just struggling a bit with this narrative is all. I sort of see it as everyone losing their shit except the Governing Body who have filed it in their in tray and plan to get round to it at some point in the future.

 

The OPCW experts arrived in the UK this morning.

 

[Sraman]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

The OPCW experts arrived in the UK this morning.

 

 

Hooray. Did they bring their trunks?

[Jambo-Jimbo]

3 minutes ago, Sraman said:

 

Hooray. Did they bring their trunks?

 

Like I said there is little point in trying to converse with you if your just going to try and be a smart c@ut.

 

[Ulysses]

2 hours ago, jake said:

On a side note Notts gonnae cut out the sniping.

We can surely disagree with out being arsey.

Same goes for you uly.

 

 

 

Notts was pointing out that the old news articles you posted were opinion aggregators including quotes from biased sources.  In other words, all they did was ask some people what they thought and put their answers in an article.  If some of those contributors were biased in favour of Russia - and some of them were - then their opinions would make the pieces appear as if they were questioning Russia's involvement.  But the pieces weren't doing that - they were the interviewing equivalent of cut and paste articles, and aside from the individual opinions expressed they offered no overall view or analysis at all.

 

I pointed out that the pieces were published before the PM's statement, and days before your post saying that something is happening now in mainstream media.  They are so irrelevant to your original claim that when I saw them I thought you were replying to a different point made by someone else.  I asked for evidence of something happening, and you posted out of date stuff.  That's not my fault.  I didn't post the irrelevant links, you did.  That's not having a go, or sniping.  You need to stay on topic and stop obsessing with what other people think of you, IMO.

[Sraman]

14 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Like I said there is little point in trying to converse with you if your just going to try and be a smart c@ut.

 

 

I'm not trying to be smart. I'm trying to coax something out of someone, anyone, to ease my mind in what seems to be a rather serious situation being handled in a strange way but no-one has any info, or if they do they are keeping it close to their chest. 

 

As I say, I shall wait until presented with enough credible evidence prior to making a judgement one way or the other. 

 

[Notts1874]

Just now, Sraman said:

 

I'm not trying to be smart. I'm trying to coax something out of someone, anyone, to ease my mind in what seems to be a rather serious situation being handled in a strange way but no-one has any info, or if they do they are keeping it close to their chest. 

 

As I say, I shall wait until presented with enough credible evidence prior to making a judgement one way or the other. 

 

In what way is it being dealt with in a strange way?

 

Its an attempted murder investigation. Fairly sure the relevant authorities have asked for information when they have needed it?

[jake]

13 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Notts was pointing out that the old news articles you posted were opinion aggregators including quotes from biased sources.  In other words, all they did was ask some people what they thought and put their answers in an article.  If some of those contributors were biased in favour of Russia - and some of them were - then their opinions would make the pieces appear as if they were questioning Russia's involvement.  But the pieces weren't doing that - they were the interviewing equivalent of cut and paste articles, and aside from the individual opinions expressed they offered no overall view or analysis at all.

 

I pointed out that the pieces were published before the PM's statement, and days before your post saying that something is happening now in mainstream media.  They are so irrelevant to your original claim that when I saw them I thought you were replying to a different point made by someone else.  I asked for evidence of something happening, and you posted out of date stuff.  That's not my fault.  I didn't post the irrelevant links, you did.  That's not having a go, or sniping.  You need to stay on topic and stop obsessing with what other people think of you, IMO.

Whether the article is days old or not it still gave a Russian view.

 

I am completely on topic but was just reminding you and Notts that my posts were not only questions but a different slant.

 

On topic.

Why should I not be suspicious of the UK narrative on this.

You and others on here are the equivalent of the Russian population who believe it's a set up by the West.

If there was dissenting voices coming from there I'm sure you and others would quote them.

 

We are not talking about a court case here it's far more serious.

Accusing Russia publicly and asking the electorate to simply believe after recent history cannot go unchecked.

 

I won't get bogged down in detail with you Uly as you are pretty much on the ball.

But I will always say that no government should never be scrutinised.

I do not question or play devils advocate to take an odious position as some other poster suggested.

And I do get a lot wrong.

 

But to read this thread and to see the unquestioning of accusation and verdict of guilt on the say so of government spokesmen goes against everything I believe.

 

I do not play any kind of tactics.

And I am very aware of Russian duplicity.

 

I will admit to looking for an argument for it's own sake.

I'm not long in so may or may not take time to reply .

I promise I'm not hiding.

?