Poisoned Russian spy.

[shaun.lawson]

12 minutes ago, I P Knightley said:

What's a "husband-in-law"?

 

Sorry, that's a massive middle-aged moment on my part! Her sister's husband, so her brother-in-law, that should've said.

 

I get weirdly confused by this sort of stuff. My grandmother's niece, who I mentioned too? I was trying to work out her relation to me last week. A Spanish student of mine insisted she was my aunt; but that's a cultural thing. In English, she's my first cousin once removed. I think? 

[Ibrahim Tall]

Donald has just told Russia to get ready for missiles.

Well looks like we won't need that hybrid pitch after all Craig...

[Jambo316]

35 minutes ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

Donald has just told Russia to get ready for missiles.

Well looks like we won't need that hybrid pitch after all Craig...

Everyone worrying about post split fixtures too. Well think we have a bit more to worry about.

[Better call Saul]

3 hours ago, Ibrahim Tall said:

Donald has just told Russia to get ready for missiles.

Well looks like we won't need that hybrid pitch after all Craig...

Are they going to bomb Tynecastle? 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Ferris Bueller

[Ulysses]

12 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

......it is a history over centuries of pretty regular and murderous invasions from the West....

 

What "regular" invasions?

 

Napoleon invaded in 1812, and inflicted a lot of damage - but sustained even more.  It ended in a decisive Russian victory, but not before a lot of people lost their lives.

 

And then there was Barbarossa in 1941-42.  We all know the savagery of that, and we know that it ended in a Russian victory.

 

You can't mean the Carolean invasion of 1707.  That's the one where Swedish forces "invaded" Russia as far as central Ukraine, and got the lard kicked out of them to such an extent that the Swedish Empire ceased to exist and the Russians took over as the leading players in eastern and north-eastern Europe.

 

Likewise, you can't mean the Polish-Lithuanian invasions in the early 17th century, because the source of that trouble for the Russians was already east of the Elbe and not part of the West.  The same can be said of the Polish-Ukrainian-Russian conflict immediately following World War One, and if you want to go back that far the same applies to the early 11th century escapades of the Poles in what would today be partly Russia and partly Ukraine.

 

The Russians were pushed back from the west in World War One, but in that case they were pushed out of Polish and Austro-Hungarian territories and back to their own borders.

 

Otherwise, the main invasions of Russian territory came in the 13th century, and were inflicted by the Mongols.

 

So that's two invasions from the west in history.  Murderous?  Probably, though military analysts might disagree in the case of the Napoleonic invasion.  Regular?  Let's just say that the view that this was a regular occurrence is subjective.  The Poles might argue that their territory has been invaded - from East and West - a lot more.

 

[niblick1874]

55 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

What "regular" invasions?

 

Napoleon invaded in 1812, and inflicted a lot of damage - but sustained even more.  It ended in a decisive Russian victory, but not before a lot of people lost their lives.

 

And then there was Barbarossa in 1941-42.  We all know the savagery of that, and we know that it ended in a Russian victory.

 

You can't mean the Carolean invasion of 1707.  That's the one where Swedish forces "invaded" Russia as far as central Ukraine, and got the lard kicked out of them to such an extent that the Swedish Empire ceased to exist and the Russians took over as the leading players in eastern and north-eastern Europe.

 

Likewise, you can't mean the Polish-Lithuanian invasions in the early 17th century, because the source of that trouble for the Russians was already east of the Elbe and not part of the West.  The same can be said of the Polish-Ukrainian-Russian conflict immediately following World War One, and if you want to go back that far the same applies to the early 11th century escapades of the Poles in what would today be partly Russia and partly Ukraine.

 

The Russians were pushed back from the west in World War One, but in that case they were pushed out of Polish and Austro-Hungarian territories and back to their own borders.

 

Otherwise, the main invasions of Russian territory came in the 13th century, and were inflicted by the Mongols.

 

So that's two invasions from the west in history.  Murderous?  Probably, though military analysts might disagree in the case of the Napoleonic invasion.  Regular?  Let's just say that the view that this was a regular occurrence is subjective.  The Poles might argue that their territory has been invaded - from East and West - a lot more.

 

 

Calm down you lot at the back. There will be a poisoned Russian come the next act.

 

Meanwhile, while you're waiting, get your Kool-Aid here.  

Edited April 11, 2018 by niblick1874

[Ulysses]

7 minutes ago, niblick1874 said:

 

Calm down you lot at the back. There will be a poisoned Russian come the next act.

 

Meanwhile, while you're waiting, get your Kool-Aid here.  

 

It's Roger Irrelevant again. 

[luckyBatistuta]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

What "regular" invasions?

 

Napoleon invaded in 1812, and inflicted a lot of damage - but sustained even more.  It ended in a decisive Russian victory, but not before a lot of people lost their lives.

 

And then there was Barbarossa in 1941-42.  We all know the savagery of that, and we know that it ended in a Russian victory.

 

You can't mean the Carolean invasion of 1707.  That's the one where Swedish forces "invaded" Russia as far as central Ukraine, and got the lard kicked out of them to such an extent that the Swedish Empire ceased to exist and the Russians took over as the leading players in eastern and north-eastern Europe.

 

Likewise, you can't mean the Polish-Lithuanian invasions in the early 17th century, because the source of that trouble for the Russians was already east of the Elbe and not part of the West.  The same can be said of the Polish-Ukrainian-Russian conflict immediately following World War One, and if you want to go back that far the same applies to the early 11th century escapades of the Poles in what would today be partly Russia and partly Ukraine.

 

The Russians were pushed back from the west in World War One, but in that case they were pushed out of Polish and Austro-Hungarian territories and back to their own borders.

 

Otherwise, the main invasions of Russian territory came in the 13th century, and were inflicted by the Mongols.

 

So that's two invasions from the west in history.  Murderous?  Probably, though military analysts might disagree in the case of the Napoleonic invasion.  Regular?  Let's just say that the view that this was a regular occurrence is subjective.  The Poles might argue that their territory has been invaded - from East and West - a lot more.

 

 

Cheers for posting this, just had a good little read about the Battle of Poltava on the back of it (never liked history at school, but love it now)

[niblick1874]

9 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

It's Roger Irrelevant again. 

 

2 minutes ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

 history 

 

Apologies lucky, couldn't resist it.

[Ulysses]

12 minutes ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

Cheers for posting this, just had a good little read about the Battle of Poltava on the back of it (never liked history at school, but love it now)

 

[Ulysses]

10 minutes ago, niblick1874 said:

 

 

Apologies lucky, couldn't resist it.

 

 

Hi Roger.  You'd understand more if you quit watching videos and read a few books.

[niblick1874]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Hi Roger.  You'd understand more if you quit watching videos and read a few books.

 

Hi ram jet. I'm reading The Master of Ballantrae. I am feeling that way at the moment. It has as much relevance to this thread as the post I pulled you up for 

[Ulysses]

Just now, niblick1874 said:

 

Hi ram jet. I'm reading The Master of Ballantrae. I am feeling that way at the moment. It has as much relevance to this thread as the post I pulled you up for 

 

You?  Reading?  Yeah, right. 

 

FA got his history wrong, and I pointed that out to him.  You posted your drivel because you couldn't understand his post or mine.  How do I know that?  Because I've never yet seen you manage to understand anything.  You couldn't find relevance in a debate if it stood in front of you wearing a dayglo name badge.

 

Go away and watch one of your videos. 

[niblick1874]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

 

history 

 

[luckyBatistuta]

Whoah, I’m oot o here 

[niblick1874]

2 minutes ago, luckyBatistuta said:

Whoah, I’m oot o here 

 

No, don't go. You can stay and watch the thread be taken way of course by narcissists looking for their endorphin hits while America and the Russians go toe to toe with their nuclear weapons.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

What "regular" invasions?

 

Napoleon invaded in 1812, and inflicted a lot of damage - but sustained even more.  It ended in a decisive Russian victory, but not before a lot of people lost their lives.

 

And then there was Barbarossa in 1941-42.  We all know the savagery of that, and we know that it ended in a Russian victory.

 

You can't mean the Carolean invasion of 1707.  That's the one where Swedish forces "invaded" Russia as far as central Ukraine, and got the lard kicked out of them to such an extent that the Swedish Empire ceased to exist and the Russians took over as the leading players in eastern and north-eastern Europe.

 

Likewise, you can't mean the Polish-Lithuanian invasions in the early 17th century, because the source of that trouble for the Russians was already east of the Elbe and not part of the West.  The same can be said of the Polish-Ukrainian-Russian conflict immediately following World War One, and if you want to go back that far the same applies to the early 11th century escapades of the Poles in what would today be partly Russia and partly Ukraine.

 

The Russians were pushed back from the west in World War One, but in that case they were pushed out of Polish and Austro-Hungarian territories and back to their own borders.

 

Otherwise, the main invasions of Russian territory came in the 13th century, and were inflicted by the Mongols.

 

So that's two invasions from the west in history.  Murderous?  Probably, though military analysts might disagree in the case of the Napoleonic invasion.  Regular?  Let's just say that the view that this was a regular occurrence is subjective.  The Poles might argue that their territory has been invaded - from East and West - a lot more.

 

Your partial quote from my post of course misses the context.  I was responding to an assertion that Russia had never been invaded  by the West. As your post confirms this was of course nonsense. (The reverse of course is the case - the West has never been invaded by Russia).

The fact that Russia eventually, at the expense of huge losses, overcame those invasions does not mean they didn't happen or that the Russians don't remember them.

In WW1 the war was not fought on Russian territory but neither was it fought on British territory - that doesn't stop us remembering and honouring our war dead in that conflict. In the case of Russia it was a conflict against "the West".

In another later post you, in your usual rather patronising style, say in passing that I have "got my history wrong".

I'll let others judge who has interpreted history incorrectly.

.

[JamboX2]

14 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Your partial quote from my post of course misses the context.  I was responding to an assertion that Russia had never been invaded  by the West. As your post confirms this was of course nonsense. (The reverse of course is the case - the West has never been invaded by Russia).

 

Ehhhh... yes it has. Tsar Alexander marched his troops through Paris in 1814 after chasing Napoleon back from the gates of Moscow. 

 

Konev and Zhukov rolled their T34s down past the Brandenburg gate in 1945. And Russian tanks thundered through Prague, Budapest and Vienna the same year. And in 1955 and '68.

 

Not to mention the Polish-Soviet war of 1919-21 or their occupation of Poland in 1939...

 

Quote

The fact that Russia eventually, at the expense of huge losses, overcame those invasions does not mean they didn't happen or that the Russians don't remember them.

In WW1 the war was not fought on Russian territory but neither was it fought on British territory

 

Well it was... Russia extended into modern day Poland... "the Pale" as it was called because Russian pogroms chased their Jewish population into it and forcibly settled them there pre-1914.

 

 

It's important to understand that Poland has been "moved" West (as was Germany) post 1945. The old Poland of pre-39 was as far east as Belarus and was formally Russian. Modern Poland has a majority of what was once Prussia within it's borders. Which is effectively old-Germany.

 

Quote

 

 

- that doesn't stop us remembering and honouring our war dead in that conflict. It was a war against the West.

 

Well... the Central Powers. France, Italy, Belgium and the UK were on their side. So 50/50.

 

Quote

In another later post you, in your usual rather patronising style, say in passing that I have "got my history wrong".

I'll let others judge who has interpreted history incorrectly.

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by JamboX2

[shaun.lawson]

Evidence that the Ruskies dun it here:

 

http://observer.com/2018/04/british-spies-have-evidence-that-russia-poisoned-sergei-skripal/

[Ulysses]

9 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Your partial quote from my post of course misses the context.  I was responding to an assertion that Russia had never been invaded  by the West. As your post confirms this was of course nonsense. (The reverse of course is the case - the West has never been invaded by Russia).

The fact that Russia eventually, at the expense of huge losses, overcame those invasions does not mean they didn't happen or that the Russians don't remember them.

In WW1 the war was not fought on Russian territory but neither was it fought on British territory - that doesn't stop us remembering and honouring our war dead in that conflict. In the case of Russia it was a conflict against "the West".

In another later post you, in your usual rather patronising style, say in passing that I have "got my history wrong".

I'll let others judge who has interpreted history incorrectly.

.

 

 

I don't know why you're getting upset.  Your post was inaccurate.  You said Russia was invaded regularly over the centuries from the West.  It was invaded twice, once in 1812 and once in 1941.

 

By the way, you'll note that we seem to have some agreement that the "West" has existed since before 1945.

 

 

[Dunks]

21 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

Evidence that the Ruskies dun it here:

 

http://observer.com/2018/04/british-spies-have-evidence-that-russia-poisoned-sergei-skripal/

 

That's not evidence

 

[Ulysses]

41 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

In another later post you, in your usual rather patronising style, say in passing that I have "got my history wrong".

 

Actually on second thoughts, I'd like to apologise for that remark. 

 

I'd rather not explain why I said it, as that would mean disappearing down a different rabbit hole, other than to say it was throwaway and a thoughtless description of what you said.  But you are right.  What I should have said was that "FA set out a view of the history with which I entirely disagree".

 

Sorry again.

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Ulysses said:

The Poles might argue that their territory has been invaded - from East and West - a lot more.

 

Indeed. I'm not sure if there's a country in Europe with a more tragic history than Poland - yet the benefit of the doubt has never been extended to them, continual victims of utter horror, in the way it so often is towards Russia.

 

And then there's Ukraine too. Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea prompted me to get reading. I was flabbergasted by how incredibly little time they've enjoyed as an independent state throughout history. They've always been at the mercy of someone else's whim.  

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, niblick1874 said:

narcissists 

 

You see that disgusting, narcissistic beyond belief Sandy Hook denier?

 

That's you, that is. 

[shaun.lawson]

34 minutes ago, Dunks said:

 

That's not evidence

 

 

In a world of national security risks, it's as good as evidence is gonna get. 

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

What "regular" invasions?

 

Napoleon invaded in 1812, and inflicted a lot of damage - but sustained even more.  It ended in a decisive Russian victory, but not before a lot of people lost their lives.

 

And then there was Barbarossa in 1941-42.  We all know the savagery of that, and we know that it ended in a Russian victory.

 

You can't mean the Carolean invasion of 1707.  That's the one where Swedish forces "invaded" Russia as far as central Ukraine, and got the lard kicked out of them to such an extent that the Swedish Empire ceased to exist and the Russians took over as the leading players in eastern and north-eastern Europe.

 

Likewise, you can't mean the Polish-Lithuanian invasions in the early 17th century, because the source of that trouble for the Russians was already east of the Elbe and not part of the West.  The same can be said of the Polish-Ukrainian-Russian conflict immediately following World War One, and if you want to go back that far the same applies to the early 11th century escapades of the Poles in what would today be partly Russia and partly Ukraine.

 

The Russians were pushed back from the west in World War One, but in that case they were pushed out of Polish and Austro-Hungarian territories and back to their own borders.

 

Otherwise, the main invasions of Russian territory came in the 13th century, and were inflicted by the Mongols.

 

So that's two invasions from the west in history.  Murderous?  Probably, though military analysts might disagree in the case of the Napoleonic invasion.  Regular?  Let's just say that the view that this was a regular occurrence is subjective.  The Poles might argue that their territory has been invaded - from East and West - a lot more.

 

Does the British invasion of 1918 not count in your personal account of Russia. The Northern Intervention or Archangel campaign.

 

Sweden

France

Germany

Britain

More than twice, no?

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by ri Alban

[Dunks]

7 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

In a world of national security risks, it's as good as evidence is gonna get. 

 

Straw clutching at best.

[JamboX2]

8 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Does the British invasion of 1918 not count in your personal account of Russia. The Northern Intervention or Archangel campaign.

 

Sweden

France

Germany

Britain

More than twice, no?

 

 

Was it an invasion or support to one side of the Civil War at that time? 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

OPCW confirms that it was 'Novichok' that was used to poison the Skripals.

Their findings have also stated that it was of 'High Purity', which kinda rules out that it was somebody making this in their garden shed, and throws more weight behind the assumptions that the 'Novichok' used was Military Grade and therefore only available to a state player.

https://news.sky.com/story/chemical-watchdog-confirms-novichok-poisoned-sergei-skripal-11327382

 

[shaun.lawson]

9 hours ago, Dunks said:

 

Straw clutching at best.

 

Not remotely. The same intelligence services who conspiracy theorists ridicule keep the UK safe precisely by intercepting chatter such as this.

[Seymour M Hersh]

On 11/04/2018 at 16:43, Ferris Bueller said:

Are they going to bomb Tynecastle? 

 

Vlad built a bunker under he pitch. 

[jake]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Not remotely. The same intelligence services who conspiracy theorists ridicule keep the UK safe precisely by intercepting chatter such as this.

Safe from what and who ?

[jake]

20 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

I don't know why you're getting upset.  Your post was inaccurate.  You said Russia was invaded regularly over the centuries from the West.  It was invaded twice, once in 1812 and once in 1941.

 

By the way, you'll note that we seem to have some agreement that the "West" has existed since before 1945.

 

 

Why do you always suppose that people are upset or angry? 

 

[shaun.lawson]

26 minutes ago, jake said:

Safe from what and who ?

 

Safe from terrorism, from terrorists.

 

Incidentally, whenever I see a post from you, I always get this scene in my head. 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[jake]

11 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Safe from terrorism, from terrorists.

 

Incidentally, whenever I see a post from you, I always get this scene in my head. 

 

 

Haha.

Glad it's chaotic .

 

[Ulysses]

17 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Does the British invasion of 1918 not count in your personal account of Russia. The Northern Intervention or Archangel campaign.

 

 

 

No, I wouldn't count it.  They were asked by one side in a civil war.  That's the problem with civil wars.

 

[Space Mackerel]

So everyone lives.off to America for a wee holiday of literally a lifetime. 

 

This must be the worst professional KGB/FSB hitman in history by the looks of things. 

 

Maybe hes been Novichocked noo back home?

[Ulysses]

23 minutes ago, jake said:

Why won't you let me take the thread off topic? 

 

 

Fixed your post.  Because it's better to stick to the subject being debated.

[Space Mackerel]

“Comrade Putin, we have successfully stockpiled novichoks in secret for ten years, and kept them hidden from the OPCW inspectors. We have also trained our agents in secret novichok assassination techniques. The programme has cost hundreds of millions of dollars, but now we are ready. Naturally, the first time we use it we will expose our secret and suffer massive international blowback. So who should be our first target? The head of a foreign intelligence agency? A leading jihadist rebel in Syria? A key nuclear scientist? Even a Head of State?”

“No, Tovarich. There is this old retired guy I know living in Salisbury. We released him from jail years ago…”

“With respect Comrade Putin, are you sure he is the most important target to reveal a programme we have put so much resource into for ten years?”

“Yes. I sit here every day and I cannot concentrate on the affairs of Russia or the World as all the time am thinking of Sergei Skripal. I should never have let him out of jail to spend his life buying lottery tickets and eating in Zizzis. But you must make absolutely certain to kill him.”

“Don’t worry Comrade Putin, we have been training in secret novichok assassination techniques for ten years. We even have an detailed manual explaining our methods. We will spread the novichok on his outside door handle (fiendish laugh).”

“Are you sure comrade? Is there not a danger it will wash off or get diluted?”

“No Comrade Putin, it never rains in England.”

 

[jake]

1 minute ago, Ulysses said:

 

Fixed your post.  Because it's better to stick to the subject being debated.

I shouldn't have put a question mark as It was more an observation.

 

[Ulysses]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

I shouldn't have put a question mark as It was more an observation.

 

 

Understood.  Back on topic?

[Space Mackerel]

Bloody tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist ex British Ambassodors to Syria now. Whatever next? 

Cant imagine Deeside will respond but hey ho lol

 

 

[jake]

4 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Bloody tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist ex British Ambassodors to Syria now. Whatever next? 

Cant imagine Deeside will respond but hey ho lol

 

 

Na space he will be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist tin foil hat guy.

 

It's now imo really difficult to get alternate views on msn.

 

 

[Geoff the Mince]

9 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

Bloody tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist ex British Ambassodors to Syria now. Whatever next? 

Cant imagine Deeside will respond but hey ho lol

 

 

You can add this to Sandy Hook , 9\11 and the moon landings , any others ? 

[JamboX2]

Out of interest, at what point do we say no more on the use of these weapons? At what point do we start to treat accusations of the use of these weapons as something warranting UN action?

 

To me any accusations of use of these weapons should be met with the swiftest of UN action. Russia prevaricating and countering investigations with weaker alternatives is just protecting their friends in Syria. 

[jake]

1 minute ago, JamboX2 said:

Out of interest, at what point do we say no more on the use of these weapons? At what point do we start to treat accusations of the use of these weapons as something warranting UN action?

 

To me any accusations of use of these weapons should be met with the swiftest of UN action. Russia prevaricating and countering investigations with weaker alternatives is just protecting their friends in Syria. 

It's a war by proxy forces and no one is clean Jambo.

[JamboX2]

1 minute ago, jake said:

It's a war by proxy forces and no one is clean Jambo.

 

Yes. It is.

 

It doesn't answer my questions.

[jake]

18 minutes ago, Geoff the Mince said:

You can add this to Sandy Hook , 9\11 and the moon landings , any others ? 

Why?

All those things are off topic.

And the interview that Space posted did not mention any of those things.

 

[jake]

Just now, JamboX2 said:

 

Yes. It is.

 

It doesn't answer my questions.

We have already said no more.

 

What action should we take and who is we anyway.

 

Are nuclear weapons any better than chemical weapons?

Are there acceptable methods of killing people ?

Not a dig jambo btw.

[Victorian]

5 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

Out of interest, at what point do we say no more on the use of these weapons? At what point do we start to treat accusations of the use of these weapons as something warranting UN action?

 

To me any accusations of use of these weapons should be met with the swiftest of UN action. Russia prevaricating and countering investigations with weaker alternatives is just protecting their friends in Syria. 

 

You answered your own question.    The UN is practically obsolete and powerless as Russia is abusing it's position as a permanent member of the security council.     If Russia continues to make a mockery of the UN while it is directly involved in major international law infractions then it wont be long before there are moves made to institute a replacement for the UN.