UK demands Russia explain nerve attack after two more people struck down

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

They do freely decide which treaties they sign, those are the ones they have an obligation to respect. Those are the ones they are violating and the ones I am referring to.

 

True that Russia has veto power, which makes my point even more valid. In order to punish Russia they need popular opinion on their side. Refusing to provide evidence doesn't help in that regard. Only idiots will believe them.

 

If letting the prime suspect participating in the investigation is a stupid idea. Then why did they sign that treaty then?

 

Allies expelled Russian diplomats because they just took U.K's word for it. It doesn't prove or disprove anything.

 

Yes, Russia's motives have been floated here and in the mass media, and it's absurd. Even if we entertain the fact that they wanted him dead for reasons unknown, surely they would not have used a nerve agent produced in the Soviet Union. You really gotta be stupid to think that they would.  

 

Thanks for making my point then. Countries do not necessarily accept a unified version of international law, but essentially pick and choose as they see fit. In the current instance, it is hard to understand which international law you imagine the UK transgressed. If the comment is more to do with your persistent off-topic deflections, then it got little bearing on the topic itself. 

 

And yet more nonsense. First were assertions about the UN "unable to act", now accepting that there is no scenario in which the UN would have acted. How would "popular opinion" be required to "punish Russia" is not made clear - so basically back to the original nothing comment about "the people will decide". But do go on about "idiots"....so very convincing.

 

Do you have anything to support the assertion that allies "simply took the UK's word" and acted on that alone? Somehow doubtful, especially if you believe you own spirited version about UK government credibility.

 

Russia's possible motives were analyzed and discussed at length. That you assert them as "absurd" or "stupid" does not really make your argument. There was already a line of reasoning presented as to possible motives for using the means employed. Feel free to ignore anything that doesn't fit the narrative.

[tumama]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

But you can’t say what you believe the ‘UK’s interests’ are with respect to accusing Russia.

 

You simply assume (without evidence) that there is some, presumably well hidden ‘interest’.

 

The alternative would be to accept the U.K. government is acting in good faith.

 

What's hidden about it? Look at the Julian Assange case. Look at the invasion of Iraq. It's obvious to anyone who isn't a complete retard that U.K bends over backwards for U.S interests. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, tumama said:

 

What's hidden about it? Look at the Julian Assange case. Look at the invasion of Iraq. It's obvious to anyone who isn't a complete retard that U.K bends over backwards for U.S interests. 

 

What do you believe the UK’s interests are in accusing Russia?

 

You’ve brought up ‘UK’s own interests’ so you presumably have an idea what they are.

[tumama]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Thanks for making my point then. Countries do not necessarily accept a unified version of international law, but essentially pick and choose as they see fit. In the current instance, it is hard to understand which international law you imagine the UK transgressed. If the comment is more to do with your persistent off-topic deflections, then it got little bearing on the topic itself. 

 

And yet more nonsense. First were assertions about the UN "unable to act", now accepting that there is no scenario in which the UN would have acted. How would "popular opinion" be required to "punish Russia" is not made clear - so basically back to the original nothing comment about "the people will decide". But do go on about "idiots"....so very convincing.

 

Do you have anything to support the assertion that allies "simply took the UK's word" and acted on that alone? Somehow doubtful, especially if you believe you own spirited version about UK government credibility.

 

Russia's possible motives were analyzed and discussed at length. That you assert them as "absurd" or "stupid" does not really make your argument. There was already a line of reasoning presented as to possible motives for using the means employed. Feel free to ignore anything that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

Countries sign treaties which they are obliged to respect. If they don't there's no enforcer that punishes them. But it sets a dangerous precedent for others not to follow them as well.  I really don't understand how you find this difficult to comprehend.

 

U.N can act in different ways, even if Russia vetoes it. That might only be symbolical but it's still relevant. What's not clear? Economic sanctions hurt us just as they hurt Russia. They will need popular support to implement them. Especially today when anti EU parties are popping up everywhere.

 

If they had any information other than the one they have provided us with, they would have at the very least told us so. I have heard of no government stating this. Besides, this is besides the point. Evidence they claim they have is the same as no evidence.

 

Yes Russia's possible motives have indeed been discussed in length. But they are still absurd for reasons I stated above. If they can't give us the reason Russia wanted this guy dead so much, then there is no motive. So what was that reasoning for using Novichok then? Please tell me because I haven't heard it. 

 

 

[tumama]

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What do you believe the UK’s interests are in accusing Russia?

 

You’ve brought up ‘UK’s own interests’ so you presumably have an idea what they are.

 

U.K is U.S's lap dog. Whatever their interest is, is U.K's. I mean do you seriously not understand this?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, tumama said:

 

U.K is U.S's lap dog. Whatever their interest is, is U.K's. I mean do you seriously not understand this?

OK so let’s for a moment accept that.

 

Now tell us when you referred to the ‘UK’s own interests.

 

What are these ‘interests’ that cause the UK to accuse Russia?

[tumama]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

OK so let’s for a moment accept that.

 

Now tell us when you referred to the ‘UK’s own interests.

 

What are these ‘interests’ that cause the UK to accuse Russia?

 

I said "Accusing other countries of doing something because it serves their interest."

 

Your red herring attempt is a complete fail. Stay on topic please.

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

I said "Accusing other countries of doing something because it serves their interest."

 

Your red herring attempt is a complete fail. Stay on topic please.

But you have not presented any evidence or logical argument that it is in the UK's interests to accuse Russia.

 

And please, 'stay on topic'. It is you that introduced 'own interests' and made a detour to Assange via Iraq.

 

Once again, you've brought up 'own interests' what are these UK 'own interests' in accusing Russia?

 

 

 

 

Edited July 12, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

Countries sign treaties which they are obliged to respect. If they don't there's no enforcer that punishes them. But it sets a dangerous precedent for others not to follow them as well.  I really don't understand how you find this difficult to comprehend.

 

U.N can act in different ways, even if Russia vetoes it. That might only be symbolical but it's still relevant. What's not clear? Economic sanctions hurt us just as they hurt Russia. They will need popular support to implement them. Especially today when anti EU parties are popping up everywhere.

 

If they had any information other than the one they have provided us with, they would have at the very least told us so. I have heard of no government stating this. Besides, this is besides the point. Evidence they claim they have is the same as no evidence.

 

Yes Russia's possible motives have indeed been discussed in length. But they are still absurd for reasons I stated above. If they can't give us the reason Russia wanted this guy dead so much, then there is no motive. So what was that reasoning for using Novichok then? Please tell me because I haven't heard it. 

 

 

 

Yawn.

 

It's very important to respect treaties. It sets a dangerous precedent for other not to follow treaties. Yet somehow, your posts seem to focus solely on supposed UK transgressions, as if these were the worst or most numerous. You don't seem to apply the same standards all around, even when you make bogus claims. The point made was that there is no accepted all encompassing international law. Your "legal interpretation" of what this implies seems rather lacking, and mostly partisan.

 

As for the UN angle, please pick a line of reasoning and stick with it. Either it is meaningful or it isn't. Either it is "able to act" or it isn't. If you think that the point is about condemning Russia on this or that forum - well that was already effectively achieved when Russia diplomats were sent home. There are already sanctions on Russia - no mass public outrage over that. If you wish to fantasize, go right ahead. Still doesn't make the "people will decide" nonsense any more to the point with regard to the matter at hand.

 

I am not regularly updated by the UK officials, and I doubt you are. There is no particular reason to imagine confidential information would have been made known to the general public. To remind, you assertion (which you have based on nothing much) was that allies followed the UK simply "taking its word". At the same time, you allege that the UK government's credibility is very low. The two statements seem contradictory, at best.

 

You haven't stated much by way of "reasons" to counter explanations of Russia's possible motives. Essentially, your argument is "they wouldn't do it, so they didn't do it". Absurd would be an apt description for this reasoning. That you keep denying and ignoring possible motives and reasons on the force of such "arguments" doesn't make your case. And please - keep track of your own words, if you accept that such motivations were discussed in length, then you can't very well claim to "haven't heard". An easy solution would be to actually read posts made and links provided.

 

[tumama]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But you have not presented any evidence or logical argument that it is in the UK's interests to accuse Russia.

 

And please, 'stay on topic'. It is you that introduced 'own interests' and made a detour to Assange via Iraq.

 

Once again, you've brought up 'own interests' what are these UK 'own interests' in accusing Russia?

 

Firstly, I never said "own". Secondly, I have already told you they have the same interests as U.S. I even gave you examples of how they have bent over backwards for U.S interests before and you still don't get it. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

Firstly, I never said "own". Secondly, I have already told you they have the same interests as U.S. I even gave you examples of how they have bent over backwards for U.S interests before and you still don't get it. 

You gave off topic examples:

 

What 'interest' is served by accusing the Russians?

 

 

If you can't think of one simply say you can't.

[tumama]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yawn.

 

It's very important to respect treaties. It sets a dangerous precedent for other not to follow treaties. Yet somehow, your posts seem to focus solely on supposed UK transgressions, as if these were the worst or most numerous. You don't seem to apply the same standards all around, even when you make bogus claims. The point made was that there is no accepted all encompassing international law. Your "legal interpretation" of what this implies seems rather lacking, and mostly partisan.

 

As for the UN angle, please pick a line of reasoning and stick with it. Either it is meaningful or it isn't. Either it is "able to act" or it isn't. If you think that the point is about condemning Russia on this or that forum - well that was already effectively achieved when Russia diplomats were sent home. There are already sanctions on Russia - no mass public outrage over that. If you wish to fantasize, go right ahead. Still doesn't make the "people will decide" nonsense any more to the point with regard to the matter at hand.

 

I am not regularly updated by the UK officials, and I doubt you are. There is no particular reason to imagine confidential information would have been made known to the general public. To remind, you assertion (which you have based on nothing much) was that allies followed the UK simply "taking its word". At the same time, you allege that the UK government's credibility is very low. The two statements seem contradictory, at best.

 

You haven't stated much by way of "reasons" to counter explanations of Russia's possible motives. Essentially, your argument is "they wouldn't do it, so they didn't do it". Absurd would be an apt description for this reasoning. That you keep denying and ignoring possible motives and reasons on the force of such "arguments" doesn't make your case. And please - keep track of your own words, if you accept that such motivations were discussed in length, then you can't very well claim to "haven't heard". An easy solution would be to actually read posts made and links provided.

 

 

Yes of course my focus is on U.K, that is what this thread is about. The point you make is wrong. The law is clear, but not everyone respects it. 

 

Again, "able to act" can simply be a condemnation. I never said U.N could somehow punish Russia. That's not really what U.N does in cases like these. I'm obviously talking about potential future sanctions, or sanctions already in place that could get extended due to this. That is what the people will ultimately decide. Again, this is not rocket science. 

 

No information given to the public, is the same as having no evidence. Again, this shouldn't be hard to fathom. How is that contradictory? It's my opinion that U.K government's credibility is low, obviously not the same opinion of the other countries that expelled the diplomats. 

 

That is what a motive is. Just because you don't have a known motive, doesn't mean you are not guilty. But in this case we have no motive and no evidence. So your Novichok argument is bullshit then. Because obviously you have no problem writing other lengthy nonsense. 

 

 

[tumama]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You gave off topic examples:

 

What 'interest' is served by accusing the Russians?

 

If you can't think of one simply say you can't.

 

If you think they were offtopic then you didn't understand it.

 

Russia is U.S's main rival. U.K is U.S's lap dog. Last time they accused Russia lots of countries expelled diplomats and the sanctions were extended. This hurts Russia and benefits U.S.

 

Amazing I have to point this out to you. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, tumama said:

 

Yes of course my focus is on U.K, that is what this thread is about. The point you make is wrong. The law is clear, but not everyone respects it. 

 

Again, "able to act" can simply be a condemnation. I never said U.N could somehow punish Russia. That's not really what U.N does in cases like these. I'm obviously talking about potential future sanctions, or sanctions already in place that could get extended due to this. That is what the people will ultimately decide. Again, this is not rocket science. 

 

No information given to the public, is the same as having no evidence. Again, this shouldn't be hard to fathom. How is that contradictory? It's my opinion that U.K government's credibility is low, obviously not the same opinion of the other countries that expelled the diplomats. 

 

That is what a motive is. Just because you don't have a known motive, doesn't mean you are not guilty. But in this case we have no motive and no evidence. So your Novichok argument is bullshit then. Because obviously you have no problem writing other lengthy nonsense. 

 

 

The law is clear, but not everyone respects it.

Show is the law?

 

No information given to the public, is the same as having no evidence.

Logical nonsense. Unless of course you are arguing that evidence miraculously appears at the point of being published. 

Numerous responses in this thread have explained why a government may legitimately withhold evidence. 

 

But in this case we have no motive and no evidence.

Motive, revenge, punishment, message to others who might give away Russian secrets. Evidence, people harmed, one dead body, chemical samples. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

If you think they were offtopic then you didn't understand it.

 

Russia is U.S's main rival. U.K is U.S's lap dog. Last time they accused Russia lots of countries expelled diplomats and the sanctions were extended. This hurts Russia and benefits U.S.

 

Amazing I have to point this out to you. 

 

Oh so now we're not looking for a British 'interest' you want us to believe the UK government would wilfully put Russian foreign investment in the UK at risk because the US wants to expel a few diplomats and extend sanctions against Russia.

 

FACT: The US president has shown extreme reluctance to make any moves against Russia

FACT: The US president has argued for the lifting of sanctions against Russia

FACT: The US president was forced by act of Congress to expel Russian diplomats following the Russian attack on the US election - Trump immediately announced that Russia could simply replace the 'expelled' diplomats. 

 

 

You need another 'interest'.

[tumama]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The law is clear, but not everyone respects it.

Show is the law?

 

No information given to the public, is the same as having no evidence.

Logical nonsense. Unless of course you are arguing that evidence miraculously appears at the point of being published. 

Numerous responses in this thread have explained why a government may legitimately withhold evidence. 

 

But in this case we have no motive and no evidence.

Motive, revenge, punishment, message to others who might give away Russian secrets. Evidence, people harmed, one dead body, chemical samples. 

 

Show is the law? What do you mean?

 

Imagine if a prosecutor would say, we have evidence against the defendant, but we can't show it to you. What do you think the jury would do? Also, I didn't say evidence doesn't exist. I said it's the same as having no evidence. Reading comprehension is a bit off today? I've told you numerous times that U.K has a history of lying to the people. Why do you think this time it would be different? Last time it brought you to war with numerous casualties. Why so keen to go down that path again? Especially this time with a country that has thousands of nukes, some of them aimed right at you.

 

So why target only this former spy, and why do it when Russia were slapped with numerous sanctions? That makes no sense whatsoever. The cost for Russia is simply too high. It's not plausible nor a valid motive.

[tumama]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh so now we're not looking for a British 'interest' you want us to believe the UK government would wilfully put Russian foreign investment in the UK at risk because the US wants to expel a few diplomats and extend sanctions against Russia.

 

FACT: The US president has shown extreme reluctance to make any moves against Russia

FACT: The US president has argued for the lifting of sanctions against Russia

FACT: The US president was forced by act of Congress to expel Russian diplomats following the Russian attack on the US election - Trump immediately announced that Russia could simply replace the 'expelled' diplomats. 

 

 

You need another 'interest'.

 

Trump met with NATO leaders today and complained about the gas pipeline he wants Germany to shell. Trump never lifted any sanctions. He might appear to be friendly to Russia, but he isn't.

 

Also, where did I say Trump? I said U.S. 

 

I don't think it. I know it, because that is what they did. If they were so concerned about those investments, they would have waited to take any action until the investigation was over. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by tumama

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

Show is the law? What do you mean?

 

Imagine if a prosecutor would say, we have evidence against the defendant, but we can't show it to you. What do you think the jury would do? Also, I didn't say evidence doesn't exist. I said it's the same as having no evidence. Reading comprehension is a bit off today? I've told you numerous times that U.K has a history of lying to the people. Why do you think this time it would be different? Last time it brought you to war with numerous casualties. Why so keen to go down that path again? Especially this time with a country that has thousands of nukes, some of them aimed right at you.

 

So why target only this former spy, and why do it when Russia were slapped with numerous sanctions? That makes no sense whatsoever. The cost for Russia is simply too high. It's not plausible nor a valid motive.

Show is the law? What do you mean?

 

You said (in your own words): 

The law is clear, but not everyone respects it. 

 

If you say the law is clear, you must have evidence that this law you refer to exists.

 

Simple question, show us this law you are referring to?

 

If you can't find the law you are asking us to believe exists simply say so.

 

 

[tumama]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Show is the law? What do you mean?

 

You said (in your own words): 

The law is clear, but not everyone respects it. 

 

If you say the law is clear, you must have evidence that this law you refer to exists.

 

Simple question, show us this law you are referring to?

 

If you can't find the law you are asking us to believe exists simply say so.

 

So you meant to say "Show us the law". Maybe you're not wearing your glasses. Can't fault me for not understanding when you misspell something.

 

I was talking about international laws and treaties in general. You even admitted that sometimes countries violate them, and U.K isn't alone in doing so. 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

So you meant to say "Show us the law". Maybe you're not wearing your glasses. Can't fault me for not understanding when you misspell something.

 

I was talking about international laws and treaties in general. You even admitted that sometimes countries violate them, and U.K isn't alone in doing so. 

OK get specific.

 

You said ‘the law is very clear’.

 

Now show us that law.

[tumama]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

OK get specific.

 

You said ‘the law is very clear’.

 

Now show us that law.

 

I was referring to international laws in general. The argument was that the laws are clear and signatories are obliged to respect them, but don't always do that and they seldom face punishment for it. 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

I was referring to international laws in general. The argument was that the laws are clear and signatories are obliged to respect them, but don't always do that and they seldom face punishment for it. 

 

Well to use your 'court case scenario'.

 

When the prosecution say the defendant has broken the law, they'll sat what law and precisely what part of that law. 

 

There is no law that requires the UK to provide evidence for its accusations against Russia.

 

And yet you tell us 'the law is clear'.

 

You're making it all up as you go along. 

[tumama]

I never said there was. I said people shouldn't blindly believe in something without evidence. There is however, according to the Russians, an obligation to provide access to the investigation to other OPCW member states.

 

Quote

• Assistance between State Parties and the OPCW in the case of use of chemical weapons

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

Edited July 12, 2018 by tumama

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, tumama said:

I never said there was. I said people shouldn't blindly believe in something without evidence. There is however, according to the Russians, an obligation to provide access to the investigation to other OPCW member states.

Change your password, somebody is posting stuff under your username that you deny posting.

[tumama]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Change your password, somebody is posting stuff under your username that you deny posting.

 

Then show me that quote then if it exists. 

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, tumama said:

I never said there was. I said people shouldn't blindly believe in something without evidence. There is however, according to the Russians, an obligation to provide access to the investigation to other OPCW member states.

 

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

“There is however, according to the Russians, an obligation to provide access to the investigation to other OPCW member states.”

 

I could not have said it better myself.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[tumama]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“There is however, according to the Russians, an obligation to provide access to the investigation to other OPCW member states.”

 

I could not have said it better myself.

 

Found this. It's a bit vaguely worded. 

 

Quote

 

6. Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as impeding the right of States Parties to request and provide assistance bilaterally and to conclude individual agreements with other States Parties concerning the emergency procurement of assistance.

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-x-assistance-and-protection-against-chemical-weapons/

 

[tumama]

And this:

 

Quote

2. Without prejudice to the right of any State Party to request a challenge inspection, States Parties should, whenever possible, first make every effort to clarify and resolve, through exchange of information and consultations among themselves, any matter which may cause doubt about compliance with this Convention, or which gives rise to concerns about a related matter which may be considered ambiguous. A State Party which receives a request from another State Party for clarification of any matter which the requesting State Party believes causes such a doubt or concern shall provide the requesting State Party as soon as possible, but in any case not later than 10 days after the request, with information sufficient to answer the doubt or concern raised along with an explanation of how the information provided resolves the matter. 

https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ix-consultations-cooperation-and-fact-finding/

 

So according to the convention, U.K is required to give Russia sufficient information to answer their accusations. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by tumama

[dick dasterdly]

19 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

OK, same question to you that Iasked DD.

 

Perhaps you can now please explain why you personally think the UK has asked Russia for an explanation? 

Because they know that 'mud sticks', and also know that the politics of fear/distraction and nationalism work very well with the populace to increase support....

 

I find it ridiculous that the "uk-demands-russia-explain-nerve-attack-after-two-more-people-struck-down" - bearing in mind the uk govt. has provided zero evidence that russia was responsible for the first attack - let alone the latest incident involving two civilians!

 

IMO, this demand is the equivalent of the 'funny'question 'How often do you beat your wife?'.....  i.e. All implication, when there is no evidence at all  - especially in this latest case.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Because they know that 'mud sticks', and also know that the politics of fear/distraction and nationalism work very well with the populace to increase support....

 

I find it ridiculous that the "uk-demands-russia-explain-nerve-attack-after-two-more-people-struck-down" - bearing in mind the uk govt. has provided zero evidence that russia was responsible for the first attack - let alone the latest incident involving two civilians!

 

IMO, this demand is the equivalent of the 'funny'question 'How often do you beat your wife?'.....  i.e. All implication, when there is no evidence at all  - especially in this latest case.

You ‘conveniently’ fail to provide an explanation other than ‘mud sticks’ and then start throwing mud.

 

You are correct though, Putin is a nationalist.