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

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

You do realize that even Wiki does not consider itself to be a fully reliable source right?

 

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism. Biographies of living persons are especially vulnerable to this issue. Some edits on Wikipedia that are in error are sometimes fixed, however because Wikipedia cannot monitor contributions made by millions of users, there are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, and even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a source for 'fact-checking'.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source

 

You do realize that you are nitpicking?

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, BestB said:

No different to your assertions he did

 

How "no different"?

 

You praise Putin for his leadership skills, yet somehow opine these aren't relevant with regard to these attacks.

I concur that Putin is a very capable leader, and considering his background, unlikely he's not aware of such operations.

Edited July 6, 2018 by Morch

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Putin rules Russia, and by extension, Russian intelligence services. What they do, he's responsible for. Considering your favorable view of Putin prowess as a leader, why would one assume these qualities are missing when it comes to oversight of intelligence organizations and their operations? Bearing in mind his background, this seems unlikely.

 

I have no idea how the first and the second instances relate to each other. Neither do you. It is possible that one botched up effort had further, unforeseen consequences.

So it is your assertion that he is aware of day to day activities of each and every agency in Russia? and each and every agent?

 

Yes ultimately he is responsible that does not mean he sanctioned it or was aware of it prior or at the time 

[BestB]

Just now, Morch said:

 

How "no different"?

 

You praise Putin for his leadership skills, yet somehow opine these aren't relevant with regard to these attacks.

I concur that Putin is a very capable leader, and considering his background, unlikely he's not aware of such operations.

 

What does leadership of a country has to do with alleged attacks? mind you again, no evidence what so ever to date to show otherwise besides Novichok being Russian invention

[Morch]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

So it is your assertion that he is aware of day to day activities of each and every agency in Russia? and each and every agent?

 

Yes ultimately he is responsible that does not mean he sanctioned it or was aware of it prior or at the time 

 

I'm asserting that a assassination attempt on foreign soil, using such means does not fall under "day to day activities".

[Morch]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

 

What does leadership of a country has to do with alleged attacks? mind you again, no evidence what so ever to date to show otherwise besides Novichok being Russian invention

 

The leadership relates to the point of Putin being aware or even sanctioning such attacks. As for "no evidence", it is seems kinda useless rehashing all the former topics. There's more to it than "Novichok being a Russian invention.".

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm asserting that a assassination attempt on foreign soil, using such means does not fall under "day to day activities".

alleged assassination attempt, again no evidence

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

The leadership relates to the point of Putin being aware or even sanctioning such attacks. As for "no evidence", it is seems kinda useless rehashing all the former topics. There's more to it than "Novichok being a Russian invention.".

Since when a president of any country is aware of every single thing that happens around the world at the time or prior to events

[Morch]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

alleged assassination attempt, again no evidence

 

Right. The Skripals just stumbled on the stuff by accident.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

Since when a president of any country is aware of every single thing that happens around the world at the time or prior to events

 

Once again, I don't think assassination attempts on foreign soil using exotic means fall under "every single thing....".

[BestB]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Right. The Skripals just stumbled on the stuff by accident.

I do not know i was not there, nor do i know who put there, how and why?

 

Just as i do not know how and why random brits got poisoned by the very same agent now

[BestB]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Once again, I don't think assassination attempts on foreign soil using exotic means fall under "every single thing....".

Once again, you have no evidence it had anything to do with Russia, or was sanctioned by Russia, you are speculating .

 

For all you know, it could have been orchestrated by UK secret services or agents from another country.

 

Just as possibility of a personal grudge by a lone agent. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

I do not know i was not there, nor do i know who put there, how and why?

 

Just as i do not know how and why random brits got poisoned by the very same agent now

 

Spin it all you like. I doubt anyone seriously thinks it was an accident. One could argue as to who-done-it, but that's a different argument.

 

Guess it would take quite an effort to ignore Russia's habit of offing former spies and traitors. Or Skripal's background. Or this. Or that. Or whatever. Anything. As long as it serves to deny the obvious.

 

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Spin it all you like. I doubt anyone seriously thinks it was an accident. One could argue as to who-done-it, but that's a different argument.

 

Guess it would take quite an effort to ignore Russia's habit of offing former spies and traitors. Or Skripal's background. Or this. Or that. Or whatever. Anything. As long as it serves to deny the obvious.

 

There is no spinning here.

 

Russia is no different to other countries. 

 

Difference is not all assassinations make front page news.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

Once again, you have no evidence it had anything to do with Russia, or was sanctioned by Russia, you are speculating .

 

For all you know, it could have been orchestrated by UK secret services or agents from another country.

 

Just as possibility of a personal grudge by a lone agent. 

 

I'm not claiming to have any more evidence then was already published. I'm also not insisting on claiming Russia's "innocence" when they are (whether you like it or not) the most obvious suspect.

 

As for the "all we know" conspiracy theory nonsense - there's not even a halfway credible explanation supporting these suggestions. Same goes for the "personal grudge by a lone agent". The latter is even more daft, considering the means.

 

If you wish to make the argument that it's all "assertions", then you'll have to accept that is still leaves Russia as the prime suspect. Not all assertions are the same.

 

 

[janclaes47]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Guess it would take quite an effort to ignore Russia's habit of offing former spies and traitors.

 

But these people are no spies nor Russians, so what has Putin to do with this?

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not claiming to have any more evidence then was already published. I'm also not insisting on claiming Russia's "innocence" when they are (whether you like it or not) the most obvious suspect.

 

As for the "all we know" conspiracy theory nonsense - there's not even a halfway credible explanation supporting these suggestions. Same goes for the "personal grudge by a lone agent". The latter is even more daft, considering the means.

 

If you wish to make the argument that it's all "assertions", then you'll have to accept that is still leaves Russia as the prime suspect. Not all assertions are the same.

 

 

You only asserting that all published to be truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth 

 

Naturally no political gain or motives involved

 

The only ones spinning the conspiracy theories is you and the media that you rely on, only neither has managed to produce any evidence besides pure speculations

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, BestB said:

There is no spinning here.

 

Russia is no different to other countries. 

 

Difference is not all assassinations make front page news.

 

There's a whole lot of spinning here, same as almost any topic related to Russia, And specifically this issue.

 

Russia is different than other countries. It is neither particularly democratic, leadership doesn't face much oversight or opposition. Etc.... But you know all that, for sure.

 

Most "exotic" assassinations do make headlines. Especially when botched or involve former spies/traitors.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

 

But these people are no spies nor Russians, so what has Putin to do with this?

 

The current case?

We'll have to wait for details.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

45 minutes ago, BestB said:

Media or foreign government love to pin everything on Putin, but realistically and logically he can not possibly be responsible or aware of every single problem that ever arises.

 

Sure he would be briefed on it, but accusing him of sanctioning each and every time is just plain silly

 

More semantics nonsense. He sanctioned or approved it...  He was briefed on it... Agents of his government did it.

 

Either he ordered it, or he consented to it, and/or those under his command executed it. When you're the guy at the top, ultimately, you're responsible for your own government.  But in Putin's case, I'd certainly wager, he specifically approved it.

 

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There's a whole lot of spinning here, same as almost any topic related to Russia, And specifically this issue.

 

Russia is different than other countries. It is neither particularly democratic, leadership doesn't face much oversight or opposition. Etc.... But you know all that, for sure.

 

Most "exotic" assassinations do make headlines. Especially when botched or involve former spies/traitors.

Botched would have been if they failed or assassins got caught

 

Surviving one of the most lethal chemical attack with , traces  to another source of origin other than Russia with no witnesses or evidence of being in contact with any Russian agents is not botched its imaginary.

[BestB]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

More semantics nonsense. He sanctioned or approved it...  He was briefed on it... Agents of his government did it.

 

Either he ordered it, or he consented to it, and/or those under his command executed it. When you're the guy at the top, ultimately, you're responsible for your own government.  But in Putin's case, I'd certainly wager, he specifically approved it.

 

So you have hard evidence to prove agents of his government did it?

[Scott]

Troll posts and replies removed. 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, BestB said:

You only asserting that all published to be truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth 

 

Naturally no political gain or motives involved

 

The only ones spinning the conspiracy theories is you and the media that you rely on, only neither has managed to produce any evidence besides pure speculations

 

I'm not asserting anything of the sort. Stop putting words in my mouth or implying things I haven't said.

 

I'm asserting that Russia is the prime suspect - and there's actually many reasons to see things this way. That you insist on ignoring them doesn't change anything.

 

On the other hand, it would seem that your point of view does not allow for "political gain or motives involved" to be related in any way to Russia. Because everyone knows that political gains and motives are a Western thing. Right.

 

What conspiracy theory was I pushing? Surely not anything amounting to the rubbish about UK intelligence, "lone wolf", or teenager getting their hands on chemical weapons nonsense offered earlier. Do your posts rely on anything other than media reports? Do tell.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, BestB said:

So you have hard evidence to prove agents of his government did it?

 

The origins of that discussion were my prior posts on the Litvinenko case and Putin's role in that. And yes, that's what the UK inquest concluded.

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, BestB said:

Botched would have been if they failed or assassins got caught

 

Surviving one of the most lethal chemical attack with , traces  to another source of origin other than Russia with no witnesses or evidence of being in contact with any Russian agents is not botched its imaginary.

 

More semantic nonsense. Unless you think this was some random accident, it was an assassination attempt. It failed, hence botched.

 

How lethal the substance is depends on means of delivery, dosage and exposure. You wish to market it as fail-proof, go right ahead.

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'm not asserting anything of the sort. Stop putting words in my mouth or implying things I haven't said.

 

I'm asserting that Russia is the prime suspect - and there's actually many reasons to see things this way. That you insist on ignoring them doesn't change anything.

 

On the other hand, it would seem that your point of view does not allow for "political gain or motives involved" to be related in any way to Russia. Because everyone knows that political gains and motives are a Western thing. Right.

 

What conspiracy theory was I pushing? Surely not anything amounting to the rubbish about UK intelligence, "lone wolf", or teenager getting their hands on chemical weapons nonsense offered earlier. Do your posts rely on anything other than media reports? Do tell.

 

 

So let me just confirm

 

Russia is a prime suspect of poisoning 2 middle aged brits, with no connections to Russia because Novichok is Russian invention and something that resembles Novichok was used is enough to conclude and blame Russia 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, BestB said:

UK inquest concluded with no evidence to present?

Was it not the very same UK who concluded Saddam had WMD's?

 

Done with you... Good Night!

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

More semantic nonsense. Unless you think this was some random accident, it was an assassination attempt. It failed, hence botched.

 

How lethal the substance is depends on means of delivery, dosage and exposure. You wish to market it as fail-proof, go right ahead.

Again i was not there, so i have no idea what it was and have not seen any evidence to show otherwise, besides a few UK officials making noise, yet again no no evidence provided

[Scott]

Troll post removed.