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

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What's this obsession with 'proof'?

 

Above all else the British Government have a duty to defend the UK, the nation, the people and the economy. 

 

In enacting this duty the British Government (as a sovereign government) are under no burden of proof. 

 

The accused is not a defendant in a court case, it is a foreign power with access to all the powers of a state to act and hide its actions.

 

Further, the UK itself has at its disposal one of the worlds most advanced security and intelligence agencies, the advice and information the UK government receives from these agencies is by definition 'state secrets'.

 

As a sovereign nation acting to defend itself the UK is under absolutely no obligation to provide proof. 

 

Moreover the burden the government carries is not one of 'proof' but that of the 'precautionary principal' one of 'probability' and consensus amongst the intelligence and security services. 

 

Clearly, if the UK government were only ever to act to foreign threats when there is 'proof' the aggressor would be marching down Oxford Street before the proof came in.

 

 

Again: The UK Government is under no obligation of Burden of Proof when acting in defence of the nation. 

 

------

A few points of note:

 

• UK a sovereign nation.
• UK acting as a sovereign nation
• The UK's world leading security and intelligence services. 

 

All issues that those arguing against the UK and in favour (or obfuscating in favour of) Russia are bringing up in other discussions regarding the UK and its relationship to the EU.
 

The correlation between those supporting (or obfuscating in favour of ) Russia and support for Brexit is no accident. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you missed the title of this thread - '-uk-demands-russia-explain-nerve-attack-after-two-more-people-struck-down'?

 

Some sort of proof is fairly important before coming out with this sort of statement?

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, BestB said:

So following your logic, any nation can start laying blame on any nation they like or dislike on pure speculations?

 

Probability? So if i kill someone in Thailand using American  brand  weapon, probability would be that American government is responsible?What about if weapon was modified and its origin could not be determined with certainty? does the blame still lay with American government?

 

 

 

Unfortunately, logic and at least some evidence of proof are un-necessary for some posters...☹️

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

So following your logic, any nation can start laying blame on any nation they like or dislike on pure speculations?

 

Probability? So if i kill someone in Thailand using American  brand  weapon, probability would be that American government is responsible?What about if weapon was modified and its origin could not be determined with certainty? does the blame still lay with American government?

 

 

 

So following your logic, any nation can start laying blame on any nation they like or dislike on pure speculations?

 

Yes. They'll face public and world opinion and they may (if they signed up to it) face international law for their actions but as a sovereign nation it is their sovereign right to behave as they wish. [Example the US has not signed up to international laws and conventions that would allow US military personnel to be prosecuted under international law].

 

 

Probability? So if i kill someone in Thailand using American  brand  weapon, probability would be that American government is responsible?What about if weapon was modified and its origin could not be determined with certainty? does the blame still lay with American government?

 

That seems to be a bit of a ramble - Drink less coffee. 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Unfortunately, logic and at least some evidence of proof are un-necessary for some posters...☹️

Unfortunately you have no idea about international law or sovereignty.

 

 

[BestB]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

So following your logic, any nation can start laying blame on any nation they like or dislike on pure speculations?

 

Yes. They'll face public and world opinion and they may (if they signed up to it) face international law for their actions but as a sovereign nation it is their sovereign right to behave as they wish. [Example the US has not signed up to international laws and conventions that would allow US military personnel to be prosecuted under international law].

 

 

Probability? So if i kill someone in Thailand using American  brand  weapon, probability would be that American government is responsible?What about if weapon was modified and its origin could not be determined with certainty? does the blame still lay with American government?

 

That seems to be a bit of a ramble - Drink less coffee. 

ramble because its as illogical and irrational as blaming another country with no proof what so ever? 

 

I have no idea what US signing up for treaties has to do with this thread or my reply.

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Unfortunately you have no idea about international law or sovereignty.

 

 

Could you please quote or reference the exact law and clause which stipulates  that any nation is under no obligation to provide any proof or evidence when accusing another of a gruesome crime.

 

Thanks in advance

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

ramble because its as illogical and irrational as blaming another country with no proof what so ever? 

 

I have no idea what US signing up for treaties has to do with this thread or my reply.

OK let's take this up.

 

If the UK blames Russia for some action that the UK believes was instigated by Russia and then takes retaliatory action itself.

 

Who, or what institution decides the UK acted wrongly and what can they do about it?

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

Could you please quote or reference the exact law and clause which stipulates  that any nation is under no obligation to provide any proof or evidence when accusing another of a gruesome crime.

 

Thanks in advance

 

see my last post.

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

OK let's take this up.

 

If the UK blames Russia for some action that the UK believes was instigated by Russia and then takes retaliatory action itself.

 

Who, or what institution decides the UK acted wrongly and what can they do about it?

 

This is very far away from earlier claiming it to be under some international law.

 

But taking this hypothetical. when UK acts on its baseless accusations and gets its backside kicked then  i suppose there is no one to blame.

 

But then when you start going around making lame accusations, you can not claim to be a victim and accuse another of being a threat, logically of course.

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

see my last post.

so there is no international law? why then reply to another poster, trying to demean him/her for not knowing something that does not exist?

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, BestB said:

 

This is very far away from earlier claiming it to be under some international law.

 

But taking this hypothetical. when UK acts on its baseless accusations and gets its backside kicked then  i suppose there is no one to blame.

 

But then when you start going around making lame accusations, you can not claim to be a victim and accuse another of being a threat, logically of course.

OK.

 

So where in your argument is the 'requirement' for proof. 

 

The UK is under absolutely no obligation to provide proof. 

 

The UK Government is under and absolute duty to defend the nation - sitting around with a thumb up an available orifice while proof can be found (or if found presented outside of the intelligence/government) doesn't allow for the government to act swiftly to perceived threats. 

 

Go read up on Sovereignty. 

[ChouDoufu]

17 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

What's this obsession with 'proof'?

 

Above all else the British Government have a duty to defend the UK, the nation, the people and the economy. 

 

In enacting this duty the British Government (as a sovereign government) are under no burden of proof. 

 

The accused is not a defendant in a court case, it is a foreign power with access to all the powers of a state to act and hide its actions.

.....

making accusations is one thing, but when actions follow, there can be re-actions.

what actions?

 

summon ambassadors for scoldings

expel diplomatic staff, including ambassadors

close consulates

confiscate properties

enact sanctions on individuals, groups, companies

initiate covert operations

start bombing in retaliation

 

so, yeah, proof would be desirable.  otherwise y'all are committing a basic logical fallacy - the argument from ignorance:  your politicians say X is true, and X has not been proven false, therefore X must be true.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

so there is no international law? why then reply to another poster, trying to demean him/her for not knowing something that does not exist?

There is international law - It defines sovereignty and the supreme authority of sovereignty without outside interference. Go read up on it. 

 

[BestB]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

OK.

 

So where in your argument is the 'requirement' for proof. 

 

The UK is under absolutely no obligation to provide proof. 

 

The UK Government is under and absolute duty to defend the nation - sitting around with a thumb up an available orifice while proof can be found (or if found presented outside of the intelligence/government) doesn't allow for the government to act swiftly to perceived threats. 

 

Go read up on Sovereignty. 

Well since there is no need for proof, then this would apply to all correct?In which case Russia does not need to reply or comply, i do not have to believe what UK says.

 

Its interesting to note, when it comes to other topics concerning Israel, there you demand proof, but when it comes to UK, as it turns out proof is not required .

 

Surely you do realize,  when a government starts going around throwing baseless accusations is exactly how wars stars and its not those who make the statements who end up on the front lines

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is international law - It defines sovereignty and the supreme authority of sovereignty without outside interference. Go read up on it. 

 

Please quote or reference the exact clause 

 

Thanks once again

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

making accusations is one thing, but when actions follow, there can be re-actions.

what actions?

 

summon ambassadors for scoldings

expel diplomatic staff, including ambassadors

close consulates

confiscate properties

enact sanctions on individuals, groups, companies

initiate covert operations

start bombing in retaliation

 

so, yeah, proof would be desirable.  otherwise y'all are committing a basic logical fallacy - the argument from ignorance:  your politicians say X is true, and X has not been proven false, therefore X must be true.

Desirable is not a 'requirement' and here's an example of why it may not be provided. 

 

A foreign nation makes an attack on the UK (let's say a Cyber attack). The UK learn which nation made the attack from a spy or spies embedded in that nation.

 

Are you seriously suggesting the UK should then present the evidence if it exposes the spies?

 

Please, think about it. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, BestB said:

Well since there is no need for proof, then this would apply to all correct?In which case Russia does not need to reply or comply, i do not have to believe what UK says.

 

Its interesting to note, when it comes to other topics concerning Israel, there you demand proof, but when it comes to UK, as it turns out proof is not required .

 

Surely you do realize,  when a government starts going around throwing baseless accusations is exactly how wars stars and its not those who make the statements who end up on the front lines

Ah I have an e-stalker.

 

When did I ever state Israel should provide proof. 

 

I said that if Israel believes that it acted legally when its forces killed a 14 year old boy then Israel should conduct a transparent and open investigation and report. 

 

Grow up!

[ChouDoufu]

ok, i thought about it.  i shall accept your logic.

 

sovereign nations are sovereign.

putin felt that murdering skripal was in russia's best interest.

as the ruler of a sovereign nation he has that right.

there's no international law that specifically prevents putin

from tracking down russian traitors wherever they may be, right?

and even then, there's no enforcement mechanism.

regardless, if britian wants to give shelter to a traitor, they should

understand there may be consequences.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Dupicate post deleted.

Edited July 8, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Ah I have an e-stalker.

 

When did I ever state Israel should provide proof. 

 

I said that if Israel believes that it acted legally when its forces killed a 14 year old boy then Israel should conduct a transparent and open investigation and report. 

 

Grow up!

Firstly this has nothing to do with stalking.

 

You expressed your opinions on another thread demanding investigations.

 

However here, you claiming none are required.and making references to international law

 

So its either required or its not. I do not believe international law to which you keep referring changes  according to agenda's

[Chomper Higgot]

10 minutes ago, BestB said:

Please quote or reference the exact clause 

 

Thanks once again

Google is your friend:

 

This is a start but you'll need a subscription to see the full text. 

 

 

Now provide me with a reference to this requirement for 'proof' you've been banging on about?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, BestB said:

Firstly this has nothing to do with stalking.

 

You expressed your opinions on another thread demanding investigations.

 

However here, you claiming none are required.and making references to international law

 

So its either required or its not. I do not believe international law to which you keep referring changes  according to agenda's

show me the international law requiring proof?

[BestB]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Google is your friend:

 

This is a start but you'll need a subscription to see the full text. 

 

 

Now provide me with a reference to this requirement for 'proof' you've been banging on about?

No thanks, you making reference to it, so please be kind enough to provide exact clause.

[BestB]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

show me the international law requiring proof?

do not need to, i never made any reference to any law, you did.

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by BestB

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

ok, i thought about it.  i shall accept your logic.

 

sovereign nations are sovereign.

putin felt that murdering skripal was in russia's best interest.

as the ruler of a sovereign nation he has that right.

there's no international law that specifically prevents putin

from tracking down russian traitors wherever they may be, right?

and even then, there's no enforcement mechanism.

regardless, if britian wants to give shelter to a traitor, they should

understand there may be consequences.

 

In a sense you are correct. 

 

Russia may act as it pleases. 

 

But the persons killed where in the UK and under protection of the UK. The UK has a right to respond. 

 

 

As you correctly state, there is no enforcement mechanism - so the UK makes an accusation without presenting proof (where is the enforcement mechanism to force the UK to provide proof). 

 

Those here rabbiting on about the UK should produce proof have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, BestB said:

do not need to, i never made any reference to any law, you did.

 

You've been banging on about 'proof'.

 

There is no requirement for proof. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Come on chaps. 

 

 

You say the UK should produce proof. 

 

Where is the requirement for the UK to produce proof

 

(Hint: There isn't any).

 

[BestB]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Come on chaps. 

 

 

You say the UK should produce proof. 

 

Where is the requirement for the UK to produce proof

 

(Hint: There isn't any).

 

Yes it should, however i never made any reference to any laws, once again you did and now asked twice to quote the law, but no luck so far

[BestB]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You've been banging on about 'proof'.

 

There is no requirement for proof. 

 

 

and once again, i did not say it was a requirement or a law, you brought it up and keep failing to quote any laws

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, BestB said:

Yes it should, however i never made any reference to any laws, once again you did and now asked twice to quote the law, but no luck so far

Come on out with it where is this requirement for 'proof; you've been banging on about?

 

Since you fail to understand the definition of sovereignty, you are right to stay away from international law. (and I gave you a link to the definition, if you don't like it then Google is your friend).