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

[sammieuk1]

In 

5 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

thank you for returning to the topic.

 

there has been an event, the british government is making certain claims.  nobody here can prove or disprove the claims, and the government apparently has no duty to explain themselves.  but that doesn't really matter.

 

the question for those on public forums....do you believe the government claims, and if so why?  have you seen any proof/evidence of russian involvement, or are your beliefs based solely on what some politician tells you to believe?

 

if your government gets involved in a cold-war returns quarrel with a nuclear armed opponent, takes action where you might have to pay the price, do you accept everything because, well, putin bad?

 

questioning the narrative does not make one a lover of putin.

In a two horse race the Russian government would not be a trustworthy option for anyone in the truth game.

Novichok is a nerve agent produced by Russia

A former Russian spy was deliberately contaminated not rocket science were the blame lies

 

The event you talk of is a bit of a downplay this stuff is so toxic it never degrades every man woman and child in Salisbury area who has touched

anything the latest two victims have touched before could also be contaminated hence the months of decontamination work ahead. 

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, BestB said:

And accusing a nation with no proof which may result in military conflict is a better option? Especially a nation with far greater nuclear capabilities, should also ask the same commander about that? 

 

Perhaps also might be a wise choice to look into its own backyard to determine how bad Russia managed to smuggle such a weapon into UK.? Surely that would be wiser choice when it comes to defense and security?

 

 

 

 

 

Scaremongering notwithstanding, there is no military conflict, and it is unlikely to materialize over this. Guess that for some, Russia having a stronger military than the UK implies it should not be challenged on whatever. Of course, that's ignoring the UK's assertions were supported by other countries, many of which are military allies. 

 

The second comment does not contradict challenging Russia. If you imagine such issues were not looked into, guess we have a different take on reality.

[BestB]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Scaremongering notwithstanding, there is no military conflict, and it is unlikely to materialize over this. Guess that for some, Russia having a stronger military than the UK implies it should not be challenged on whatever. Of course, that's ignoring the UK's assertions were supported by other countries, many of which are military allies. 

 

The second comment does not contradict challenging Russia. If you imagine such issues were not looked into, guess we have a different take on reality.

And if issues were looked into, would appear nothing was found otherwise UK would be able to produce stronger evidence than just nothing.

 

And you right, there is no military conflict, it does not mean there will not be one. Any time Russian ship sails in international waters, UK send a vessel to shadow it.

 

Military being challenged and provoked is not one of the same.

 

And finally UK assertions being supported has little to do with truth, more to do with politics.

Edited July 8, 2018 by BestB

[ChouDoufu]

5 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

In a two horse race the Russian government would not be a trustworthy option for anyone in the truth game.

Novichok is a nerve agent produced by Russia

A former Russian spy was deliberately contaminated not rocket science were the blame lies

 

The event you talk of is a bit of a downplay this stuff is so toxic it never degrades every man woman and child in Salisbury area who has touched

anything the latest two victims have touched before could also be contaminated hence the months of decontamination work ahead. 

but novichok is NOT a russian nerve agent.  it was originally developed by the soviets, the formula has been published, several nations have admitted to working with it.  it can easily be synthesized in any modern laboratory (perhaps not safely).

 

porton down is nearby, and does have samples.  they could have misplaced one.  one of their scientists could have 'gone rouge' as with anthrax in the usa.

 

skripal was a traitor who revealed the names of at least 300 covert agents.  there are 300 bitter ex-spies who might want to take revenge some day.  skripal is not retired, at least that's not what i get from the internets.  seems he still does some consulting with the brit spy agencies, and has been linked to fusion gps.  no telling what other bad actors he may have been associating with.

 

there are other nations with declared (and undeclared) chemical weapons programs who might want to hit russia.  arranging to have them blamed for an assassination attempt in england.......so many possibilities.

[sammieuk1]

2 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

but novichok is NOT a russian nerve agent.  it was originally developed by the soviets, the formula has been published, several nations have admitted to working with it.  it can easily be synthesized in any modern laboratory (perhaps not safely).

 

porton down is nearby, and does have samples.  they could have misplaced one.  one of their scientists could have 'gone rouge' as with anthrax in the usa.

 

skripal was a traitor who revealed the names of at least 300 covert agents.  there are 300 bitter ex-spies who might want to take revenge some day.  skripal is not retired, at least that's not what i get from the internets.  seems he still does some consulting with the brit spy agencies, and has been linked to fusion gps.  no telling what other bad actors he may have been associating with.

 

there are other nations with declared (and undeclared) chemical weapons programs who might want to hit russia.  arranging to have them blamed for an assassination attempt in england.......so many possibilities.

Some of your perhaps and maybe's could also include Martian's to make it more realistic.  

[ChouDoufu]

20 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The question for those on public forums could just as well be - do you believe Russia wasn't involved, and if so why? Does Russia's record give particular reason not to suspect it? Are your beliefs based solely on what some pundit pandering to your views tells you to believe?

 

And, of course, if Russia is responsible, then the supposed return of the cold-war (which, personally, I don't think went anywhere) would be attributed to Russia's moves. Guess no questions as to that point.

 

Asserting Russia is involved doesn't make one a lover of UK government.

and here is where we differ:

 

you are accepting russia's guilt without evidence.

i am not assigning guilt due to lack of evidence.

 

 

[ChouDoufu]

1 minute ago, sammieuk1 said:

Some of your perhaps and maybe's could also include Martian's to make it more realistic.  

exactly!  all of those are equally plausible.  and now i'll have to add martians to the list, because there has been just as much proof of martian guilt as there has been of russian guilt.

 

 

[janclaes47]

31 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

The event you talk of is a bit of a downplay this stuff is so toxic it never degrades every man woman and child in Salisbury area who has touched

You are correct about that, and I should add that there is plenty of information available that when you get in contact with the substance you don't get ill.............you just die in a little matter of time.

\

We now have 4 people that have been in contact with that deadly stuff, that never degrades, yet 2 of them have fully recovered and the other 2 are also not dead.

 

Very strange at least for such a deadly substance

[manarak]

41 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

Some of your perhaps and maybe's could also include Martian's to make it more realistic.  

and you should read up on past covert operations that have been carried out by all sides to get a better feeling about what's realistic and what not.

and these will only be those where security has been compromised...

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed. 

[Morch]

10 hours ago, BestB said:

And if issues were looked into, would appear nothing was found otherwise UK would be able to produce stronger evidence than just nothing.

 

And you right, there is no military conflict, it does not mean there will not be one. Any time Russian ship sails in international waters, UK send a vessel to shadow it.

 

Military being challenged and provoked is not one of the same.

 

And finally UK assertions being supported has little to do with truth, more to do with politics.

 

The "issues were looked into" bit was referencing your earlier comment about investigations as to how such a substance made it into the UK. That you try to twist my words in order to fit your narrative is regretful, if expected.

 

There is no military conflict, and yet you and others engage in scaremongering, as if it's just around the corner. It isn't. The bit about shadowing Russian ships, even if accepted as accurate (and doubtful it is), got little to do with the topic at hand.

 

There was nothing said about military challenging Russia. That's something you added to the mix, in order to muddy the waters. Challenging Russia can be done diplomatically, legally and whatnot. And while some posters seem to consider any challenge to Russia's actions and narrative a "provocation", it is doubtful this is the case.

 

Your last assertion itself is more to do with politics, rather than "truth".   

[Morch]

10 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

and here is where we differ:

 

you are accepting russia's guilt without evidence.

i am not assigning guilt due to lack of evidence.

 

 

 

I am not "accepting Russia's guilt" - I'm asserting it is the most likely conclusion, based on available facts and past conduct and lack of other credible explanations. As to "without evidence" - repeating this wholesale slogan is cute, but doesn't float.

 

As for your positions, allow  me to assert that my memory is not impaired, hence I recall your previous posts from past topics. Pull the other one.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

but novichok is NOT a russian nerve agent.  it was originally developed by the soviets, the formula has been published, several nations have admitted to working with it.  it can easily be synthesized in any modern laboratory (perhaps not safely).

 

porton down is nearby, and does have samples.  they could have misplaced one.  one of their scientists could have 'gone rouge' as with anthrax in the usa.

 

skripal was a traitor who revealed the names of at least 300 covert agents.  there are 300 bitter ex-spies who might want to take revenge some day.  skripal is not retired, at least that's not what i get from the internets.  seems he still does some consulting with the brit spy agencies, and has been linked to fusion gps.  no telling what other bad actors he may have been associating with.

 

there are other nations with declared (and undeclared) chemical weapons programs who might want to hit russia.  arranging to have them blamed for an assassination attempt in england.......so many possibilities.

 

I think you are intentionally downplaying the complexity of producing the substance. As I understand, it requires a wee bit more than "any modern laboratory" to achieve an effective result. Similarly, downplaying the safety angle is ridiculous. There's not much point in producing such stuff if you can't control it or utilize it. The notion that this is the sort of undertaking which will not attract attention of authorities is dubious.

 

Your alternative explanations are unlikely, to put it mildly.

 

A misplaced sample - which somehow managed to effect Skripal, of all people, is a somewhat far-fetched notion.

 

A scientist gone rogue - doubtful he's would be found after the first instance, and why target Skripal?

 

A revenge by a "bitter ex-spy" - such would have to get into the UK undetected (while identities are known), come to a possession of such a substance (again undetected), carry the attack and be gone without getting caught. Good luck with that one. If this was the case, by the way, it wouldn't preclude Russian involvement anyway.

 

Other nations trying to frame Russia - not clear which nations, or what's the exact motivation is. Seems like a rather convulsed way of doing things, especially as the end result isn't too clear. More like a generalized blanket deflection.

 

In short, your alternative versions are more conspiracy theory stuff and speculation. Pitted against the notion that Russia carried out an assassination attempt against a former operative, I think the latter is still far more likely.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

You are correct about that, and I should add that there is plenty of information available that when you get in contact with the substance you don't get ill.............you just die in a little matter of time.

\

We now have 4 people that have been in contact with that deadly stuff, that never degrades, yet 2 of them have fully recovered and the other 2 are also not dead.

 

Very strange at least for such a deadly substance

 

I don't know what the "never degrades" actually relies on. As for how lethal it is - doubt it doesn't relate to synthesization process.

[geriatrickid]

On 7/6/2018 at 1:48 AM, Kasset Tak said:

Just a thought... why would Russia use a nerve-agent/poison that is known to have been developed by Russia and only have been used by Russia when they know that it would spark political  problems with the rest of the world. I mean Putin is not and idiot like the man put in charge of the White house!!!

 

Because the Russians do not care. They are untouchable because of people like you. You are convinced they didn't do it and do not support any actions against Russia. 

 

On 7/6/2018 at 2:09 AM, Mickmouse1 said:

The Government together with the security services are responsible not the Russians. If the Russian did the first job then it is impossible for them to do the same again.They are not that stupid.

Incompetent UK security can only blame the Russians???

 

No one has said the Russians did this. Not even the UK. What has been said is that the  poison delivery device was obviously discarded in an unsafe manner. These new victims came in contact with the poison.Because the device was linked to an initial assassination attempt it is reasonable to believe that legal liability does lie with the  first incident's culprits.

 

 

10 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

and here is where we differ:

you are accepting russia's guilt without evidence.

i am not assigning guilt due to lack of evidence.

Go back and look at the facts of this incident. They are tied to the first incident.

 

10 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

You are correct about that, and I should add that there is plenty of information available that when you get in contact with the substance you don't get ill.............you just die in a little matter of time.

\

We now have 4 people that have been in contact with that deadly stuff, that never degrades, yet 2 of them have fully recovered and the other 2 are also not dead.

 

Very strange at least for such a deadly substance

The latest two victims were marginal people with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Their vital organs were already degraded. It makes sense that  they would die. It is hard to save someone when the liver is in  a state of cirrhosis.

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

What I know about chemical weapons could fit on the back of a postage stamp, but I do know a great deal about chemical analysis and specifically chromatography.

 

Comparing even minute samples of the chemical agent from both incidents will reveal absolute evidence that the compounds are/are not from the same source.

 

Once again, the U.K. is under no obligation to provide ‘proof’ of Russian involvement, to fulfil their duty to defend the nation the government need only consider the basis of probability together with intelligence reports (that they are highly unlikely to publish).

 

If the U.K. government concluded Russia was behind the first attack, chemical analysis will link or un-link the two attacks.

 

I’m not sure if their have been other attacks with this chemical elsewhere, if there has been and samples are available then chemical analysis will reveal if the source of the compound is the same.

 

The UK is recognised as at the forefront of Intelligence and chemicals weapons analysis.

 

Determining which nation is responsible for these attacks is well within the UK’s capabilities.

 

Demanding that the U.K. reveal intelligence and security capabilities is the stuff of people who haven’t developed their frontal lobes and/or spend too much time tuned into ‘RT’.

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by Chomper Higgot

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

and here is where we differ:

 

you are accepting russia's guilt without evidence.

i am not assigning guilt due to lack of evidence.

 

 

Given the OP is about Britain demanding Russia do something is only to expose Britains military impotence re Russia. The great days of BAOR are long gone.

 

Edited July 9, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[dick dasterdly]

On 7/9/2018 at 9:31 AM, geriatrickid said:

 

Because the Russians do not care. They are untouchable because of people like you. You are convinced they didn't do it and do not support any actions against Russia. 

 

 

No one has said the Russians did this. Not even the UK. What has been said is that the  poison delivery device was obviously discarded in an unsafe manner. These new victims came in contact with the poison.Because the device was linked to an initial assassination attempt it is reasonable to believe that legal liability does lie with the  first incident's culprits.

 

 

Go back and look at the facts of this incident. They are tied to the first incident.

 

The latest two victims were marginal people with a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Their vital organs were already degraded. It makes sense that  they would die. It is hard to save someone when the liver is in  a state of cirrhosis.

 

 

 

You're very wrong on most points.

 

"Because the Russians do not care. They are untouchable because of people like you. You are convinced they didn't do it and do not support any actions against Russia."

 

As far as I can see, 'people like you' is a synonym for those that are pointing out there is no actual evidence against the russians in either case.  Why is it wrong to point this out?

 

I'm sure 'we' thought it likely the russians were responsible after the Skripal 'contaminations - but are less convinced as a result of the latest 'contaminations'.

 

Only those believing 'the russians did it' (as far as I can make out) is "convinced" of anything!

 

"No one has said the Russians did this. Not even the UK."

 

Really?  Have you read the headline of this topic (uk-demands-russia-explain-nerve-attack-after-two-more-people-struck-down), let alone the comments of those convinced the ruskies were undoubtedly responsible??!!

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

You're very wrong on most points.

 

"Because the Russians do not care. They are untouchable because of people like you. You are convinced they didn't do it and do not support any actions against Russia."

 

As far as I can see, 'people like you' is a synonym for those that are pointing out there is no actual evidence against the russians in either case.  Why is it wrong to point this out?

 

I'm sure 'we' thought it likely the russians were responsible after the Skripal 'contaminations - but are less convinced as a result of the latest 'contaminations'.

 

Only those believing 'the russians did it' (as far as I can make out) is "convinced" of anything!

 

"No one has said the Russians did this. Not even the UK."

 

Really?  Have you read the headline of this topic (uk-demands-russia-explain-nerve-attack-after-two-more-people-struck-down), let alone the comments of those convinced the ruskies were undoubtedly responsible??!!

“I'm sure 'we' thought it likely the russians were responsible after the Skripal 'contaminations - but are less convinced as a result of the latest 'contaminations'.”

 

 Read #226 above.

 

[dick dasterdly]

21 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“I'm sure 'we' thought it likely the russians were responsible after the Skripal 'contaminations - but are less convinced as a result of the latest 'contaminations'.”

 

 Read #226 above.

 

But you're relying on the brit. govt. telling the truth or, for some obscure reason (to do with 'security'), hiding the truth?

 

"I’m not sure if their have been other attacks with this chemical elsewhere, if there has been and samples are available then chemical analysis will reveal if the source of the compound is the same."

 

And yet nothing has been revealed by the uk govt. to indicate anything of the sort.  But to be fair, it's probably extremely difficult to pinpoint 'the source' - let alone the perpetrators!

 

"The UK is recognised as at the forefront of Intelligence and chemicals weapons analysis."

 

Exactly, and yet they've come up with no proof....  Meanwhile, Porton Down is just down the road.... 

[Chomper Higgot]

51 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

But you're relying on the brit. govt. telling the truth or, for some obscure reason (to do with 'security'), hiding the truth?

 

"I’m not sure if their have been other attacks with this chemical elsewhere, if there has been and samples are available then chemical analysis will reveal if the source of the compound is the same."

 

And yet nothing has been revealed by the uk govt. to indicate anything of the sort.  But to be fair, it's probably extremely difficult to pinpoint 'the source' - let alone the perpetrators!

 

"The UK is recognised as at the forefront of Intelligence and chemicals weapons analysis."

 

Exactly, and yet they've come up with no proof....  Meanwhile, Porton Down is just down the road.... 

Have I just tuned into RT?

 

On what basis do you claim the UK needs to produce 'proof', who are the UK to give this 'proof' to and who will be the final arbiter deciding whether the UK has 'proven' its accusations?

 

 

[manarak]

On 7/9/2018 at 9:57 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK is recognised as at the forefront of Intelligence and chemicals weapons analysis.

 

Determining which nation is responsible for these attacks is well within the UK’s capabilities.

True for both.

 

But there are some caveats:

- the UK is also at the forefront of telling bullshit (as are all world players in intelligence operations)

- to determine who is responsible, the product must be traceable to a supplier, so far I haven't read anywhere that the UK says Russia was identified 100% to be the supplier of that lot of "novichok"

- it's not entirely unrealistic that the UK would say Russia was responsible even if UK hadn't successfully traced the poison to Russia

 

I think except in the case where one of the people involved publishes some memoirs later on or if there is a leak of related documents, we will never know for sure what happened.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, manarak said:

True for both.

 

But there are some caveats:

- the UK is also at the forefront of telling bullshit (as are all world players in intelligence operations)

- to determine who is responsible, the product must be traceable to a supplier, so far I haven't read anywhere that the UK says Russia was identified 100% to be the supplier of that lot of "novichok"

- it's not entirely unrealistic that the UK would say Russia was responsible even if UK hadn't successfully traced the poison to Russia

 

I think except in the case where one of the people involved publishes some memoirs later on or if there is a leak of related documents, we will never know for sure what happened.

We might not.

 

But that is no argument against the UK’s case.

 

The UK might, for example, have intelligence from a spy or whistle blower in Russia.

 

Providing more information/proof could undermine intelligence operations and perhaps endanger lives.

 

This, as I have said earlier, is not a trial in a magistrates court.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, manarak said:

True for both.

 

But there are some caveats:

- the UK is also at the forefront of telling bullshit (as are all world players in intelligence operations)

- to determine who is responsible, the product must be traceable to a supplier, so far I haven't read anywhere that the UK says Russia was identified 100% to be the supplier of that lot of "novichok"

- it's not entirely unrealistic that the UK would say Russia was responsible even if UK hadn't successfully traced the poison to Russia

 

I think except in the case where one of the people involved publishes some memoirs later on or if there is a leak of related documents, we will never know for sure what happened.

 

Even if the UK was in "the forefront of telling bullshit" (which, of course, it isn't - and doubt there's half acceptable way for your to substantiate such a claim), then the rest of your comment makes this hollow. Because "all world players in intelligence operations" would apply to Russia as well, hence, no particular reason to assume innocence or no involvement.

 

The expectation that all details would be made public is bogus. Cases related to intelligence operations rarely involve full disclosure to the public. Especially not given the time-frame.

 

Quite interesting many on here are perfectly willing to accept whatever supposedly homegrown nefarious conspiracy, but reject the notion that Russia engages in such as well.  

 

[dick dasterdly]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Even if the UK was in "the forefront of telling bullshit" (which, of course, it isn't - and doubt there's half acceptable way for your to substantiate such a claim), then the rest of your comment makes this hollow. Because "all world players in intelligence operations" would apply to Russia as well, hence, no particular reason to assume innocence or no involvement.

 

The expectation that all details would be made public is bogus. Cases related to intelligence operations rarely involve full disclosure to the public. Especially not given the time-frame.

 

Quite interesting many on here are perfectly willing to accept whatever supposedly homegrown nefarious conspiracy, but reject the notion that Russia engages in such as well.  

 

"Quite interesting many on here are perfectly willing to accept whatever supposedly homegrown nefarious conspiracy, but reject the notion that Russia engages in such as well."

 

Absolute rubbish!

 

Some of us find the argument that the 'assassins' not only failed in their first mission, but then they threw away something that resulted in the contamination of a second couple - less than convincing....

 

Why do you insist on trying to paint those who aren't lapping up 'the ruskies did it' propaganda (without any evidence...) as russia sympathisers??!!

 

Don't answer, as I already know - it's the only 'argument' you have....

[tumama]

On 7/10/2018 at 3:08 PM, Chomper Higgot said:

Have I just tuned into RT?

 

On what basis do you claim the UK needs to produce 'proof', who are the UK to give this 'proof' to and who will be the final arbiter deciding whether the UK has 'proven' its accusations?

 

Have you turned into the BBC? You know in a democracy, you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Ultimately it would be the people that decides if it has been proven or not. Because we all know that U.K has zero respect for international laws. But so far we have seen exactly zero proof and no motive that Russia was in anyway involved in these two attacks. 

[manarak]

On 7/10/2018 at 8:13 PM, Morch said:

 

Even if the UK was in "the forefront of telling bullshit" (which, of course, it isn't - and doubt there's half acceptable way for your to substantiate such a claim), then the rest of your comment makes this hollow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/issues/4481139.stm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/18/iraq.iraq1

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

(I hope that counts as lying !!!)

 

for the rest of your comment, it seems a little off, because:

- I didn't say Russia is innocent, I just said that the UK might lie about the "proof" they have

- I have no expectation of all details being made public, in fact I explicitly stated the exact opposite

- I don't say Russia could not be involved in such things, in fact, I am quite sure they got their fingers in all kinds of sinister plots around the world

 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by manarak

[manarak]

And to come back to the topic of the nerve agent, there might be other explanations than an attack carried out by Russian operatives or on Russian orders.

what about all the people, moles, sleepers, double agents, industrial spies, etc. Skripal exposed?

I'm sure many of them suffered grave consequences.

Couldn't some of them have sought revenge and have access to this poison?

They could have gone loose cannon to teach the traitor a lesson?

 

Then the choice of that particular poison is rather strange, I'm not sure why Russia would want to attract even more bad press by using a signature such as this which is public knowledge.

But for persons that were damaged by Skripal's indiscretions, of course it makes sense. "A message from mother Russia" would one be tempted to think.

 

Also, the apparent lack of professionalism in carrying out the assassination of the Skripals (failed) and the subsequent poisoning of other persons seem to contradict a Russian op.

[lanista]

Why would Putin & Co waste their time poisoning a couple of British no-bodies?

Most likely this nerve agent was locally obtained  , maybe from  nearby PD and accidently or deliberately contaminated various sites.

I would trust Putin more than May and BOJO.

Russia put on a great World Cup by all accounts. Could England do that?

 

[Morch]

17 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

"Quite interesting many on here are perfectly willing to accept whatever supposedly homegrown nefarious conspiracy, but reject the notion that Russia engages in such as well."

 

Absolute rubbish!

 

Some of us find the argument that the 'assassins' not only failed in their first mission, but then they threw away something that resulted in the contamination of a second couple - less than convincing....

 

Why do you insist on trying to paint those who aren't lapping up 'the ruskies did it' propaganda (without any evidence...) as russia sympathisers??!!

 

Don't answer, as I already know - it's the only 'argument' you have....

 

If one assumes that the first effort failed (due to whatever circumstances), what would be the rationale for disassociating it from the second incident? And to be clear, that you find it "less than convincing" is not an argument, but a statement of belief. Or to quote your own word, rubbish.

 

I'm not asserting what you claim, that's your own interpretation. Not everyone suspicious of the Russia-did-it point of view is a Russia sympathizer. Some are, by no means all. The point made was more to do with how some are quick to embrace negative view of Western governments (in this case, the UK) regardless of anything much.

 

Granted, Western governments aren't necessarily righteous or represent an absolute "good". And thanks to the freedoms we enjoy under these supposedly nefarious governments, their shortcomings and failure may be criticize, discuss and exposed. So any way one wishes to spin it, warts and all, light years better than the likes of Russia.

 

So when posters try to claim some sort of faux equivalence with regard to respective governments' conduct and practices, this does strike me as odd. Inasmuch as Russian propaganda efforts are very much invested in promoting such narratives, perhaps more an indication of their success, rather than outright sympathy for Russia.

As for your rude (and pointless) "don't answer" - even if I was inclined to follow orders from someone who can't marshal his arguments, I believe that ordering posters about requires a different animal cartoon as an avatar.