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

[Morch]

13 hours ago, tumama said:

 

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. 

 

Somehow doubt the "innocent until proven guilty" bit applies quite as posters imagine when it comes to international relations and law. Same goes for the nonsense about "the people" ultimately deciding if something was "proven". The "we all know" rubbish, is just that - especially when comparing the two governments involved. The no  proof and no motive part suggests you skipped reading all them bits which do not pander to standing biases.

 

 

[Jai Dee]

A off-topic troll post has been removed from this thread.

[Morch]

 

@manarak

 

Your hyperbole comment was about the UK government being "at the forefront of telling bullshit". Posters fixation on Iraq notwithstanding, citing the same references over and over again doesn't make the argument. There was no counter claim that the UK government doesn't lie. Most, if not all, governments do, to one extent or another. Asserting that the UK government is somehow at the "forefront" would require a comparison to other governments. I don't know that Russia's (for example...) would be keen on such.

 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

On 7/10/2018 at 12:32 PM, 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??!!

 

18 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....

 

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

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.

 

I apologise for the "don't answer" comment as I agree, it was rude and pointless.

 

The rest of your post is just back-tracking - and ended with an even more rude and pointless last paragraph....

[Morch]

6 hours ago, manarak said:

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.

 

The "revenge" by someone Skripal exposed theory doesn't explain how such a person would get his hands on the substance, or acquire the know-how to use it, or manage to smuggle it in-country. The chances of an effort on this level going undetected are rather slim. If someone like that wanted Skripal dead, there are far easier ways involving less risks.

 

That you claim Russia wouldn't want to advertise is fine, but considering it also plays toward intimidation of other would be traitors and possibly assert a bit of an extra nationalistic sentiment just before elections - maybe not all that far fetched.

 

The assumption that all intelligence operations work as planned, and that no mistakes happen is bogus. If that was so, how would one explain Skripal working for the UK, or alternately, the Russian discovering Skripal's betrayal?

[Morch]

 

@dick dasterdly

 

There was no back-tracking. You falsely attributed a wide-brush point of view which I do not actually hold. My reply was a clarification of the actual, more nuanced position. 

 

 

[dick dasterdly]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@dick dasterdly

 

There was no back-tracking. You falsely attributed a wide-brush point of view which I do not actually hold. My reply was a clarification of the actual, more nuanced position. 

 

 

"You falsely attributed a wide-brush point of view which I do not actually hold. My reply was a clarification of the actual, more nuanced position."

 

It would help if you quoted the parts of my posts that "falsely attributed a wide-brush point of view which I do not actually hold"!  Edit - It's almost impossible to argue against someone that doesn't provide the evidence to support their allegations....

 

You were the one that 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." .....

Edited July 12, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[Morch]

41 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"You falsely attributed a wide-brush point of view which I do not actually hold. My reply was a clarification of the actual, more nuanced position."

 

It would help if you quoted the parts of my posts that "falsely attributed a wide-brush point of view which I do not actually hold"!  Edit - It's almost impossible to argue against someone that doesn't provide the evidence to support their allegations....

 

You were the one that 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." .....

 

There is no requirement quote each post replied to. All the more so when many of the posts replied to are either rants or being edited while discussion is ongoing. As to your above complaint - seems like you are perfectly aware of what I was referring to and yet complain about it not being clear. Oh well....

 

What I posted isn't what you claimed. There's nothing included about sympathy for Russia etc. - that's just a bit you added later on.

[Chomper Higgot]

DD.

 

The case for Russia attempting to kill the Skripals while at the same time sending a message to others who might give information against Russia has been explained.

 

The means of analysis by which the chemical used in the attack against the Skripals can be proven to be from /not from the same source as the latest death has been explained.

 

The reasons why the UK might choose not to release intellegence or knowledge of proofs behind these incidents into the public domain has been explained.

 

Your reluctance to accept any of those explanations is clear.

 

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

[dick dasterdly]

44 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"You falsely attributed a wide-brush point of view which I do not actually hold. My reply was a clarification of the actual, more nuanced position."

 

It would help if you quoted the parts of my posts that "falsely attributed a wide-brush point of view which I do not actually hold"!  Edit - It's almost impossible to argue against someone that doesn't provide the evidence to support their allegations....

 

You were the one that 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." .....

 

Just now, Morch said:

 

There is no requirement quote each post replied to. All the more so when many of the posts replied to are either rants or being edited while discussion is ongoing. As to your above complaint - seems like you are perfectly aware of what I was referring to and yet complain about it not being clear. Oh well....

 

What I posted isn't what you claimed. There's nothing included about sympathy for Russia etc. - that's just a bit you added later on.

You're very wrong on all points.

 

I'm not 'demanding' that you quote all relevant posts - just pointing out that it's v easy to 'twist' a discussion/change the point entirely - if the poster can't be bothered to quote the the posts to which they are referring! 

 

For some reason you prefer to rely on allegations against other posters without proof.  It's not only annoying, it also stifles debate, as most can't be bothered to trawl back through previous posts to ascertain whether the point made is relevant - or just deliberately inaccurate!

[dick dasterdly]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

DD.

 

The case for Russia attempting to kill the Skripals while at the same time sending a message to others who might give information against Russia has been explained.

 

The means of analysis by which the chemical used in the attack against the Skripals can be proven to be from /not from the same source as the latest death has been explained.

 

The reasons why the UK might choose not to release intellegence or knowledge of proofs behind these incidents into the public domain has been explained.

 

Your reluctance to accept any of those explanations is clear.

 

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

Agree entirely with the first para.

 

The second para. is purely reliant on the chemical having been invented by russia?

 

Third para. - if the uk comes out with "uk-demands-russia-explain-nerve-attack-after-two-more-people-struck-down" - they need to provide some evidence.

 

Fourth para - please explain ?

[tumama]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Somehow doubt the "innocent until proven guilty" bit applies quite as posters imagine when it comes to international relations and law. Same goes for the nonsense about "the people" ultimately deciding if something was "proven". The "we all know" rubbish, is just that - especially when comparing the two governments involved. The no  proof and no motive part suggests you skipped reading all them bits which do not pander to standing biases.

 

Works the same in international law. Remember when U.N refused to give mandate for the invasion of Iraq? There was a reason for that. And yes, turned out Saddam didn't have any WMD's.

 

Well like I said, U.K has a record of ignoring international law. So in the end, it's the people who decide. That's not rubbish, that's an unfortunate fact.

 

So tell me, what evidence is there? That U.K government claims that Novichok was used? Any nation could have produced that. That proves absolutely nothing. We don't even know for a fact that Novichok was used because U.K is again renegading on their international obligation by refusing Russia access to the investigation.

 

Ironic you speak of biases. You haven't stopped to think that's exactly what you have?

Edited July 12, 2018 by tumama

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Agree entirely with the first para.

 

The second para. is purely reliant on the chemical having been invented by russia?

 

Third para. - if the uk comes out with "uk-demands-russia-explain-nerve-attack-after-two-more-people-struck-down" - they need to provide some evidence.

 

Fourth para - please explain ?

‘The second para’ - The chemical analysis is not reliant on who produced the chemical, it will merely confirm if two samples are from the same source. 

 

Forth paragraph:

 

If you doubt the UK claims, what is your own personal explanation of why the UK is ‘pointing a fingure’ at Russia?

[Chomper Higgot]

13 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

Works the same in international law. Remember when U.N refused to give mandate for the invasion of Iraq? There was a reason for that. And yes, turned out Saddam didn't have any WMD's.

 

Well like I said, U.K has a record of ignoring international law. So in the end, it's the people who decide. That's not rubbish, that's an unfortunate fact.

 

So tell me, what evidence is there? That U.K government claims that Novichok was used? Any nation could have produced that. That proves absolutely nothing. We don't even know for a fact that Novichok was used because U.K is again renegading on their international obligation by refusing Russia access to the investigation.

 

Ironic you speak of biases. You haven't stopped to think that's exactly what you have?

There is no ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ in international law with respect to conflict between nations.

 

(If there is you’ll be able to reference the law).

 

The demands for evidence and attempts to ‘provide evidence’ at the UN during the run up to the Iraq war were political, means to persuade/dissuade individual nations to join the war.

 

"War is the continuation of politics by other means." (Clausewitz) it is not an extension of justice.

 

Your assumptions regarding the need for proof before a sovereign nation acts are completely misinformed.

 

[Morch]

50 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

You're very wrong on all points.

 

I'm not 'demanding' that you quote all relevant posts - just pointing out that it's v easy to 'twist' a discussion/change the point entirely - if the poster can't be bothered to quote the the posts to which they are referring! 

 

For some reason you prefer to rely on allegations against other posters without proof.  It's not only annoying, it also stifles debate, as most can't be bothered to trawl back through previous posts to ascertain whether the point made is relevant - or just deliberately inaccurate!

 

Didn't say you "demanded" anything, and even if you did, doubt I'd pay much heed. Other than you trying to attribute a point of view which I do not hold, there wasn't much twisting involved. You seem more bothered about quoting than about addressing your misleading comment - even though you're perfectly aware of which one is referenced.

 

There wasn't any "allegation without proof". There was a general comment relating what I see as a trend, with regard to posts made and views aired.

 

If you can't be bothered keeping track of your own posts and words, that your problem. Blaming others for this while making comments such as "deliberately inaccurate" is rather lame. But do go on about "wrong on all points...".

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

Works the same in international law. Remember when U.N refused to give mandate for the invasion of Iraq? There was a reason for that. And yes, turned out Saddam didn't have any WMD's.

 

Well like I said, U.K has a record of ignoring international law. So in the end, it's the people who decide. That's not rubbish, that's an unfortunate fact.

 

So tell me, what evidence is there? That U.K government claims that Novichok was used? Any nation could have produced that. That proves absolutely nothing. We don't even know for a fact that Novichok was used because U.K is again renegading on their international obligation by refusing Russia access to the investigation.

 

Ironic you speak of biases. You haven't stopped to think that's exactly what you have?

 

No, it doesn't work quite the same way. For starters, there isn't even an obligation by all countries and governments to accept all instances of international law. And while posters' obsession citing Iraq over and over again as some ace card - may want to realize it doesn't quite make the points argued.

 

There are examples of many, if not all, governments ignoring laws when it suits. That said, it is a matter of degree. I somehow doubt it could be established that the UK is worse than others, especially compared to Russia. Other than you saying so, it is unclear how the "people will decide" follows or even relates.

 

Not every nation can manufacture the substance. Not every country had motive to do so or to use it against Skripal on UK soil. And it was confirmed that the substance was Novichok - this doesn't depend on Russia getting access to the investigation (which by itself is about as bogus a concept as it gets).

 

 

[tumama]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is no ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ in international law with respect to conflict between nations.

 

(If there is you’ll be able to reference the law).

 

The demands for evidence and attempts to ‘provide evidence’ at the UN during the run up to the Iraq war were political, means to persuade/dissuade individual nations to join the war.

 

"War is the continuation of politics by other means." (Clausewitz) it is not an extension of justice.

 

Your assumptions regarding the need for proof before a sovereign nation acts are completely misinformed.

 

Maybe not written down in text. But obviously evidence is needed to persuade other nations to back a military intervention. This was presented in the case of Iraq, but deemed not sufficient. Nice straw man argument though. Want to get back to the issue at hand?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, tumama said:

Maybe not written down in text. But obviously evidence is needed to persuade other nations to back a military intervention. This was presented in the case of Iraq, but deemed not sufficient. Nice straw man argument though. Want to get back to the issue at hand?

 

In the case at hand, there was quite a supportive reaction to the UK's position - which resulted in quite a few countries sending away Russian representatives. As for "obviously" - that difference between what is "law" and what is political practice - which was the point made earlier.

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, tumama said:

Maybe not written down in text. But obviously evidence is needed to persuade other nations to back a military intervention. This was presented in the case of Iraq, but deemed not sufficient. Nice straw man argument though. Want to get back to the issue at hand?

You mention international law then admit ‘nothing written down and follow that by repeating my argument regarding ‘evidence to persuade.

 

So thank you for accepting (and taking on board my point).

 

In the light of this you reference to ‘straw man’ or being off topic is confusing.

[tumama]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, it doesn't work quite the same way. For starters, there isn't even an obligation by all countries and governments to accept all instances of international law. And while posters' obsession citing Iraq over and over again as some ace card - may want to realize it doesn't quite make the points argued.

 

There are examples of many, if not all, governments ignoring laws when it suits. That said, it is a matter of degree. I somehow doubt it could be established that the UK is worse than others, especially compared to Russia. Other than you saying so, it is unclear how the "people will decide" follows or even relates.

 

Not every nation can manufacture the substance. Not every country had motive to do so or to use it against Skripal on UK soil. And it was confirmed that the substance was Novichok - this doesn't depend on Russia getting access to the investigation (which by itself is about as bogus a concept as it gets).

 

There's an obligation yes. But there is no enforcement of it. But you would expect a country like the U.K to respect international law. They didn't in the case of Iraq, and look how that turned out. Now they are asking us to believe the Russians were behind it, with again no proof. You might think that's an obsession, but it's really just an unfortunate fact.

 

What's unclear? If U.K don't present any evidence, U.N won't be able to act. Leaving people and their governments to decide what to do. Like expel more diplomats, or slap them with more sanctions. The sanctions are already hurting the European economies and many of us are already against the sanctions in place. Thus popular opinion will dictate what will happen.

 

The sample provided was confirmed to be Novichok. But that sample could have just as well have come from Porton Down. That they refuse to let Russia take part in the investigation is a huge red flag. That they were caught lying to the public is another. U.K government has about zero credibility at this point. Any country with a weapons program could have manufactured it. And given that is mostly done in secret, that means any country could have done it. But you are right, not every country have motive. But neither does Russia. 

 

[tumama]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You mention international law then admit ‘nothing written down and follow that by repeating my argument regarding ‘evidence to persuade.

 

So thank you for accepting (and taking on board my point).

 

In the light of this you reference to ‘straw man’ or being off topic is confusing.

 

It's semantics and it's not relevant to the topic at hand. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

There's an obligation yes. But there is no enforcement of it. But you would expect a country like the U.K to respect international law. They didn't in the case of Iraq, and look how that turned out. Now they are asking us to believe the Russians were behind it, with again no proof. You might think that's an obsession, but it's really just an unfortunate fact.

 

What's unclear? If U.K don't present any evidence, U.N won't be able to act. Leaving people and their governments to decide what to do. Like expel more diplomats, or slap them with more sanctions. The sanctions are already hurting the European economies and many of us are already against the sanctions in place. Thus popular opinion will dictate what will happen.

 

The sample provided was confirmed to be Novichok. But that sample could have just as well have come from Porton Down. That they refuse to let Russia take part in the investigation is a huge red flag. That they were caught lying to the public is another. U.K government has about zero credibility at this point. Any country with a weapons program could have manufactured it. And given that is mostly done in secret, that means any country could have done it. But you are right, not every country have motive. But neither does Russia. 

 

If there’s an ‘obligation’ show we’re it’s written in international law.

 

’Politically advantageous’ to show evidence is not ‘an obligation’ and will always be balanced against the need to protect sources, mask intelligence.

 

The UK’s demands to Russia are made as an individual nation.

 

That the UK has not presented ‘proof’ to the public or the Russians is not evidence that the U.K. is not sure in its accusations.

 

This is an international disputed, it is not a squabble in a magistrate’s court.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

There's an obligation yes. But there is no enforcement of it. But you would expect a country like the U.K to respect international law. They didn't in the case of Iraq, and look how that turned out. Now they are asking us to believe the Russians were behind it, with again no proof. You might think that's an obsession, but it's really just an unfortunate fact.

 

What's unclear? If U.K don't present any evidence, U.N won't be able to act. Leaving people and their governments to decide what to do. Like expel more diplomats, or slap them with more sanctions. The sanctions are already hurting the European economies and many of us are already against the sanctions in place. Thus popular opinion will dictate what will happen.

 

The sample provided was confirmed to be Novichok. But that sample could have just as well have come from Porton Down. That they refuse to let Russia take part in the investigation is a huge red flag. That they were caught lying to the public is another. U.K government has about zero credibility at this point. Any country with a weapons program could have manufactured it. And given that is mostly done in secret, that means any country could have done it. But you are right, not every country have motive. But neither does Russia. 

 

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? 

[tumama]

4 minutes 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? 

 

Same reason they said Iraq had WMD's. Accusing other countries of doing something because it serves their interest.

Edited July 12, 2018 by tumama

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

There's an obligation yes. But there is no enforcement of it. But you would expect a country like the U.K to respect international law. They didn't in the case of Iraq, and look how that turned out. Now they are asking us to believe the Russians were behind it, with again no proof. You might think that's an obsession, but it's really just an unfortunate fact.

 

What's unclear? If U.K don't present any evidence, U.N won't be able to act. Leaving people and their governments to decide what to do. Like expel more diplomats, or slap them with more sanctions. The sanctions are already hurting the European economies and many of us are already against the sanctions in place. Thus popular opinion will dictate what will happen.

 

The sample provided was confirmed to be Novichok. But that sample could have just as well have come from Porton Down. That they refuse to let Russia take part in the investigation is a huge red flag. That they were caught lying to the public is another. U.K government has about zero credibility at this point. Any country with a weapons program could have manufactured it. And given that is mostly done in secret, that means any country could have done it. But you are right, not every country have motive. But neither does Russia. 

 

 

There is no such general "obligation". Countries decide which international treaties and organizations (with their added regulations/rules) they join. Enforcement is more of a political issues and often governed by other elements other than "justice".

 

You would expect posters to stop the constant Iraq deflections, while ignoring or belittling any Russian transgressions. Or maybe not. What "fact" you think you're citing is hard to tell.

 

And the "people decide" nonsense remains just that.  The UN will not be "able to act" anyway, due to how the UNSC is structured (effectively giving Russia a veto right). The UN is not a world government or even a world court. Governments of countries supportive of the UK's position already applied expulsions of Russian diplomats - it wasn't decided "by the people".  Same goes for sanctions. Popular opinion only applies in a roundabout way, when it comes to elections. And I somehow doubt these would be the major issues deciding results. So bottom line, another nothing assertion.

 

I think you make incorrect (or misleading) assertions as to the substance's analysis, or what was presented to allies and international bodies. Covered in past topics, welcome to read them. Letting the prime suspect party participate in an investigation is a novel idea. Good luck with that.

 

As for your opinion regarding the UK government having "zero credibility" - that would make allies expelling Russian diplomats harder to explain, and of course - doesn't say a whole lot about Russia's credibility, even if you had a point.

 

Russia's possible motives were covered in-depth, both on previous topics and the current one. Feel free to ignore them.

[tumama]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There is no such general "obligation". Countries decide which international treaties and organizations (with their added regulations/rules) they join. Enforcement is more of a political issues and often governed by other elements other than "justice".

 

You would expect posters to stop the constant Iraq deflections, while ignoring or belittling any Russian transgressions. Or maybe not. What "fact" you think you're citing is hard to tell.

 

And the "people decide" nonsense remains just that.  The UN will not be "able to act" anyway, due to how the UNSC is structured (effectively giving Russia a veto right). The UN is not a world government or even a world court. Governments of countries supportive of the UK's position already applied expulsions of Russian diplomats - it wasn't decided "by the people".  Same goes for sanctions. Popular opinion only applies in a roundabout way, when it comes to elections. And I somehow doubt these would be the major issues deciding results. So bottom line, another nothing assertion.

 

I think you make incorrect (or misleading) assertions as to the substance's analysis, or what was presented to allies and international bodies. Covered in past topics, welcome to read them. Letting the prime suspect party participate in an investigation is a novel idea. Good luck with that.

 

As for your opinion regarding the UK government having "zero credibility" - that would make allies expelling Russian diplomats harder to explain, and of course - doesn't say a whole lot about Russia's credibility, even if you had a point.

 

Russia's possible motives were covered in-depth, both on previous topics and the current one. Feel free to ignore them.

 

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. Why him and not any other spy? Why wait 10 years to kill him? They must have wanted him dead so bad it was worth even more economic sanctions. Failure to provide us with why they would want him dead means there is not motive. A much more plausible scenario it was done by another nation to hurt Russia.

Edited July 12, 2018 by tumama

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

7 minutes ago, tumama said:

Yes, Russia's motives have been floated here and in the mass media, and it's absurd. Why him and not any other spy? Why wait 10 years to kill him? They must have wanted him dead so bad it was worth even more economic sanctions. A much more plausible scenario it was done by another nation to hurt Russia.

 

Litvinenko was assassinated by Russian government agents about 6 years after he had fled Russia and ended up in the UK. So it's pretty apparent that passage of time isn't a deterring factor in Russian foreign assassinations.

 

[Rimmer]

Some off topic posts have been removed,  please discuss the topic not other posters, thank you.

[tumama]

4 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Litvinenko was assassinated by Russian government agents about 6 years after he had fled Russia and ended up in the UK. So it's pretty apparent that passage of time isn't a deterring factor in Russian foreign assassinations.

 

That is also far from proven. There's no motive in that murder either. Also back then Russia wasn't hurting from economic sanctions either. 

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, tumama said:

 

Same reason they said Iraq had WMD's. Accusing other countries of doing something because it serves their interest.

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.