Another Russian spy hit?

[squirrelp]

I like how the technically challenged foil wearer shamelessly contradicts his previous missive with each new issue:


(Though the above is both wrong - the programme was Foliant, the line of agents Novichok - and ignorant or disingenuous - all nerve agents G, V, A can be derived from commercial insecticides and fertilisers and G, V were historically derived from research into such, but hey, who’d have thought that batshit loons don’t tend to do their research thoroughly. Furthermore, early development of A-series was carried out by adding new radicals to the molecular skeletons of G-series agents. Commercial analogues, insecticides, etc, were back engineered later for the purposes of denial).

So what was the nerve agent used and what evidence is there linking it to Russia?

 

[existentialist]

I like how the technically challenged foil wearer shamelessly contradicts his previous missive with each new issue:


(Though the above is both wrong - the programme was Foliant, the line of agents Novichok - and ignorant or disingenuous - all nerve agents G, V, A can be derived from commercial insecticides and fertilisers and G, V were historically derived from research into such, but hey, who’d have thought that batshit loons don’t tend to do their research thoroughly. Furthermore, early development of A-series was carried out by adding new radicals to the molecular skeletons of G-series agents. Commercial analogues, insecticides, etc, were back engineered later for the purposes of denial).

I love how the technically challenged foil wearer is an EXPERT ON FUCKING EVERYTHING, from buildings demolition to chemical warfare.

You'd almost think there must be some kind of common theme linking all these things together...

ETA: also police procedure, ballistics, firearms...

 

[cupid_stunt]

Out of interest, did you post that WMD was 'bullshit' at the time? I would be genuinely impressed to see such a post.

There are plenty of posters on here that were convinced that WMD was 'bullshit' at the time, and many of us marched against the war, but can clearly see Russian involvement in this.

Basically, most on here are not loons.

 

[not-bono-ever]

I've just realised that there's a rabbit and a squirrel on this thread

Giant rabbit dies mysteriously on board United Airlines flight





RT report on the death of Simon, the English giant, on a US airline. Virtually one year to the day nearly, to the election of Trump. ish

now there's a clue in that article I am sure, the key to unravelling this whole mystery

 

[Spymaster]

You quoted their position to bolster your own position that proof was lacking.

You did that because the French said that they would not condemn Russia without proof.

The French now condemn Russia.

What does that tell you?

squirrelp

 

[Kaka Tim]

Out of interest, did you post that WMD was 'bullshit' at the time? I would be genuinely impressed to see such a post.

nearly every on here - including myself - was calling bullshit one Iraqi WMD from the start. I dont think much of the relevant stuff is still on here.

This thread is still "live" *IRAQ: latest news and developments and dates from the start of the war in 2003.

It includes this quote from me from the early days of the invasion.

Well seeing as every single piece of 'news' over the past week regarding Iraqs WMD has turned out to be complete shite I fully expect this to be no different.

e.g - use of SCUDS, repeated stories of Iraqi troops being 'about to use chemical weapons' and finds of 'chemical warfare kit' turning out to be a dozen old gas masks.

So there you go.

 

[squirrelp]

If I should change my position on the basis of an appeal that I should simply fall into line with the French, why might the French have not changed their position on the basis of an appeal that they should fall into line with the UK?

 

[teqniq]

ffs

 

[squirrelp]

You are saying that I should change my position in the absence of evidence because another party could do precisely no such thing.

 

[teqniq]

Oh I am not saying anything much at all but if pressed you would say black was white if it suited your narrative.

 

[cupid_stunt]

You are saying that I should change my position in the absence of evidence because another party could do precisely no such thing.

You are one thick cunt.

 

[Spymaster]

You are saying that I should change my position in the absence of evidence because another party could have no truck with that very same argument.

You pointed out, not entirely unreasonably, that the French were keeping their powder dry until shown evidence.

The French have now said that they have seen the British evidence of Russian guilt and agree with the findings.

Why are you still taking Russia’s side over that of France, the US, Germany, Australia, and the UK, and pretty much every sane person in the world?

 

[existentialist]

If I should change my position on the basis of an appeal that I should simply fall into line with the French, why might the French have not changed their position on the basis of an appeal that they should fall into line with the UK?

Hahaha, I think that you trying to justify your debating position on a web forum by the standards of a nation state puts you firmly into the "grandiosity" camp

 

[existentialist]

You are saying that I should change my position in the absence of evidence because another party could do precisely no such thing.

Nonono, you stick to your position, and we'll stick to ours. Which is, mostly, one of pointing and laughing.

We will, of course, be laughing on the other side of our faces when your position is vindicated, and we all turn out to be have been completely wrong.

Only that hasn't happened yet, has it? Ever.

 

[elbows]

 

[cupid_stunt]

You pointed out, not entirely unreasonably, that the French were keeping their powder dry until shown evidence.

The French have now said that they have seen the British evidence of Russian guilt and agree with the findings.

Why are you still taking Russia’s side over that of France, the US, Germany, Australia, and the UK, and pretty much every sane person in the world?

The real telling one for me is France, since coming to office Macron has been making efforts to build a new relationship with Putin, so for him to now be convinced of Russian involvement is a big deal.

 

[squirrelp]

The French have now said that they have seen the British evidence of Russian guilt and agree with the findings.

I think you are inferring things which are not there at all. I cannot find any French statement from an admittedly brief search which says that they have seen actual evidence. If there is evidence why cannot everyone see it?

Why are you still taking Russia’s side over that of France, the US, Germany, Australia, and the UK, and pretty much every sane person in the world?

It is with appeals like this that propaganda works. One is asked to believe something simply because other parties ask you to.

 

[squirrelp]

The Independent offers this rather obvious reason as why France might change position:

This is arguably not the case for France, explaining its initial caution – even if after international pressure, it lined up behind its allies.

France's position on the Salisbury nerve agent attack explained

 

[Supine]

So who did it then, the Cornish Independence Party?

 

[cupid_stunt]

 

[Teaboy]

Beyond a Russian statement of culpability I cannot think of any evidence that would be accepted by squirrelp and his motley crew. It makes these conversations pointless because they know the only evidence they will accept will never happen.

 

[squirrelp]

Beyond a Russian statement of culpability I cannot think of any evidence that would be accepted by squirrelp and his motley crew. It makes these conversations pointless because they know the only evidence they will accept will never happen.

Well, try me with some. Any. And then complain because I don't agree.

Listen to yourself. This is not an exasperated admission of futility in persuasion, like say with creationists or flat-earthers. It is cover for a glittered turd. Something that looks appealing but is actually totally void of substance.

 

[existentialist]

Beyond a Russian statement of culpability I cannot think of any evidence that would be accepted by squirrelp and his motley crew. It makes these conversations pointless because they know the only evidence they will accept will never happen.

Oh, a Russian statement of culpability would probably not be enough - he'd probably argue that that was, in itself, a false flag operation directed by Bermuda under influence from Angola who were being influenced by the Illuminati.

 

[squirrelp]

nearly every on here - including myself - was calling bullshit one Iraqi WMD from the start. I dont think much of the relevant stuff is still on here.

Accepted and credit where due!

 

[existentialist]

"And - let's be clear about this - until I am satisfied as to who it was put the dead frog in Mr Perkins' desk, nobody is going out to playtime. I've got all day, you know."

 

[fakeplasticgirl]

bbc news latest:
Analysis: Was chemical A-234 used?
By Gordon Corera, BBC security correspondent

The implication of the ambassador's comments is that the Russians have been told by the British the exact nerve agent deployed.

So far, British officials have not confirmed that they have communicated this to Moscow or that A-234 was the exact agent deployed.

Based on public sources, A-234 is one of the Novichok family of agents.

It has been reported that it is at least five to eight and possibly 10 times as strong as VX.

Little is known about it but the symptoms are very similar to those which eyewitnesses attributed to Sergei and Yulia Skripal.

In military handbooks it is described as a "delayed casualty agent" - its persistence depends upon how it is used, as well as the weather.

 

[DexterTCN]

 

[Spymaster]

I think you are inferring things which are not there at all. I cannot find any French statement from an admittedly brief search which says that they have seen actual evidence.

Nonsense. I posted it for you yesterday.

The Independent offers this rather obvious reason as why France might change position:


France's position on the Salisbury nerve agent attack explained

This is out of date. Since then France has made another statement which makes the Independent article redundant. In fact the Independent article points out how much France has to lose in backing Britain over Russia.

Once again:

Since the beginning of the week, the United Kingdom has kept France closely informed of the evidence gathered by British investigators, as well as the elements showing Russia’s responsibility in the attack. France shares the UK’s conclusion that there is no other plausible explanation, and reiterates its solidarity with its ally.

"No other plausible explanation" for attack than UK's - France in the United Kingdom - La France au Royaume-Uni

 

[DexterTCN]

 

[not a trot]

So who did it then, the Cornish Independence Party?

If they did I'm boycotting their pasties.