Nerve Agent Used in Attempted Murder of Russian Spy

[Vassenor]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has accused the UK and Western partners of playing "children's games" in their response to the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

Yes, we are really childish for daring to respond to the hostile release of a Russian chemical weapon on Western soil(!)

You're forgetting we're supposed to have faked the whole thing in order to deny Russia the World Cup.

[Fahran]

We really shouldn't do tit-for-tat assassinations. That's just "WWIII Press Here To Start"

Appeasement doesn't work much better if our objective is eschewing World War III, as evidenced by World War II. The phantom of mutually assured destruction is still a powerful incentive in preventing direct hostilities.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has accused the UK and Western partners of playing "children's games" in their response to the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter.

Yes, we are really childish for daring to respond to the hostile release of a Russian chemical weapon on Western soil(!)

You're forgetting we're supposed to have faked the whole thing in order to deny Russia the World Cup.

Well, like half the villains in movies have British accents and come with hair-brained, convoluted schemes, so Lavrov might be onto something.

[Poland-Galicia-Silesia]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-04/u ... ia/9616554

Ahhhh... why am I not surprised. And a day before Russia convenes an emergency meeting of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in The Hague. I wonder if that has anything to do with it.

[Vassenor]

So what does the preponderance of evidence say right now?

[Poland-Galicia-Silesia]

So what does the preponderance of evidence say right now?

Both Russian and British claims are unsubstantiated bullshit?

While the British claim is more credible than the Russian one (for now), it's wrong to think that the poisoning was an either-or event. Alternative possibilities have been brought up, and Britain is rushing way ahead in claiming Russia did it.

[Vassenor]

So what does the preponderance of evidence say right now?

Both Russian and British claims are unsubstantiated bullshit?

While the British claim is more credible than the Russian one (for now), it's wrong to think that the poisoning was an either-or event. Alternative possibilities have been brought up, and Britain is rushing way ahead in claiming Russia did it.

And what are those alternative possibilities? Because the only one I've seen is that MI-6 faked it all to deny Russia the World Cup.

[Poland-Galicia-Silesia]

And what are those alternative possibilities? Because the only one I've seen is that MI-6 faked it all to deny Russia the World Cup.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... s-novichok

[Albrenia]

So what does the preponderance of evidence say right now?

There's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing towards Russia, imho:

- Weapon used is a known Russian invention that they apparently thought was 'untraceable'.
- Target was considered a traitor by Russia.
- Poorly-veiled gloating by Russian government and media when asked about it, up until the chemical agent was identified.
- Russian government acting sketchy as hell, trying to get the evidence handed over to them for 'testing' instead of advocating for impartial sources to do it, and trying to corner the recovering victim.

The evidence suggesting the west did it is basically conspiracy theory 'false flag' nonsense, until someone can give any evidence towards how and why the UK wanted to be given a chance to flail ineffectually at the Russians like they have been doing since the attack.

[Vassenor]

And what are those alternative possibilities? Because the only one I've seen is that MI-6 faked it all to deny Russia the World Cup.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... s-novichok

OK but that article doesn't talk about alternative theories like I asked.

[Poland-Galicia-Silesia]

OK but that article doesn't talk about alternative theories like I asked.

Okay, I'm confused.

Either you didn't read the article or you're purposefully changing your language to try trap me. Because you asked for possibilities, here is one.

“Could somebody have smuggled something out?” Amy Smithson, a US-based biological and chemical weapons expert, said to Reuters. “I certainly wouldn’t rule that possibility out, especially a small amount and particularly in view of how lax the security was at Russian chemical facilities in the early 1990s.”

A Russian lawyer, Boris Kuznetsov, told Reuters he was offering to pass to the British authorities a file he said might be relevant to the Salisbury case. It details an incident when poison hidden in a phone receiver killed a Russian banker and his secretary in 1995. The poison came from an employee at the state chemical facility who sold it through intermediaries – in an ampule placed in a presentation case – to help reduce his debts.

[Poland-Galicia-Silesia]

- Russian government acting sketchy as hell, trying to get the evidence handed over to them for 'testing' instead of advocating for impartial sources to do it, and trying to corner the recovering victim.

They've been asking for samples, hardly sketchy.

[Vassenor]

- Russian government acting sketchy as hell, trying to get the evidence handed over to them for 'testing' instead of advocating for impartial sources to do it, and trying to corner the recovering victim.

They've been asking for samples, hardly sketchy.

So why do they have to be the ones to test it rather than an impartial third party?

Because that's just asking for a "our tests proved that we had nothing to do with the thing we were accused of and no you can't check our results because why would we lie?" whitewash.

[Poland-Galicia-Silesia]

So why do they have to be the ones to test it rather than an impartial third party?

Because that's just asking for a "our tests proved that we had nothing to do with the thing we were accused of and no you can't check our results because why would we lie?" whitewash.

Why not both?

I haven't heard any opposition from Russia to the involvement of OPEW.

[Puertollano]

I suspect this to be a false flag operation.

The British Gov. is quick to lay blame on Russia, even before a formal investigation was initiated. And now there is no clear evidence as to who the perpetrators were.

[Vassenor]

I suspect this to be a false flag operation.

The British Gov. is quick to lay blame on Russia, even before a formal investigation was initiated. And now there is no clear evidence as to who the perpetrators were.

So how does that prove false flag? And to what end?

[Vassenor]

The laboratory, which has previously identified the substance as a military-grade Novichok nerve agent, said it was likely to have been deployed by a "state actor" but said it was not their job to say where it was manufactured.

Porton Down's chief executive Gary Aitkenhead dismissed Russian claims it might have come from the UK military laboratory.

The UK says further intelligence led to its belief that Russia was responsible.

[Puertollano]

The laboratory, which has previously identified the substance as a military-grade Novichok nerve agent, said it was likely to have been deployed by a "state actor" but said it was not their job to say where it was manufactured.

Porton Down's chief executive Gary Aitkenhead dismissed Russian claims it might have come from the UK military laboratory.

The UK says further intelligence led to its belief that Russia was responsible.

If Russia really wanted to kill those spies, why wouldn't they use a nerve agent that couldn't be immediately traced back to the Russian military?

[Puertollano]

This is Iraq all over again; why do we even take what the MI6 tells us as the whole truth?

[Vassenor]

This is Iraq all over again; why do we even take what the MI6 tells us as the whole truth?

So what is the motivation for faking this?

[Petrasylvania]

This is Iraq all over again; why do we even take what the MI6 tells us as the whole truth?

So what is the motivation for faking this?

Reasons!

[Albrenia]

If Russia really wanted to kill those spies, why wouldn't they use a nerve agent that couldn't be immediately traced back to the Russian military?

Because they did think it was untraceable. It just turns out it was not.

[Puertollano]

This is Iraq all over again; why do we even take what the MI6 tells us as the whole truth?

So what is the motivation for faking this?

I assume to diplomatically isolate Russia, since their national interests cross over that of the US-UK interests.

[Puertollano]

If Russia really wanted to kill those spies, why wouldn't they use a nerve agent that couldn't be immediately traced back to the Russian military?

Because they did think it was untraceable. It just turns out it was not.

They didn't think their unique brand of nerve agent wasn't traceable? In the first day the U.K. authorities were already claiming it was a Russian action.

You think as though those leading Russia's spy agency and military are incompetent.

[Albrenia]

Because they did think it was untraceable. It just turns out it was not.

They didn't think their unique brand of nerve agent wasn't traceable? In the first day the U.K. authorities were already claiming it was a Russian action.

You think as though those leading Russia's spy agency and military are incompetent.

They developed the weapon to be untraceable. I'm no chemical weapons expert but from what I've heard apparently they designed it so its' makeup was hard to trace.

[Puertollano]

They didn't think their unique brand of nerve agent wasn't traceable? In the first day the U.K. authorities were already claiming it was a Russian action.

You think as though those leading Russia's spy agency and military are incompetent.

They developed the weapon to be untraceable. I'm no chemical weapons expert but from what I've heard apparently they designed it so its' makeup was hard to trace.

Hard to trace? Apparently they 'identified' it in a day.