snowychap Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 19 minutes ago, peterms said: No, you said it appeared my concern was with the accused protagonists. As I tried to explain, it is about the behaviour of the government in seeming uninterested in establishing the truth but rather fastening on to a narrative and seeking to defend it, including by making untrue claims. Taking issue with the performance of the government doesn't seem to rule out the inference I drew. Neither, seemingly, do you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 25 minutes ago, snowychap said: Taking issue with the performance of the government doesn't seem to rule out the inference I drew. Neither, seemingly, do you. Well I'd like to know who did it, yes, if that's what you mean. And I'd like the basis for that to be more than "Because the government says so". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 19 hours ago, peterms said: Well I'd like to know who did it, yes, if that's what you mean. Magenta dahlias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 8, 2018 Moderator Share Posted August 8, 2018 53 minutes ago, snowychap said: Magenta dahlias Enough with the flowery prose, Snowy! (and you've lost me there). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 1 hour ago, blandy said: (and you've lost me there) I'm waiting for (t'other) Peter to tell me what he thinks I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'm waiting for (t'other) Peter to tell me what he thinks I mean. I have absolutely no idea. Is there a meaning? Can I have a clue, or is that not in the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, peterms said: I have absolutely no idea. I'm surprised you bothered to read that one. Edited August 8, 2018 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 12 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'm surprised you bothered to read that one. Sorry, if you're making a point about something, I'm really not getting it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 On 07/08/2018 at 21:40, peterms said: Well I'd like to know who did it, yes, if that's what you mean. And I'd like the basis for that to be more than "Because the government says so". How about because The US government now also say so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 9 hours ago, tonyh29 said: How about because The US government now also say so That would be even less reliable. Pretty obviously, this is a move to try to counter the "Trump is soft on Russia" talk that is causing concern, and is all about the Mueller investigation and not at all about Salisbury. But if I've missed any actual evidence being presented that it was Russia wot done it, I'd appreciate a link to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, peterms said: That would be even less reliable. Pretty obviously, this is a move to try to counter the "Trump is soft on Russia" talk that is causing concern, and is all about the Mueller investigation and not at all about Salisbury. But if I've missed any actual evidence being presented that it was Russia wot done it, I'd appreciate a link to it. I'm confused by the request for actual evidence from someone whose primary source seems to be "Craig Murray says" and other such conspiracy theorists , more so as Clyde Davies destroyed Murrays arguments on the whole Novichok thing way back in March As a few others have said , some of what the government says its slightly suspect , but there is almost 0 % chance that it was an attack carried out by anyone other than the Russian government , unless you have some actual evidence to suggest otherwise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: Clyde Davies destroyed Murrays arguments on the whole Novichok thing way back in March Clyde Davis addressed the question of how it was thought Russia was responsible. He went on a long and blustering Twitter rant about his experience and his credentials, and talked about how a substance could be identified as Novichok, but in response to the question "How can we tell it was Russian?", he had no answer beyond him thinking that Russia had a motive. Some of the replies to his Twitter thread suggested that some of his readers had been impressed by his scientific background, and had jumped from that to assuming that his view on Russia's motives was demonstrated by scientific evidence, which of course it hadn't been. When Porton Down later said that they couldn't identify the substance as being Russian, ie confirming Murray's view and contradicting his own assertions, I don't recall him commenting on that, though I may have missed it. So no, he didn't answer Murray's very simple question, despite trying very hard to give the impression he had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 9, 2018 Moderator Share Posted August 9, 2018 45 minutes ago, peterms said: Pretty obviously, this is a move to try to counter the "Trump is soft on Russia" talk that is causing concern, and is all about the Mueller investigation and not at all about Salisbury. I thought that, at first, too.Yest another Trump "look over there" distraction. Then I saw Newsnight last night, and it's clear it's not. The US senator bloke they had on explained that it is statutory the US process, under whatever act, that 3 months after the initial action (expulsions) there has to be a follow up..etc. and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted August 9, 2018 Share Posted August 9, 2018 1 hour ago, blandy said: I thought that, at first, too.Yest another Trump "look over there" distraction. Then I saw Newsnight last night, and it's clear it's not. The US senator bloke they had on explained that it is statutory the US process, under whatever act, that 3 months after the initial action (expulsions) there has to be a follow up..etc. and so forth. It was a statutory requirement to do it a month ago, I gather. The 90 day period takes us up to the mid-term elections, and it's the combination of not meeting the congressional deadline to do it, and picking a date which keeps the issue in play up to election day, that makes it look like an attempt to deflect "soft on Russia/collusion" attacks rather than a straightforward implementation of a legal requirement. If it had been done a month ago as required, then it wouldn't give the same impression. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 9, 2018 Moderator Share Posted August 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, peterms said: It was a statutory requirement to do it a month ago, I gather. The 90 day period takes us up to the mid-term elections, and it's the combination of not meeting the congressional deadline to do it, and picking a date which keeps the issue in play up to election day, that makes it look like an attempt to deflect "soft on Russia/collusion" attacks rather than a straightforward implementation of a legal requirement. If it had been done a month ago as required, then it wouldn't give the same impression. Yeah, it was overdue b ya couple of weeks or so. The reason for that is possibly disagreement within Congress about the extent and scope etc. (speculation says). It is kind of convenient for Trump, but undert the US Law of CWs it had to be done, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 5, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted September 5, 2018 2 Russians named as suspects with enough evidence against them to charge, but little else because they're in Russia and they're staying there. The equivalent of shaking your fist at nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 2 hours ago, Chindie said: 2 Russians named as suspects with enough evidence against them to charge, but little else because they're in Russia and they're staying there. The equivalent of shaking your fist at nothing. No travel to the UK shouldn’t be a problem but no travel to the rest of Europe might be a hassle for their remaining lives. Ideally the rest of the world would follow suit so at least they would be confined to Russia for the next 30 to 50 years but I assume many non European countries will turn a blind eye to this state sponsored murder and assault, despite that it could easily happen to their citizens. Sanctions will have a limited effect but will be no consolation to the family of Dawn Sturgess and all the others who were injured and/or affected. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Chindie said: 2 Russians named as suspects with enough evidence against them to charge, but little else because they're in Russia and they're staying there. The equivalent of shaking your fist at nothing. Positively identifying the perpetrators & tying them to the GRU is a bit more than nothing. Also makes it more difficult for states that stayed on the fence & the conspiracy loons to keep dissembling & deflecting on behalf of Russia - though the latter will doubtless try. Obviously Putin will never hand over his own agents but it helps to further solidify an international front against the Kremlin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post snowychap Posted September 5, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted September 5, 2018 4 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 They were using fake names but genuine passports (even having serial numbers one digit apart). They will just be reissued new passports with new names so they can travel again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts